From henk at amsterdamned.org Tue Apr 1 01:01:00 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:01:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From henk at amsterdamned.org Tue Apr 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for March 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 79 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 71 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 67 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 49 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 48 ehaa (at) starpower.net 47 john (at) asimere.com 38 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 30 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 27 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 16 hermandw (at) skynet.be 16 geller (at) nifty.com 12 swillner (at) nhcc.net 12 svenpran (at) online.no 10 sater (at) xs4all.nl 10 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 9 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 9 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 8 schoderb (at) msn.com 8 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 8 mustikka (at) charter.net 6 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 5 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 5 Gampas (at) aol.com 4 karel (at) esatclear.ie 4 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 4 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 4 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 2 tsvecfob (at) iol.ie 2 hermy (at) hdw.be 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 defranchi.henri (at) wanadoo.fr 2 cibor (at) poczta.fm 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 1 zecurado (at) gmail.com 1 t-nakatani (at) kxb.biglobe.ne.jp 1 rbusch (at) ozemail.com.au 1 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 1 ken.deri31 (at) ntlworld.com 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm 1 jkljkl (at) gmx.de 1 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 1 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 1 eitan.bridge (at) gmail.com 1 david.j.barton (at) sky.com 1 blml (at) wrightnet.demon.co.uk 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Apr 1 03:24:34 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 02:24:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 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> <351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie> Stefanie Rohan: > >> 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. Erik Landau: > > 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. > SR: >> 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; EL: > 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. SR: Well, no. Neither player has opened 1H; really they have both responded 1H. As long as there has been no UI offered, there is no difference between the facts at the tables. > SR: >> but neither B nor the director might be aware that >> they can "change" the 1H insufficient opening to a 1H insufficient >> response. EL: > Only if they are blatant cheaters prepared to lie outright to the > director. SR: I don't think that the player should lie to the director. I think that the director should give the player the benefit of his bid possibly having been a responding bid. > >> So B might get a different ruling than A. How is this to be prevented? > EL: > 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. >> SR: The facts and circumstances are precisely the same. The same IB was made at both tables in identical actions. It would be utterly absurd to make two different rulings. The only difference is that the two players have imagined different auctions. But neither of these existed in reality. An auction that exists only in a player's mind cannot possibly have a bearing on a ruling, or indeed, on anything. So long as no revealing UI is made available at the table by the IBer or the director, there is no basis for different rulings. God, at least I hope not! Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 1 14:17:01 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:17:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a501c89312$6a3f0af0$3ebd20d0$@nl> References: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl> <000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com> <00a501c89312$6a3f0af0$3ebd20d0$@nl> Message-ID: <47F227BD.3070309@skynet.be> I agree wholeheartedly with David Burn and Hans Van Staveren on this point. If the agreements are dodgy, we should be able to rule misinformation. But if they are stable, it should be misbid. The Dutch NAC has done one good thing in ruling that written evidence alone should not be enough to rule misbid - but they have gone overboard and have dismissed some misbids as misinformation when the written evidence was substantiated by other evidence. Hans van Staveren wrote: > [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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 1 15:30:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:30:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net><002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com><6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au><009d01c89143$0cc25d80$1910a256@stefanie> <351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net> <002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: On Mar 31, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Stefanie Rohan: >> >>> 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. > > Erik Landau: >> >> 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. >> > SR: > >>> 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; > > EL: > >> 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. > > SR: > > Well, no. Neither player has opened 1H; really they have both > responded 1H. > As long as there has been no UI offered, there is no difference > between the > facts at the tables. So it would seem, to the casual observer. But L27B1 has established a difference, artificial though one may think it, by requiring the TD to determine the admissability without penalty of a given replacement call (RC) based on the "meaning" of the IB. That forces us to differentiate between an IBer who "meant" to open and one who "meant" to overcall. > SR: >>> but neither B nor the director might be aware that >>> they can "change" the 1H insufficient opening to a 1H insufficient >>> response. > > EL: > >> Only if they are blatant cheaters prepared to lie outright to the >> director. > > SR: > > I don't think that the player should lie to the director. I think > that the > director should give the player the benefit of his bid possibly > having been > a responding bid. >> >>> So B might get a different ruling than A. How is this to be >>> prevented? >> > EL: > >> 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. >>> > > SR: > > The facts and circumstances are precisely the same. The same IB was > made at > both tables in identical actions. It would be utterly absurd to > make two > different rulings. > > The only difference is that the two players have imagined different > auctions. But neither of these existed in reality. An auction that > exists > only in a player's mind cannot possibly have a bearing on a ruling, or > indeed, on anything. That is an entirely reasonable position. However, it is quite clear that the authors of L27B didn't see it that way (which was true for the 1997 version as well). > So long as no revealing UI is made available at the > table by the IBer or the director, there is no basis for different > rulings. > God, at least I hope not! I don't see how we can determine whether a prospective RC has "a more precise meaning than the IB" without making a determination as to the meaning of the IB, or how you can determine the meaning of the IB without knowing what the IBer meant when he made it. As an aside, even if L27B1 made no reference to the meaning of the IB, the admissability without penalty of a prospective RC would still depend on the partnership's methods, so, all considerations of UI aside, different pairs would still be getting very different rulings, despite the apparent "no difference between the facts at the tables". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Apr 1 18:05:27 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:05:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 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><351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net><002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <017001c89412$33f1dcb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> SR: >> >> Well, no. Neither player has opened 1H; really they have both >> responded 1H. >> As long as there has been no UI offered, there is no difference >> between the >> facts at the tables. EL: > > So it would seem, to the casual observer. But L27B1 has established > a difference, artificial though one may think it, by requiring the TD > to determine the admissability without penalty of a given replacement > call (RC) based on the "meaning" of the IB. That forces us to > differentiate between an IBer who "meant" to open and one who "meant" > to overcall. Then, if we consider lying about one's mental state to be cheating, the player should probably just answer "no comment". Then the director can make a guess, and since the intent of the new Law seems to be to offer more penalty-free corrections, then... >> >> The only difference is that the two players have imagined different >> auctions. But neither of these existed in reality. An auction that >> exists >> only in a player's mind cannot possibly have a bearing on a ruling, or >> indeed, on anything. > > That is an entirely reasonable position. However, it is quite clear > that the authors of L27B didn't see it that way (which was true for > the 1997 version as well). Well, at least (as usual) their intent is not indicated in the Law, and any interpretations they subsequently issue will not reach most directors, at least in the EBU. Senior tournament directors will hear of them, though, and I don't know what they will make of the whole mess. > >> So long as no revealing UI is made available at the >> table by the IBer or the director, there is no basis for different >> rulings. >> God, at least I hope not! > > I don't see how we can determine whether a prospective RC has "a more > precise meaning than the IB" without making a determination as to the > meaning of the IB, or how you can determine the meaning of the IB > without knowing what the IBer meant when he made it. The reason intention does not matter is because no insufficient bid has a "meaning"; this is illegal. For sophisticated thinkers, the "meaning" may be a means by which to reconstruct an imaginary auction based on the past mental state of the IBer. For simple souls like me, the "meaning" is important only to avoid the IB giving UI to the IBer's partner. > > As an aside, even if L27B1 made no reference to the meaning of the > IB, the admissability without penalty of a prospective RC would still > depend on the partnership's methods, so, all considerations of UI > aside, different pairs would still be getting very different rulings, > despite the apparent "no difference between the facts at the tables". > True, but I stipulated at the beginning that the pairs' methods were essentially the same. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 1 23:01:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:01:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <017001c89412$33f1dcb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net><002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com><6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au><009d01c89143$0cc25d80$1910a256@stefanie><351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net><002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie> <017001c89412$33f1dcb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <62FB35FA-3AF0-4159-AE8C-2DBA9ECFC645@starpower.net> On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> SR: >>> >>> Well, no. Neither player has opened 1H; really they have both >>> responded 1H. >>> As long as there has been no UI offered, there is no difference >>> between the >>> facts at the tables. > > EL: > >> So it would seem, to the casual observer. But L27B1 has established >> a difference, artificial though one may think it, by requiring the TD >> to determine the admissability without penalty of a given replacement >> call (RC) based on the "meaning" of the IB. That forces us to >> differentiate between an IBer who "meant" to open and one who "meant" >> to overcall. > > Then, if we consider lying about one's mental state to be cheating, > the > player should probably just answer "no comment". Then the director > can make > a guess, and since the intent of the new Law seems to be to offer more > penalty-free corrections, then... Obviously, that was the intention of, at least, the revised new law, as it offers all of the previously available penalty-free corrections (in L27B1(a)) and adds others (in L27B1(b)). But it cannot succeed in doing so unless the "meaning" of the IB, as defined by the IBer's "intent" (actually his specific misperception of the auction at the moment of the IB) is known and taken into account. L27B1(b) requires that the meaning of a proposed replacement call "be[] fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid". Stefanie's view would require us to interpret "the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" as all of the possible meanings given all of the possible intents. It's really hard to construct a non-trivial example in which that interpretation would lead to any bids ever meeting that criterion. Consider just the ambiguity between a 1H opener or response in Stefanie's example. As the former would show 13 + HCP and the latter 6-10 HCP (or thereabouts), the RC, to meet the test of L27B1(b), would have to have a range that was "fully contained" within both 13+ and 6-10 simultaneously -- no L27B1(b) correction allowed there! With the IBer's intent known, it is at least possible that we will offer one or more additional penalty-free corrections beyond those available via the 1997 law or L27B1(a). Lack of knowledge of the IBer's intent can only preclude, never add, potential L27B1(b) corrections. And even were the possibilities Stefanie allows for (opening or responding) not disjoint, if we don't resolve them to a single possibility, how can we take just those that occur to someone other than the bidder (presumably the TD) as "likely" or "logical" as a starting point? If we don't know whether they were opening (thought they were bidding to P-P-) or responding (to 1C-P- or 1D-P-), how do we know they weren't overcalling (P-1C-, say)? Or even free-bidding (1C-1D-)? (Or even -- God help us! -- overcalling an opponent's IB per L27A1?! And that's not even considering that they may not have been attempting to bid at all.) That makes disjoint possibilities a virtual certainty. IBs in more complex auctions could have hundreds of possible meanings, and if you don't base your ruling on the one intended by the IBer, you must account for every last one of them! Try doing that after, say, P-2S-P-2H (a mere one-round auction to the two-level, hardly all that complicated). I'll even let you use your own bidding methods for the exercise, but keep in mind that at the table you will have to do this analysis using the IBer's methods. I'm confident that actually working that exercise will convince anyone that this isn't the approach they want to be taking at the table. And now that I think of it, you're overwhelmingly likely, somewhere in all those possibilities, to find at least one that wouldn't be "incontrovertably not artificial", so you'll almost certainly wind up with no allowable L27B1(a) correction either! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Tue Apr 1 23:41:05 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:41:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 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><351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net> <002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <006301c89441$16df57e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 > > The only difference is that the two players have imagined different > auctions. But neither of these existed in reality. An auction that exists > only in a player's mind cannot possibly have a bearing on a ruling, or > indeed, on anything. So long as no revealing UI is made available at the > table by the IBer or the director, there is no basis for different > rulings. > God, at least I hope not! I agree in principle, Stef, but in practice there will almost always be UI. You have to be a chairleg not to notice a flinch; raised eyebrow or some such. 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 Wed Apr 2 01:21:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:21:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Good news [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00ce01c89147$6dddff30$1910a256@stefanie> Message-ID: 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 Stefanie Rohan asked: >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 asks: If a regulation mandates _zero_ disclosure, is that a legal "disclosed in accordance with the regulations"? 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 Wed Apr 2 01:39:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:39:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47ECC8F3.3010103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>(Any systemic way to recover from a possible misbid?) Alain Gottcheiner: >I don't understand this. Are such "ways" allowed ? Richard Hills: Drury convention to avoid getting too high after partner's third-seat overbid. Support Double to avoid a ridiculous Moysian when partner lacks suit quality. An English pair adopted a relay system in the 1980s. After a few too many failing grand slams, they added a special 4NT asking bid to their relays. The responses were: 5C = don't trust my bidding beyond the first round 5D = I might have got most of the bids right 5H = I am optimistic that I bid correctly 5S = I memorised the system notes last night (For those interested in an easy-to-remember relay system, I will email my Symmetric Relay notes on request.) 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 Apr 2 03:10:38 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 02:10:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 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><351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net><002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie><017001c89412$33f1dcb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <62FB35FA-3AF0-4159-AE8C-2DBA9ECFC645@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000a01c8945e$5d08beb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> EL: >> > But it cannot succeed > in doing so unless the "meaning" of the IB, as defined by the IBer's > "intent" (actually his specific misperception of the auction at the > moment of the IB) is known and taken into account. I feel that since partner doesn't know the specific misinterpretation of the auction it cannot matter. The IBers "intent" would be UI specifically prohibited by the new Law 27. > L27B1(b) requires > that the meaning of a proposed replacement call "be[] fully contained > within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid". Stefanie's > view would require us to interpret "the possible meanings of the > insufficient bid" as all of the possible meanings given all of the > possible intents. Yes. > It's really hard to construct a non-trivial > example in which that interpretation would lead to any bids ever > meeting that criterion. Consider just the ambiguity between a 1H > opener or response in Stefanie's example. As the former would show 13 > + HCP and the latter 6-10 HCP (or thereabouts), the RC, to meet the > test of L27B1(b), would have to have a range that was "fully > contained" within both 13+ and 6-10 simultaneously -- no L27B1(b) > correction allowed there! Oh, I see. This is just a difference in systems. Here in the UK a 1H response shows from 6 HCP to pretty much unlimited. An opening bid shows 12+ to about 22, and sometimes promised 5H. So these meanings are not disjoint, as they are in the methods you cite, so a 2H bid (10+ HCP, 5+ H) would, in theory, be permissible. > With the IBer's intent known, it is at > least possible that we will offer one or more additional penalty-free > corrections beyond those available via the 1997 law or L27B1(a). > Lack of knowledge of the IBer's intent can only preclude, never add, > potential L27B1(b) corrections. Not really, because (Law 40B3, probably due for a rewrite, not withstanding), the partnership is not supposed to have new methods for this situation. So what is important is not the intent, but whether the hand you wish to show is a possible 2H response, with the IB not adding more meaning.. In the methods commonly in place in the a 2H response coule not be 6-10, but would be 10+. But opening hands and 1H responding hands could all be hands worth 2H over 1S. > And even were the possibilities Stefanie allows for (opening or > responding) not disjoint, Again, this is not true in the UK. >if we don't resolve them to a single > possibility, how can we take just those that occur to someone other > than the bidder (presumably the TD) as "likely" or "logical" as a > starting point? If we don't know whether they were opening (thought > they were bidding to P-P-) or responding (to 1C-P- or 1D-P-), how do > we know they weren't overcalling (P-1C-, say)? Or even free-bidding > (1C-1D-)? (Or even -- God help us! -- overcalling an opponent's IB > per L27A1?! This approach is counterproductive. If guidelines for determining intent are developed, then surely the IBer's partner will know the original intent, and the auction will be too severely tainted with UI in order to possibly continue. What the IBer's partner should know is the meaning of the replacement bid, and it should be correct in his system and he should treat it as such. >And that's not even considering that they may not have > been attempting to bid at all.) That makes disjoint possibilities a > virtual certainty. Not in the case under discussion, given UK methods. I guess if this were true for every other case it would be a virtual certainty... > IBs in more complex auctions could have hundreds > of possible meanings, and if you don't base your ruling on the one > intended by the IBer, you must account for every last one of them! Again, you cannot base the ruling on the intention, because then the IBer's partner will know the intention. *This* would result in no possible penalty-free replacements. > Try doing that after, say, P-2S-P-2H (a mere one-round auction to the > two-level, hardly all that complicated). I'll even let you use your > own bidding methods for the exercise, but keep in mind that at the > table you will have to do this analysis using the IBer's methods. > I'm confident that actually working that exercise will convince > anyone that this isn't the approach they want to be taking at the table. Well, this simply highlights the more fundamental problem of answering the question "what does an insufficient bid mean?" I do not think that there is an answer to this question. > > And now that I think of it, you're overwhelmingly likely, somewhere > in all those possibilities, to find at least one that wouldn't be > "incontrovertably not artificial", so you'll almost certainly wind up > with no allowable L27B1(a) correction either! This is one of the problems with the new Law. It is specifically a problem with my interpretation, but I do not think that any other interpretation can be taken seriously. Stefanie Rohan London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 2 06:27:01 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:27:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] L27B1 In-Reply-To: <000a01c8945e$5d08beb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net> <002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <009d01c89143$0cc25d80$1910a256@stefanie> <351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net> <002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie> <017001c89412$33f1dcb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <62FB35FA-3AF0-4159-AE8C-2DBA9ECFC645@starpower.net> <000a01c8945e$5d08beb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: In the auction 1NT (2D) 2C, it is highly likely that the insufficient bid was caused by not seeing the 2D overcall. Missing a bid seems to be the most common reason for an insufficient bid. Hence, the meaning of the insufficient bid is Stayman (and hence 3D as Stayman probably will be a legal replacement). If it is ambiguous whether 2C is Stayman or natural (because the player just forgot the order of the suits), then I think the 3D bid (if that is Stayman) is still okay, because it is more precise in meaning. But.... If the player looks carefully at the 2D bid (using bidding boxes) and then bids 2C, then the player got the order of the suits confused. My point is, when the director comes to the table and tries to assess the meaning of the insufficient bid, or even whether or not it is conventional, the director does not have as much information as the players. The director cannot look at just the auction, because of this attentional thing. I think then the director will have to ask the player (away from the table) what he thought his insufficient bid meant, or look at his hand (if you are willing to do that). Bob, who likes the new law and is just trying to think about how to implement it From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 2 05:45:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:45:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002801c89323$aed0b130$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: 2007 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. Herman De Wael: The Dutch NAC has done one good thing in ruling that written evidence alone should not be enough to rule misbid - but they have gone overboard and have dismissed some misbids as misinformation when the written evidence was substantiated by other evidence. John (MadDog) Probst: "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.) Richard Hills: In my opinion Herman's support for the idea, "written evidence alone should not be enough to rule misbid" is tantamount to "guilty until proved innocent". In my opinion MadDog's approach of "verbal evidence alone is enough to rule misbid in the absence of counterweighting evidence" much better satisfies the "balance of probabilities" requirement of the 2007 Law 85A1. And I particularly like MadDog's method of collecting counterweighting evidence, neatly combining business with pleasure. 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 Wed Apr 2 06:34:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:34:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] L27B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >I think then the director will have to ask the player (away from the >table) what he thought his insufficient bid meant, or look at his >hand (if you are willing to do that). Richard Hills: First ask the insufficient bidder's LHO whether they wish to accept the IB. Much time will be saved if LHO answers, "Yes". My personal preference is to almost always accept an IB, since I love the extra bidding space. For example: LHO Pard RHO Me --- 2D(1) Pass 3H(2) Pass Pass(3) 3D 3H(4) Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass +420 (1) Multi (2) Pass-or-correct (3) Weak two in hearts (4) Undiscussed (we were a very irregular partnership), but pard correctly guessed that I was making a mild game invitation Robert Frick: >Bob, who likes the new law and is just trying to think about how to >implement it Richard Hills: Implementation requires explaining _all_ of 27B to the IBer, not merely 27B1. The IBer may judge that a unilateral replacement call which bars partner is better than a misleading replacement call which does not bar partner. For example 1H - (Pass) - 1H. If a 2H replacement call is a non- forcing call in your methods (and you play in Australia where a Law 40B3 regulation prohibits varying of methods after your own insufficient bid), a partner-barring 6H may be your best call. Best wishes Richard James Hills, who likes the format of new 2007 Law 75, but is not thinking about how to implement it Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 3 02:52:07 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:52:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] L27B1 In-Reply-To: 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> <351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net> <002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie> <017001c89412$33f1dcb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <62FB35FA-3AF0-4159-AE8C-2DBA9ECFC645@starpower.net> <000a01c8945e$5d08beb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080402174846.03a5a2e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 09:27 PM 1/04/2008, you wrote: >In the auction 1NT (2D) 2C, it is highly likely that the insufficient bid >was caused by not seeing the 2D overcall. Missing a bid seems to be the >most common reason for an insufficient bid. Hence, the meaning of the >insufficient bid is Stayman (and hence 3D as Stayman probably will be a >legal replacement). One hates to harp on how easy the old law was. A quick execution at the table. Players should not bid insufficiently. If they do, let them guess what the contract should be..more fun. Cheers Tony (Sydney) I like the new revoke law. A real director breeze From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 09:03:49 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:03:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <47ECC8F3.3010103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 02/04/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Steve Willner: > > >>(Any systemic way to recover from a possible misbid?) > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >I don't understand this. Are such "ways" allowed ? > > Richard Hills: > > Drury convention to avoid getting too high after > partner's third-seat overbid. > > Support Double to avoid a ridiculous Moysian when > partner lacks suit quality. > > An English pair adopted a relay system in the 1980s. > After a few too many failing grand slams, they added a > special 4NT asking bid to their relays. The responses > were: > > 5C = don't trust my bidding beyond the first round > 5D = I might have got most of the bids right > 5H = I am optimistic that I bid correctly > 5S = I memorised the system notes last night In a similar way a Norwegian relay pair had these agreements: 3C=I've forgotten the system, please place the contract. 3D=You've forgotten the system, I'll place the contract next round. Once both were applied in the same half of a teams match! -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > (For those interested in an easy-to-remember relay > system, I will email my Symmetric Relay notes on > request.) > > 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 > From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Apr 2 09:57:38 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:57:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002801c89323$aed0b130$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <00ee01c89497$38867e90$a9937bb0$@nl> Herman De Wael: The Dutch NAC has done one good thing in ruling that written evidence alone should not be enough to rule misbid - but they have gone overboard and have dismissed some misbids as misinformation when the written evidence was substantiated by other evidence. John (MadDog) Probst: "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.) Richard Hills: In my opinion Herman's support for the idea, "written evidence alone should not be enough to rule misbid" is tantamount to "guilty until proved innocent". In my opinion MadDog's approach of "verbal evidence alone is enough to rule misbid in the absence of counterweighting evidence" much better satisfies the "balance of probabilities" requirement of the 2007 Law 85A1. [HvS] Let me support HdW a bit here. In the past I have ruled misinformation even when the convention card supported the players. However, that was in cases where the convention card was clearly that of another pair. What tends to happen is that a casual partnership discusses system before the game, and one pops out of his pocket a neat card: "Shall we play this?". The other concurs and they play. Now the convention card, although on the table, and agreed upon, is not the reflection of the players agreements. It could even be(and usually is) that there are agreements on the card one of the players has not even seen. In this case the convention card itself is in essence misinformation. Of course, in a regular partnership, the convention card tends to tell the truth, although even there I have seen cases where the one in charge of the card has made an alteration the other has not really seen. Hans van Staveren From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Apr 2 10:42:43 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:42:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F34703.30801@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > 2007 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. > > Herman De Wael: > > The Dutch NAC has done one good thing in ruling that written evidence > alone should not be enough to rule misbid - but they have gone > overboard and have dismissed some misbids as misinformation when the > written evidence was substantiated by other evidence. > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > "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.) > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion Herman's support for the idea, "written evidence alone > should not be enough to rule misbid" is tantamount to "guilty until > proved innocent". I have to support Herman, for a change. As Hans mentioned in the meantime: written evidence can be doubtful, even misleading. I do not think that Herman advocates dismissing the CC as meaningless, but he knows that it does not always tell all of the truth, for example history of misbids. We have a pair that just now invents a new bidding system. The process is not finished (and will not be for some time, I have done something similar some years ago, even if my partnership didn't start from scratch), so at the moment there are a lot of CCs around with marginally different dates of printing. Of course they always use the newest CC, but from time to time (rather sooner than later) one of them forgets that an older agreement has been replaced, or rather they don't agree whether this is the case. So the TD often rules MI, which they bear gracefully. > In my opinion MadDog's approach of "verbal evidence > alone is enough to rule misbid in the absence of counterweighting > evidence" much better satisfies the "balance of probabilities" > requirement of the 2007 Law 85A1. > > And I particularly like MadDog's method of collecting counterweighting > evidence. > So do I. > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 2 10:43:42 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:43:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <017001c89412$33f1dcb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net><002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com><6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au><009d01c89143$0cc25d80$1910a256@stefanie><351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net><002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie> <017001c89412$33f1dcb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47F3473E.2020201@ulb.ac.be> >>> The only difference is that the two players have imagined different >>> auctions. But neither of these existed in reality. An auction that >>> exists >>> only in a player's mind cannot possibly have a bearing on a ruling, or >>> indeed, on anything. >>> - You've bid 2H. Do you realize that's an insufficient bid ? - Yes, but I thought he had opened only ONE spade ... - Dear Sir, auctions that didn't happen can't have any effect on anything, not even your mind. So you'd rather find something else. I don't like this. Facts are stubborn. And the fact that the player imagined the auction to be so-and-so is a fact. (how you ascertain that fact is a horse of several different colors) Once again, may I remember you that, in nearly every other game/sport, the state of mind of the player, at the moment he does something that contravenes the rules for that sport/game, is considered relevant. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 2 10:51:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:51:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F3492D.9080904@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Steve Willner: > > >>> (Any systemic way to recover from a possible misbid?) >>> > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >> I don't understand this. Are such "ways" allowed ? >> > > Richard Hills: > > Drury convention to avoid getting too high after > partner's third-seat overbid. > > IBTD. When playing Drury, that's because third-seat openings are systemic, not overbids. > Support Double to avoid a ridiculous Moysian when > partner lacks suit quality. > > Same remark. If your system includes bidding weak suits (which is the norm when responding at the 1 level), then bidding such a suit is systemic, not a deviation, so the Support double is a way to know which type of hand partner has *among those that system made possible*. If you don't allow this, you shouldn't allow Stayman, rguing it's a bad idea to open 1NT holding a 4-card major, so they aren't allowed to recover. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 2 11:12:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:12:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <47ECC8F3.3010103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47F34E0B.4000700@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > In a similar way a Norwegian relay pair had these agreements: > > 3C=I've forgotten the system, please place the contract. > 3D=You've forgotten the system, I'll place the contract next round. > IMNSHO, the 3D bid is illegal, because how could the player know his partner had forgotten the system, other than through his explanations, which are UI ? (barring the exceptional case when the player made a bid that doesn't exiqst in the system) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 2 11:20:51 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:20:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27B1 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080402174846.03a5a2e0@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> <009d01c89143$0cc25d80$1910a256@stefanie> <351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net> <002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie> <017001c89412$33f1dcb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <62FB35FA-3AF0-4159-AE8C-2DBA9ECFC645@starpower.net> <000a01c8945e$5d08beb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <6.1.0.6.2.20080402174846.03a5a2e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47F34FF3.4030203@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > > I like the new revoke law. A real director breeze > > I concur. I used it last saturday for the first time and it took about 10 seconds before I could return at my own table. Or at least I thought so, because I got challenged by one of the players. The appealant was an occasional TD (or at least he thinks he is) and the dialog went : - Do you know the new Laws aren't implemented in Belgium yet ? - Dear Sir, when Laws are easy and clever, I'm delighted to use them. Best regards Alain From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Apr 2 11:42:17 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:42:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <47F34E0B.4000700@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093AC5@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> From: Alain Gottcheiner > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > 3D=You've forgotten the system, I'll place the contract next round. > > IMNSHO, the 3D bid is illegal, because how could the player know his > partner had forgotten the system, other than through his explanations, > which are UI ? Easy, 1C(art)-1H(nat)-1S(ask)-2D(2 of HAKQ) and opener has 2 of HAKQ Robin From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 2 12:34:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:34:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093AC5@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093AC5@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <47F3613F.1050404@ulb.ac.be> Robin Barker a ?crit : > From: Alain Gottcheiner > >> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> >>> 3D=You've forgotten the system, I'll place the contract next round. >>> >> >> IMNSHO, the 3D bid is illegal, because how could the player know his >> partner had forgotten the system, other than through his explanations, >> which are UI ? >> > > Easy, 1C(art)-1H(nat)-1S(ask)-2D(2 of HAKQ) and opener has 2 of HAKQ > > Interesting. Notice that it doesn't mean *partner* has forgotten his system, but I imagine a bid meaning "your last bid is impossible IMHO because there are only 4 aces / 3 tops / 12 controls, please reconsider" would be legal. It's somewhat different of "I know you're wrong". Notice, too, that it happened once that I "knew" there were at least 43 points in the pack : 1NT* D p** p XX p p p*** *9-11 **forces a redouble Alex is the kind of guy who would prefer to jump from that particular pan into the fire, so he expects them to go down, and I hold more than a minimum for my double. Well, the answer was fairly simple : there were indeed 43 points in the pack, in the form of a second SK, standing in for the C6. Now, assume a pair who know perfectly well what they're doing. You ask about top honors, get an answer of 2, and hold 2. Are you allowed to say "this is a fouled board" ? What happens if you're wrong ? Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 2 12:54:46 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:54:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F34E0B.4000700@ulb.ac.be> References: <47ECC8F3.3010103@ulb.ac.be> <47F34E0B.4000700@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01c894af$f77b74f0$e6725ed0$@no> > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > In a similar way a Norwegian relay pair had these agreements: > > > > 3C=I've forgotten the system, please place the contract. > > 3D=You've forgotten the system, I'll place the contract next round. > > > IMNSHO, the 3D bid is illegal, because how could the player know his > partner had forgotten the system, other than through his explanations, > which are UI ? > (barring the exceptional case when the player made a bid that doesn't > exiqst in the system) What makes you think that the "exceptional case" was not the actual case leading to a 3D bid? Regards Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Apr 2 13:12:08 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:12:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <47F3613F.1050404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093AC7@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> From: Alain Gottcheiner > > > > Easy, 1C(art)-1H(nat)-1S(ask)-2D(2 of HAKQ) and opener has 2 of HAKQ > > Interesting. Notice that it doesn't mean *partner* has forgotten his > system, but I imagine a bid meaning "your last bid is impossible IMHO > because there are only 4 aces / 3 tops / 12 controls, please reconsider" > would be legal. The only real difference for this system is who will place the final contract. What about the legality of? 3C I think we disagree or are about to disagree about the system. I think I have gone wrong: please place the final contract. 3D I think we disagree or are about to disagree about the system. I think you have gone wrong: please let me place the final contract. Robin From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 2 13:13:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:13:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c894af$f77b74f0$e6725ed0$@no> References: <47ECC8F3.3010103@ulb.ac.be> <47F34E0B.4000700@ulb.ac.be> <000c01c894af$f77b74f0$e6725ed0$@no> Message-ID: <47F36A5B.1010407@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> >>> In a similar way a Norwegian relay pair had these agreements: >>> >>> 3C=I've forgotten the system, please place the contract. >>> 3D=You've forgotten the system, I'll place the contract next round. >>> >>> >> IMNSHO, the 3D bid is illegal, because how could the player know his >> partner had forgotten the system, other than through his explanations, >> which are UI ? >> (barring the exceptional case when the player made a bid that doesn't >> exiqst in the system) >> > > What makes you think that the "exceptional case" was not the actual case leading to a 3D bid? > Because this happens too uncommonly to make a recovery mechanism at the 3-level necessary just for this. In my system, there is exactly one non-existent bid below this level [1C (2C nat) 2NT] I meant "exceptional", you see. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 2 14:43:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:43:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003901c89334$7f7b2b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl> <000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com> <003901c89334$7f7b2b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47F37F57.2020600@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > 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). So what did I pick up on the very last board of yesterday evening? You guessed it : 5-5 majors with a queen and two jacks (only 4 points!) I looked at the board and was dissapointed to see me in third position. But the bidding started pass-pass. So of course I opened 1NT! dbl - pass - pass - pass and I made my partner's two aces for -1100. Some people did make 12 tricks in 3NT but of course not in 6NT. Anyway, great fun was had by all. Thank you John, for this wonderful addition to my arsenal. I'm not sure I'll be using it again.:( -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 2 19:40:25 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:40:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl> <000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com><003901c89334$7f7b2b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47F37F57.2020600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004f01c894e8$a24f5210$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> 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). > > So what did I pick up on the very last board of yesterday evening? You > guessed it : 5-5 majors with a queen and two jacks (only 4 points!) > I looked at the board and was dissapointed to see me in third position. > But the bidding started pass-pass. > > So of course I opened 1NT! > > dbl - pass - pass - pass and I made my partner's two aces for -1100. lesson 2) Either you or your partner are going to bid 2C in this auction :) then 2D then 2H (although XX is ok with a good pard) :) > > Some people did make 12 tricks in 3NT but of course not in 6NT. > > Anyway, great fun was had by all. Thank you John, for this wonderful > addition to my arsenal. I'm not sure I'll be using it again.:( > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 2 20:23:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:23:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <000a01c8945e$5d08beb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net><002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com><6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au><009d01c89143$0cc25d80$1910a256@stefanie><351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net><002001c89397$24b84520$0100a8c0@stefanie><017001c89412$33f1dcb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <62FB35FA-3AF0-4159-AE8C-2DBA9ECFC645@starpower.net> <000a01c8945e$5d08beb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <17E26F52-7487-4312-B664-A6C251589797@starpower.net> On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:10 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> EL: >>> >> But it cannot succeed >> in doing so unless the "meaning" of the IB, as defined by the IBer's >> "intent" (actually his specific misperception of the auction at the >> moment of the IB) is known and taken into account. > > I feel that since partner doesn't know the specific > misinterpretation of the > auction it cannot matter. The IBers "intent" would be UI specifically > prohibited by the new Law 27. > >> L27B1(b) requires >> that the meaning of a proposed replacement call "be[] fully contained >> within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid". Stefanie's >> view would require us to interpret "the possible meanings of the >> insufficient bid" as all of the possible meanings given all of the >> possible intents. > > Yes. > >> It's really hard to construct a non-trivial >> example in which that interpretation would lead to any bids ever >> meeting that criterion. Consider just the ambiguity between a 1H >> opener or response in Stefanie's example. As the former would >> show 13 >> + HCP and the latter 6-10 HCP (or thereabouts), the RC, to meet the >> test of L27B1(b), would have to have a range that was "fully >> contained" within both 13+ and 6-10 simultaneously -- no L27B1(b) >> correction allowed there! > > Oh, I see. This is just a difference in systems. Here in the UK a 1H > response shows from 6 HCP to pretty much unlimited. An opening bid > shows 12+ > to about 22, and sometimes promised 5H. So these meanings are not > disjoint, > as they are in the methods you cite, so a 2H bid (10+ HCP, 5+ H) > would, in > theory, be permissible. My apologies for a poorly chosen example (1C-P-1H is 6+ over here too, limited only to less than a strong jump shift), but it does serve as an illustration, albeit a silly one. >> With the IBer's intent known, it is at >> least possible that we will offer one or more additional penalty-free >> corrections beyond those available via the 1997 law or L27B1(a). >> Lack of knowledge of the IBer's intent can only preclude, never add, >> potential L27B1(b) corrections. > > Not really, because (Law 40B3, probably due for a rewrite, not > withstanding), the partnership is not supposed to have new methods > for this > situation. So what is important is not the intent, but whether the > hand you > wish to show is a possible 2H response, with the IB not adding more > meaning.. In the methods commonly in place in the a 2H response > coule not be > 6-10, but would be 10+. But opening hands and 1H responding hands > could all > be hands worth 2H over 1S. > >> And even were the possibilities Stefanie allows for (opening or >> responding) not disjoint, > > Again, this is not true in the UK. > >> if we don't resolve them to a single >> possibility, how can we take just those that occur to someone other >> than the bidder (presumably the TD) as "likely" or "logical" as a >> starting point? If we don't know whether they were opening (thought >> they were bidding to P-P-) or responding (to 1C-P- or 1D-P-), how do >> we know they weren't overcalling (P-1C-, say)? Or even free-bidding >> (1C-1D-)? (Or even -- God help us! -- overcalling an opponent's IB >> per L27A1?! > > This approach is counterproductive. If guidelines for determining > intent are > developed, then surely the IBer's partner will know the original > intent, and > the auction will be too severely tainted with UI in order to possibly > continue. What the IBer's partner should know is the meaning of the > replacement bid, and it should be correct in his system and he > should treat > it as such. > >> And that's not even considering that they may not have >> been attempting to bid at all.) That makes disjoint possibilities a >> virtual certainty. > > Not in the case under discussion, given UK methods. I guess if this > were > true for every other case it would be a virtual certainty... > >> IBs in more complex auctions could have hundreds >> of possible meanings, and if you don't base your ruling on the one >> intended by the IBer, you must account for every last one of them! > > Again, you cannot base the ruling on the intention, because then > the IBer's > partner will know the intention. *This* would result in no possible > penalty-free replacements. > >> Try doing that after, say, P-2S-P-2H (a mere one-round auction to the >> two-level, hardly all that complicated). I'll even let you use your >> own bidding methods for the exercise, but keep in mind that at the >> table you will have to do this analysis using the IBer's methods. >> I'm confident that actually working that exercise will convince >> anyone that this isn't the approach they want to be taking at the >> table. > > Well, this simply highlights the more fundamental problem of > answering the > question "what does an insufficient bid mean?" I do not think that > there is > an answer to this question. But if we do not determine the "meaning" as being what the IBer intended it to be (determined by the specific auction that he thought he was bidding to), we must consider all possibilities. What we cannot do is say, as we seem to have done here, that because we think it most likely to have been intended as either an opening bid or a response to 1C or 1D, that we will consider only those possibilities and ignore the rest. And *all* of the possbilities means literally any auction on which the IB would have been sufficient. >> And now that I think of it, you're overwhelmingly likely, somewhere >> in all those possibilities, to find at least one that wouldn't be >> "incontrovertably not artificial", so you'll almost certainly wind up >> with no allowable L27B1(a) correction either! > > This is one of the problems with the new Law. It is specifically a > problem > with my interpretation, but I do not think that any other > interpretation can > be taken seriously. Have you tried my suggested example: P-2S-P-2H? I made it easy by suggesting you assume the IBer was playing your favorite methods. If we need to determine the possible meanings of 2H without ascertaining the intent of the 2H bidder, we will need to know the potential meanings of, well, let's see... P-P-P-2H, P-P-1C-2H, P-P-1D-2H, ... , P-P-2D-2H, ... that's eight ... P-1C-P-2H, P-1C-X-2H, P-1C-1D-2H, ... eight more ... P-1D-P-2H, ... and so on, until we get to 1NT-2C-2D-2H. That comes to a couple of hundred possible "meanings". Be glad I offered only a one-round auction, or we could have thousands. My favorite bidding methods are overwhelmingly natural and straightforward. Most of these auctions will be natural, but many will not. Most will show hearts, but the list includes auctions that show clubs, diamonds, spades, two-suiters, three-suiters, and a virtually meaningless all-purpose game force. How much will you enjoy running this exercise using the system played by a pair of strangers who just called you to the table? It's not clear, if we are consider all possible meanings, whether the "more precise meaning than" criterion in L27B1(b) is to be applied to all of them (as I would read the law) or any of them (as Stefanie and Steve do), but either reduces L27B1 to a virtual no-op in all but the simplest cases. If the former, there will be no calls the IBer can make without penalty. If the latter, I would be hard-pressed to find a single call that would *not* be allowed without penalty. Note that this is true not just for L27B1(b), but for L27B1(a) as well. It seems quite clear that the new L27B1(a) was intended to be functionally identical to the old (1997) one. If Stefanie were correct in arguing that the IBer's intention should not be taken into account, we would have to have been ruling accordingly under the 1997 law. Had we been doing so, we would have seen an order of magnitude or so fewer penalty-free corrections over the last 10 years. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 2 20:42:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:42:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093AC7@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093AC7@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: On Apr 2, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Robin Barker wrote: > From: Alain Gottcheiner >>> >>> Easy, 1C(art)-1H(nat)-1S(ask)-2D(2 of HAKQ) and opener has 2 of HAKQ >> >> Interesting. Notice that it doesn't mean *partner* has forgotten his >> system, but I imagine a bid meaning "your last bid is impossible IMHO >> because there are only 4 aces / 3 tops / 12 controls, please >> reconsider" >> would be legal. > > The only real difference for this system is who will place the > final contract. > > What about the legality of? > > 3C I think we disagree or are about to disagree about the system. > I think I have gone wrong: please place the final contract. > > 3D I think we disagree or are about to disagree about the system. > I think you have gone wrong: please let me place the final contract. What has agreeing or disagreeing about system to do with it? 3C: Asks partner to place the contract; 3C bidder will pass whatever pard bids next. 3D: Relay to 3H; makes 3D bidder's next bid strictly to play. Those agreements might even be useful when there is no reason to think anyone has forgotten anything. Why would anyone even think they might be illegal? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 20:58:39 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:58:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093AC7@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0804021158l29607db5r78ad4eba19b9acc0@mail.gmail.com> > What has agreeing or disagreeing about system to do with it? > > 3C: Asks partner to place the contract; 3C bidder will pass whatever > pard bids next. > > 3D: Relay to 3H; makes 3D bidder's next bid strictly to play. > > Those agreements might even be useful when there is no reason to > think anyone has forgotten anything. Why would anyone even think > they might be illegal? Funny that: Many relay systems use a conventional 4D response once shape is completely known. 4D requires that parter rebid 4H. This bid is known by a variety of names including the "End Signal" and "Terminator Puppet" (If we want to be pendantic, there are some occasions where RR can break the end signal and bid past 4H with an exception hand - extra strength, lots of extra controls, whatever. However, there are a number of occasions where this type of break is impossible - RR has a limited hand or some such) -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 3 00:29:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:29:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F34703.30801@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: >I have to support Herman, for a change. As Hans mentioned in the >meantime: written evidence can be doubtful, even misleading. Richard Hills: If that is Herman's intent, then I too am supporting Herman for a change. But that is not exactly consistent with what Herman actually wrote. Matthias Berghaus: >I do not think that Herman advocates dismissing the CC as >meaningless, but he knows that it does not always tell all of >the truth, for example history of misbids. Richard Hills: Again, I agree. My previous posting emphasised the point "in the absence of counterweighting evidence". The points of difference as I see them are: (a) John (MadDog) Probst and I ask the player if they have a history of misbids. If the answer is "No" we rule misbid rather than implicit understanding (unless we or a TD colleague have counterweighting evidence about the player in question). (b) According to Herman's words (but perhaps contrary to Herman's intent) Herman will not be convinced by written evidence alone (even with zero counterweighting evidence), but will be convinced by written evidence plus additional evidence. (c) The Dutch National Appeals Committee will not be convinced by any evidence that a misbid has occurred; Matthias Berghaus: >We have a pair that just now invents a new bidding system. The >process is not finished (and will not be for some time, I have >done something similar some years ago, even if my partnership >didn't start from scratch), so at the moment there are a lot of >CCs around with marginally different dates of printing. Of >course they always use the newest CC, but from time to time >(rather sooner than later) one of them forgets that an older >agreement has been replaced, or rather they don't agree whether >this is the case. So the TD often rules MI, which they bear >gracefully. 2007 Law 21B1(b): The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 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 Apr 3 03:28:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:28:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Swiss Teams Dlr: East Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D Pass 2D Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: QT72 AQ32 Q3 984 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 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Apr 3 03:38:05 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 21:38:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > Swiss Teams > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D Pass > 2D Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > QT72 > AQ32 > Q3 > 984 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? I double, expecting a good chance of +5 IMPs if 2D and 2H/S both make, or if we push them to 3D down one. I do consider pass, because the DQ is a defensive value and the vulnerability is the worst possible for balancing. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 3 07:05:59 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:05:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F465B7.9070307@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Swiss Teams, Both, East deals S:QT72 H:AQ32 D:Q3 C:984 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D Pass 2D Pass Pass ? What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] I would ask what opponents deduced from their partner's calls. Assuming 1D and 2D are normal and natural, IMO... X = 10, P = 8. From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Apr 3 08:21:19 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:21:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013401c89552$f040bad0$d0c23070$@nl> OK, I'll bite. Assuming 1D and 2D not alerted natural calls, and a glance at the convention card to make sure they are not playing inverted minors and forgetting, I would double even at teams. At matchpoints no other call would enter my mind, at teams I could be convinced to pass, but I would surely double. 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: donderdag 3 april 2008 3:29 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Swiss Teams Dlr: East Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D Pass 2D Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: QT72 AQ32 Q3 984 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 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 From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 08:44:56 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:44:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 03/04/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Swiss Teams > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D Pass > 2D Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > QT72 > AQ32 > Q3 > 984 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? If I'm playing against a regular partnership I always double, not considering any call. If I play against a pick-up partnership I might be a little doubtful regarding an inverted minor mix-up, and might consider a pass. Still doubling though. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Apr 3 09:22:56 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:22:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F485D0.2030505@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Swiss Teams > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D Pass > 2D Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > QT72 > AQ32 > Q3 > 984 > > What call do you make? > No idea. First I find out what the bidding means. If 1D was natural and 2D limit I double. If 1D was potentially short, but 2D natural and limited I would probably pass. The probability of passing is inverse proportional to East's guaranteed diamond length. > What other calls do you consider making? > Pass, obviously. I would never pass if East guarantees at least 4 diamonds. With 3 it depends on opps and estimated score of match. I'd have to be pretty desperate to double if East may be short. > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Apr 3 09:29:10 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:29:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F48746.2030204@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > > > (b) According to Herman's words (but perhaps contrary to Herman's > intent) Herman will not be convinced by written evidence alone > (even with zero counterweighting evidence), but will be convinced > by written evidence plus additional evidence. > > I admit to being too lazy to look up Herman's posting, but I understood him to argue that written evidence *may* be unreliable, not that he dismisses CCs as paraphernalia. Any TD worth his money finds out what happened. He will not need written evidence very often thereafter. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 3 10:09:52 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:09:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matthias Berghaus: > >> I have to support Herman, for a change. As Hans mentioned in the >> meantime: written evidence can be doubtful, even misleading. > > Richard Hills: > > If that is Herman's intent, then I too am supporting Herman for a > change. But that is not exactly consistent with what Herman > actually wrote. > I happen to agree with Matthias' summary of my position. Too often, we see directors (and the Dutch NAC) succumb to the pleas from various players to see certain types of misbid punished. They invent all sorts of ways to do this, most of them illegal. Rather, they should go back to the evidence that is being presented and look at it from a certain light: quite often, they will discover some form of misinformation that they can present to the non-offending side: "if you had known this ..., would you have ...". Very often, giving a little more information about (p)OS' methods will settle the case - even with the extra information, NOS would have acted the same way. Example: someone is playing 5-card majors, but opens on a 4-card suit. Opponents start argueing. Some TDs will read the CC and say "correct explanation". Other TDs will say "I don't care about CC's - prima facie evidence of MI". Neither of them are right. The TD should investigate and arrive at the conclusion that this player may well open a 4-card suit 0/1/5/10% of the time. He should then say to NOS: "if you had known that it could have been a 4-card suit that seldom, would you have acted differently?". I dare say that in the bidding this is almost never the case, but it could be in the play. > Matthias Berghaus: > >> I do not think that Herman advocates dismissing the CC as >> meaningless, but he knows that it does not always tell all of >> the truth, for example history of misbids. > > Richard Hills: > > Again, I agree. My previous posting emphasised the point "in the > absence of counterweighting evidence". The points of difference > as I see them are: > > (a) John (MadDog) Probst and I ask the player if they have a > history of misbids. If the answer is "No" we rule misbid rather > than implicit understanding (unless we or a TD colleague have > counterweighting evidence about the player in question). > It might not be a "misbid". It might be a tactical bid. But I suspect that is encompassed in the question. > (b) According to Herman's words (but perhaps contrary to Herman's > intent) Herman will not be convinced by written evidence alone > (even with zero counterweighting evidence), but will be convinced > by written evidence plus additional evidence. > Well, the bid that is on the table is counterweighing evidence, no? > (c) The Dutch National Appeals Committee will not be convinced by > any evidence that a misbid has occurred; > And they are wrong, of course. > Matthias Berghaus: > >> We have a pair that just now invents a new bidding system. The >> process is not finished (and will not be for some time, I have >> done something similar some years ago, even if my partnership >> didn't start from scratch), so at the moment there are a lot of >> CCs around with marginally different dates of printing. Of >> course they always use the newest CC, but from time to time >> (rather sooner than later) one of them forgets that an older >> agreement has been replaced, or rather they don't agree whether >> this is the case. So the TD often rules MI, which they bear >> gracefully. > > 2007 Law 21B1(b): > > The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Apr 3 10:32:49 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:32:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> [HdW] > (b) According to Herman's words (but perhaps contrary to Herman's > intent) Herman will not be convinced by written evidence alone > (even with zero counterweighting evidence), but will be convinced > by written evidence plus additional evidence. > Well, the bid that is on the table is counterweighing evidence, no? [HvS] Well, really I would say no here. Of course the bid is on the table, so it is nonsense to say the player will never bid what he bid with this hand, since he just did. However from a directors point of view only agreements count. Both explicit and implicit. But even an implicit agreement has to start at some point, and if this is really the first time the deviation occurs there is no implicit agreement yet. What I would accept is that the fact that there is a hand not conforming to the explanation gives rise to reasonable suspicion, warranting some form of investigation. This is of course where the Dutch NAC goes off the charts. Not only don't they investigate anything, they take this isolated occurrence(isolated as far as they know) and immediately rule misbid. Take the analogy with so called patterns of hands. At the end of any session, especially when computer dealt hands are used, you will hear a player explaining the similarity of all the hands, conforming to an alarming pattern. Of course any set of hands has some pattern. But if you want to investigate the dealing software for an actual error leading to this pattern, you have to throw away this set of hands as evidence. You already used it as a trigger for investigation. But I digress slightly. You'll have to excuse me as the author of BigDeal. Hans van Staveren From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 3 11:48:44 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:48:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> Message-ID: <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > [HdW] > >> (b) According to Herman's words (but perhaps contrary to Herman's >> intent) Herman will not be convinced by written evidence alone >> (even with zero counterweighting evidence), but will be convinced >> by written evidence plus additional evidence. >> > > Well, the bid that is on the table is counterweighing evidence, no? > > > [HvS] > > Well, really I would say no here. Of course the bid is on the table, so it > is nonsense to say the player will never bid what he bid with this hand, > since he just did. > > However from a directors point of view only agreements count. Both explicit > and implicit. But even an implicit agreement has to start at some point, and > if this is really the first time the deviation occurs there is no implicit > agreement yet. > The agreement could well be "baked into" the system. If I have systemic agreements to show hands A,B and C, but I happen to have hand D, which conforms to neither of those three, then the call that I do make "describes" hand D. Either I use the call that shows A (or B or C) and then my partner's explanation "A" is wrong, since it should be "A or D", or I use a fourth call, and then my partner's explanation "no agreement" is also wrong, since it should be "we have calls to describe A, B and C, so he must have another than those". So even if I never have seen hand D in my life (like a 35-pointer, which happened last month in Lier), I can have implicit agreements about those. But that is not important to the main discussion, on which we agree very well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Apr 3 12:44:01 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:44:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> [HdW] The agreement could well be "baked into" the system. If I have systemic agreements to show hands A,B and C, but I happen to have hand D, which conforms to neither of those three, then the call that I do make "describes" hand D. Either I use the call that shows A (or B or C) and then my partner's explanation "A" is wrong, since it should be "A or D", or I use a fourth call, and then my partner's explanation "no agreement" is also wrong, since it should be "we have calls to describe A, B and C, so he must have another than those". So even if I never have seen hand D in my life (like a 35-pointer, which happened last month in Lier), I can have implicit agreements about those. [HvS] Totally agree. Years ago I ruled misinformation when a player bid a singleton on a small doubleton. The pair was very clear that singleton was their agreement. When I questioned the player that made the bid about what his systemic correct bid on the hand would have been he became a bit puzzled. It turned out that the bid he made was the only forcing bid available. Neither player of the pair was aware that their agreements actually had this hole in them. So indeed in this case I ruled misinformation, since it was the responsibility of the pair making the agreements to make sure they covered the bases. Actually, last Tuesday, I was guilty of the same. I had A AKQT Qxx QTxxx I opened 1C, partner 1H. Now both 4H and 3S seemed very awkward bids, so I opted for 3NT, which systematically means 18-19 balanced with 4H. This turned out to be a good decision, since it helped us to bid the slam that a lot of the field missed. Looking back at it I think that in our system 3NT should be the systemic bid on this hand, so we probably should change our explanation of the 3NT bid. We'll discuss it next Tuesday. Hans From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 3 13:24:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:24:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> Message-ID: <47F4BE87.8070308@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > > A > AKQT > Qxx > QTxxx > > I opened 1C, partner 1H. Now both 4H and 3S seemed very awkward bids, so I > opted for 3NT, which systematically means 18-19 balanced with 4H. This > turned out to be a good decision, since it helped us to bid the slam that a > lot of the field missed. Looking back at it I think that in our system 3NT > should be the systemic bid on this hand, so we probably should change our > explanation of the 3NT bid. We'll discuss it next Tuesday. > The point being that even before next tuesday, you are guilty of misinformation if this possibility is not mentioned. > Hans > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 3 15:29:45 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:29:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] EHAA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F3CA1B9-03BE-4103-9788-BE318B7CA470@starpower.net> On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:28 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Swiss Teams > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D Pass > 2D Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > QT72 > AQ32 > Q3 > 984 > > What call do you make? Double. > What other calls do you consider making? Pass. Why EHAA? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 3 15:44:27 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:44:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> Message-ID: <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> On Apr 3, 2008, at 6:44 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Totally agree. Years ago I ruled misinformation when a player bid a > singleton on a small doubleton. The pair was very clear that > singleton was > their agreement. When I questioned the player that made the bid > about what > his systemic correct bid on the hand would have been he became a bit > puzzled. It turned out that the bid he made was the only forcing bid > available. Neither player of the pair was aware that their agreements > actually had this hole in them. So indeed in this case I ruled > misinformation, since it was the responsibility of the pair making the > agreements to make sure they covered the bases. Was it? Nothing in TFLB forbids a pair from entering a bridge event without having "covered the bases". The notion that a pair is "responsible" for doing so comes from Bobby Wolff's discredited "convention disruption" theory, which has yet to be accepted or implemented anywhere (and hopefully won't be). If we make duplicate bridge a game just for pairs who have complete and consistent bidding methods that they fully understand, what will we do for customers? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu Apr 3 19:00:15 2008 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:00:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] 6clubs Message-ID: <47F50D1F.6090503@cs.elte.hu> KO Teams. S/All opps' system: NAT, weak NT You are sitting West, and holding: K94 53 AT98764 2 The bidding goes: 1C-3D-4C-p 5C*-p-5D-p 6C/// 5C was slow, 5D is rkc, 6C is 2+Q Which card do you lead? Which other card do you consider leading? regards Laci From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 3 18:19:12 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:19:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 3, 2008, at 6:44 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > >> Totally agree. Years ago I ruled misinformation when a player bid a >> singleton on a small doubleton. The pair was very clear that >> singleton was >> their agreement. When I questioned the player that made the bid >> about what >> his systemic correct bid on the hand would have been he became a bit >> puzzled. It turned out that the bid he made was the only forcing bid >> available. Neither player of the pair was aware that their agreements >> actually had this hole in them. So indeed in this case I ruled >> misinformation, since it was the responsibility of the pair making the >> agreements to make sure they covered the bases. > > Was it? Nothing in TFLB forbids a pair from entering a bridge event > without having "covered the bases". The notion that a pair is > "responsible" for doing so comes from Bobby Wolff's discredited > "convention disruption" theory, which has yet to be accepted or > implemented anywhere (and hopefully won't be). > You misunderstand. They are not obliged to "cover the bases", but they are obliged to give complete information. If it turns out that there is a hole in their "expressions", they are guilty of misinformation. They have a system, which is without holes, but they don't know it completely, and their expression is incomplete as a result. Note that hans did not say that they are obliged to cover the bases, he said it was their responsability. > If we make duplicate bridge a game just for pairs who have complete > and consistent bidding methods that they fully understand, what will > we do for customers? > We don't, so we don't need to do anything. Remember that the opponents are customers as well! > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 3 20:58:08 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:58:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003f01c895bc$a813f690$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:28 AM Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Swiss Teams > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D Pass > 2D Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > QT72 > AQ32 > Q3 > 984 > > What call do you make? double (if for t/o) > What other calls do you consider making? Pass, 2nd best though. I think my peers would all double; 4-4 major outweighs D Qx. > > > 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 From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 3 21:31:55 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:31:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] 6clubs In-Reply-To: <47F50D1F.6090503@cs.elte.hu> References: <47F50D1F.6090503@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <47F530AB.8010903@NTLworld.com> [Laszlo Hegedus] KO Teams. Both. RHO deals S:K94 H:53 D:AT98764 C:2 opps' system: NAT, weak NT 1C-3D-4C-p 5C*-p-5D-p 6C/// 5C was slow, 5D is rkc, 6C is 2+Q Which card do you lead? Which other card do you consider leading? [Nigel] IMO without LHO's hesitation: S2 = 10, DA = 6, C2 = 4, H5 = 1. But after the hesitation it is much harder. Perhaps: H5 = 10, C2 = 8 DA = 6, S4 = 4 Why the difference? Well from a player's point of view, this is an excellent problem :) You may suffer badly if you just reflexly snap out your normal lead :( The *good* news is the director may consider adjusting a successful 6C to 5C+1 :) It is possible that for LHO, pass was a logical alternative to 5D. And that 6C was suggested over pass by RHO's tank. So it looks like you may get two bites at the cherry :) What's the problem? The *bad* news is that there is usually in force a *completely mad* regulation: if the director judges your action to be *wild and gambling*, he may deprive you of redress! :( :( :( Hence, rather than go hell for leather and try to defeat the contract, you may instead try to get inside the director's head and make sure that your lead is safe and orthodox *in the director's opinion*. The *really bad* news is that sometimes - Your "wild and gambling" lead would have defeated the contract but - Your guess at a safe "director's choice" lets the contract home and - it transpires that pass was not a logical alternative for LHO. Then you have just lost a vulnerable slam because of another *sophisticated*, *unnecessary*, and *insane* rule. :( Such are the vicissitudes of Bridge :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 3 23:04:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:04:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Well, the bid that is on the table is counterweighing evidence, >no? Richard Hills: No, that is a logical fallacy. A bid deviating from an alleged partnership agreement is a necessary (but not sufficient) _condition_ for a misbid or psyche; it is not counterweighting _evidence_ against the assertion of a misbid or psyche. 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 4 03:34:57 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:34:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The question is if you notice partner is about to lead out of turn (on defense), is it legal to warn partner? David Stevenson has said that the "common interpretation" is that this is illegal. I have no reason to doubt this, but I am just checking. (In my local area, this intrepretation apparently is considered crazy.) He then says that if he is called to the table, he would site the law (73B1) against illegal communication. He would then warn the player (Law 90) and possibly apply a procedural penalty. I asked if the defender would be forced to lead out of turn, and he said no. I asked if Law 72B1 would kick in (player could have known at the time of the irregularity that he would gain from it) and the answer to that is apparently no also. Is that the common ruling? I am having trouble believing it. (It makes sense to me that you don't punish a player for making that warning, but I am from a region that does not consider this illegal -- I want to verify that people who think this communication is illegal might nonetheless allow the information to be used.) Sorry if this is inappropriate for this list. Bob Frick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 4 03:18:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:18:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >The question is if you notice partner is about to lead out of turn (on >defense), is it legal to warn partner? > >David Stevenson has said that the "common interpretation" is that this >is illegal. I have no reason to doubt this, but I am just checking. >(In my local area, this interpretation apparently is considered crazy.) [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, David Stevenson is crazy, but only under the 2007 Lawbook, which is not yet implemented in his English homeland. 2007 Law 9A3 (second sentence absent from 1997 Lawbook): "When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 4 03:40:05 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:40:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F586F5.8050007@NTLworld.com> [TNLB L9A3, quoted by Richard Hills] "When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." [Nigel] Clearly L9A3 empowers you to stop partner e.g. - bidding out of turn. - leading out of turn. - making an illegal or insufficient bid. - revoking (a separate law is redundant). - forgetting to play a penalty card. - misexplaining the systemic meaning of your call. The latter finally resolves the DWS dispute :) From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Apr 4 04:08:44 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:08:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <200804011456.m31EurpM018200@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200804011456.m31EurpM018200@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47F58DAC.9030006@nhcc.net> SW> Consider 2NT-P-2H. It might have been intended to show spades SW> (transfer over 1NT) or hearts (some natural bid). > From: Eric Landau > Steve's very nice exposition has clarified exactly where it is that > we differ. Eric and I have had a useful offline correspondence, and I think we now agree that there are two reasonable approaches: > My [Eric's] position is that "the meaning of the IB" refers to the > IBer's intent This is certainly one basis on which one could rule. The IB then has a definite meaning, and the TD has to decide whether a potential RC has a meaning at least as specific as the IB. > 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. Indeed. The alternative basis on which one could rule is that the "meaning of the IB" is what it would have meant in the _union_ of all reasonable prior auctions. In practice, I would define "reasonable" as a single mistake by IBer and only on the latest round of the auction, but still there will in general be very many possibilities. This means in general many RCs will be allowed without barring partner. I think Eric and I agree that either interpretation is consistent with the text of L27B1b. I think we further agree that either can be implemented in practice, though each has its specific difficulties, and the optimum procedures to be used are not clear. We could discuss the difficulties and recommend procedures if the authorities would tell us which fundamental interpretation is to be used. Absent official interpretation, each RA (or in the ACBL, probably each individual TD) will choose some idiosyncratic view. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Apr 4 04:22:30 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:22:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <200804011521.m31FLEJQ029740@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200804011521.m31FLEJQ029740@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47F590E6.9060308@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > As an aside, even if L27B1 made no reference to the meaning of the > IB, the admissability without penalty of a prospective RC would still > depend on the partnership's methods, Yes, everyone agrees on this. It was true also in the 1997 Laws (IB and RC conventional or not?), but the complexity will be greater now both because the considerations require many more details and because there are many more potential RCs to consider. > From: "Robert Frick" > My point is, when the director comes to the table and tries to assess the > meaning of the insufficient bid, or even whether or not it is > conventional, the director does not have as much information as the > players. The director cannot look at just the auction Indeed. I think everyone agrees on this. > I think then the director will have to ask the player (away from the > table) what he thought his insufficient bid meant, or look at his hand (if > you are willing to do that) The question has to be asked in Eric's approach, but I'm not sure it has to be done away from the table. In the approach I favor, the IBer (and for thet matter, other players but especially IBer's partner) have to be asked for _all_ the reasonable meanings of the IB. No reason that can't be done at the table. The TD should be careful to caution IBer _not_ to reveal specifically what he was thinking but rather to list all the possibilities. As I wrote in my previous message, both approaches have practical difficulties but different ones. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Once again, may I remember you that, in nearly every other game/sport, > the state of mind of the player, at the moment he does something that > contravenes the rules for that sport/game, is considered relevant. I think you will find very few examples of that in what we would consider "score adjustment" or "rectification" matters, though there are certainly some. State of mind is quite often relevant in "conduct" matters, but that's not what we're discussing here. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 4 04:37:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:37:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6F3CA1B9-03BE-4103-9788-BE318B7CA470@starpower.net> Message-ID: Swiss Teams Dlr: East Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D Pass 2D Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: QT72 AQ32 Q3 984 What call do you make? Richard Hills: "Pass." What other calls do you consider making? Richard Hills: "Pass. This is partly a matter of style. The Al Roth style of the 1950s was to require very heavy values for initial action, so therefore very frequent protective balancing. In my opinion, more problems are given to the opponents by requiring very light values for initial action, so therefore very rare protective balancing. "A flaw in balancing theory is that it makes the unjustified assumption that the opponents know what they are doing." Hans van Staveren: >...a glance at the convention card to make sure they >are not playing inverted minors and forgetting... http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/appeals.htm EBU Appeals Casebook 2006, number 17 Tournament Director: Andrew Crawford Appeals Committee: Frances Hinden (Chairman) Matt Haag Paul Lamford Swiss Teams 9654 Dlr: East KJ64 Vul: All J7 J73 K3 AJ8 975 T8 AT8642 K95 AT KQ652 QT72 AQ32 Q3 984 Basic systems: East-West play Every Hand An Adventure WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D Pass 2D(1) Pass Pass X 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Weak hand with diamonds Result at table: 3NT making by West, NS -600, lead Hx Director first called: At end of auction Director's statement of facts: TD was called at the end of the auction and established the above auction. After the hand had been played West said he thought his partner had opened 1H. Director's ruling: Table result stands Details of ruling: TD advised the players that N/S had been given a correct explanation of the E/W bidding system and therefore the result stood. Appeal lodged by: North-South Appeals Committee decision: Score assigned for both sides (Law 12C3): 50% of 2D +3 by E/W, NS -150 + 50% of 3NT making by E/W, NS -600 Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: Correct explanation was "no agreement". On being told that South has to guess whether to protect or not. Note West has UI from the lack of alert and explanation, but we did not think that assuming a 1st in hand game all 1D psyche was a logical alternative so allow the 3NT bid. South must protect if 2D is weak to protect a possible game or certain partial swing - he simply has to guess given the correct explanation. L&E Comment: The Committee considered the response of the pair, who described their system as "Every Hand An Adventure". Whilst EHAA is a published system with a fairly long pedigree it is practically unknown in this country. The pair had submitted their system card on request which was perfectly satisfactory. The secretary is to write thanking them for their co-operation. Casebook panellist Frances Hinden's comments: I don't recall being told at the AC hearing that West thought East had opened 1H; he did not say anything to that effect at the hearing (although it is possible it was written on the form and we did not notice). The ruling we gave was based on West thinking they played inverted raises and East thinking they didn't whilst the system card did not specify. If we had believed that the agreement was that single raises were weak, the TD's ruling would have been upheld. Casebook panellist Jeffrey Allerton's comments: The TD had written on the appeals form: "After the hand had been played West said he thought his partner had opened 1H." It is apparent from the AC ruling and comments that either they were not aware of this statement or they simply did not believe it; they ruled on the basis that West knew what East had opened 1D but that there had been a misunderstanding over whether or not inverted raises were in use. Most representations are made verbally at English appeals, but this case demonstrates that it is worth reading the form as well in case some points have been omitted. 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 4 05:38:02 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:38:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F586F5.8050007@NTLworld.com> References: <47F586F5.8050007@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:40:05 -0500, Guthrie wrote: > [TNLB L9A3, quoted by Richard Hills] > "When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it > during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is > concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent > another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to > Laws 42 and 43)." > > [Nigel] > Clearly L9A3 empowers you to stop partner e.g. > - bidding out of turn. > - leading out of turn. > - making an illegal or insufficient bid. > - revoking (a separate law is redundant). > - forgetting to play a penalty card. > - misexplaining the systemic meaning of your call. > > The latter finally resolves the DWS dispute :) Oops, I meant to ask about the old laws. Can I do that here? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 4 05:04:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:04:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] 6 clubs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F50D1F.6090503@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: Laci: >KO Teams. S/All >opps' system: NAT, weak NT > >You are sitting West, and holding: > >K94 >53 >AT98764 >2 > >The bidding goes: > >1C-3D-4C-p >5C*-p-5D-p >6C/// > >5C was slow, 5D is rkc, 6C is 2+Q > >Which card do you lead? RJH: Ace of diamonds. >Which other card do you consider leading? RJH: Ace of diamonds. Two ways to win: (a) partner may have a singleton or void in diamonds, so a diamond ruff beats the slam, or (b) if we do not take our ace of diamonds now, we go to bed with it, as declarer discards all losing diamond(s) on the heart suit, but after the ace of diamonds lead declarer must later take a losing finesse to our king of spades. 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 Apr 4 05:17:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:17:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >Oops, I meant to ask about the old laws. Can I do that here? Richard Hills: Of course. In the past this list has discussed the very old 1975 Laws. We have also discussed the baseball laws and the golf laws in order to note commonalities and differences of approach in the construction and interpretation of ludic 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 Fri Apr 4 07:50:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:50:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F586F5.8050007@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: 2007 Law 9A3: "When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." Nigel Guthrie: >Clearly L9A3 empowers you to stop partner e.g. > - bidding out of turn. > - leading out of turn. > - making an illegal or insufficient bid. > - revoking (a separate law is redundant). Richard Hills: Clearly? Not so clear a separate revoke Law 61B is redundant. "Heartless, pard?" is asked _after_ pard has possibly committed the irregularity of revoking in hearts. So Law 61B falls in the category of _correction_ of an irregularity, not _prevention_ of an irregularity. Nigel Guthrie: > - forgetting to play a penalty card. > - misexplaining the systemic meaning of your call. Richard Hills: Preventing pard from misexplaining by inserting a gag is a fun idea, but might cause annoyance, thus be contrary to Law 74A2. While once an ungagged pard has uttered misexplaining syllables we are in _correction_ of irregularity territory, so Law 9A3 is now superseded by Law 20F5. 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 svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 4 08:44:32 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:44:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8961f$5734f4a0$059edde0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > The question is if you notice partner is about to lead out of turn (on > defense), is it legal to warn partner? > > David Stevenson has said that the "common interpretation" is that this is > illegal. I have no reason to doubt this, but I am just checking. (In my > local area, this intrepretation apparently is considered crazy.) > > He then says that if he is called to the table, he would site the law > (73B1) against illegal communication. He would then warn the player (Law > 90) and possibly apply a procedural penalty. I asked if the defender would > be forced to lead out of turn, and he said no. I asked if Law 72B1 would > kick in (player could have known at the time of the irregularity that he > would gain from it) and the answer to that is apparently no also. > > Is that the common ruling? I am having trouble believing it. (It makes > sense to me that you don't punish a player for making that warning, but I > am from a region that does not consider this illegal -- I want to verify > that people who think this communication is illegal might nonetheless > allow the information to be used.) > > Sorry if this is inappropriate for this list. Inappropriate? - no, I don't see why. The issue is clarified in the 2007 laws (L9A3) so let me go back to the previous laws. Technically it was illegal for a defender to try preventing his partner committing any irregularity because that could be taken as (illegal) communication between defenders. However, for as long as I can remember (more than fifty years), when a player other than the correct defender showed an indication of being about to make the opening lead, any of the other three players might stop him with the words: "It is not your lead" (or words to that effect) and nobody has ever had any problem with that. So I consider the new Law 9A3 simply to confirm the legality of existing practice and not to establish any new rule. I was in fact very surprised when I first noticed that this practice should ever have been illegal. Regards Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Apr 4 09:23:52 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:23:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/2008, Robert Frick wrote: > The question is if you notice partner is about to lead out of turn (on > defense), is it legal to warn partner? > > David Stevenson has said that the "common interpretation" is that this is > illegal. I have no reason to doubt this, but I am just checking. (In my > local area, this intrepretation apparently is considered crazy.) > > He then says that if he is called to the table, he would site the law > (73B1) against illegal communication. He would then warn the player (Law > 90) and possibly apply a procedural penalty. I asked if the defender would > be forced to lead out of turn, and he said no. I asked if Law 72B1 would > kick in (player could have known at the time of the irregularity that he > would gain from it) and the answer to that is apparently no also. > > Is that the common ruling? I am having trouble believing it. (It makes > sense to me that you don't punish a player for making that warning, but I > am from a region that does not consider this illegal -- I want to verify > that people who think this communication is illegal might nonetheless > allow the information to be used.) > > Sorry if this is inappropriate for this list. > > Bob Frick > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > To cite Law 73B1 seems very strange to me. Law 73 define the correct form for communication between partners regarding how they communicate the cards they hold to be able to bid to the best contract or to find the best defence. I can't see how this law can be used to stop someone from telling their partner that he is about to lead or make a call out of turn, not play a penalty card etc. You can argue that since these aren't positively allowed in the laws (pre 2007), they're forbidden. But I don't see how you can twist law 73 to have such meaning. I've stopped several partners from doing such mistakes, and also been stopped by partners. Of course I've also stopped several opponents too. And opponents have stopped their partners. My belief is that this is how it should be. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 10:26:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:26:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093AC7@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <47F5E623.7030307@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > What has agreeing or disagreeing about system to do with it? > > 3C: Asks partner to place the contract; 3C bidder will pass whatever > pard bids next. > > 3D: Relay to 3H; makes 3D bidder's next bid strictly to play. > > Those agreements might even be useful when there is no reason to > think anyone has forgotten anything. Why would anyone even think > they might be illegal? > > They are perfectly legal, of course. From Polish 4D to pick-a-slam 5NT to most P/C bids, there exist a number of such gadgets. The main concern is that, at this gadget was presented, the decision to bid 3D could be prompted by UI ; in fact, it will usually be. That's the main reason for knowing 100% that partner has erred. The secondary concern is that it could cause more ethical problems when you tell partner "you erred" and he knows he didn't. (and, incidentally, that you can't call this a relay bid) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 10:30:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:30:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F5E73D.7090008@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Swiss Teams > Dlr: East > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D Pass > 2D Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > QT72 > AQ32 > Q3 > 984 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > Doubling seems obvious. The DQ isn't even a liability, because, if they go on to 3D (quite plausible), they'll probably not guess her. I'd call pass a LA, but without enthusiasm. This is one of thse cases where you should be careful to poll only players with the same style (here, the same position on the aggressivity scale). ISTR we already discussed this case ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 10:52:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:52:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Was it? Nothing in TFLB forbids a pair from entering a bridge event > without having "covered the bases". I know of some pairs who don't have any forcing opening bid. They claim game forces are too uncommon to bother about them, at least at pairs. I played relay systems about 20 years, and we hadn't any bid to describe 7-6-0-0, 8-5-0-0 and 9-carders. We never needed them, either. Once partner had 0580, but he was the opener, and he improvised a sequence (I even understood him), but as a responder he wouldn't have been able to describe his pattern. Once I held 9013, but they opened in front of me. And I don't think understanding "impossible" bids means you have a "background agreement". An "impossible" bid may be understood by using bridge logic. If the bidding goes pass-1NT-4NT, and it means partner has found an Ace back, so be it. You need no agreement to be able to decipher that. Say you're playing a relay system, where all non-game, non-relay, non-2nd-step bids by relayer are splinters agreeing the last suit partner has shown. So, if the bidding goes 1C - 2D (13-15, 44+ in diamonds and another suit), a 3C, 3H or 3S bid is a splinter agreeing diamonds. Now, what about partner's 3D bid ? It is obviously impossible to have both a singleton diamond and a diamond raise. So it has to be ... 4414, a splinter telling that whatever parner's second suit, we can raise it. I manufactured it. Partner understood it. Some players, when asked about the sequence, decoded it, even not knowing the first line of our system. Of course, this made the sequence part of our agreements for the future, but it wasn't at the time I made it. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 11:09:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:09:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F5F057.2000505@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > "When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it > during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is > concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent > another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to > Laws 42 and 43)." > > Notice that dummy-to-be may also react to an attempted LOOT, because he isn't dummy yet (see definitions), so is not restricted by L42-43. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 11:12:55 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:12:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F5F117.9020704@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > "A flaw in balancing theory is that it makes the > unjustified assumption that the opponents know what they > are doing." > > Nice quote. Whose is it ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 11:21:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:21:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F5F325.4090003@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > To cite Law 73B1 seems very strange to me. Law 73 define the correct > form for communication between partners regarding how they communicate > the cards they hold to be able to bid to the best contract or to find > the best defence. > > I can't see how this law can be used to stop someone from telling > their partner that he is about to lead or make a call out of turn, not > play a penalty card etc. > > - is about to place the board in an incorrect position - is sitting at the wrong table - is pulling cards from the wrong board - risks misleading opponents because his bidding cards aren't well-aligned (so that one more card begins to show) All of those are irregularities, aren't they ? > You can argue that since these aren't positively allowed in the laws > (pre 2007), they're forbidden. But I don't see how you can twist law > 73 to have such meaning. > > L9 explicitly tells "allowed unless forbidden", so the reverse interpretation doesn't hold. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 4 11:27:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:27:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Of course, this made the sequence part of our agreements for the future, > but it wasn't at the time I made it. > And that's where you're wrong Alain. If you both understand it, it's part of your system, even if you've never talked about it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 12:19:27 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:19:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47F600AF.8020607@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Of course, this made the sequence part of our agreements for the future, >> but it wasn't at the time I made it. >> >> > > And that's where you're wrong Alain. If you both understand it, it's > part of your system, even if you've never talked about it. > > A system is made of three parts : - agreements, including inferences - meta-agreements, including default meanings - things that can be deduced from pure logic. You seem to discard the third part completely. A meaning can be part of our system, while not being part of our agreements. The proof being that people that don't play it understood the bid. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 4 12:29:27 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:29:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <47F5F325.4090003@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F5F325.4090003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001001c8963e$c2fb5890$48f209b0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > > > To cite Law 73B1 seems very strange to me. Law 73 define the correct > > form for communication between partners regarding how they communicate > > the cards they hold to be able to bid to the best contract or to find > > the best defence. > > > > I can't see how this law can be used to stop someone from telling > > their partner that he is about to lead or make a call out of turn, not > > play a penalty card etc. > > > > > - is about to place the board in an incorrect position > - is sitting at the wrong table > - is pulling cards from the wrong board > - risks misleading opponents because his bidding cards aren't > well-aligned (so that one more card begins to show) > > All of those are irregularities, aren't they ? > > > You can argue that since these aren't positively allowed in the laws > > (pre 2007), they're forbidden. But I don't see how you can twist law > > 73 to have such meaning. > > > > > L9 explicitly tells "allowed unless forbidden", so the reverse > interpretation doesn't hold. Except for calling attention to dummy's rights and limitations in 1997 Law 9A2(b)2 the entire Law 9 addressed irregularities that had already occurred, not the legality (or illegality) of trying to prevent an irregularity. My experience during more than 50 years has been that the legality for any player at the table of trying to prevent an irregularity like leading out of turn is so obvious it didn't need any explicit law. I consider the new Law 9A3 a confirmation and no change of this legality. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 4 13:40:22 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:40:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F600AF.8020607@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> <47F600AF.8020607@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47F613A6.5090502@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Of course, this made the sequence part of our agreements for the future, >>> but it wasn't at the time I made it. >>> >>> >> And that's where you're wrong Alain. If you both understand it, it's >> part of your system, even if you've never talked about it. >> >> > A system is made of three parts : > > - agreements, including inferences > - meta-agreements, including default meanings > - things that can be deduced from pure logic. > > You seem to discard the third part completely. A meaning can be part of > our system, while not being part of our agreements. The proof being that > people that don't play it understood the bid. > Let's not toy with the words agreement and system. Are the opponents entitled to know it? The it forms part of the "partnership agreements" (is that the word in the 2007 laws?) I was using the word "system" as a shorthand synonym. I believe that the things you describe form part of the "partnership agreements". > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 15:08:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:08:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <001001c8963e$c2fb5890$48f209b0$@no> References: <47F5F325.4090003@ulb.ac.be> <001001c8963e$c2fb5890$48f209b0$@no> Message-ID: <47F62831.2060301@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > Except for calling attention to dummy's rights and limitations in 1997 Law 9A2(b)2 the entire Law 9 addressed irregularities that had already occurred, not the legality (or illegality) of trying to prevent an irregularity. > Without launching into long and abstruse considerations about aspectual theory, I fail to see why. In my (admittedly French) version, L9A1 only speaks of "an irregularity happening during the auction", not "having happened". This includes IMHO, e.g. the fact of stopping partner from plunging his hand into his bidding box. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 4 15:28:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:28:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Apr 3, 2008, at 6:44 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >> >>> Totally agree. Years ago I ruled misinformation when a player bid a >>> singleton on a small doubleton. The pair was very clear that >>> singleton was >>> their agreement. When I questioned the player that made the bid >>> about what >>> his systemic correct bid on the hand would have been he became a bit >>> puzzled. It turned out that the bid he made was the only forcing bid >>> available. Neither player of the pair was aware that their >>> agreements >>> actually had this hole in them. So indeed in this case I ruled >>> misinformation, since it was the responsibility of the pair >>> making the >>> agreements to make sure they covered the bases. >> >> Was it? Nothing in TFLB forbids a pair from entering a bridge event >> without having "covered the bases". The notion that a pair is >> "responsible" for doing so comes from Bobby Wolff's discredited >> "convention disruption" theory, which has yet to be accepted or >> implemented anywhere (and hopefully won't be). >> > You misunderstand. They are not obliged to "cover the bases", but they > are obliged to give complete information. If it turns out that there > is a hole in their "expressions", they are guilty of misinformation. > They have a system, which is without holes, but they don't know it > completely, and their expression is incomplete as a result. ISTM that the pair in Hans's anecdote was as totally forthcoming about their agreements as they could be. To rule that they have given MI based on the presumption that "they have a system, which is without holes, but they don't know it completely", which appears to be manifestly not true, is unfair to the point of absurdity. I have been playing EHAA for forty years, I wrote the definitive textbook on the system, and I can assure you that it is not "without holes". I'd wager a beer that Messrs. Meckstroth and Rodwell, with their infamous hundreds of pages of bidding notes, would never be so bold as to claim that even their system is "without holes". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 4 15:47:04 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:47:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The question is if you notice partner is about to lead out of turn (on > defense), is it legal to warn partner? > > David Stevenson has said that the "common interpretation" is that > this is > illegal. I have no reason to doubt this, but I am just checking. > (In my > local area, this intrepretation apparently is considered crazy.) > > He then says that if he is called to the table, he would site the law > (73B1) against illegal communication. He would then warn the player > (Law > 90) and possibly apply a procedural penalty. I asked if the > defender would > be forced to lead out of turn, and he said no. I asked if Law 72B1 > would > kick in (player could have known at the time of the irregularity > that he > would gain from it) and the answer to that is apparently no also. > > Is that the common ruling? I am having trouble believing it. (It makes > sense to me that you don't punish a player for making that warning, > but I > am from a region that does not consider this illegal -- I want to > verify > that people who think this communication is illegal might nonetheless > allow the information to be used.) David may be right in his literal reading of the 1997 laws, but I would disagree that it is the "common interpretation". Certainly, where I play, it is often done and never penalized. In any case, it no longer matters; it is clearly legal under the 2007 laws: "...any player... may attempt to prevent another player?s committing an irregularity" [L9A3]. As to whether the authors of the 2007 laws considered this a substantive change or a clarification of prior intent, you'll have to ask them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 16:01:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:01:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F634D2.6090006@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > >> The question is if you notice partner is about to lead out of turn (on >> defense), is it legal to warn partner? >> >> David Stevenson has said that the "common interpretation" is that >> this is >> illegal. I have no reason to doubt this, but I am just checking. >> (In my >> local area, this intrepretation apparently is considered crazy.) >> >> He then says that if he is called to the table, he would site the law >> (73B1) against illegal communication. He would then warn the player >> (Law >> 90) and possibly apply a procedural penalty. I asked if the >> defender would >> be forced to lead out of turn, and he said no. I asked if Law 72B1 >> would >> kick in (player could have known at the time of the irregularity >> that he >> would gain from it) and the answer to that is apparently no also. >> >> Is that the common ruling? I am having trouble believing it. (It makes >> sense to me that you don't punish a player for making that warning, >> but I >> am from a region that does not consider this illegal -- I want to >> verify >> that people who think this communication is illegal might nonetheless >> allow the information to be used.) >> > > David may be right in his literal reading of the 1997 laws, but I > would disagree that it is the "common interpretation". Certainly, > where I play, it is often done and never penalized. In any case, it > no longer matters; it is clearly legal under the 2007 laws: "...any > player... may attempt to prevent another player?s committing an > irregularity" [L9A3]. As to whether the authors of the 2007 laws > considered this a substantive change or a clarification of prior > intent, you'll have to ask them. > So there are three distinct types of situations : a) player A sees player B ready to commit an irregularity. He may warn him. L9A3. Example : B LOOTs face down. b) player A sees player B committing an irregularity. L9A1 IMHO. He may stop him before it harms the progress of the game. Example : player B picks his cards in the wrong slot (irregularity has begun) and A warns him before he calls. c) player A realizes the irregularity that B has committed (remark the use of Perfect). This is covered by L9B and several other laws (as enquiring about revokes or correcting partner's misexplanation). There are cases that some might wish to classify as a) and others as b). Example : B players begins the gesture of detaching a card from his hand while he isn't on turn. This classification needs some irregularities to be continuous rather than instantaneous. Any qualms ? Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 4 17:11:11 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:11:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:52:06 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> Was it? Nothing in TFLB forbids a pair from entering a bridge event >> without having "covered the bases". > > I know of some pairs who don't have any forcing opening bid. They claim > game forces are too uncommon to bother about them, at least at pairs. > > I played relay systems about 20 years, and we hadn't any bid to describe > 7-6-0-0, 8-5-0-0 and 9-carders. We never needed them, either. Once > partner had 0580, but he was the opener, and he improvised a sequence (I > even understood him), but as a responder he wouldn't have been able to > describe his pattern. Once I held 9013, but they opened in front of me. > > And I don't think understanding "impossible" bids means you have a > "background agreement". > An "impossible" bid may be understood by using bridge logic. If the > bidding goes pass-1NT-4NT, and it means partner has found an Ace back, > so be it. You need no agreement to be able to decipher that. > > Say you're playing a relay system, where all non-game, non-relay, > non-2nd-step bids by relayer are splinters agreeing the last suit > partner has shown. > So, if the bidding goes 1C - 2D (13-15, 44+ in diamonds and another > suit), a 3C, 3H or 3S bid is a splinter agreeing diamonds. > Now, what about partner's 3D bid ? It is obviously impossible to have > both a singleton diamond and a diamond raise. So it has to be ... 4414, > a splinter telling that whatever parner's second suit, we can raise it. > I manufactured it. Partner understood it. Some players, when asked about > the sequence, decoded it, even not knowing the first line of our system. > > Of course, this made the sequence part of our agreements for the future, > but it wasn't at the time I made it. > > > Best regards > > > Alain I think the point is that if you don't have any forcing opening bids, you cannot describe a 1 Spade opening as showing 12-21 HCP, even if that is your partnership agreement. You can claim that you are just improvising when you open 1S with 23 HCP, but your system in a sense demands it. And the opponents are not required to study your system well enough to predict when your system demands misbids. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 4 16:22:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:22:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 3, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 6:44 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >>> >>>> Totally agree. Years ago I ruled misinformation when a player bid a >>>> singleton on a small doubleton. The pair was very clear that >>>> singleton was >>>> their agreement. When I questioned the player that made the bid >>>> about what >>>> his systemic correct bid on the hand would have been he became a bit >>>> puzzled. It turned out that the bid he made was the only forcing bid >>>> available. Neither player of the pair was aware that their >>>> agreements >>>> actually had this hole in them. So indeed in this case I ruled >>>> misinformation, since it was the responsibility of the pair >>>> making the >>>> agreements to make sure they covered the bases. >>> Was it? Nothing in TFLB forbids a pair from entering a bridge event >>> without having "covered the bases". The notion that a pair is >>> "responsible" for doing so comes from Bobby Wolff's discredited >>> "convention disruption" theory, which has yet to be accepted or >>> implemented anywhere (and hopefully won't be). >>> >> You misunderstand. They are not obliged to "cover the bases", but they >> are obliged to give complete information. If it turns out that there >> is a hole in their "expressions", they are guilty of misinformation. >> They have a system, which is without holes, but they don't know it >> completely, and their expression is incomplete as a result. > > ISTM that the pair in Hans's anecdote was as totally forthcoming > about their agreements as they could be. To rule that they have > given MI based on the presumption that "they have a system, which is > without holes, but they don't know it completely", which appears to > be manifestly not true, is unfair to the point of absurdity. I have > been playing EHAA for forty years, I wrote the definitive textbook on > the system, and I can assure you that it is not "without holes". I'd > wager a beer that Messrs. Meckstroth and Rodwell, with their infamous > hundreds of pages of bidding notes, would never be so bold as to > claim that even their system is "without holes". > But that is not the point. The point is that, if they happen to come up against a hand that is, at present, within a hole, and they expand their system at the table, and both partners understand what is happening because they know the area around the holes, then to all intents and purposes there was no hole in the first place! I firmly believe that in such cases, the opponents are entitled to know the area surrounding the hole to such a large degree that they are also able to understand the meaning of the call within the hole. It is impossible for a pair with a system of such complexity to so completely describe this, that the opponents can come to the conclusion. Ergo, they should explain the conclusion themselves. Since it is impossible for a pair to prove they have not discussed something explicitely, I will rule that implicit agreements are equally disclosable. And that was the point we were trying to make. Of course we know that no system is hole-proof. But that does not alter the disclosure obligations, which cover both the area around the holes and the holes. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 4 16:26:53 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:26:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <47F590E6.9060308@nhcc.net> References: <200804011521.m31FLEJQ029740@cfa.harvard.edu> <47F590E6.9060308@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> As an aside, even if L27B1 made no reference to the meaning of the >> IB, the admissability without penalty of a prospective RC would still >> depend on the partnership's methods, > > Yes, everyone agrees on this. It was true also in the 1997 Laws > (IB and > RC conventional or not?), but the complexity will be greater now both > because the considerations require many more details and because there > are many more potential RCs to consider. > >> From: "Robert Frick" >> My point is, when the director comes to the table and tries to >> assess the >> meaning of the insufficient bid, or even whether or not it is >> conventional, the director does not have as much information as the >> players. The director cannot look at just the auction > > Indeed. I think everyone agrees on this. > >> I think then the director will have to ask the player (away from the >> table) what he thought his insufficient bid meant, or look at his >> hand (if >> you are willing to do that) > > The question has to be asked in Eric's approach, but I'm not sure > it has > to be done away from the table. IMO, there is no reason to do this away from the table. It will often, but not always, be the case that the TD's ruling will provide sufficient information for the answer to be inferred. To keep the playing field level. we would either have to take the unprecedented and dangerous approach of making a TD's ruling UI, or just make the answer "entitled" information and let everyone hear it in the first place. In real life, as Robert suggests, that's what usually happens anyhow (everybody knows what went wrong before the TD gets there). Far easier to accept it as proper than the force the TD either to cope with a UI determination and possible consequent ruling or to give drastically different rulings depending on whether or not the answer has been improperly offered. > In the approach I favor, the IBer (and for thet matter, other players > but especially IBer's partner) have to be asked for _all_ the > reasonable > meanings of the IB. No reason that can't be done at the table. > The TD > should be careful to caution IBer _not_ to reveal specifically what he > was thinking but rather to list all the possibilities. I see a dilemma here. If you base your ruling on "all the reasonable meanings of the IB", it is inherently subjective, and a different TD is likely to make a quite different ruling in the same circumstances. If you base it on "all the possible meanings of the IB", regardless of what you might consider "reasonable", you'll still be holding your interrogation while the other tables are four boards further on. And, except in relatively trivial cases, you may well wind up allowing the IBer to make pretty much any call he wants without penalty. > As I wrote in my previous message, both approaches have practical > difficulties but different ones. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Apr 4 16:34:32 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:34:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0804040734o1da82556y6720ec71f26d001d@mail.gmail.com> > I firmly believe that in such cases, the opponents are entitled to > know the area surrounding the hole to such a large degree that they > are also able to understand the meaning of the call within the hole. > It is impossible for a pair with a system of such complexity to so > completely describe this, that the opponents can come to the > conclusion. Ergo, they should explain the conclusion themselves. > Since it is impossible for a pair to prove they have not discussed > something explicitely, I will rule that implicit agreements are > equally disclosable. > > And that was the point we were trying to make. > Of course we know that no system is hole-proof. But that does not > alter the disclosure obligations, which cover both the area around the > holes and the holes. Is there some kind of cavaet regarding third seat 1H openings? > > > > Eric Landau > > > -- > 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 > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 4 16:39:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:39:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] EHAA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49B37035-C919-4A81-9C0D-265EB89D53D0@starpower.net> On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:37 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Swiss Teams 9654 > Dlr: East KJ64 > Vul: All J7 > J73 > K3 AJ8 > 975 T8 > AT8642 K95 > AT KQ652 > QT72 > AQ32 > Q3 > 984 > > Basic systems: > East-West play ...an odd variant of... > Every Hand An Adventure ...which calls for opening 1D (rather than 1C) on these East cards. > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1D Pass > 2D(1) Pass Pass X > 3NT Pass Pass Pass Just quibbling FTR. > The Committee considered the response of the pair, who > described their system as "Every Hand An Adventure". > Whilst EHAA is a published system with a fairly long > pedigree it is practically unknown in this country. Someone should do something about that, eh? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 16:47:02 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:47:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47F63F66.3000803@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > > I think the point is that if you don't have any forcing opening bids, you > cannot describe a 1 Spade opening as showing 12-21 HCP, even if that is > your partnership agreement. > Absolutely right. But my point was to say that even regular partnerships could have big holes in their system. Apparently some didn't imagine this. Let me give another example : if you're allowed, in your system, to open 1NT on, say, 2326 pattern, you could be compelled to be incomplete thereafter, and answer "doubleton diamond" to partner's relay, not showing the doubleton in spades. Partner will know this, of course, and will explain "doubleton diamond". He will be careful not to say "3325", and clever opponents will be wary of deducing 3325. There shan't be any ethical problems about that. But in all honesty, yuo don't have any way in your system to pattern out 2326. So what ? If a TD penalized me for that, I would be a bit confused. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 4 16:54:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:54:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <529EDD08-6704-4C51-B59E-F5AAFF31ADE9@starpower.net> On Apr 4, 2008, at 5:27 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> Of course, this made the sequence part of our agreements for the >> future, >> but it wasn't at the time I made it. > > And that's where you're wrong Alain. If you both understand it, it's > part of your system, even if you've never talked about it. That's semantic nonsense. The disclosure laws refer to "partnership understandings", or "partnership agreements". If someone wants to define "system" as other than synonymous with "partnership understandings", fine, but doing so doesn't change the laws. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 4 17:37:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:37:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> ISTM that the pair in Hans's anecdote was as totally forthcoming >> about their agreements as they could be. To rule that they have >> given MI based on the presumption that "they have a system, which is >> without holes, but they don't know it completely", which appears to >> be manifestly not true, is unfair to the point of absurdity. I have >> been playing EHAA for forty years, I wrote the definitive textbook on >> the system, and I can assure you that it is not "without holes". I'd >> wager a beer that Messrs. Meckstroth and Rodwell, with their infamous >> hundreds of pages of bidding notes, would never be so bold as to >> claim that even their system is "without holes". > > But that is not the point. > The point is that, if they happen to come up against a hand that is, > at present, within a hole, and they expand their system at the table, > and both partners understand what is happening because they know the > area around the holes, then to all intents and purposes there was no > hole in the first place! > I firmly believe that in such cases, the opponents are entitled to > know the area surrounding the hole to such a large degree that they > are also able to understand the meaning of the call within the hole. > It is impossible for a pair with a system of such complexity to so > completely describe this, that the opponents can come to the > conclusion. Ergo, they should explain the conclusion themselves. > Since it is impossible for a pair to prove they have not discussed > something explicitely, I will rule that implicit agreements are > equally disclosable. > > And that was the point we were trying to make. > Of course we know that no system is hole-proof. But that does not > alter the disclosure obligations, which cover both the area around the > holes and the holes. So by this logic, no partnership will ever be capable of giving proper full disclosure in all circumstances, and any time you claim no agreement it becomes de facto illegal to work out partner's intention correctly. The objective of full disclosure is to provide opponents with as much knowledge of your agreements as partner has. That means fully and completely describing what you do know -- "the area around the holes" -- thus giving partner and opponents the same chance to work out the intended meaning of the call, as in the perfectly ordinary, and entirely legal, scenario offered by Alain earlier. Isn't this the same tired old argument that you should disclose your guess as to partner's thought processes instead of the truth about your actual agreements? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 17:40:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:40:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <529EDD08-6704-4C51-B59E-F5AAFF31ADE9@starpower.net> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> <529EDD08-6704-4C51-B59E-F5AAFF31ADE9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47F64BE2.9040308@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > That's semantic nonsense. The disclosure laws refer to "partnership > understandings", or "partnership agreements". If someone wants to > define "system" as other than synonymous with "partnership > understandings", fine, but doing so doesn't change the laws. > So you have to disclose everything that you agreed upon. No big news. And it still remains that there are things that you aren't agreed upon, and that you'll perhaps understand when they'll come up. Call that whatever you wish (I'll be satisfied with "non-agreements"), but that's not covered by disclosure laws. You said it yourself. Note that "bids that weren't agreed upon" aren"t synonymous with "bids that don't exist". Regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 4 18:22:25 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:22:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> And that was the point we were trying to make. >> Of course we know that no system is hole-proof. But that does not >> alter the disclosure obligations, which cover both the area around the >> holes and the holes. > > So by this logic, no partnership will ever be capable of giving > proper full disclosure in all circumstances, and any time you claim > no agreement it becomes de facto illegal to work out partner's > intention correctly. As to the first, of course you can. If two players are on the same wavelength, they can inform their opponents of this, no? You would prefer them to say "no agreement" and then accept that as literal truth? As to the second, you are turning things around. It is not illegal to work out partner's intention after saying "no agreement", it is illegal to say "no agreement" after you've worked out partner's intention. > The objective of full disclosure is to provide > opponents with as much knowledge of your agreements as partner has. > That means fully and completely describing what you do know -- "the > area around the holes" -- thus giving partner and opponents the same > chance to work out the intended meaning of the call, as in the > perfectly ordinary, and entirely legal, scenario offered by Alain > earlier. > But after working it out you do know what is in the holes. Take Alain's 3Di example. Both he and his partner knew he was showing 4414. OK, they had never talked about this before, but are you really allowing him to keep this information from his opponents? Simply based on his saying "we never talked about this"? > Isn't this the same tired old argument that you should disclose your > guess as to partner's thought processes instead of the truth about > your actual agreements? > No, because here we are not talking about guesses. We are talking about certainties. As to when a certainty descends into a guess, I'm not certain, which is why I won't let Alain off the hook if he tells me "I only guessed I was showing 4414", and his partner guesses the same. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 19:13:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:13:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47F661D2.6010706@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > But after working it out you do know what is in the holes. Take > Alain's 3Di example. Both he and his partner knew he was showing 4414. > OK, they had never talked about this before, but are you really > allowing him to keep this information from his opponents? Simply based > on his saying "we never talked about this"? > > Who said we didn't explain ? You're interpreting things once more. But the disclosure was given "under all due reservations" because there was no sure thing. Surely nobody will call "agreement" something that was never agreed upon, or my sense of etymology has let me down. Remember, this example was not given to say one shouldn't explain, only to say that it was quite possible to know / guess *without* any agreement. > No, because here we are not talking about guesses. We are talking > about certainties. I'm sorry, Sir. I have to inform you that there was no certainty at all. > As to when a certainty descends into a guess, I'm > not certain, which is why I won't let Alain off the hook if he tells > me "I only guessed I was showing 4414", and his partner guesses the same. > We guessed. We explained our guess. We said it was uncertain. What Law did we infringe, that will make you "not let us off the hook" ? Remember, you need an infraction to penalize somebody. Herman, I'm afraid you too often place your conception of the game above what is written in the Laws, and your personal interpretations of what happened above the facts that are given to you. I can't agree, especially in this case where I know what happened. From la7sg at nrrl.no Sat Apr 5 08:27:06 2008 From: la7sg at nrrl.no (LA7SG) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:27:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <47F62831.2060301@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F5F325.4090003@ulb.ac.be> <001001c8963e$c2fb5890$48f209b0$@no> <47F62831.2060301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c896e6$119b1600$34d14200$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > Except for calling attention to dummy's rights and limitations in 1997 Law > 9A2(b)2 the entire Law 9 addressed irregularities that had already occurred, not > the legality (or illegality) of trying to prevent an irregularity. > > > Without launching into long and abstruse considerations about aspectual > theory, I fail to see why. In my (admittedly French) version, L9A1 only > speaks of "an irregularity happening during the auction", not "having > happened". This includes IMHO, e.g. the fact of stopping partner from > plunging his hand into his bidding box. For the record, the English text is: L9A1: Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call. And L9A2(b)2: Dummy may attempt to prevent declarer from committing an irregularity. An irregularity is not an irregularity until it is committed, thus the difference between these two laws. Anyway, this will be water under the bridge once we apply the 2007 laws. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 5 11:47:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 11:47:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F661D2.6010706@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <47F661D2.6010706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47F74ABE.4000000@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> But after working it out you do know what is in the holes. Take >> Alain's 3Di example. Both he and his partner knew he was showing 4414. >> OK, they had never talked about this before, but are you really >> allowing him to keep this information from his opponents? Simply based >> on his saying "we never talked about this"? >> >> > Who said we didn't explain ? You're interpreting things once more. Sorry Alain, you misunderstand. of course you should have explained, and I trust you did. I was replying to Eric, who said this was not "system". So I asked him (rhetorically) if he would accept that this were not explained to the opponents. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. > But the disclosure was given "under all due reservations" because there > was no sure thing. > > Surely nobody will call "agreement" something that was never agreed > upon, or my sense of etymology has let me down. > > Remember, this example was not given to say one shouldn't explain, only > to say that it was quite possible to know / guess *without* any agreement. > >> No, because here we are not talking about guesses. We are talking >> about certainties. > > I'm sorry, Sir. I have to inform you that there was no certainty at all. > >> As to when a certainty descends into a guess, I'm >> not certain, which is why I won't let Alain off the hook if he tells >> me "I only guessed I was showing 4414", and his partner guesses the same. >> > We guessed. We explained our guess. We said it was uncertain. What Law > did we infringe, that will make you "not let us off the hook" ? > Remember, you need an infraction to penalize somebody. > > Herman, I'm afraid you too often place your conception of the game above > what is written in the Laws, and your personal interpretations of what > happened above the facts that are given to you. > I can't agree, especially in this case where I know what happened. > Alain, you explained it - why then are you criticizing me for saying that you should explain it? OK, maybe you were in a situation where the laws did not explicitely tell you that it should have been explained. But what would have happened if you hadn't explained it? You would have bid 3Di (apparently supporting you partner's part-natural 2Di) on a singleton diamond. Your partner would have guessed at the meaning, and selected the correct contract (his own second suit, knowing you'd have a fit there). Neither of you would have explained that you'd have a singleton diamond, and yet both of you knew (or at least suspected) it. And then the opponents complain and the Director is called. You explain to him that you'd never talked about this sequence. What is the TD to do? Trust you and accept your story? Or say "at least you could have told the opponents of your guess, so I'm going to rule MI". So maybe the laws do not say you should have explained, but the TD will rule as if you have an agreement anyway - so are you not better off explaining it? It's all good and well to say that only firm agreements have to be explained, but how are you going to prove that a particular agreement (that you seem to have) is not "firm". Which is why I give the advice to also explain "guesses". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 15:03:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:03:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F613A6.5090502@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> <47F600AF.8020607@ulb.ac.be> <47F613A6.5090502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47F62730.8000007@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Let's not toy with the words agreement and system. > Are the opponents entitled to know it? > The it forms part of the "partnership agreements" (is that the word in > the 2007 laws?) > I was using the word "system" as a shorthand synonym. > > But that's where I beg to differ. When two players sit facing eachother for the first time, they have a common system even if they didn't discuss anything. But they haven't any agreements. It makes two to tango, er, agree. > I believe that the things you describe form part of the "partnership > agreements". > Something that hasn't ever be discussed can't be agreed upon /a fortiori. /Now if you tell me that agreements aren't things that were agreed (because there is a technical definition) and that I'm playing on words, so be it, but we'd rather be wary about such a confusion in the mind of the player in the street. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080404/e6c383c9/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 4 16:38:27 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:38:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > But that is not the point. > The point is that, if they happen to come up against a hand that is, > at present, within a hole, and they expand their system at the table, > and both partners understand what is happening because they know the > area around the holes, then to all intents and purposes there was no > hole in the first place! > Yes, but that's not the case we're speaking of. Player A showed a singleton, while he didn't have one, because he wanted to get into a forcing auction. Player B, his partner, explained the bid showed a singleton. Nobody ever said that player B understood player A's problem (apparently, he didn't, since he explained the system /sricto sensu/). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080404/a387c67e/attachment.htm From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Apr 4 20:14:25 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:14:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F661D2.6010706@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <47F661D2.6010706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0804041114i1934309dl3f038772bef13cd8@mail.gmail.com> [Alain] Surely nobody will call "agreement" something that was never agreed upon, or my sense of etymology has let me down. [Jerry] On the contrary, if I know my partner's tendencies, regardless of no agreement by me, it must be disclosed. And if the logic of the situation makes a meaning clear based on everything else we have in place, it is called our bridge agreement even though never agreed upon. You're supposed to understand agreement in the context of its bridge definition rather than use a dictionary or common sense. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080404/7cb6f10a/attachment.htm From jpgss at uq.net.au Fri Apr 4 22:44:21 2008 From: jpgss at uq.net.au (Jan Peach) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 06:44:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 References: <200804011521.m31FLEJQ029740@cfa.harvard.edu> <47F590E6.9060308@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002301c89694$c99c9eb0$c1e565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 Snip In the approach I favor, the IBer (and for thet matter, other players but especially IBer's partner) have to be asked for _all_ the reasonable meanings of the IB. No reason that can't be done at the table. The TD should be careful to caution IBer _not_ to reveal specifically what he was thinking but rather to list all the possibilities. Snip Several BLMLers have wondered how rank and file directors will interpret 27B1(b). Into the cooking pot go all the components of all the realistically possible meanings of the IB. From that pot the IBer can select the bits he needs for the new call. Bits left in the pot make the new call more precise. I had wondered whether the discussion about system could be done at thetable. Maybe it needs to be done away from the table to leave partner and the opponents to reach their own conslusions as to what the IB could mean. (Moving a player away from the table isn't always easy to do.) If the IBer does telegraph to the table what he intended his bid to mean then it is simply UI to partner. The director continues with "all realistically possible meanings". As director, I have no interest in what a bid meant, just what it possibly meant. I think allowing a new call that turns out not to satisfy 27B1(b) is a director error not 27D. Some questions about my cooking pot...... Can something that didn't go into the pot be taken out? I note that "more precise" has been interpreted by some to mean fewer possible hand types by showing a longer suit or by adding a suit that wasn't in any of the IB possibilities. If a new suit may be added (and I am not too happy about this), does the hand have to actually have it? May the new call be a psyche? I see he beauty in 27B1(b) as being able to allow auctions to continue normally when there has been a high level insufficient asking bid or insufficient response to an asking bid (and which are the intended bid. Intended bids not intended infractions.) Some sort of auction to 5NT (King Ask) followed by a 5D response. The world and his dog knows the information is "One King". These are the cruel situations under the 1997 laws when the offender is usually left to agonize over the final contract. I'm not at all concerned that 27B1(b) may have few other applications. I don't believe the director should approve the choice of sufficient call. Having fully explained the requirements of 27B1(b) (probably several times) do I rectify an unsuitable call under 27B2 or 27B3? Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080405/82ee5ab5/attachment.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 5 12:52:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 11:52:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003a01c8970b$42f38870$e3d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > It is impossible for a pair with a system of such complexity to so completely describe this, that the opponents can come to the conclusion. Ergo, they should explain the conclusion themselves. Since it is impossible for a pair to prove they have not discussed something explicitely, I will rule that implicit agreements are equally disclosable. < And that was the point we were trying to make. Of course we know that no system is hole-proof. But that does not alter the disclosure obligations, which cover both the area around the holes and the holes. > +=+ The bottom line is to be found in Law 40B6(b). When summoned the Director will judge, on the weight of the evidence he is able to collect, whether the player has acted solely on "inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" or whether he has been assisted by exclusive information shared with his partner but not with his opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From sater at xs4all.nl Sat Apr 5 16:22:01 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 16:22:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl> Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The hand of the player forced him under his system to make a false bid of a singleton. He had no choice(other than just shooting slam). In this specific case the players could have known in advance that their system might force them to do this, in any case they had much more chance than their opponents of deducing this. In these circumstances I think the explanation ?singleton?, although made in good faith, is not correct. This pair could have known that it might not be. Their opponents did not. Hans From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: vrijdag 4 april 2008 16:38 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes Herman De Wael a ?crit : But that is not the point. The point is that, if they happen to come up against a hand that is, at present, within a hole, and they expand their system at the table, and both partners understand what is happening because they know the area around the holes, then to all intents and purposes there was no hole in the first place! Yes, but that's not the case we're speaking of. Player A showed a singleton, while he didn't have one, because he wanted to get into a forcing auction. Player B, his partner, explained the bid showed a singleton. Nobody ever said that player B understood player A's problem (apparently, he didn't, since he explained the system sricto sensu). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080405/3ea7e5a9/attachment-0001.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 6 09:02:54 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 08:02:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl> Message-ID: <000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl> <000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "We live in an environment whose > principal product is garbage." > Russell Baker > ('New York Times') > ************************* > +=+ Is it suggested that a player who encounters a situation > that his partnership has not envisaged when devising its methods, > and which it has not previously experienced, is not entitled to > improvise a solution based solely upon bridge knowledge that > is equally available to opponents and to partner? > I do not believe there is anything in the laws that forbids it. > Indeed, I would say that in these circumstances Law 40A3 is > applicable. The learning from this first occasion then enters into > the accumulated partnership experience. The 'could have known' > phrase is a feature of Law 23, a law that is only for consideration > after the Director has established that an irregularity has occurred. > Law 40 questions are absolute - the partnership either has or has > not an agreement (which the Director judges against the criteria in > Laws 40A1(a) and 40B6.) Yes Grattan, but what does that mean in practice. Say a pair invent system "on the spot", and they both conclude correctly what a new call means. The logic with which they arrive at this meaning is impeccable, and both players agree on it. Yet they maintain that they never had this auction at the table before, nor that they have ever discussed it. How are you going, as a Director, be able to accept that statement? They might be correct in not explaining it at the table, but why should they not get treated axactly the same as a pair that forgets to alert? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 6 11:48:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 11:48:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F62730.8000007@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> <47F600AF.8020607@ulb.ac.be> <47F613A6.5090502@skynet.be> <47F62730.8000007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47F89C5F.5070908@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Let's not toy with the words agreement and system. >> Are the opponents entitled to know it? >> The it forms part of the "partnership agreements" (is that the word in >> the 2007 laws?) >> I was using the word "system" as a shorthand synonym. >> >> > But that's where I beg to differ. > > When two players sit facing eachother for the first time, they have a > common system even if they didn't discuss anything. But they haven't any > agreements. It makes two to tango, er, agree. > But then what is an agreement? Suppose we play together, and we discuss lots of things, but not 5-card majors, because we both assume that to start with. You open 1He on the first board, and they ask me "4 or 5-cards?". What am I to say? "we did not agree this". What when they ask: "impossible, you must have some idea". Should I not divulge that we are most certainly playing five-cards? I think that even if we did not say it out loud, we "agreed" on 5-card majors. And anyway, it's not the word agreeing that is important, it's the bridge laws term: "partnership agreement". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 7 00:07:10 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:07:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl><000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c89832$d6c23e20$c0cf403e@Mildred> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "We live in an environment whose >> principal product is garbage." >> Russell Baker >> ('New York Times') >> ************************* >> +=+ Is it suggested that a player who encounters a situation >> that his partnership has not envisaged when devising its methods, >> and which it has not previously experienced, is not entitled to >> improvise a solution based solely upon bridge knowledge that >> is equally available to opponents and to partner? >> I do not believe there is anything in the laws that forbids it. >> Indeed, I would say that in these circumstances Law 40A3 is >> applicable. The learning from this first occasion then enters into >> the accumulated partnership experience. The 'could have known' >> phrase is a feature of Law 23, a law that is only for consideration >> after the Director has established that an irregularity has occurred. >> Law 40 questions are absolute - the partnership either has or has >> not an agreement (which the Director judges against the criteria in >> Laws 40A1(a) and 40B6.) > > Yes Grattan, but what does that mean in practice. Say a pair invent > system "on the spot", and they both conclude correctly what a new call > means. The logic with which they arrive at this meaning is impeccable, > and both players agree on it. Yet they maintain that they never had > this auction at the table before, nor that they have ever discussed > it. How are you going, as a Director, be able to accept that > statement? They might be correct in not explaining it at the table, > but why should they not get treated axactly the same as a pair that > forgets to alert? > > +=+ If Law 40A3 applies an alert is not required, nor is any prior announcement. Furthermore, see Law 40B6, he is not required to disclose any inference he has made based on his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. It is for the Director to decide whether such law applies to the facts as he has determined them to be on the balance of probability. ~ G ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Apr 7 01:01:07 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:01:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes Message-ID: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > When two players sit facing eachother for the first time, they have a > common system even if they didn't discuss anything. But they haven't any > agreements. It makes two to tango, er, agree. L75C (1997 version) requires disclosure of "information conveyed to him through partnership agreement." This is rather more than just the agreements themselves. > Something that hasn't ever be discussed can't be agreed upon /a > fortiori. Oh, come on, Alain. There are implicit agreements. Suppose you and I sit down together 10 seconds before game time and say "5cM, weak NT, OK?" And on the first board, our unopposed auction goes 1C-1H-1NT. Do you really think "undiscussed" is enough? We both know this 1NT won't be 12-14 balanced! In the ACBL, it would require an alert. In the original example case, both players realized that as a result of other agreements, the 3D bid had to show a specific hand type, despite having no prior discussion of the exact sequence. Do you really think the opponents are not entitled to know the same thing? And as Herman said, when two partners bid as though they are in agreement, in practice a TD is virtually certain to rule that an agreement exists. (Herman often writes a bit carelessly, but I don't think I've ever seen him fundamentally and demonstrably wrong.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 7 01:11:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:11:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F89C5F.5070908@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: >But then what is an agreement? Suppose we play together, and we >discuss lots of things, but not 5-card majors, because we both >assume that to start with. You open 1He on the first board, and >they ask me "4 or 5-cards?". What am I to say? "we did not >agree this". Richard Hills answers: Yes. 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 jrmayne at mindspring.com Mon Apr 7 02:13:15 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 20:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <23443147.1207527195846.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 7:11 PM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Herman De Wael asked: > >>But then what is an agreement? Suppose we play together, and we >>discuss lots of things, but not 5-card majors, because we both >>assume that to start with. You open 1He on the first board, and >>they ask me "4 or 5-cards?". What am I to say? "we did not >>agree this". > >Richard Hills answers: > >Yes. Alternatively, no. In the US, 4-card majors are unpopular; even my 4.8-card majory style is considered some sort of heresy. (Many experts play 4-ish-card majors in third and fourth seat, but they are widely outnumbered.) If I sat across someone for whom I knew only "From San Diego, California," and we agreed on strong NT's, 4-suit transfers, aggressive preempts, support, maximal, and responsive doubles.... we'd both assume we were playing a 5-card major system. The correct answer is, "We didn't explicitly discuss it, but our other agreements are consistent with a 2/1 framework, which is a 5-card major system." Or: "We agreed standard, which I assume is five-card majors." If we've had enough of a discussion to have inferential understandings - and I'm sure taking his bid as a five-card major, even if I might fudge in the same situation - we've got to show those. The best example I've come up with is I sit across from Experienced Very Good 40-year-old US Player. We agree on 2/1ish with my style of preempts and a few other things. We start off with on hand 1: 1D-1H 1S-1N 3C-4H We have no agreement on this auction. But, I know my partner is EVG40YOUSP, and I can take an inference that my opponents might not. The "logical" meaning of 4H might be apparent to you - and I will be quite confident as to its meaning, so confident I would make the same 4H bid with the right hand - but I am making an inference based on the quality of my partner. My opponents deserve to be on the same standing. If we are from the same area and all know each other, "No agreement," might be sufficient. But if they are Uzbekhi visitors or rookies, they deserve a proper explanation of 4H. "No agreement," is seldom a good idea. There are situations where it's right, but if we assume 5-card majors, we should tell 'em. And if you both know what 4H means in the above auction, why keep it secret? --JRM From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 7 02:22:04 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:22:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl> <000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47F9692C.5030709@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Is it suggested that a player who encounters a situation that his partnership has not envisaged when devising its methods, and which it has not previously experienced, is not entitled to improvise a solution based solely upon bridge knowledge that is equally available to opponents and to partner? I do not believe there is anything in the laws that forbids it. [Nigel] As expected, Grattan is right in law. Nevertheless, I agree with Herman de Wael that these inferences should be divulged. I go further than Herman. IMO. - There should be a law that forbids prevarication. - The "bridge knowledge" get-out should be expunged. Some systems are like icebergs -- with many inferences hidden below the surface. Also, in any system, there are many points - - *implicit* in the system but derivable by logic - never before met or discussed. Some BLMLers disingenuously argue that these inferences are equally available to opponents. That may be literally true. But we all know, that it is easier for a pair to make a valid deduction from *familiar* facts than from the same information on a *strange* system card. Also the deductions may be reached by familiar lines of reasoning, in accord with a shared philosophy, used in discussed agreements. This travesty of justice would be mitigated, if the law-book explicitly recommended some variant of the Sven Pran question. "What do your partner's calls systemically tell you about his hand". Now at least, an explainer would be expected to winnow out those facts and agreements that would allow his opponent to painfully reach the same conclusiion, at which the explainer and his partner had already effortlessly arrived. The opponent would still be at a disadvantage but now he would have a fighting chance. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 7 02:34:01 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:34:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F96BF9.9070300@NTLworld.com> [Herman de Wael] But then what is an agreement? Suppose we play together, and we discuss lots of things, but not 5-card majors, because we both assume that to start with. You open 1He on the first board, and they ask me "4 or 5-cards?". What am I to say? "we did not agree this". [Richard Hills] Yes. [nigel] Assuming that the strength is also undiscussed, what would Richard reply to an opponent, who asked "5-30 HCP?" From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 7 02:58:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:58:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <23443147.1207527195846.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: John R. Mayne: >"No agreement," is seldom a good idea. Richard Hills: I agree. But "seldom" is not synonymous with "never". John R. Mayne: >There are situations where it's right, but if we >assume 5-card majors, we should tell 'em. 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. Richard Hills: If two Americans are playing for the first time in America, they have a *mutual* experience that five- card majors is the default, so have an implicit agreement that they are playing five-card majors. If two Scots are playing for the first time in Scotland, they have a *mutual* experience that four- card majors is the default, so have an implicit agreement that they are playing four-card majors. But if two Ruritanians are playing for the first time in Ruritania (which country is split 50-50 between acolytes of four-card majors, and stalagmites of five-card majors), then there is no *mutual* experience. If those two Ruritanians then *assume* they are playing five-card majors on the first deal, that is a *guess*, not yet a partnership understanding. (Of course, *after* the assumption has been validated, *then* they have an understanding from the second deal onwards.) Summary: A *unilateral* guess (even if correct) is not a *mutual* partnership understanding. But an implicit partnership understanding means that "no agreement" is incorrect, since now the player has an *informed* non-guess. 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 Apr 7 03:14:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:14:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F96BF9.9070300@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>>You open 1He on the first board, and they ask me "4 or >>>5-cards?". What am I to say? "we did not agree this". Richard Hills: >>Yes. Nigel Guthrie: >Assuming that the strength is also undiscussed, what >would Richard reply to an opponent, who asked "5-30 HCP?" Richard Hills: If Herman De Wael was my partner, I would reply that we have an implicit understanding that his third-seat 1H opening could be 3 cards and zero hcp. 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 Apr 7 04:06:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:06:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >never be so bold as to claim that even their >system is "without holes". Richard Hills: My system (notes emailed on request) contains some deliberate holes, with some calls explicitly agreed as non-systemic. For example, if the auction starts: Me Pard 1NT 2C 2H a rebid of 2S by pard is non-systemic. Yet on one occasion pard did call 2S. Did this cause us to have an implicit understanding after the deal? Not exactly; partner had intended to rebid a systemic 2NT, but had accidentally pulled the wrong card from the bidding box. 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 Apr 7 04:11:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:11:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] on warning partner not to lead out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >[L9A3]. As to whether the authors of the 2007 laws >considered this a substantive change or a clarification >of prior intent, you'll have to ask them. Richard Hills: Perhaps a substantive change clarifying prior intent? :-) 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 Apr 7 04:35:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:35:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F63F66.3000803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >...Let me give another example : if you're allowed, in your system, >to open 1NT on, say, 2326 pattern... >... >...He will be careful not to say "3325", and clever opponents will >be wary of deducing 3325... >... >...you don't have any way in your system to pattern out 2326. So >what ? If a TD penalized me for that, I would be a bit confused. Richard Hills: I am a bit confused. Perhaps I have misinterpreted Alain's intended point. But if he refused to fully explain negative inferences to "stupid" opponents, then as TD I would fine him a Law 90 procedural penalty, in addition to adjusting the score if the defenders were damaged. 2007 Law 40B6(a): "...a player shall disclose ***all*** special information conveyed to him through partnership 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 Mon Apr 7 04:55:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:55:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>And as Herman said, when two partners bid as though they are in >>agreement, in practice a TD is virtually certain to rule that an >>agreement exists. (Herman often writes a bit carelessly, but I >>don't think I've ever seen him fundamentally and demonstrably >>wrong.) Eric Landau: >Isn't this the same tired old argument that you should disclose >your guess as to partner's thought processes instead of the truth >about your actual agreements? Richard Hills: Yes, I agree with Eric Landau that Steve Willner is fundamentally and demonstrably wrong. In practice a competent TD is not virtually certain to arbitrarily apply the Rule of Coincidence. And in practice most players are not virtually certain to have concealed partnership understandings. Every Wednesday at the South Canberra Bridge Club I see opponents bidding with no agreement. Most of the time they have a debacle, +190 or -800, but some of the time they guess luckily. 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 Mon Apr 7 05:27:18 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:27:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0804041114i1934309dl3f038772bef13cd8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>Surely nobody will call "agreement" something that was never >>agreed upon, or my sense of etymology has let me down. Jerry Fusselman: >On the contrary, if I know my partner's tendencies, regardless >of no agreement by me, it must be disclosed. And if the logic >of the situation makes a meaning clear based on everything >else we have in place, it is called our bridge agreement even >though never agreed upon. You're supposed to understand >agreement in the context of its bridge definition rather than >use a dictionary or common sense. Richard Hills: I am in agreement with Jerry's non-dictionary uncommon sense definition of a bridge agreement. Note that to avoid semantic quibbles the 2007 Law 40 almost always eschews the word "agreements", instead using the term "partnership understandings" - which is carefully defined in the 2007 Law 40A1(a), thus leaving no wriggle room for etymologists. 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 Mon Apr 7 06:14:20 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 05:14:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c89865$dae18230$90a48690$@com> [RH] My system (notes emailed on request) contains some deliberate holes, with some calls explicitly agreed as non-systemic. For example, if the auction starts: Me Pard 1NT 2C 2H a rebid of 2S by pard is non-systemic. [DALB] I would like to put in a request for these system notes. Not that I want to play the system, but as long-time coach to British teams I have amused myself by compiling a private list of the Worst Methods in the World. That 2S has *no* systemic meaning in the (fairly common) auction above strikes me as so staggeringly bad as to be wholly outside the realms not only of what I have experienced, but of what I could imagine. Which is, perhaps, only to make Richard's point. If his partner bid this non-existent 2S, what would Herman have Richard say by way of explanation? David Burn London, England From jrmayne at mindspring.com Mon Apr 7 06:32:28 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:32:28 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <26725631.1207542748817.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: David Burn >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 9:14 PM >To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >[RH] > >My system (notes emailed on request) contains some deliberate holes, with >some calls explicitly agreed as non-systemic. > >For example, if the auction starts: > >Me Pard >1NT 2C >2H > >a rebid of 2S by pard is non-systemic. > >[DALB] > >I would like to put in a request for these system notes. Not that I want to >play the system, but as long-time coach to British teams I have amused >myself by compiling a private list of the Worst Methods in the World. That >2S has *no* systemic meaning in the (fairly common) auction above strikes me >as so staggeringly bad as to be wholly outside the realms not only of what I >have experienced, but of what I could imagine. > >Which is, perhaps, only to make Richard's point. If his partner bid this >non-existent 2S, what would Herman have Richard say by way of explanation? I don't know what Herman would say, but I'd say, "Non-systemic. She is not supposed to bid like this; we have affirmatively agreed not to bid this way." This is much, much easier than most of the no-agreement discussions. --JRM From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 7 07:12:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:12:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c89865$dae18230$90a48690$@com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: Another example of my Symmetric Relay system: Dealer Responder 1C 1S 2C = no systemic meaning David Burn: >...*no* systemic meaning in the (fairly common) auction >above strikes me as so staggeringly bad as to be wholly >outside the realms not only of what I have experienced, >but of what I could imagine... Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816): "The Right Honourable gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests, and to his imagination for his facts." Richard Hills: The secret of the (fairly common) auction above is -> Dealer Responder 1C = 15+ hcp 1S = 4+ spades, 8+ hcp 1NT = relay, tell me more Since responder is unlimited, it is breaking the relay with a 2C bid which is staggeringly bad. (Of course, it could be argued that my relay system is slightly bad, since more sophisticated relay systems use relay breaks as Asking Bids in conjunction with a 4D End Signal. On the other hand, the Symmetric Relay system is much easier to remember than the Ultimate Club system, resulting in many fewer unforced errors.) 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 Apr 7 09:31:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:31:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c89694$c99c9eb0$c1e565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> Message-ID: Jan Peach asked: [snip] >Some questions about my cooking pot...... > >Can something that didn't go into the pot be taken out? I note >that "more precise" has been interpreted by some to mean fewer >possible hand types by showing a longer suit or by adding a >suit that wasn't in any of the IB possibilities. Richard Hills: Welcome to blml, Jan. I hope you find our discussions both enlightening and entertaining. If the insufficient bid showed 4+ hearts, then the replacement call (other things being equal) may show the "more precise" 5+ hearts. But if the insufficient bid showed exactly 4 hearts, then a replacement call which shows 5 hearts does not qualify under the 2008 Law 27B1(b). Of course, it may instead qualify under the 2008 Law 27B1(a). As for adding a suit, the same reasoning applies. If the IB showed hearts but was silent about whether another suit was held, then a replacement call which shows hearts and clubs is "more precise", so (other things being equal) qualifies under the 2008 Law 27B1(b). But if the IB guaranteed a one-suiter in hearts, then a replacement call which promises hearts and clubs fails the 2008 Law 27B1(b) test - although again the replacement call may instead pass the 2008 Law 27B1(a) test. Jan Peach asked: >If a new suit may be added (and I am not too happy about >this), does the hand have to actually have it? May the new >call be a psyche? 2007 Law 40B2(d) "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." Richard Hills: If the replacement call is not an artificial call, then it may be a psyche. If the replacement call is an unrestricted artificial call, then it may be a psyche. But... If a player could have been aware that an insufficient bid followed by a psyche which barred partner could well damage the opponents, then Law 23 applies. 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 hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 10:09:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:09:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <001b01c89832$d6c23e20$c0cf403e@Mildred> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl><000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> <001b01c89832$d6c23e20$c0cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47F9D6A7.1070303@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 10:44 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > > >> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >>> Grattan Endicott>> [following address discontinued: >>> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >>> ************************* >>> "We live in an environment whose >>> principal product is garbage." >>> Russell Baker >>> ('New York Times') >>> ************************* >>> +=+ Is it suggested that a player who encounters a situation >>> that his partnership has not envisaged when devising its methods, >>> and which it has not previously experienced, is not entitled to >>> improvise a solution based solely upon bridge knowledge that >>> is equally available to opponents and to partner? >>> I do not believe there is anything in the laws that forbids it. >>> Indeed, I would say that in these circumstances Law 40A3 is >>> applicable. The learning from this first occasion then enters into >>> the accumulated partnership experience. The 'could have known' >>> phrase is a feature of Law 23, a law that is only for consideration >>> after the Director has established that an irregularity has occurred. >>> Law 40 questions are absolute - the partnership either has or has >>> not an agreement (which the Director judges against the criteria in >>> Laws 40A1(a) and 40B6.) >> Yes Grattan, but what does that mean in practice. Say a pair invent >> system "on the spot", and they both conclude correctly what a new call >> means. The logic with which they arrive at this meaning is impeccable, >> and both players agree on it. Yet they maintain that they never had >> this auction at the table before, nor that they have ever discussed >> it. How are you going, as a Director, be able to accept that >> statement? They might be correct in not explaining it at the table, >> but why should they not get treated axactly the same as a pair that >> forgets to alert? >> >> > +=+ If Law 40A3 applies an alert is not required, nor is any prior > announcement. Furthermore, see Law 40B6, he is not required to > disclose any inference he has made based on his knowledge and > experience of matters generally known to bridge players. It is for > the Director to decide whether such law applies to the facts as he > has determined them to be on the balance of probability. The examples as stated do indeed depend on inferences, but they are inferences from bids not made, and the meaning of those bids in the system they ARE playing. So the caveat about not having to disclose inferences does not apply to these cases. Consider the nice example Alain gave. His partner had bid 2Di, showing diamonds and another. Over this, Alains bids of 3He to (supposedly) 4Cl showed diamond support and a singleton in the suit. Now Alain bid 3Di, and both he and his partner realized that this must have meant diamond singleton and support for the other suit, ergo 4414. You would be right in saying that as an inference, this is not disclosable. But the things the inference is based on, are not common knowledge. So Alain needs to explain to his opponents three things: A) the meaning of the bids 3He to 4Cl; b) the fact that 3Di is undiscussed and non-existant and c) the fact that both players are creative enough to find a sensible meaning for it. From those -disclosable- elements, and opponent could work out that it has to be 4414. However, if the opponent does not work it out, that means it is not "general knowledge" and so Alain should have explained the inference as well. But my main point is that Alain is never going to be able to prove if this was the first time he encountered the bid or not. He is never going to be able to prove that he never discussed this bid. Maybe he once did, five years ago, and they both remembered. So while he's probably telling the truth that they both found it at the table, I am going to rule that it was partnership experience after all. > ~ G ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 10:14:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:14:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F9692C.5030709@NTLworld.com> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl> <000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> <47F9692C.5030709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47F9D7D2.8020800@skynet.be> While I agree with Nigel 100% (well, I'm going to disagree with something, so I'd better make it only 99%), there is one thing he needs to take into account: Guthrie wrote: > > [Nigel] > As expected, Grattan is right in law. Nevertheless, I agree with Herman > de Wael that these inferences should be divulged. I go further than > Herman. IMO. > - There should be a law that forbids prevarication. > - The "bridge knowledge" get-out should be expunged. > If that clause is indeed taken out of the laws, we get players calling the TD saying "he did not tell me ...", when such a thing would be general bridge knowledge under any definition. When I answer "Stayman", I am relying on my opponents knowing the term. I need a law that protects me from their later saying they do not know this, or else I'll be forced to explain everything starting with "an ace being worth 4 points, ...". No Nigel, that clause is needed; but as I said, I agree that it needs to be used with care. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 10:15:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:15:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c89865$dae18230$90a48690$@com> References: <000001c89865$dae18230$90a48690$@com> Message-ID: <47F9D839.3040302@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [RH] > > My system (notes emailed on request) contains some deliberate holes, with > some calls explicitly agreed as non-systemic. > > For example, if the auction starts: > > Me Pard > 1NT 2C > 2H > > a rebid of 2S by pard is non-systemic. > > [DALB] > > I would like to put in a request for these system notes. Not that I want to > play the system, but as long-time coach to British teams I have amused > myself by compiling a private list of the Worst Methods in the World. That > 2S has *no* systemic meaning in the (fairly common) auction above strikes me > as so staggeringly bad as to be wholly outside the realms not only of what I > have experienced, but of what I could imagine. > > Which is, perhaps, only to make Richard's point. If his partner bid this > non-existent 2S, what would Herman have Richard say by way of explanation? > Herman would not accept from Richard that this fairly common call had no meaning, nor that it had never come up before. Surely the meanings of all the other bids are known, so that leaves whatever is left. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 10:18:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:18:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F9D8ED.1080104@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Every Wednesday at the South Canberra Bridge Club I see opponents > bidding with no agreement. Most of the time they have a debacle, > +190 or -800, but some of the time they guess luckily. > > What's the problem? > That as TD you cannot distinguish between a lucky guess and an informed opinion! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 10:25:52 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:25:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F9DA90.7090200@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > John R. Mayne: > >> "No agreement," is seldom a good idea. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree. But "seldom" is not synonymous with "never". > Of course, and many of our "nevers" should be read as "very seldom". > John R. Mayne: > >> There are situations where it's right, but if we >> assume 5-card majors, we should tell 'em. > > 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. > > Richard Hills: > > If two Americans are playing for the first time in > America, they have a *mutual* experience that five- > card majors is the default, so have an implicit > agreement that they are playing five-card majors. > > If two Scots are playing for the first time in > Scotland, they have a *mutual* experience that four- > card majors is the default, so have an implicit > agreement that they are playing four-card majors. > > But if two Ruritanians are playing for the first > time in Ruritania (which country is split 50-50 > between acolytes of four-card majors, and > stalagmites of five-card majors), then there is no > *mutual* experience. If those two Ruritanians > then *assume* they are playing five-card majors on > the first deal, that is a *guess*, not yet a > partnership understanding. (Of course, *after* the > assumption has been validated, *then* they have an > understanding from the second deal onwards.) > > Summary: A *unilateral* guess (even if correct) is > not a *mutual* partnership understanding. But an > implicit partnership understanding means that "no > agreement" is incorrect, since now the player has > an *informed* non-guess. > The problem with that point of view is that you're never going to be able to tell if it was a unilateral guess or something more. You tell us Ruritania is split 50-50 between 4-card and 5-card. Well, I happen to live in a country where that is precisely the case. So if I come to Australia with Alain, I might be abel to get away with "we're from Belgium, a country split 50-50". What I'm not telling you is that Alain is from the South, a semi-country split 99-1 in favour of 5-cards. So if our 2 ruritanians both appear to be playing 5-cards, how do you know they have guessed correctly, or that they realize that one of them comes form Southeastern Ruritania, a region where 5-carders outnumber 4-carders 2-to-1? Or any other inference such as a pass in the previous board? OK? > > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 10:42:33 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:42:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F89C5F.5070908@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> <47F600AF.8020607@ulb.ac.be> <47F613A6.5090502@skynet.be> <47F62730.8000007@ulb.ac.be> <47F89C5F.5070908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47F9DE79.6050403@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > But then what is an agreement? Suppose we play together, and we > discuss lots of things, but not 5-card majors, because we both assume > that to start with. You open 1He on the first board, and they ask me > "4 or 5-cards?". What am I to say? "we did not agree this". What when > they ask: "impossible, you must have some idea". Should I not divulge > that we are most certainly playing five-cards? > > Well, that example is perhaps too enormous to have any chance of happening. But I can give you a good example where I wouldn't like "not to be left off the hook" as you say it. In my team for the 2nd round of the Belgian T4 cup, we had to use a last-minute substitute. He had about 2 minutes to discuss and they began to play. On the first round they played, his partner reopened 1NT over 1D. Opponents wanted to know the strangth of that bid. He said (correctly) that he didn't know. As I understand it, there was no agreement. Now he decided to bash 3NT on a 12-count, because, in teams and vulnerable, when you don't know, you bid it. He was right, since partner held a good 13-count. Apparently, this particular partner's range for 1NT is 12-15, contrary to most Belgian players, who favor 10-13 or even less. Notice that it was more probable that partner used 10-13 than 12-15 as 1NT reopening range. But my teammate decided he couldn't bank on this. Now, some TDs will tell us the player didn't explain correctly, the proof being that he guessed well, so there should ave been some agreement. > I think that even if we did not say it out loud, we "agreed" on 5-card majors. And anyway, it's not the word agreeing that is important, it's the bridge laws term: "partnership agreement". > > OK, now tell me what their agreement was ? And what should he have explained ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 10:46:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:46:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> References: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47F9DF6B.3070603@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> When two players sit facing eachother for the first time, they have a >> common system even if they didn't discuss anything. But they haven't any >> agreements. It makes two to tango, er, agree. >> > > L75C (1997 version) requires disclosure of "information conveyed to him > through partnership agreement." This is rather more than just the > agreements themselves. > > >> Something that hasn't ever be discussed can't be agreed upon /a >> fortiori. >> > > Oh, come on, Alain. There are implicit agreements. Suppose you and I > sit down together 10 seconds before game time and say "5cM, weak NT, > OK?" And on the first board, our unopposed auction goes 1C-1H-1NT. Do > you really think "undiscussed" is enough? Nope; I would call this discussed and agreed upon, at least as concerns lower range. But in your example, the strength of a 2NT opening bid is undiscussed, although bridge logic tells us of an approximative range, so I would answer "undiscussed" and treat it as ca. a 21-count, without any feeling of guilt. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 10:46:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:46:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> References: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47F9DF6B.3070603@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> When two players sit facing eachother for the first time, they have a >> common system even if they didn't discuss anything. But they haven't any >> agreements. It makes two to tango, er, agree. >> > > L75C (1997 version) requires disclosure of "information conveyed to him > through partnership agreement." This is rather more than just the > agreements themselves. > > >> Something that hasn't ever be discussed can't be agreed upon /a >> fortiori. >> > > Oh, come on, Alain. There are implicit agreements. Suppose you and I > sit down together 10 seconds before game time and say "5cM, weak NT, > OK?" And on the first board, our unopposed auction goes 1C-1H-1NT. Do > you really think "undiscussed" is enough? Nope; I would call this discussed and agreed upon, at least as concerns lower range. But in your example, the strength of a 2NT opening bid is undiscussed, although bridge logic tells us of an approximative range, so I would answer "undiscussed" and treat it as ca. a 21-count, without any feeling of guilt. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 10:51:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:51:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > If two Americans are playing for the first time in > America, they have a *mutual* experience that five- > card majors is the default, so have an implicit > agreement that they are playing five-card majors. > > If two Scots are playing for the first time in > Scotland, they have a *mutual* experience that four- > card majors is the default, so have an implicit > agreement that they are playing four-card majors. > > But if two Ruritanians are playing for the first > time in Ruritania (which country is split 50-50 > between acolytes of four-card majors, and > stalagmites of five-card majors), then there is no > *mutual* experience. If those two Ruritanians > then *assume* they are playing five-card majors on > the first deal, that is a *guess*, not yet a > partnership understanding. (Of course, *after* the > assumption has been validated, *then* they have an > understanding from the second deal onwards.) > > AG : And that's why Herman is wrong with his example, since in the area where he's playing both Acol and 5cM are popular, so "no agreement" could be the right answer if your partner was a genuine local stranger. > Summary: A *unilateral* guess (even if correct) is > not a *mutual* partnership understanding. But an > implicit partnership understanding means that "no > agreement" is incorrect, since now the player has > an *informed* non-guess. > > AG : fully agree. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 11:55:28 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:55:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F9DE79.6050403@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> <47F600AF.8020607@ulb.ac.be> <47F613A6.5090502@skynet.be> <47F62730.8000007@ulb.ac.be> <47F89C5F.5070908@skynet.be> <47F9DE79.6050403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47F9EF90.7010703@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> But then what is an agreement? Suppose we play together, and we >> discuss lots of things, but not 5-card majors, because we both assume >> that to start with. You open 1He on the first board, and they ask me >> "4 or 5-cards?". What am I to say? "we did not agree this". What when >> they ask: "impossible, you must have some idea". Should I not divulge >> that we are most certainly playing five-cards? >> >> > Well, that example is perhaps too enormous to have any chance of happening. > But I can give you a good example where I wouldn't like "not to be left > off the hook" as you say it. > > In my team for the 2nd round of the Belgian T4 cup, we had to use a > last-minute substitute. He had about 2 minutes to discuss and they began > to play. > On the first round they played, his partner reopened 1NT over 1D. > Opponents wanted to know the strangth of that bid. He said (correctly) > that he didn't know. As I understand it, there was no agreement. > Now he decided to bash 3NT on a 12-count, because, in teams and > vulnerable, when you don't know, you bid it. He was right, since partner > held a good 13-count. > Apparently, this particular partner's range for 1NT is 12-15, contrary > to most Belgian players, who favor 10-13 or even less. Notice that it > was more probable that partner used 10-13 than 12-15 as 1NT reopening > range. But my teammate decided he couldn't bank on this. > > Now, some TDs will tell us the player didn't explain correctly, the > proof being that he guessed well, so there should ave been some agreement. >> I think that even if we did not say it out loud, we "agreed" on 5-card majors. And anyway, it's not the word agreeing that is important, it's the bridge laws term: "partnership agreement". >> >> > OK, now tell me what their agreement was ? And what should he have > explained ? > But Alain, you are guilty of a logical fallacy. You say that agreements cover only things that are agreed upon. (All X are Y) I tell you that this is not so, because sometimes one can have an agreement that one has not agreed upon (some X are non-Y) You retort by giving an example of a non-agreement. (some non-X are non-Y). I don't need to go on, do I? > > Best regards > > Alain > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 11:59:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:59:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F9DF6B.3070603@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> <47F9DF6B.3070603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47F9F075.9060507@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Steve Willner a ?crit : >>> From: Alain Gottcheiner >>> When two players sit facing eachother for the first time, they have a >>> common system even if they didn't discuss anything. But they haven't any >>> agreements. It makes two to tango, er, agree. >>> >> L75C (1997 version) requires disclosure of "information conveyed to him >> through partnership agreement." This is rather more than just the >> agreements themselves. >> >> >>> Something that hasn't ever be discussed can't be agreed upon /a >>> fortiori. >>> >> Oh, come on, Alain. There are implicit agreements. Suppose you and I >> sit down together 10 seconds before game time and say "5cM, weak NT, >> OK?" And on the first board, our unopposed auction goes 1C-1H-1NT. Do >> you really think "undiscussed" is enough? > > Nope; I would call this discussed and agreed upon, at least as concerns > lower range. > But in your example, the strength of a 2NT opening bid is undiscussed, > although bridge logic tells us of an approximative range, so I would > answer "undiscussed" and treat it as ca. a 21-count, without any feeling > of guilt. > But Alain, "undiscussed" as answer would not be enough, not against some opponents. If this happens in your club, where the opponents know both you and your partner, and their "normal" range for 2NT, "undiscussed" is enough, because it is synonimous to "some range around the 21 mark". But if you are playing together in Australia, the least you can do is tell them you are not playing strong clubs, and even then they will probably not know enough, so you might as well say "some range around the 21 mark". The point being that even without any discussion, you do have an agreement to play 2NT "some range around the 21 mark". > Best regards > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 12:02:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:02:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Richard Hills: >> >> If two Americans are playing for the first time in >> America, they have a *mutual* experience that five- >> card majors is the default, so have an implicit >> agreement that they are playing five-card majors. >> >> If two Scots are playing for the first time in >> Scotland, they have a *mutual* experience that four- >> card majors is the default, so have an implicit >> agreement that they are playing four-card majors. >> >> > But if two Ruritanians are playing for the first >> time in Ruritania (which country is split 50-50 >> between acolytes of four-card majors, and >> stalagmites of five-card majors), then there is no >> *mutual* experience. If those two Ruritanians >> then *assume* they are playing five-card majors on >> the first deal, that is a *guess*, not yet a >> partnership understanding. (Of course, *after* the >> assumption has been validated, *then* they have an >> understanding from the second deal onwards.) >> >> > AG : And that's why Herman is wrong with his example, since in the area > where he's playing both Acol and 5cM are popular, so "no agreement" > could be the right answer if your partner was a genuine local stranger. > But in the area where you're playing, 5cM is King, so if we are playing together in, say, Lier, "no agreement" could lead the opponents to believe that it could be 4-cards, while both you and I are certain it's 5-cards. OK? The surroundings are all that matters and "no agreement" is only correct if through the surroundings, all four players know what "no agreement" really means. Which is why I say that "no agreement" can NEVER be complete information, although quite often, it will be accepted as such because the opponents know what it encompasses. > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 7 12:28:05 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:28:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c89865$dae18230$90a48690$@com> Message-ID: <004d01c8989d$1fc46070$e3d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I would like to put in a request for these system notes. Not that I want to play the system, but as long-time coach to British teams I have amused myself by compiling a private list of the Worst Methods in the World. That 2S has *no* systemic meaning in the (fairly common) auction above strikes me as so staggeringly bad as to be wholly outside the realms not only of what I have experienced, but of what I could imagine. Which is, perhaps, only to make Richard's point. If his partner bid this non-existent 2S, what would Herman have Richard say by way of explanation? >>> +=+ However, a player who plays a poor method excellently is a better bet than a player who plays an excellent method poorly. (I saved money in Saturday's Grand National by not backing the horse I fancied.) ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 7 12:43:46 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:43:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl><000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be><001b01c89832$d6c23e20$c0cf403e@Mildred> <47F9D6A7.1070303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004e01c8989d$213f67b0$e3d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > > You would be right in saying that as an inference, this is not > disclosable. But the things the inference is based on, are not common > knowledge. So Alain needs to explain to his opponents three things: A) > the meaning of the bids 3He to 4Cl; b) the fact that 3Di is > undiscussed and non-existant and c) the fact that both players are > creative enough to find a sensible meaning for it. ........................................................................................................... +=+ Up to this point, Herman, you were doing very well. All relevant matters of prior partnership understandings and experience are to be disclosed. And then, Herman, you overstretched with this: ............................................................................................................. > From those - disclosable- elements opponent could work out that > it has to be 4414. However, if the opponent does not work it out, that > means it is not "general knowledge" and so Alain should have explained > the inference as well. > +=+ If the opponent has been given all the ingredients we do not have to bake his cake for him. It does not mean the opponent lacks the 'general knowledge' - it means that there is a difference in the skills of the opponent by comparison with the player and his partner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Apr 7 14:16:04 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:16:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] 6clubs In-Reply-To: <47F530AB.8010903@NTLworld.com> References: <47F50D1F.6090503@cs.elte.hu> <47F530AB.8010903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: The opps didnt try for a major fit - so its reasonable to assume they are fairly balanced in this area. This is supported by no diamond raise or sacrifice by pd - suggesting the opps will have some stuff in diamonds strength wise and not distributional wise. If pd had a diamond void or maybe a singleton - might have doubled. Not leading a spade - could so easily blow a trick. DA and another has some merit. Heart has none trapping any holdings pd has. A trump is unlikely to cost as you've advertised trump shortage with the pre-empt. So club is my lead or 2nd choice DA. Not leading a major. Slow 5C doesnt effect my lead though it may well get a TD call should the 5D bid be close. K. On 4/3/08, Guthrie wrote: > [Laszlo Hegedus] > KO Teams. Both. RHO deals S:K94 H:53 D:AT98764 C:2 > opps' system: NAT, weak NT > 1C-3D-4C-p > 5C*-p-5D-p > 6C/// > 5C was slow, 5D is rkc, 6C is 2+Q > Which card do you lead? Which other card do you consider leading? > > [Nigel] > IMO without LHO's hesitation: > S2 = 10, DA = 6, C2 = 4, H5 = 1. > But after the hesitation it is much harder. Perhaps: > H5 = 10, C2 = 8 DA = 6, S4 = 4 > > Why the difference? Well from a player's point of view, this is an > excellent problem :) You may suffer badly if you just reflexly snap out > your normal lead :( > > The *good* news is the director may consider adjusting a successful 6C > to 5C+1 :) It is possible that for LHO, pass was a logical alternative > to 5D. And that 6C was suggested over pass by RHO's tank. So it looks > like you may get two bites at the cherry :) > > What's the problem? > > The *bad* news is that there is usually in force a *completely mad* > regulation: if the director judges your action to be *wild and > gambling*, he may deprive you of redress! :( :( :( > > Hence, rather than go hell for leather and try to defeat the contract, > you may instead try to get inside the director's head and make sure that > your lead is safe and orthodox *in the director's opinion*. > > The *really bad* news is that sometimes > - Your "wild and gambling" lead would have defeated the contract but > - Your guess at a safe "director's choice" lets the contract home and > - it transpires that pass was not a logical alternative for LHO. > > Then you have just lost a vulnerable slam because of another > *sophisticated*, *unnecessary*, and *insane* rule. :( > > Such are the vicissitudes of Bridge :) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 7 14:18:46 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:18:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F9D7D2.8020800@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl> <000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> <47F9692C.5030709@NTLworld.com> <47F9D7D2.8020800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FA1126.8020109@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] While I agree with Nigel 100% (well, I'm going to disagree with something, so I'd better make it only 99%), there is one thing he needs to take into account: If that clause ["bridge knowledge"] is indeed taken out of the laws, we get players calling the TD saying "he did not tell me ...", when such a thing would be general bridge knowledge under any definition. When I answer "Stayman", I am relying on my opponents knowing the term. I need a law that protects me from their later saying they do not know this, or else I'll be forced to explain everything starting with "an ace being worth 4 points, ...". No Nigel, that clause is needed; but as I said, I agree that it needs to be used with care. [nigel] Thank you Herman. Over this 1%, we must to agree to disagree. Take your example. If your explanation is correct, but your opponent does not understand it because you use *any* term (not just a *Bridge* term) that he does not understand, IMO, he is entitled to further elucidation. In particular, if an opponent says he not understand what "Stayman" means in a given bidding context, then, whatever the law says, IMO you are morally obliged to explain it. I find it hard to imagine any problem that might arise if that rationalisation for prevarication were removed from the laws. From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 7 14:31:42 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:31:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be><47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005a01c898ab$55e8d150$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes >> holes and the holes. > > So by this logic, no partnership will ever be capable of giving > proper full disclosure in all circumstances, and any time you claim > no agreement it becomes de facto illegal to work out partner's > intention correctly. The objective of full disclosure is to provide > opponents with as much knowledge of your agreements as partner has. > That means fully and completely describing what you do know -- "the > area around the holes" -- thus giving partner and opponents the same > chance to work out the intended meaning of the call, as in the > perfectly ordinary, and entirely legal, scenario offered by Alain > earlier. > > Isn't this the same tired old argument that you should disclose your > guess as to partner's thought processes instead of the truth about > your actual agreements? > With the one partner I've actually managed to keep over the last 20 years, we have a definitive list of our agreements. All things which have occurred, or have been discussed have been written down. let's say it's about 100 pages long; 5K lines of agreed sequences, continuations and meta-agreements. About once every 20 boards I am compelled to add to it :) Indeed I had to add something about the 4th bid in a specific non-contested acution recently, and responding 4N to a strong 1C had never been discussed or written down either when it came up (It had to be trad. bkwd, btw). I claim no special credit for our system which by any standard of measurement is well documented and complete. I would not expect a TD to rule CPU or implicit agreement, even though we are capable of guessing (and it is a guess) what partner is up to when he departs from agreement, simply by knowledge of the calls NOT made. I am seriously perturbed at the attitude of the "if it ain't what's promised it's illegal" school. cheers John > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 7 14:34:27 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:34:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> snip >> >> So by this logic, no partnership will ever be capable of giving >> proper full disclosure in all circumstances, and any time you claim >> no agreement it becomes de facto illegal to work out partner's >> intention correctly. "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I give no guarantee" John > > As to the first, of course you can. If two players are on the same > wavelength, they can inform their opponents of this, no? You would > prefer them to say "no agreement" and then accept that as literal truth? > As to the second, you are turning things around. It is not illegal to > work out partner's intention after saying "no agreement", it is > illegal to say "no agreement" after you've worked out partner's intention. > >> The objective of full disclosure is to provide >> opponents with as much knowledge of your agreements as partner has. >> That means fully and completely describing what you do know -- "the >> area around the holes" -- thus giving partner and opponents the same >> chance to work out the intended meaning of the call, as in the >> perfectly ordinary, and entirely legal, scenario offered by Alain >> earlier. >> > > But after working it out you do know what is in the holes. Take > Alain's 3Di example. Both he and his partner knew he was showing 4414. > OK, they had never talked about this before, but are you really > allowing him to keep this information from his opponents? Simply based > on his saying "we never talked about this"? > >> Isn't this the same tired old argument that you should disclose your >> guess as to partner's thought processes instead of the truth about >> your actual agreements? >> > > No, because here we are not talking about guesses. We are talking > about certainties. As to when a certainty descends into a guess, I'm > not certain, which is why I won't let Alain off the hook if he tells > me "I only guessed I was showing 4414", and his partner guesses the same. > see above. >> >> Eric Landau > > > -- > 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 Mon Apr 7 14:43:16 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:43:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F9EF90.7010703@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F5EC36.2000405@ulb.ac.be> <47F5F47C.3060305@skynet.be> <47F600AF.8020607@ulb.ac.be> <47F613A6.5090502@skynet.be> <47F62730.8000007@ulb.ac.be> <47F89C5F.5070908@skynet.be> <47F9DE79.6050403@ulb.ac.be> <47F9EF90.7010703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FA16E4.5080900@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > But Alain, you are guilty of a logical fallacy. > > You say that agreements cover only things that are agreed upon. (All X > are Y) > I tell you that this is not so, because sometimes one can have an > agreement that one has not agreed upon (some X are non-Y) > You retort by giving an example of a non-agreement. (some non-X are > non-Y). > > I'l sorry, Sir. You create the fallacy ex nihilo.by equating "discussed" with "agreed". I never claimed that agreement = discussed. I claim that agreement = agreed upon, through discussion, or :general style, or "local style" (like your 5cM example) , or as a logical consequence of what was discussed (the 1NT rebid example). All those are agreed upon, even if not discussed. Those are our agreements. But what you call "not agreed" is in fact agreed upon by some means. And above all, I claimed that when there isn't any agreement, there is still a nonzero probability of getting it right, so that it penaluizing only on the basis of guessing right is perverse. To put it another way : the fact of sitting in front of a player you know a bit, even if you didn't play with him, and of NOT discussing some point, may well have as a consequence that you've agreed to lpay the "default", as the Bridge World puts it. I claim that there can exist only 2 cases : 1. Agreed, possuibly by default : an agreement 2. Not agreed by any means : unduscussed. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 14:45:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:45:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > But in the area where you're playing, 5cM is King, so if we are > playing together in, say, Lier, "no agreement" could lead the > opponents to believe that it could be 4-cards, while both you and I > are certain it's 5-cards. OK? > Nope. If I was playing in Lier, I wouldn't assume 5-card majors. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 14:48:26 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:48:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <005a01c898ab$55e8d150$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be><47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <005a01c898ab$55e8d150$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47FA181A.9040404@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 4:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > > > >>> holes and the holes. >>> >> So by this logic, no partnership will ever be capable of giving >> proper full disclosure in all circumstances, and any time you claim >> no agreement it becomes de facto illegal to work out partner's >> intention correctly. The objective of full disclosure is to provide >> opponents with as much knowledge of your agreements as partner has. >> That means fully and completely describing what you do know -- "the >> area around the holes" -- thus giving partner and opponents the same >> chance to work out the intended meaning of the call, as in the >> perfectly ordinary, and entirely legal, scenario offered by Alain >> earlier. >> >> Isn't this the same tired old argument that you should disclose your >> guess as to partner's thought processes instead of the truth about >> your actual agreements? >> >> > > With the one partner I've actually managed to keep over the last 20 years, > we have a definitive list of our agreements. All things which have occurred, > or have been discussed have been written down. let's say it's about 100 > pages long; 5K lines of agreed sequences, continuations and meta-agreements. > About once every 20 boards I am compelled to add to it :) Indeed I had to > add something about the 4th bid in a specific non-contested acution > recently, and responding 4N to a strong 1C had never been discussed or > written down either when it came up (It had to be trad. bkwd, btw). This looka like a good example of "not agreed upon, undiscussed, but understandable by anybody", thus perfectly legal. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 14:51:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:51:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > snip > >>> So by this logic, no partnership will ever be capable of giving >>> proper full disclosure in all circumstances, and any time you claim >>> no agreement it becomes de facto illegal to work out partner's >>> intention correctly. >>> > > "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I give no > guarantee" John > > Well, I'd say "undiscussed" rather than "no agreement", because a meta-agreement is an agreement, but this will indeed be fairly common. >> As to the first, of course you can. If two players are on the same >> wavelength, they can inform their opponents of this, no? You would >> prefer them to say "no agreement" and then accept that as literal truth? >> As to the second, you are turning things around. It is not illegal to >> work out partner's intention after saying "no agreement", it is >> illegal to say "no agreement" after you've worked out partner's intention. >> >> But some would like to disallow the former too. And I don't like this. From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 7 15:07:10 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:07:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be><47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <005a01c898ab$55e8d150$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA181A.9040404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c898b0$4a3fcb60$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 4:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > > > >>> holes and the holes. >>> >> So by this logic, no partnership will ever be capable of giving >> proper full disclosure in all circumstances, and any time you claim >> no agreement it becomes de facto illegal to work out partner's >> intention correctly. The objective of full disclosure is to provide >> opponents with as much knowledge of your agreements as partner has. >> That means fully and completely describing what you do know -- "the >> area around the holes" -- thus giving partner and opponents the same >> chance to work out the intended meaning of the call, as in the >> perfectly ordinary, and entirely legal, scenario offered by Alain >> earlier. >> >> Isn't this the same tired old argument that you should disclose your >> guess as to partner's thought processes instead of the truth about >> your actual agreements? >> >> > > With the one partner I've actually managed to keep over the last 20 years, > we have a definitive list of our agreements. All things which have > occurred, > or have been discussed have been written down. let's say it's about 100 > pages long; 5K lines of agreed sequences, continuations and > meta-agreements. > About once every 20 boards I am compelled to add to it :) Indeed I had to > add something about the 4th bid in a specific non-contested acution > recently, and responding 4N to a strong 1C had never been discussed or > written down either when it came up (It had to be trad. bkwd, btw). This looka like a good example of "not agreed upon, undiscussed, but understandable by anybody", thus perfectly legal. There were possibilities that it was a =3352 14-16 hand, some meta-agreements would point to this, but there is an 8 bid sequence that would also probably show this hand and also covered by meta-agreements. When your system agreements are complex it is actually more difficult to decide whether an "obvious" but unagreed bid is actually "obvious". Our style (also an agreement) is that we don't crucify partner with an undiscussed bid if there's a way round it, so bkwd seemed the obvious choice, but I tell you I wasn't certain. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 15:31:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:31:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <002301c89694$c99c9eb0$c1e565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> References: <200804011521.m31FLEJQ029740@cfa.harvard.edu> <47F590E6.9060308@nhcc.net> <002301c89694$c99c9eb0$c1e565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> Message-ID: On Apr 4, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Jan Peach wrote: > If a new suit may be added (and I am not too happy about this), > does the hand have to actually have it? May the new call be a psyche? There's no reason why it couldn't be. Whether a particular replacement call is "allowed" under L27B1 or is subject to penalty under L27B2 is strictly a function of what the call *means*. Nothing in L27 states or suggests any requirement with respect to what the player selecting the RC actually holds. Whether an outright psych would be a potentially useful tactic after an IB is dubious. But it is apparent that an IBer might be well- advised to choose an RC that distorts his actual holding somewhat, albeit short of the "gross distortion" that constitutes a psych, but meets the requirements of L27B1, over a perfectly descriptive "systemic" RC that would bar his partner from the auction. It would make no sense for the law to preclude him from doing so, and it doesn't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Apr 7 15:31:36 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:31:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> [AG] >> It is not illegal to >> work out partner's intention after saying "no agreement", it is >> illegal to say "no agreement" after you've worked out partner's intention. But some would like to disallow the former too. And I don't like this. [DALB] I am an old man, and I can remember being set mathematics problems at school that contained the injunction "Show your working". This was, of course, to stop you simply writing down the answer at the back of the book, or cribbing it from a more competent classmate (my mathematics classes contained only these). Similarly, if you "work out partner's intention" at the bridge table, you do so at least in part on the basis of agreements (implicit and explicit) that your partnership has. These must be explained to the opponents. So says the Law, so say John Probst and Grattan Endicott, and so say I. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 16:01:13 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:01:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> References: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <32DA76A1-C3AD-4B03-8C68-2A36E7A42363@starpower.net> On Apr 6, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> When two players sit facing eachother for the first time, they have a >> common system even if they didn't discuss anything. But they >> haven't any >> agreements. It makes two to tango, er, agree. > > L75C (1997 version) requires disclosure of "information conveyed to > him > through partnership agreement." This is rather more than just the > agreements themselves. > >> Something that hasn't ever be discussed can't be agreed upon /a >> fortiori. > > Oh, come on, Alain. There are implicit agreements. Suppose you and I > sit down together 10 seconds before game time and say "5cM, weak NT, > OK?" And on the first board, our unopposed auction goes > 1C-1H-1NT. Do > you really think "undiscussed" is enough? We both know this 1NT won't > be 12-14 balanced! In the ACBL, it would require an alert. Obviously, "undiscussed" is not enough, because the opponents are entitled to knowledge of your relevant partnership agreements. However, "this is our first board together; our only agreements are five-card majors and weak notrumps" is enough, because it fully shares your knowledge of your relevant partnership agreements. > In the original example case, both players realized that as a > result of > other agreements, the 3D bid had to show a specific hand type, despite > having no prior discussion of the exact sequence. Do you really think > the opponents are not entitled to know the same thing? They are entitled to your relevant partnership agreements. If you decide that 3D "had to" have a specific meaning, absent an agreement, "as a result of other [sic] agreements", you are obligated to disclose those agreements in full. If you have done that properly, either the meaning 3D "had to" have will be manifestly deducible (full disclosure does not require explaining how to apply deductive logic to draw conclusions), or, if they come to some other conclusion than yours, you will have no reason to assume that you are necessarily right and they are necessarily wrong. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 16:21:57 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:21:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <23443147.1207527195846.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <23443147.1207527195846.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Apr 6, 2008, at 8:13 PM, John R. Mayne wrote: >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> >> Herman De Wael asked: >> >>> But then what is an agreement? Suppose we play together, and we >>> discuss lots of things, but not 5-card majors, because we both >>> assume that to start with. You open 1He on the first board, and >>> they ask me "4 or 5-cards?". What am I to say? "we did not >>> agree this". >> >> Richard Hills answers: >> >> Yes. > > Alternatively, no. > > In the US, 4-card majors are unpopular; even my 4.8-card majory > style is considered some sort of heresy. (Many experts play 4-ish- > card majors in third and fourth seat, but they are widely > outnumbered.) > > If I sat across someone for whom I knew only "From San Diego, > California," and we agreed on strong NT's, 4-suit transfers, > aggressive preempts, support, maximal, and responsive doubles.... > we'd both assume we were playing a 5-card major system. > > The correct answer is, "We didn't explicitly discuss it, but our > other agreements are consistent with a 2/1 framework, which is a 5- > card major system. Perfect! > Or: "We agreed standard, which I assume is five-card majors." Not perfect, but close enough. > If we've had enough of a discussion to have inferential > understandings - and I'm sure taking his bid as a five-card major, > even if I might fudge in the same situation - we've got to show those. > > The best example I've come up with is I sit across from Experienced > Very Good 40-year-old US Player. We agree on 2/1ish with my style > of preempts and a few other things. We start off with on hand 1: > > 1D-1H > 1S-1N > 3C-4H > > We have no agreement on this auction. But, I know my partner is > EVG40YOUSP, and I can take an inference that my opponents might > not. The "logical" meaning of 4H might be apparent to you - and I > will be quite confident as to its meaning, so confident I would > make the same 4H bid with the right hand - but I am making an > inference based on the quality of my partner. > > My opponents deserve to be on the same standing. If we are from the > same area and all know each other, "No agreement," might be > sufficient. But if they are Uzbekhi visitors or rookies, they > deserve a proper explanation of 4H. > > "No agreement," is seldom a good idea. Possibly never. You can't hide behind "no agreement" just because you have no specific agreement about the particular call in question. If you are disclosing ethically, "no agreement" should mean that you have no agreement whatsoever that might be potentially useful in determining what the call in question might mean. IOW, it should be the same as "I haven't got the foggiest clue" -- and if that's the case, you're better off saying it outright. > There are situations where it's right, but if we assume 5-card > majors, we should tell 'em. And if you both know what 4H means in > the above auction, why keep it secret? Finally, we hear from someone who understands that you can provide useful, complete and unconstrained full disclosure without the need to profess to partnership agreements that you don't actually have! Thank you, John. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 16:35:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:35:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <000001c89865$dae18230$90a48690$@com> References: <000001c89865$dae18230$90a48690$@com> Message-ID: <893BEE3C-59D1-4174-87A3-0BEB5C1C546B@starpower.net> On Apr 7, 2008, at 12:14 AM, David Burn wrote: > [RH] > > My system (notes emailed on request) contains some deliberate > holes, with > some calls explicitly agreed as non-systemic. > > For example, if the auction starts: > > Me Pard > 1NT 2C > 2H > > a rebid of 2S by pard is non-systemic. > > [DALB] > > I would like to put in a request for these system notes. Not that I > want to > play the system, but as long-time coach to British teams I have amused > myself by compiling a private list of the Worst Methods in the > World. That > 2S has *no* systemic meaning in the (fairly common) auction above > strikes me > as so staggeringly bad as to be wholly outside the realms not only > of what I > have experienced, but of what I could imagine. The original SAYC, developed by a special committee of the ACBL, incorporated (someone may have woken up and changed it since) this travesty: 1NT-P-2S *required* opener to bid 3C, which opener either passed or corrected to 3D, to play. In tournament events which were restricted to SAYC only, the auction 1NT-P-2S-P-2NT was illegal and carried an automatic penalty. And, yes, they did call it "bridge". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 7 16:42:40 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:42:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> Message-ID: On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:31:36 -0400, David Burn wrote: > [AG] > >>> It is not illegal to >>> work out partner's intention after saying "no agreement", it is >>> illegal to say "no agreement" after you've worked out partner's > intention. > > But some would like to disallow the former too. And I don't like this. > > [DALB] > > I am an old man, and I can remember being set mathematics problems at > school > that contained the injunction "Show your working". This was, of course, > to > stop you simply writing down the answer at the back of the book, or > cribbing > it from a more competent classmate (my mathematics classes contained only > these). > > Similarly, if you "work out partner's intention" at the bridge table, > you do > so at least in part on the basis of agreements (implicit and explicit) > that > your partnership has. These must be explained to the opponents. So says > the > Law, so say John Probst and Grattan Endicott, and so say I. > > David Burn > London, England I disagree. If you can work out the meaning of a bid, based on knowledge of your system that the opps do not have, you should have an obligation to explain the meaning of the bid; it is inappropriate to just give them the necessary information and see if they can work it out. For example, the 1D opening bid in Precision shows an opening hand and no other bid. Is that an acceptable explanation? I don't think so. If I add "We play that 1C is 16+ HCP, 1M shows a five-card major, 2C shows a 6-card club suit, and 2D shows 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5 distribution, is that enough? I think the opps should be able to sit peacefully in their seats and hear that the 1D openers shows an opening hand, fewer than 16 HCP, 2 or more diamonds, and possibly as many as 5 clubs. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 16:49:04 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:49:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> Message-ID: <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > Similarly, if you "work out partner's intention" at the bridge table, you do > so at least in part on the basis of agreements (implicit and explicit) that > your partnership has. These must be explained to the opponents. So says the > Law, so say John Probst and Grattan Endicott, and so say I. > Partner makes a bid that's unknown to me. I can see at least four possible meanings, and can't decide. I tell my opponents : "I don't know". I assign to each possible meaning a suit. I pick a card from my hand. It happens to be a club, so I assume partner showed such-and-such pattern and such-and-such strength. I happen to be right. David, Grattan and John tell me I used our implicit agreements. Am I allowed to feel uneasy ? (whether I'm allowed to use an external randomizer is another question) NB : don't say it can't happen, I know a player who did it at least twice. In one of those occurrences he was playing with me. No, no UI, there were screens. Now suppress the randomizing mechanism. Isn't there at least some chance that you'd guess correctly *without* resorting to implicit agreements ? This is a live case : playing with an experienced TD, you hold Jxx - 10xx - K10xx - Kxx.. LHO : 2S (weak), partner : double. you can't remember which answers you use. You can't even remember having discussed it either. BTW, you're right. According to your club's tendencies, 2NT could be either natural or lebensohl ("mini-cue" is uncommon where you live). You're a bit lucky, because you can bid 2NT. If partner takes it as natural, that isn't bad (although you'd prefer to hold more than Jxx in spades). If he bids 3C in response to your lebensohl, the right bid is now 3D. And if he explains 2NT as natural, and bids 3C (1RF according to your meta-agreements), the right bid is 3D, too. So you won't use UI. Partner alerts, bids 3C and you bid 3D, over which he passes. He took it as lebensohl. 3D gets you a fair score (-50 vs -110, his double was lightish). - So we play lebensohl ? - I hadn't the foggiest idea, but I had to guess something, didn't I ? Would you tell him they did something wrong ? Another example : over your 1S, partner answers 1NT. You don't know whether that's forcing or not (I computed that I use forcing with exactly half my partners). Everyody at the table knows that, when you explain "I don't know whether it's forcing", you'll decide it is, to minimize possible damage. Of course your uncertainty is UI to partner, who will have to raise your minor on 4 cards, but do you have to answer "forcing" merely because you intend to treat it as such ? Or is "I don't know, but I'll say forcing" a legal explanation ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 16:50:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:50:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <32DA76A1-C3AD-4B03-8C68-2A36E7A42363@starpower.net> References: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> <32DA76A1-C3AD-4B03-8C68-2A36E7A42363@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FA34B4.4050501@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > They are entitled to your relevant partnership agreements. If you > decide that 3D "had to" have a specific meaning, absent an agreement, > "as a result of other [sic] agreements", you are obligated to > disclose those agreements in full. If you have done that properly, > either the meaning 3D "had to" have will be manifestly deducible > (full disclosure does not require explaining how to apply deductive > logic to draw conclusions), or, if they come to some other conclusion > than yours, you will have no reason to assume that you are > necessarily right and they are necessarily wrong. > > That's a nice item of advice. Thank you. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 16:50:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:50:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47F9D6A7.1070303@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl><000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> <001b01c89832$d6c23e20$c0cf403e@Mildred> <47F9D6A7.1070303@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 7, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > But my main point is that Alain is never going to be able to prove if > this was the first time he encountered the bid or not. He is never > going to be able to prove that he never discussed this bid. Maybe he > once did, five years ago, and they both remembered. So while he's > probably telling the truth that they both found it at the table, I am > going to rule that it was partnership experience after all. "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities" [L85A1]. If you genuinely believe that "he's probably telling the truth", you may not rule that he isn't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 16:52:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:52:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <23443147.1207527195846.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <47FA3530.3010500@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Possibly never. You can't hide behind "no agreement" just because > you have no specific agreement about the particular call in > question. If you are disclosing ethically, "no agreement" should > mean that you have no agreement whatsoever that might be potentially > useful in determining what the call in question might mean. IOW, it > should be the same as "I haven't got the foggiest clue" -- and if > that's the case, you're better off saying it outright. > > Okay, I can accept that. Now, am I thereafter allowed to guess right or not ? Remember, that was the initial question. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 16:53:51 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:53:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <893BEE3C-59D1-4174-87A3-0BEB5C1C546B@starpower.net> References: <000001c89865$dae18230$90a48690$@com> <893BEE3C-59D1-4174-87A3-0BEB5C1C546B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FA357F.80908@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > The original SAYC, developed by a special committee of the ACBL, > incorporated (someone may have woken up and changed it since) this > travesty: 1NT-P-2S *required* opener to bid 3C, which opener either > passed or corrected to 3D, to play. In tournament events which were > restricted to SAYC only, the auction 1NT-P-2S-P-2NT was illegal and > carried an automatic penalty. And, yes, they did call it "bridge". > > Automatic penalty for mispulling your bidding card ? A whole new idea. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 16:56:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:56:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> Message-ID: <47FA3620.9010703@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I disagree. If you can work out the meaning of a bid, based on knowledge > of your system that the opps do not have, you should have an obligation to > explain the meaning of the bid; it is inappropriate to just give them the > necessary information and see if they can work it out. > > For example, the 1D opening bid in Precision shows an opening hand and no > other bid. Is that an acceptable explanation? I don't think so. If I add > "We play that 1C is 16+ HCP, 1M shows a five-card major, 2C shows a 6-card > club suit, and 2D shows 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5 distribution, is that enough? > > I think the opps should be able to sit peacefully in their seats and hear > that the 1D openers shows an opening hand, fewer than 16 HCP, 2 or more > diamonds, and possibly as many as 5 clubs. > > I'd say the explanation isn't complete in classical Precision, because opener won't hold 2425 or 4225 pattern. To the contrary, explaining all other openings, and saying "1D covers the rest" is complete. Now you may choose. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 16:58:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:58:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I give no > guarantee" John > Let's talk about this guarantee for a moment. What purpose does it serve? Either the explanation turns out to be "right" (in the sense of conforming to partner's hand and/or intention) or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the TD will investigate what the true "agreement" is. He will start by assuming that the agreement fits partner's hand and/or intention. It will be very hard to prove otherwise and so MI may well be the ruling. Do you think "I give no guarantee" will sway the TD into not ruling MI or damage? I don't think so. If the explanation does fit the hand - then why the need for the "no guarantee" bit? It might even induce the opponents into not believing the explanation too completely, and to cause damage as a result. I always advice not to pronounce doubt, and I don't take it into consideration when selecting my own calls if the opponents say so (other than by doubling them for penalties now and again), nor do I do so when ruling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 7 17:07:23 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:07:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <32DA76A1-C3AD-4B03-8C68-2A36E7A42363@starpower.net> References: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> <32DA76A1-C3AD-4B03-8C68-2A36E7A42363@starpower.net> Message-ID: There seems to be a defect in the laws. They assume that when an explanation of a bid is wrong, there was either a misexplanation of the partnership agreement or a failure to follow the partnership agreement. There is a very common third possibility, that one player thought a bid had one meaning and the other player thought it had a different meaning. This is fairly common in partnerships that do not play together often. For example, the auction was 2C (strong, artificial) - X - XX. One player decided that the XX was strong; the other decided that it was weak. The laws do not say, ethically, what the players should do. Procedurally, "misexplanation" will be assumed (even though it is not true). So I have come to the conclusion that the opps have a right to know what conventions I use when I bid, whether or not my partner does. Unless I know I have made a mistake, I always explain (at my first opportunity) what I meant my bid to mean. This protects me, but I believe it is also the right thing to do. This seems to be CONTRARY to the normal philosophy concerning disclosure. I believe the normal understanding is that the opponents have a right to know everything my partner understands, or everything my partner should understand, or our conventions, but nothing else. I believe, in contrast, they have a right to know what I meant when I made my bid (unless I simply made a mistake). I think it RELATES to this discussion. Suppose I open 1H, my pd bids a forcing 1NT, and I am looking at 4-5-2-2 distribution. According to partnership agreement/understanding, my 2C will show 3 clubs. I know my partner will understand it that way. I bid 2C with only two. This is not a psyche. It is not a misbid. It is me doing the best to describe my hand using our system. In essence, my partner and I now have two different meanings for this bid. If my partner explains it as showing 3 or more clubs, then I feel a duty to explain to the opponents what my bid really means. (Of course, in line with my other post, I otherwise should have to explain all of the other bids at my disposal and what they meant; similarly, if I have thought through our conventions/agreements to decide which misbid is the safest, the opponents have a right to that information also. And that is not practical.) Bob From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 17:10:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:10:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <004e01c8989d$213f67b0$e3d6403e@Mildred> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl><000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be><001b01c89832$d6c23e20$c0cf403e@Mildred> <47F9D6A7.1070303@skynet.be> <004e01c8989d$213f67b0$e3d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47FA394A.2080004@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott discontinued: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* "We live in an environment whose > principal product is garbage." Russell Baker ('New York Times') > ************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: > "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing > List" Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:09 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > > >> You would be right in saying that as an inference, this is not >> disclosable. But the things the inference is based on, are not >> common knowledge. So Alain needs to explain to his opponents >> three things: A) the meaning of the bids 3He to 4Cl; b) the fact >> that 3Di is undiscussed and non-existant and c) the fact that >> both players are creative enough to find a sensible meaning for >> it. > ........................................................................................................... > +=+ Up to this point, Herman, you were doing very well. All > relevant matters of prior partnership understandings and experience > are to be disclosed. And then, Herman, you overstretched with > this: > ............................................................................................................. > >> From those - disclosable- elements opponent could work out that >> it has to be 4414. However, if the opponent does not work it out, >> that means it is not "general knowledge" and so Alain should have >> explained the inference as well. >> > +=+ If the opponent has been given all the ingredients we do not > have to bake his cake for him. It does not mean the opponent lacks > the 'general knowledge' - it means that there is a difference in > the skills of the opponent by comparison with the player and his > partner. There is a fine line between the lack of skills and the lack of necessary information. When I tell Alain's story, I am not confident that the conclusion "4414" follows from the things I have been told, such as "partner has 44 diamonds and another and my bids all show 4-card support and singleton named". I guess there are a number of other considerations that Alain took into account before concluding what he did. He should of course also tell those considerations. Given all those, the opponents should be able to work it out, but are we playing Sudoku or Bridge? Any set of numbers will produce only one full Sudoku grid, but is that full disclosure? Not the way I see it. I am abhorred at the way some people describe some agreements. Even when they have worked them out in advance, they fail to give complete descriptions, relying on - you can work that out. Last week, I was chastised for not adding a point range to my explanation of my partner's bid. When I said "simply wants to play 3NT", my opponent explained to me that this had to be with 18-19, since with 16-17 the bidding had to have been different. She knew my system better than I did, and was mad that I had not simpl;y said 18-19. I had never drawn the conclusion that it had to have been 18-19, but I agreed with her, I should have said it like that. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 7 17:13:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:13:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> But in the area where you're playing, 5cM is King, so if we are >> playing together in, say, Lier, "no agreement" could lead the >> opponents to believe that it could be 4-cards, while both you and I >> are certain it's 5-cards. OK? >> > Nope. If I was playing in Lier, I wouldn't assume 5-card majors. > Not from your opponents maybe - but you would assume it from me if I was your partner and we'd sat down and had a 30 second system discussion consisting only of 1430 and inverted minors. OK? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 17:17:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:17:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FA1126.8020109@NTLworld.com> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl> <000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> <47F9692C.5030709@NTLworld.com> <47F9D7D2.8020800@skynet.be> <47FA1126.8020109@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Apr 7, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Guthrie wrote: > If your explanation is correct, but your opponent does not > understand it > because you use *any* term (not just a *Bridge* term) that he does not > understand, IMO, he is entitled to further elucidation. In particular, > if an opponent says he not understand what "Stayman" means in a given > bidding context, then, whatever the law says, IMO you are morally > obliged to explain it. I do hope this is a troll. "Whatever the law says"?! There can't really be anyone reading this who actually thinks that "Stayman" satisfies one's legal obligation to disclose one's methods, can there? The law requires you to disclose what your methods *are*; not whom they were named after. And what's more, if you tell them that 2C "asks for a four-card major" and they ask you "what's a major?", the law requires you to explain that to them too. If you tell them that the majors are "hearts and spades" and they ask "what's a spade?", *now* you're in moral as opposed to legal obligation territory. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 17:33:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:33:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FA3EC3.9000104@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I give no >> guarantee" John >> >> > > Let's talk about this guarantee for a moment. What purpose does it serve? > > Either the explanation turns out to be "right" (in the sense of > conforming to partner's hand and/or intention) or it doesn't. > > If it doesn't, the TD will investigate what the true "agreement" is. > He will start by assuming that the agreement fits partner's hand > and/or intention. It will be very hard to prove otherwise and so MI > may well be the ruling. Do you think "I give no guarantee" will sway > the TD into not ruling MI or damage? I don't think so. > > It could happen. Here is a simple example. Many pairs decide that when opponents use an artificial double of 1NT, then "system is on", while when double is penalties, they use some kind or artificial wriggle. I'm not familiar with this treatment, but surely it is sensible. Some also decide that "if they're uncertain about the meaning of the double, we treat it as artificial, because that's probably what they'll do". So, if the player, behind screens, erroneously tells us partner's Dbl is strong, and it happens not to be, MI *and damage* will ensue, while if he correctly tells us "I guess it's strong, but I'm not sure", there could be MI, but most probably no damage in the bidding (and you can always ask the other player before playing the deal).. Well, that's a peculiar case (albeit not that uncommon). But surely somebody as fond of propositional logic as you are will recognize that when there is but one counterexample to a "always" statement, then that .statement is false ;-) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 17:42:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:42:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FA394A.2080004@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl><000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be><001b01c89832$d6c23e20$c0cf403e@Mildred> <47F9D6A7.1070303@skynet.be> <004e01c8989d$213f67b0$e3d6403e@Mildred> <47FA394A.2080004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FA40E8.6040607@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > Last week, I was chastised for not adding a point range to my > explanation of my partner's bid. When I said "simply wants to play > 3NT", my opponent explained to me that this had to be with 18-19, > since with 16-17 the bidding had to have been different. She knew my > system better than I did, and was mad that I had not simpl;y said > 18-19. I had never drawn the conclusion that it had to have been > 18-19, but I agreed with her, I should have said it like that. > > Yes, I know this kind of situation. You play 15-17 NT. The bidding goes 1D (2S) D p 3NT, and you explain "wants to play in 3NT". Now they assume 18-19, because they know your system. Alas for them, you happen to hold AQxx - xx - AKQxx - Jx and were fixed by the overcall. Thereafter, they tell you you should have explained 18-19. Who was right ? One thing I've learned from bitter experience is never, never, to assume their bid means what I think it should mean in their system, even if it's mine too. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 17:47:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:47:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> But in the area where you're playing, 5cM is King, so if we are >>> playing together in, say, Lier, "no agreement" could lead the >>> opponents to believe that it could be 4-cards, while both you and I >>> are certain it's 5-cards. OK? >>> >>> >> Nope. If I was playing in Lier, I wouldn't assume 5-card majors. >> >> > > Not from your opponents maybe - but you would assume it from me if I > was your partner and we'd sat down and had a 30 second system > discussion consisting only of 1430 and inverted minors. OK? > > Yes, because inveerted minors work well along with 5cM, but you're taking a peculiar example. If we agreed only 15-17 and 1430, say, I wouldn't know. The case where each element of the pair assumes they're playing what the other element is accustomed to isn't that rare. (I really would wish to answer that if we sat facing eachother, I'd assume we're playing Poldevian Club. Ex falso quodlibet ;-) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 7 17:50:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:50:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl> <000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> <47F9692C.5030709@NTLworld.com> <47F9D7D2.8020800@skynet.be> <47FA1126.8020109@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47FA42B1.9010709@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 7, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Guthrie wrote: > > >> If your explanation is correct, but your opponent does not >> understand it >> because you use *any* term (not just a *Bridge* term) that he does not >> understand, IMO, he is entitled to further elucidation. In particular, >> if an opponent says he not understand what "Stayman" means in a given >> bidding context, then, whatever the law says, IMO you are morally >> obliged to explain it. >> > > I do hope this is a troll. "Whatever the law says"?! There can't > really be anyone reading this who actually thinks that "Stayman" > satisfies one's legal obligation to disclose one's methods, can > there? The law requires you to disclose what your methods *are*; not > whom they were named after. > > Not sure about that. Many countries issue booklets of stabndard conventions, whose name may be written down on a CC without further explanation. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 18:28:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:28:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> Message-ID: <24781E6A-2B88-4CC2-B3C4-7414E272A622@starpower.net> On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:31:36 -0400, David Burn > > wrote: > >> I am an old man, and I can remember being set mathematics problems at >> school >> that contained the injunction "Show your working". This was, of >> course, >> to >> stop you simply writing down the answer at the back of the book, or >> cribbing >> it from a more competent classmate (my mathematics classes >> contained only >> these). >> >> Similarly, if you "work out partner's intention" at the bridge table, >> you do >> so at least in part on the basis of agreements (implicit and >> explicit) >> that >> your partnership has. These must be explained to the opponents. So >> says >> the >> Law, so say John Probst and Grattan Endicott, and so say I. > > I disagree. If you can work out the meaning of a bid, based on > knowledge > of your system that the opps do not have, you should have an > obligation to > explain the meaning of the bid; it is inappropriate to just give > them the > necessary information and see if they can work it out. Your obligation is to tell them what you know. It doesn't matter whether "you can work out the meaning of a bid"; what matters is whether you have in fact done so. If you haven't, you are not obligated to do so on the spot for your opponents' edification. > For example, the 1D opening bid in Precision shows an opening hand > and no > other bid. Is that an acceptable explanation? I don't think so. If > I add > "We play that 1C is 16+ HCP, 1M shows a five-card major, 2C shows a > 6-card > club suit, and 2D shows 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5 distribution, is that > enough? It might be, if in fact you have just completed the last chapter of "Precision for Dummies" for the first time, and this was indeed all you knew that was relevant to the meaning of 1D. But... > I think the opps should be able to sit peacefully in their seats > and hear > that the 1D openers shows an opening hand, fewer than 16 HCP, 2 or > more > diamonds, and possibly as many as 5 clubs. ...now that you and your partner have actually played Precision once or twice, you *do* know what 1D shows (you've just proven it), and so does he, so the actual meaning, notwithstanding that you have never explicitly discussed it, has become a "partnership understanding" per L40A1(a), to which L40A1(b) applies. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 7 18:45:26 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:45:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be><006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003c01c898ce$c7cb6620$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I give no >> guarantee" John >> > > Let's talk about this guarantee for a moment. What purpose does it serve? > > Either the explanation turns out to be "right" (in the sense of > conforming to partner's hand and/or intention) or it doesn't. > > If it doesn't, the TD will investigate what the true "agreement" is. > He will start by assuming that the agreement fits partner's hand > and/or intention. It will be very hard to prove otherwise and so MI > may well be the ruling. Do you think "I give no guarantee" will sway > the TD into not ruling MI or damage? I don't think so. > > If the explanation does fit the hand - then why the need for the "no > guarantee" bit? It might even induce the opponents into not believing > the explanation too completely, and to cause damage as a result. > > I always advice not to pronounce doubt, and I don't take it into > consideration when selecting my own calls if the opponents say so > (other than by doubling them for penalties now and again), nor do I do > so when ruling. Herman, we know you're prepared to lie about these things. Some of us are not. cheers John. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 18:51:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:51:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FA3530.3010500@ulb.ac.be> References: <23443147.1207527195846.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <47FA3530.3010500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <313000AC-E62A-4642-AE26-A61D9E2A282C@starpower.net> On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> >> Possibly never. You can't hide behind "no agreement" just because >> you have no specific agreement about the particular call in >> question. If you are disclosing ethically, "no agreement" should >> mean that you have no agreement whatsoever that might be potentially >> useful in determining what the call in question might mean. IOW, it >> should be the same as "I haven't got the foggiest clue" -- and if >> that's the case, you're better off saying it outright. > > Okay, I can accept that. Now, am I thereafter allowed to guess > right or > not ? Remember, that was the initial question. Of course you are. If you genuinely "haven't got the foggiest clue", the quality of your guess will depend entirely on (a) your experience and knowledge of bidding systems and methods in general, (b) your exposure to or self-generated insights into the general principles of bidding theory, and (c) your ability to apply the rules of logic to a set of facts to deduce or infer logical conclusions. These are bona fide "bridge skills" that legitimately differentiate better players from inferior ones. They are not extraneous advantages to be "redressed" in the interest of an a priori "level playing field". It isn't illegal to be better at bridge than your opponents. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 19:01:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:01:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FA357F.80908@ulb.ac.be> References: <000001c89865$dae18230$90a48690$@com> <893BEE3C-59D1-4174-87A3-0BEB5C1C546B@starpower.net> <47FA357F.80908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0528382A-7E01-43A3-8828-0EDC3F76B4C5@starpower.net> On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: Eric Landau a ?crit : >> The original SAYC, developed by a special committee of the ACBL, >> incorporated (someone may have woken up and changed it since) this >> travesty: 1NT-P-2S *required* opener to bid 3C, which opener either >> passed or corrected to 3D, to play. In tournament events which were >> restricted to SAYC only, the auction 1NT-P-2S-P-2NT was illegal and >> carried an automatic penalty. And, yes, they did call it "bridge". > > Automatic penalty for mispulling your bidding card ? A whole new idea. More like an automatic penalty for having the temerity to manifest the belief that the ACBL's "official bidding system" might have such obviously nonsensical aspects that one might expect even an unknown partner to be aware of them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 7 19:15:43 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:15:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be><47F63D63.5070008@ulb.ac.be> <020901c89728$6b816fb0$42844f10$@nl> <000401c897b4$9254d640$89cf403e@Mildred> <47F89B6C.8020807@skynet.be> <47F9692C.5030709@NTLworld.com> <47F9D7D2.8020800@skynet.be> <47FA1126.8020109@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47FA56BF.60700@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] I do hope this is a troll. "Whatever the law says"?! There can't really be anyone reading this who actually thinks that "Stayman" satisfies one's legal obligation to disclose one's methods, can there? The law requires you to disclose what your methods *are*; not whom they were named after. And what's more, if you tell them that 2C "asks for a four-card major" and they ask you "what's a major?", the law requires you to explain that to them too. If you tell them that the majors are "hearts and spades" and they ask "what's a spade?", *now* you're in moral as opposed to legal obligation territory. [Nige1] It's not I who am trolling. If opponents are brow-beating you or you experience insurmountable communication difficulties, surely the remedy is to call the director. I still find it hard to understand the need for a "General knowledge" exclusion, especially when you suspect that opponents do not share that "General Knowledge". For example, an opponent gave an incomplete explanation when questioned about a call. The director supported opponents' contention that the omission was "general knowledge" (although my team of experienced players did not recognise it as such). Incidentally, the Stayman example isn't mine, but, according to UK regulations, if the bidding starts 1N (P) 2C, you do announce "Stayman" if 2C is Stayman. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 7 19:24:48 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:24:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <24781E6A-2B88-4CC2-B3C4-7414E272A622@starpower.net> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <24781E6A-2B88-4CC2-B3C4-7414E272A622@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FA58E0.1030706@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Your obligation is to tell them what you know. It doesn't matter whether "you can work out the meaning of a bid"; what matters is whether you have in fact done so. If you haven't, you are not obligated to do so on the spot for your opponents' edification. [Nigel] I'm beginning to understand Eric's argument. Quite often you can deduce enough for *your own* purposes. Why should you continue your deductions to answer opponents? Well, let's just say that I think you should :) From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 20:10:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:10:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> <32DA76A1-C3AD-4B03-8C68-2A36E7A42363@starpower.net> Message-ID: <44D41868-CF8A-496E-9583-DF23B3D46070@starpower.net> On Apr 7, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > There seems to be a defect in the laws. They assume that when an > explanation of a bid is wrong, there was either a misexplanation of > the > partnership agreement or a failure to follow the partnership > agreement. They assume that when a properly offered explanation of a bid is wrong, it is due to either a misexplanation of the actual agreement or a deviation from it. The latter may be either deliberate or a "misbid". > There is a very common third possibility, The common third possibility is that they do not in fact have an agreement. In that case, they should not have offered to explain what doesn't exist. > that one player thought a bid > had one meaning and the other player thought it had a different > meaning. Understanding that for disclosure purposes we must read "had a meaning" as "had an *agreed* meaning", it is incumbent upon the TD to determine who got it right: the bidder (misexplanation, L75B), the explainer (misbid, L75C), or neither (presumed misexplanation, L75C parenthetical). > This is fairly common in partnerships that do not play together > often. For > example, the auction was 2C (strong, artificial) - X - XX. One player > decided that the XX was strong; the other decided that it was weak. > > The laws do not say, ethically, what the players should do. They should call the director at the appropriate time per L20F4-5 and let him sort it out. > Procedurally, > "misexplanation" will be assumed (even though it is not true). Not by a competent director, who will investigate the facts and make a finding. He need make no a priori presumption. If he decides that the explanation corresponded with the partnership's actual agreement he will find misbid rather than misexplanation. He will find misexplanation if the explanation did not correspond with the partnership's actual agreement, either because it differs from the actual agreement, or because there is no actual agreement for it to correspond to -- very different circumstances which happen lead to the same ruling. > So I have come to the conclusion that the opps have a right to know > what > conventions I use when I bid, whether or not my partner does. Unless I > know I have made a mistake, I always explain (at my first opportunity) > what I meant my bid to mean. This protects me, but I believe it is > also > the right thing to do. "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents" [L40a1(b)]. Swear to disclose your partnership understandings, your whole partnership understandings, and nothing but your partnership understandings, so help ye God. If you are troubled by the inability to find the line between "partnership understanding" and "what I meant my bid to mean", do your best for the moment, call the director at the appropriate time per L20F4-5, and let him sort it out. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 7 21:03:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:03:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6FFAE4EE-5A88-4959-B443-BCA790FABBD1@starpower.net> On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I >> give no >> guarantee" John > > Let's talk about this guarantee for a moment. What purpose does it > serve? Although admittedly redundant, "no guarantee" serves to call attention to the fact that you have said "our meta-agreements suggest it could be" rather than "we have agreeed that it is". > Either the explanation turns out to be "right" (in the sense of > conforming to partner's hand and/or intention) or it doesn't. That would be true if the explanation was, "It is [this]". It manifestly wasn't. John's explanation is "right" if his meta- agreements suggest it could be "this", and wrong if his meta- agreements do not so suggest. Whether it constitutes proper disclosure depends not on whether it is right or wrong as to what the meta-agreements suggest, but whether it has correctly and completely described the relevant meta-agreements. > If it doesn't, the TD will investigate what the true "agreement" is. > He will start by assuming that the agreement fits partner's hand > and/or intention. It will be very hard to prove otherwise and so MI > may well be the ruling. John professes to have no agreement, and has so informed his opponents. Yet Herman would presume at the outset, for purposes of his investigation, that John is lying, and will rule accordingly unless John can "prove otherwise". Even though Herman readily admits that it will be "very hard" for John to do so. Herman would not last very long as a TD doing this anywhere I play. > Do you think "I give no guarantee" will sway > the TD into not ruling MI or damage? I don't think so. Sure... well, OK, it's only a redundancy, but "our meta-agreements suggest" (as opposed to "our agreement is") very well might, and should. Sometimes a more experienced (or talented) opponent may be in a better position that a less experienced explainer to decide what those "meta-agreements suggest", and so he is responsible for doing so. If he chooses to blindly accept a suggestion of an incorrect inference over an obviously available but overlooked one he does so at his own risk. He will get no sympathy from me with, "But Herman says that when someone says, 'No agreement, our meta-agreements suggest that it could be this, but I give no guarantee,' I'm allowed to pretend that what he actually said was, 'We have a definite agreement that it is this, 100% guaranteed'". Sorry, but to me those are *not* identical explanations. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 7 21:09:45 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:09:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <44D41868-CF8A-496E-9583-DF23B3D46070@starpower.net> References: <47F95633.6070407@nhcc.net> <32DA76A1-C3AD-4B03-8C68-2A36E7A42363@starpower.net> <44D41868-CF8A-496E-9583-DF23B3D46070@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:10:41 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership > understandings to opponents" [L40a1(b)]. Swear to disclose your > partnership understandings, your whole partnership understandings, > and nothing but your partnership understandings, so help ye God. If > you are troubled by the inability to find the line between > "partnership understanding" and "what I meant my bid to mean", do > your best for the moment, call the director at the appropriate time > per L20F4-5, and let him sort it out. No thanks. Philosophical, this seems to capture the laws and their intent. It is not practical in terms of getting ruled against, I don't think it is good for bridge, and I wouldn't enjoy it (assuming we in fact disagree at the table about when we would disclose to opps and when we would not). Yesterday, my partner, after a very long hesitation, described one of my doubles as Rosencranz. We had agreed to play Rosencranz doubles, and I think technically her description was correct, though Rosencranz might blanche to hear it. I really did not consider whether her explanation was correct. I think now that technically it was. I had not clearly misbid my hand, so at the first opportunity I explained to opponents that I had intended my double to be for penalties. I recommend doing this. It feels great. I do it all the time -- no claims about whether the mistake was my partner's or mine or if we had understandings or not, I just correct any mistaken explanations that he gives (unless the mistake is clearly mine). As for practicalities, I don't know how a director would rule. We certainly have evidence that we play Rosenkranz. We just don't have any evidence about which situations we play it in and which ones we don't. So someone knows whether 1D P P 2C 2D X is supposed to be Rosenkranz. Or maybe it is controversial. But no one where we were playing would have known. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 8 08:55:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:55:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c89694$c99c9eb0$c1e565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> Message-ID: Jan Peach asked: [big snip] >Having fully explained the requirements of 27B1(b) (probably >several times) do I rectify an unsuitable call under 27B2 or 27B3? Richard Hills: Law 27B2 states that an unsuitable sufficient bid or pass stands, then partner must pass throughout, plus Laws 23 and/or 26 may apply. Law 27B3 states that an unsuitable double or redouble is cancelled, then the "foregoing" - Law 27B2 - requires a replacement sufficient bid or pass, then partner must pass throughout, plus Laws 23 and/or 26 may apply. 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 Apr 8 09:27:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:27:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47F9D839.3040302@skynet.be> Message-ID: David Burn: >>Which is, perhaps, only to make Richard's point. If his partner bid >>this non-existent 2S, what would Herman have Richard say by way of >>explanation? Herman De Wael: >Herman would not accept from Richard that this fairly common call >had no meaning, nor that it had never come up before. Surely the >meanings of all the other bids are known, so that leaves whatever is >left. Richard Hills: In my idiosyncratic system (a.k.a. Worst Method in the World), all possible hand types are encompassed by other calls, leaving 2S as an idle bid. Furthermore, my system notes state - in bold type - 2S = non-systemic. So when partner did bid 2S, I alerted and explained the call as non- systemic. If Director De Wael refused to accept all that evidence, then in my opinion Director De Wael had committed a blatant Director's error, a clearcut failure to follow 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 hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 09:37:35 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:37:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > David Burn a ?crit : >> Similarly, if you "work out partner's intention" at the bridge table, you do >> so at least in part on the basis of agreements (implicit and explicit) that >> your partnership has. These must be explained to the opponents. So says the >> Law, so say John Probst and Grattan Endicott, and so say I. >> > Partner makes a bid that's unknown to me. I can see at least four > possible meanings, and can't decide. I tell my opponents : "I don't > know". I assign to each possible meaning a suit. I pick a card from my > hand. It happens to be a club, so I assume partner showed such-and-such > pattern and such-and-such strength. I happen to be right. David, Grattan > and John tell me I used our implicit agreements. Am I allowed to feel > uneasy ? > > (whether I'm allowed to use an external randomizer is another question) > > NB : don't say it can't happen, I know a player who did it at least > twice. In one of those occurrences he was playing with me. No, no UI, > there were screens. > > Now suppress the randomizing mechanism. Isn't there at least some chance > that you'd guess correctly *without* resorting to implicit agreements ? > > > > This is a live case : playing with an experienced TD, you hold Jxx - > 10xx - K10xx - Kxx.. LHO : 2S (weak), partner : double. you can't > remember which answers you use. You can't even remember having discussed > it either. BTW, you're right. According to your club's tendencies, 2NT > could be either natural or lebensohl ("mini-cue" is uncommon where you > live). You're a bit lucky, because you can bid 2NT. If partner takes it > as natural, that isn't bad (although you'd prefer to hold more than Jxx > in spades). If he bids 3C in response to your lebensohl, the right bid > is now 3D. And if he explains 2NT as natural, and bids 3C (1RF according > to your meta-agreements), the right bid is 3D, too. So you won't use UI. > Partner alerts, bids 3C and you bid 3D, over which he passes. He took it > as lebensohl. 3D gets you a fair score (-50 vs -110, his double was > lightish). > > - So we play lebensohl ? > - I hadn't the foggiest idea, but I had to guess something, didn't I ? > > Would you tell him they did something wrong ? > > Another example : over your 1S, partner answers 1NT. You don't know > whether that's forcing or not (I computed that I use forcing with > exactly half my partners). Everyody at the table knows that, when you > explain "I don't know whether it's forcing", you'll decide it is, to > minimize possible damage. Of course your uncertainty is UI to partner, > who will have to raise your minor on 4 cards, but do you have to answer > "forcing" merely because you intend to treat it as such ? Or is "I don't > know, but I'll say forcing" a legal explanation ? > Alain, you don't seem to understand my argument. When it turns out that a player has the same idea about the meaning of a certain call than his partner, it is up to him to prove that this is not due to some form of partnership understanding. (The director is to presume ...). Now of course it is possible that the understanding was just a lucky guess. A player is allowed to say "We don't have any understanding". He is allowed to look into his hand and guess a meaning from that. But he'll have to convince the TD that that is what he has done. I realize there are cases where this is in fact true, but in the vast majority of cases there is reason to believe that players know more than they are telling. Alain, I know you, and I know you are a very ethical player. You seem to regard this thread as a personal attack, in which "never" means, "not even if Alain honestly says he doesn't know". That is not the meaning of "never" when I say: I think "no agreement" is never a correct and full answer. I realize that sometimes it is. But most of the time it's a cop-out from pairs who don't realize that even when they haven't agreed anything, they still have a lot of partnership experience. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 09:41:14 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:41:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FA3EC3.9000104@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <47FA3EC3.9000104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FB219A.2030502@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I give no >>> guarantee" John >>> >>> >> Let's talk about this guarantee for a moment. What purpose does it serve? >> >> Either the explanation turns out to be "right" (in the sense of >> conforming to partner's hand and/or intention) or it doesn't. >> >> If it doesn't, the TD will investigate what the true "agreement" is. >> He will start by assuming that the agreement fits partner's hand >> and/or intention. It will be very hard to prove otherwise and so MI >> may well be the ruling. Do you think "I give no guarantee" will sway >> the TD into not ruling MI or damage? I don't think so. >> >> > It could happen. Here is a simple example. > > Many pairs decide that when opponents use an artificial double of 1NT, > then "system is on", while when double is penalties, they use some kind > or artificial wriggle. > I'm not familiar with this treatment, but surely it is sensible. > Some also decide that "if they're uncertain about the meaning of the > double, we treat it as artificial, because that's probably what they'll do". > > So, if the player, behind screens, erroneously tells us partner's Dbl is > strong, and it happens not to be, MI *and damage* will ensue, while if > he correctly tells us "I guess it's strong, but I'm not sure", there > could be MI, but most probably no damage in the bidding (and you can > always ask the other player before playing the deal).. > > Well, that's a peculiar case (albeit not that uncommon). But surely > somebody as fond of propositional logic as you are will recognize that > when there is but one counterexample to a "always" statement, then that > .statement is false ;-) > Yes Alain, but only if the logic is fully logical, not fuzzy like here. When I say "never" but I mean "almost never", giving a counter-example just proves my point. Do concede that the above example is rather contrived. It depends on people's agreement being "if they're sure, we play A, if they're not, we play B". Seems like a silly agreement to me, especially behind screens, where you can expect explanations to be consistent but not necessarily equal. > Best regards > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 09:44:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:44:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <003c01c898ce$c7cb6620$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be><006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <003c01c898ce$c7cb6620$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47FB2272.5090405@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:58 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I give no >>> guarantee" John >>> >> Let's talk about this guarantee for a moment. What purpose does it serve? >> >> Either the explanation turns out to be "right" (in the sense of >> conforming to partner's hand and/or intention) or it doesn't. >> >> If it doesn't, the TD will investigate what the true "agreement" is. >> He will start by assuming that the agreement fits partner's hand >> and/or intention. It will be very hard to prove otherwise and so MI >> may well be the ruling. Do you think "I give no guarantee" will sway >> the TD into not ruling MI or damage? I don't think so. >> >> If the explanation does fit the hand - then why the need for the "no >> guarantee" bit? It might even induce the opponents into not believing >> the explanation too completely, and to cause damage as a result. >> >> I always advice not to pronounce doubt, and I don't take it into >> consideration when selecting my own calls if the opponents say so >> (other than by doubling them for penalties now and again), nor do I do >> so when ruling. > > Herman, we know you're prepared to lie about these things. Some of us are > not. cheers John. The same argument yet again. What is wrong with hiding my doubts to opponents? Have you never doubled someone because he said "I think ..."? If he'd simply stated the same without the doubt, and you hadn't doubled, do you call the TD afterwards saying "he wasn't certain, but he acted as if he was and now I demand that we'll score the undertricks doubled. You make the same mistake as in that other thread I won't mention. You call me a liar when I'm simply not revealing something my opponents have no entitlement to. You're wrong in that argument, and I resent that you use loaded words like lying in order to gain more credibility for an argument that simply does not hold water. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 09:46:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:46:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <6FFAE4EE-5A88-4959-B443-BCA790FABBD1@starpower.net> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <6FFAE4EE-5A88-4959-B443-BCA790FABBD1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FB22EF.1030102@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I >>> give no >>> guarantee" John >> Let's talk about this guarantee for a moment. What purpose does it >> serve? > > Although admittedly redundant, "no guarantee" serves to call > attention to the fact that you have said "our meta-agreements suggest > it could be" rather than "we have agreeed that it is". > I understand what it means, but what purpose does it serve - even in this altered form. You are required to explain partnership experience, not "agreements" or "meta-agreements". Both are disclosable, and it does not matter if they are of one or the other kind. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 09:55:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:55:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >>>> But in the area where you're playing, 5cM is King, so if we are >>>> playing together in, say, Lier, "no agreement" could lead the >>>> opponents to believe that it could be 4-cards, while both you and I >>>> are certain it's 5-cards. OK? >>>> >>>> >>> Nope. If I was playing in Lier, I wouldn't assume 5-card majors. >>> >>> >> Not from your opponents maybe - but you would assume it from me if I >> was your partner and we'd sat down and had a 30 second system >> discussion consisting only of 1430 and inverted minors. OK? >> >> > Yes, because inveerted minors work well along with 5cM, but you're > taking a peculiar example. If we agreed only 15-17 and 1430, say, I > wouldn't know. > Come off it, Alain - what else do you think we should be playing. My point being that among Francophone Belgians, and among the better Flemish ones, 5-card majors would be the standard, while for lower level Flemish, 4-cards would be the standard. Which would mean that you might be OK to explain my 1Sp on the first board as "no agreement" if we were to play in Brussels, but that it would be not OK to do so against beginners in Lier. Ther,e a "presumably 5-card" should be added. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 8 10:14:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:14:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FB2948.9060906@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain, I know you, and I know you are a very ethical player. You seem > to regard this thread as a personal attack May I be straightforward ? When you call me unable to correctly use logical implications (which, after all, is my job), based on a wrong reading of my previous posts, I can't believe that you were unable to understand them, so the conclusion could be that you're a indeed bit turned against the guy who wrote them. I'm happy to read it isn't the case, so I'll repeat as clearly as possible, hoping it settles the problem : I do not, repeat, do not, equate "agreed" with "discussed", because "agreed" includes "inference from what was discussed or from meta-agreements" ; and for that reason, "agreement" shouldn't mean anything different from "that which was agreed upon" - and so much the better. If I say to a friend that we meet tomorrow at 18:00, there is an inference that we won't (voluntarily) meet before unless said otherwise. That is agreed upon. Even if we didn't discuss it. > But most of the time it's a cop-out from pairs who don't realize that > even when they haven't agreed anything, they still have a lot of > partnership experience. > > And there comes a very interesting part of the problem : are you (or anybody) allowed to discard all claims of "I don't know" (you said yourself that the player shall prove his statement to the contrary, and that'll be very difficult), merely because your evaluation is that a substantial proportion of such claims are vitiated ? My own experience is that people really don't know, very often so. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 8 10:16:34 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:16:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB219A.2030502@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <47FA3EC3.9000104@ulb.ac.be> <47FB219A.2030502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FB29E2.704@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I give no >>>> guarantee" John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Let's talk about this guarantee for a moment. What purpose does it serve? >>> >>> Either the explanation turns out to be "right" (in the sense of >>> conforming to partner's hand and/or intention) or it doesn't. >>> >>> If it doesn't, the TD will investigate what the true "agreement" is. >>> He will start by assuming that the agreement fits partner's hand >>> and/or intention. It will be very hard to prove otherwise and so MI >>> may well be the ruling. Do you think "I give no guarantee" will sway >>> the TD into not ruling MI or damage? I don't think so. >>> >>> >>> >> It could happen. Here is a simple example. >> >> Many pairs decide that when opponents use an artificial double of 1NT, >> then "system is on", while when double is penalties, they use some kind >> or artificial wriggle. >> I'm not familiar with this treatment, but surely it is sensible. >> Some also decide that "if they're uncertain about the meaning of the >> double, we treat it as artificial, because that's probably what they'll do". >> >> So, if the player, behind screens, erroneously tells us partner's Dbl is >> strong, and it happens not to be, MI *and damage* will ensue, while if >> he correctly tells us "I guess it's strong, but I'm not sure", there >> could be MI, but most probably no damage in the bidding (and you can >> always ask the other player before playing the deal).. >> >> Well, that's a peculiar case (albeit not that uncommon). But surely >> somebody as fond of propositional logic as you are will recognize that >> when there is but one counterexample to a "always" statement, then that >> .statement is false ;-) >> >> > > Yes Alain, but only if the logic is fully logical, not fuzzy like > here. When I say "never" but I mean "almost never" When you say "never" and mean "almost never", that not logic, and that's very dangerous. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 8 10:23:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:23:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > Come off it, Alain - what else do you think we should be playing. > My point being that among Francophone Belgians, and among the better > Flemish ones, 5-card majors would be the standard, while for lower > level Flemish, 4-cards would be the standard. > Aha ! There's the reason. If I sat facing you and decided you're playing 4-card majors, you would get upset because it means I consider you're not one of the top Flemish players. > Which would mean that you might be OK to explain my 1Sp on the first > board as "no agreement" if we were to play in Brussels I don't buy this. Why should we know less if we sat facing eachother in Brussels ? I fail to see how the same knowledge might be an agreement in Lier and not be an agreement 30 km to the South. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 8 12:25:52 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:25:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be><47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000e01c89963$013483d0$28d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Which would mean that you might be OK to explain my 1Sp on the first > board as "no agreement" if we were to play in Brussels I don't buy this. Why should we know less if we sat facing eachother in Brussels ? I fail to see how the same knowledge might be an agreement in Lier and not be an agreement 30 km to the South. +=+It could be that ethnicity is a better guide than location. ~ G ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 13:10:47 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:10:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <54464DD1-EF7F-4B10-BE38-63A167A17201@starpower.net> References: <54464DD1-EF7F-4B10-BE38-63A167A17201@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0804080410p79da9ca5ya53f669f6654d359@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > 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? > I propose this: The director should explicitly list the calls (if any) that can be made without penalty at the table. He might need to take the IB-er away from the table to determine this list. This way, he does not have to give any lessons in good strategy (Richard Hills should be happy), and he does not have to explain incredibly arcane rules (dozens of BLMLers should be happy) and wait for the IB-er (who, let's face it, is generally going to be quite confused if no list is given) to guess what is allowed. I guess the main down side of my proposal is that the director will need to take some time to determine the list, but it seems the lesser evil. (I don't understand why this issue was completely ignored in the laws.) Jerry Fusselman From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 8 13:30:40 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:30:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0804080410p79da9ca5ya53f669f6654d359@mail.gmail.com> References: <54464DD1-EF7F-4B10-BE38-63A167A17201@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0804080410p79da9ca5ya53f669f6654d359@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47FB5760.8020509@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> 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? >> >> > > I propose this: The director should explicitly list the calls (if > any) that can be made without penalty at the table. He might need to > take the IB-er away from the table to determine this list. > > This way, he does not have to give any lessons in good strategy > (Richard Hills should be happy), and he does not have to explain > incredibly arcane rules (dozens of BLMLers should be happy) and wait > for the IB-er (who, let's face it, is generally going to be quite > confused if no list is given) to guess what is allowed. > As far as equity and efficiency are concerned, you make a good point. I see a downside, however : you remember the IBer's partner of their system and help him get inferences from his partner's choice. For example, imagine this case we already discussed : 1H p 1H. You'll most probably determine the player wanted to open 1H ; say it could have been a 4-card suit, so you allow the following calls : 2H, 2NT (Jacoby 4-card raise), 3S/4C/4D (splinter), 4H. (if my set of possibilities isn't right, this doesn't change the point) Now, if the player chooses 2NT, placing him back into known terrain, his partner will (correctly) infer that he doesn't hold any small singleton in such-and-such range. But perhaps he wouldn't have realized this without your intervention, because splinterbids wouldn't have sprung to his mind. L72B1 cranes its ugly neck again. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 14:34:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:34:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB2948.9060906@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> <47FB2948.9060906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FB666F.3080509@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: [skip] >> > And there comes a very interesting part of the problem : are you (or > anybody) allowed to discard all claims of "I don't know" (you said > yourself that the player shall prove his statement to the contrary, and > that'll be very difficult), merely because your evaluation is that a > substantial proportion of such claims are vitiated ? > My own experience is that people really don't know, very often so. > Alain, as you well know, "I don't know", even when true, is MI in any case where a convention has been forgotten. Ignorance is no excuse - so why should we accept "no agreement" at face value? What is the difference between "I can't remember if we have discussed this" and "I can't remember what we decided"? The second is more honest, true, so why then should we rule more severely on the more honest one. Isn't it better to ask the bidder for the reasons why he chose the particular bid and decide from there if there is partnership agreement or not? > > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 14:39:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:39:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > David Burn: > >>> Which is, perhaps, only to make Richard's point. If his partner bid >>> this non-existent 2S, what would Herman have Richard say by way of >>> explanation? > > Herman De Wael: > >> Herman would not accept from Richard that this fairly common call >> had no meaning, nor that it had never come up before. Surely the >> meanings of all the other bids are known, so that leaves whatever is >> left. > > Richard Hills: > > In my idiosyncratic system (a.k.a. Worst Method in the World), all > possible hand types are encompassed by other calls, leaving 2S as an > idle bid. Furthermore, my system notes state - in bold type - 2S = > non-systemic. > > So when partner did bid 2S, I alerted and explained the call as non- > systemic. > > If Director De Wael refused to accept all that evidence, then in my > opinion Director De Wael had committed a blatant Director's error, a > clearcut failure to follow 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." > If at the table, all you say is "non-systemic", then you have committed an infraction of less than full explanation. At the very least you should explain what the other bids mean. The CC list these other bids, and that is evidence that your explanation is incomplete. Furthermore, I rule that if you take the time to make your system as complete as that, then you could also have found the time of subtracting and seeing what is left. If it then also turns out that your partner holds a hand that can be described by none of the other possible bids, or if he has any good reason for selecting the bid, I shall rule that not only you did have an agreement about this call, but also that you actively decided to hide that agreement behind the words "non-systemic". At the very least, the words "very extreme hands" could be used to describe this bid. writing "non-systemic" on a CC is, IMO, almost cheating. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 14:44:08 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:44:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> Come off it, Alain - what else do you think we should be playing. >> My point being that among Francophone Belgians, and among the better >> Flemish ones, 5-card majors would be the standard, while for lower >> level Flemish, 4-cards would be the standard. >> > Aha ! There's the reason. If I sat facing you and decided you're playing > 4-card majors, you would get upset because it means I consider you're > not one of the top Flemish players. > >> Which would mean that you might be OK to explain my 1Sp on the first >> board as "no agreement" if we were to play in Brussels > I don't buy this. Why should we know less if we sat facing eachother in > Brussels ? > I fail to see how the same knowledge might be an agreement in Lier and > not be an agreement 30 km to the South. > Which is precisely how you show that you have not understood what I have been meaning. Whether at Lier or Brussels, our agreement is exactly the same. "we have not discussed this, but we both play 5-card majors so I am almost certain that he is showing 5 spades here". Now in Brussels, if you say to some LBF pair "no agreement" (but in french), they will assume that means 5-card majors, so that expression can be accepted. But in Lier, against some opponents, that same expression could well be interpreted as meaning "ACOL", so we'd be wrong in using it. Our agreements are the same, but we are allowed to expect our opponents to understand certain things as given. Those things may well differ from opponent to opponent, so what is acceptable against one opponent may not be against another. > > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 8 15:49:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:49:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB666F.3080509@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> <47FB2948.9060906@ulb.ac.be> <47FB666F.3080509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FB77E9.9090306@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > [skip] > >>> >>> >> And there comes a very interesting part of the problem : are you (or >> anybody) allowed to discard all claims of "I don't know" (you said >> yourself that the player shall prove his statement to the contrary, and >> that'll be very difficult), merely because your evaluation is that a >> substantial proportion of such claims are vitiated ? >> My own experience is that people really don't know, very often so. >> >> > > Alain, as you well know, "I don't know", even when true, is MI in any > case where a convention has been forgotten. > > So all we need is a way to tell when it means "We didn't discuss it" and when ti's "I've forgotten". In the second case, rule MI. In the first case, allow guesses. It wouldn't be fair to say "you have to prove you didn't indeed discuss" and thereafter brush aside all possible attemps to do so. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 8 15:54:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:54:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> References: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FB78FF.1040405@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > If at the table, all you say is "non-systemic", then you have > committed an infraction of less than full explanation. At the very > least you should explain what the other bids mean. The CC list these > other bids, and that is evidence that your explanation is incomplete. > > Furthermore, I rule that if you take the time to make your system as > complete as that, then you could also have found the time of > subtracting and seeing what is left. What if nothing is left ? When playing double-decked Stayman (or Stayman + Baron 2S) and 4-step responses, finding spades isn't a concern anymore, nor is relaying, so 2S might very well be without use If any bid by Staymaner is natural, i.e. a suggestion to play in that denomination, then a 2S bid can't exist. Who are we to decide that's impossible ? Inferior, perhaps. But that's not the TD's job. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 8 15:11:52 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:11:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6BB48264-0E38-497B-9171-2EE20C2AF44B@starpower.net> On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain, you don't seem to understand my argument. When it turns out > that a player has the same idea about the meaning of a certain call > than his partner, it is up to him to prove that this is not due to > some form of partnership understanding. (The director is to > presume ...). "...in the absence of evidence to the contrary". I trust we do know the difference between that and "it is up to him to prove..." > Now of course it is possible that the understanding was just a lucky > guess. A player is allowed to say "We don't have any understanding". > He is allowed to look into his hand and guess a meaning from that. But > he'll have to convince the TD that that is what he has done. The TD gets to look at the player's hand too, and if it is consistent with the player's story that's one piece of "evidence to the contrary". But if a TD determined to exercise a presumption of misexplanation requires him to "prove" otherwise, the player's hand, CC and notes, together, will not satisfy. The TD should make an ordinary (L85) balance-of-probabilities finding. "The director is to presume... in the absence of evidence to the contrary" requires "absence of evidence to the contrary" -- it is a directive that tells the TD only what to do when he can find no actual evidence to consider. > I realize there are cases where this is in fact true, but in the vast > majority of cases there is reason to believe that players know more > than they are telling. Perhaps we should waterboard them. Seriously, ISTM that any director who can say this lacks sufficient competence at "ascertain[ing] the facts" [L85A] to be plying his trade. Perhaps I'm particularly naive for a TD, but it is only on the very rarest of occasions that I ever feel like I might have "reason to believe that [the] players [whom I am questioning] know more than they are telling". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 8 15:22:11 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:22:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB2272.5090405@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be><006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <003c01c898ce$c7cb6620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FB2272.5090405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6D4BBD69-AC75-404B-977C-8AC0076056E4@starpower.net> On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:44 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> Herman, we know you're prepared to lie about these things. Some of >> us are >> not. cheers John. > > The same argument yet again. What is wrong with hiding my doubts to > opponents? Have you never doubled someone because he said "I think > ..."? If he'd simply stated the same without the doubt, and you hadn't > doubled, do you call the TD afterwards saying "he wasn't certain, but > he acted as if he was and now I demand that we'll score the > undertricks doubled. That's a clear argument in support of John's implied criticism, as it demonstrates why the particular lie in question (pretending a false certainty when actually guessing) is likely to work to the liar's advantage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 8 15:40:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:40:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB22EF.1030102@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <6FFAE4EE-5A88-4959-B443-BCA790FABBD1@starpower.net> <47FB22EF.1030102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <23DBFA00-FC48-4DA7-BD8C-4D3AC96A6A8B@starpower.net> On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >>>> "No agreemnt, our meta-agreements suggest it could be this, but I >>>> give no >>>> guarantee" John >>> Let's talk about this guarantee for a moment. What purpose does it >>> serve? >> >> Although admittedly redundant, "no guarantee" serves to call >> attention to the fact that you have said "our meta-agreements suggest >> it could be" rather than "we have agreeed that it is". >> > I understand what it means, but what purpose does it serve - even in > this altered form. You are required to explain partnership experience, > not "agreements" or "meta-agreements". Both are disclosable, and it > does not matter if they are of one or the other kind. One wonders whether Herman knows what a "meta-agreement" is. It is a general principle from which a partnership may be able to deduce the meaning of a particular call in the absence of specific agreement or partnership experience. IOW, it is what you use to figure out what partner is doing when you don't have any relevant specific agreement or partnership experience to consider. It must follow that it is what you disclose when you don't have any relevant specific agreement or partnership experience to reveal. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 16:48:51 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:48:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <6BB48264-0E38-497B-9171-2EE20C2AF44B@starpower.net> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> <6BB48264-0E38-497B-9171-2EE20C2AF44B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FB85D3.1030902@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Alain, you don't seem to understand my argument. When it turns out >> that a player has the same idea about the meaning of a certain call >> than his partner, it is up to him to prove that this is not due to >> some form of partnership understanding. (The director is to >> presume ...). > > "...in the absence of evidence to the contrary". I trust we do know > the difference between that and "it is up to him to prove..." > Yes, so just substitute my phrase with: it is up to him to provide evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry for being slack with my wording. In the cases we are talking about, such evidence is of course absent. >> Now of course it is possible that the understanding was just a lucky >> guess. A player is allowed to say "We don't have any understanding". >> He is allowed to look into his hand and guess a meaning from that. But >> he'll have to convince the TD that that is what he has done. > > The TD gets to look at the player's hand too, and if it is consistent > with the player's story that's one piece of "evidence to the > contrary". But if a TD determined to exercise a presumption of > misexplanation requires him to "prove" otherwise, the player's hand, > CC and notes, together, will not satisfy. The TD should make an > ordinary (L85) balance-of-probabilities finding. "The director is to > presume... in the absence of evidence to the contrary" requires > "absence of evidence to the contrary" -- it is a directive that tells > the TD only what to do when he can find no actual evidence to consider. > But these cases are all of that nature! We are talking about two players who maintain that they have no agreement, yet both know precisely what was happening. So by definition they cannot provide any evidence that they do NOT have the agreement they apparently have. >> I realize there are cases where this is in fact true, but in the vast >> majority of cases there is reason to believe that players know more >> than they are telling. > > Perhaps we should waterboard them. Seriously, ISTM that any director > who can say this lacks sufficient competence at "ascertain[ing] the > facts" [L85A] to be plying his trade. Perhaps I'm particularly naive > for a TD, but it is only on the very rarest of occasions that I ever > feel like I might have "reason to believe that [the] players [whom I > am questioning] know more than they are telling". > But we all know the facts. We have one player who tries to use a particular call to show a particular hand (like Alain with his 4414 bidding 3Di) and another one who apparently understands (Alain's partner bidding 4He or whatever his second suit actually was). Moreover these facts are NOT in dispute. The players are honest, and we may even believe them when they say they have not talked about this. Yet there is an apparent agreement - probably based on negative inferences. Now I don't really care that I have to make a decision on whether or not to believe these players. I am saying that even if they have not discussed this sequence, they do have "partnership experience". As such, the meaning had to be conveyed to the opponents. If it hasn't, I shall check for damage. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 16:50:13 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:50:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <6D4BBD69-AC75-404B-977C-8AC0076056E4@starpower.net> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be><006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <003c01c898ce$c7cb6620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FB2272.5090405@skynet.be> <6D4BBD69-AC75-404B-977C-8AC0076056E4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FB8625.8020004@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:44 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> Herman, we know you're prepared to lie about these things. Some of >>> us are >>> not. cheers John. >> The same argument yet again. What is wrong with hiding my doubts to >> opponents? Have you never doubled someone because he said "I think >> ..."? If he'd simply stated the same without the doubt, and you hadn't >> doubled, do you call the TD afterwards saying "he wasn't certain, but >> he acted as if he was and now I demand that we'll score the >> undertricks doubled. > > That's a clear argument in support of John's implied criticism, as it > demonstrates why the particular lie in question (pretending a false > certainty when actually guessing) is likely to work to the liar's > advantage. > And there's the second fallacious argument again. "Since it works to Herman's benefit, it must be forbidden." Will you never learn? > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 8 16:51:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:51:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FB78FF.1040405@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> <47FB78FF.1040405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FB867E.60801@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> If at the table, all you say is "non-systemic", then you have >> committed an infraction of less than full explanation. At the very >> least you should explain what the other bids mean. The CC list these >> other bids, and that is evidence that your explanation is incomplete. >> >> Furthermore, I rule that if you take the time to make your system as >> complete as that, then you could also have found the time of >> subtracting and seeing what is left. > What if nothing is left ? > When playing double-decked Stayman (or Stayman + Baron 2S) and 4-step > responses, finding spades isn't a concern anymore, nor is relaying, so > 2S might very well be without use > If any bid by Staymaner is natural, i.e. a suggestion to play in that > denomination, then a 2S bid can't exist. > Who are we to decide that's impossible ? Inferior, perhaps. But that's > not the TD's job. > If it's inferior or impossible, it should be used. When it is used, and especially if the user tells us there was some reason for that (other than a mispull), that means it was not inferior, nor impossible. So I rule that the call was systemic. > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 8 16:19:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:19:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0804080410p79da9ca5ya53f669f6654d359@mail.gmail.com> References: <54464DD1-EF7F-4B10-BE38-63A167A17201@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0804080410p79da9ca5ya53f669f6654d359@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <300AF6C5-2B17-4483-B535-EC51F2599B20@starpower.net> On Apr 8, 2008, at 7:10 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> 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? > > I propose this: The director should explicitly list the calls (if > any) that can be made without penalty at the table. He might need to > take the IB-er away from the table to determine this list. > > This way, he does not have to give any lessons in good strategy > (Richard Hills should be happy), and he does not have to explain > incredibly arcane rules (dozens of BLMLers should be happy) and wait > for the IB-er (who, let's face it, is generally going to be quite > confused if no list is given) to guess what is allowed. > > I guess the main down side of my proposal is that the director will > need to take some time to determine the list, but it seems the lesser > evil. > > (I don't understand why this issue was completely ignored in the > laws.) There seems to be a growing consensus that this is correct, that L10C1 does require the director to produce "the list". As Jerry suggests, we are pretty much forced to this conclusion by considerations of practical necessity -- the alternative is to make the ridiculous presumption that the new L27B, whose precise application we have been debating for months, is capable of being fully comprehended and its implications understood by an ordinary player who has just had it read to him for the first time. Which leads us to the next question: what goes on the list? Two very different approaches have been suggested: (1) The TD ascertains what the IBer thought he was doing when he made the IB, and determines what the IB would consequently "mean". From that "meaning", he determines the replacement calls that would be "allowed" by L27B1. (2) The TD determines all of the possible "meanings" of the IB consistent with the auction prior to it, and allows RCs that satisfy L27B1 for (a) all, (b) any, or (c) some other combination, of them. The main argument for (2) is that by avoiding "mind reading" (which some object to per se) we insure that two players making the same IB on the same auction, playing the same methods, get the same ruling; that is not the case with (1). The main argument for (1) comes from its down side, "that the director will need to take some time to determine the list". True enough. But with (2), he will need an order of magnitude or two more time than with (1), which would seem to take the task of the compiling the list in "real time" from somewhat problematic to totally impossible. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 8 16:53:09 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:53:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <47FB5760.8020509@ulb.ac.be> References: <54464DD1-EF7F-4B10-BE38-63A167A17201@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0804080410p79da9ca5ya53f669f6654d359@mail.gmail.com> <47FB5760.8020509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2070E56D-B915-4A59-9878-6B2A033D31B2@starpower.net> On Apr 8, 2008, at 7:30 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> 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? >> >> I propose this: The director should explicitly list the calls (if >> any) that can be made without penalty at the table. He might need to >> take the IB-er away from the table to determine this list. >> >> This way, he does not have to give any lessons in good strategy >> (Richard Hills should be happy), and he does not have to explain >> incredibly arcane rules (dozens of BLMLers should be happy) and wait >> for the IB-er (who, let's face it, is generally going to be quite >> confused if no list is given) to guess what is allowed. > > As far as equity and efficiency are concerned, you make a good point. > > I see a downside, however : you remember the IBer's partner of their > system and help him get inferences from his partner's choice. > For example, imagine this case we already discussed : 1H p 1H. You'll > most probably determine the player wanted to open 1H ; say it could > have > been a 4-card suit, so you allow the following calls : 2H, 2NT (Jacoby > 4-card raise), 3S/4C/4D (splinter), 4H. (if my set of possibilities > isn't right, this doesn't change the point) > Now, if the player chooses 2NT, placing him back into known > terrain, his > partner will (correctly) infer that he doesn't hold any small > singleton > in such-and-such range. But perhaps he wouldn't have realized this > without your intervention, because splinterbids wouldn't have > sprung to > his mind. L72B1 cranes its ugly neck again. In general, a player is permitted to know his own bidding methods. If a law were to be considered unworkable because applying it might serve to remind a player of previously available authorized information which he might conceivably have forgotten or temporarily overlooked, this would be far from the only law in TFLB that would have to be revisited. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 8 17:11:24 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:11:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> References: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 8, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> David Burn: >> >>>> Which is, perhaps, only to make Richard's point. If his partner bid >>>> this non-existent 2S, what would Herman have Richard say by way of >>>> explanation? >> >> Herman De Wael: >> >>> Herman would not accept from Richard that this fairly common call >>> had no meaning, nor that it had never come up before. Surely the >>> meanings of all the other bids are known, so that leaves whatever is >>> left. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> In my idiosyncratic system (a.k.a. Worst Method in the World), all >> possible hand types are encompassed by other calls, leaving 2S as an >> idle bid. Furthermore, my system notes state - in bold type - 2S = >> non-systemic. >> >> So when partner did bid 2S, I alerted and explained the call as non- >> systemic. >> >> If Director De Wael refused to accept all that evidence, then in my >> opinion Director De Wael had committed a blatant Director's error, a >> clearcut failure to follow 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." > > If at the table, all you say is "non-systemic", then you have > committed an infraction of less than full explanation. At the very > least you should explain what the other bids mean. The CC list these > other bids, and that is evidence that your explanation is incomplete. > > Furthermore, I rule that if you take the time to make your system as > complete as that, then you could also have found the time of > subtracting and seeing what is left. If it then also turns out that > your partner holds a hand that can be described by none of the other > possible bids, or if he has any good reason for selecting the bid, I > shall rule that not only you did have an agreement about this call, > but also that you actively decided to hide that agreement behind the > words "non-systemic". > At the very least, the words "very extreme hands" could be used to > describe this bid. writing "non-systemic" on a CC is, IMO, almost > cheating. There is absolutely nothing in TFLB that gives a director the authority to require a pair to "take the time to make your system as complete as that", nor any legal rationale for punishing a pair for failing to do so. Show me the law that says that players must know what they're doing! If every TD did that to their players, it wouldn't matter what the law says anymore, because TFLB would become a useless curiosity of purely sentimental value to former duplicate players. Why not, "I rule that if you had taken the time to become a world- class bridge expert..."? Phooey. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 8 18:23:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:23:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> On Apr 8, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >>> Come off it, Alain - what else do you think we should be playing. >>> My point being that among Francophone Belgians, and among the better >>> Flemish ones, 5-card majors would be the standard, while for lower >>> level Flemish, 4-cards would be the standard. >>> >> Aha ! There's the reason. If I sat facing you and decided you're >> playing >> 4-card majors, you would get upset because it means I consider you're >> not one of the top Flemish players. >> >>> Which would mean that you might be OK to explain my 1Sp on the first >>> board as "no agreement" if we were to play in Brussels >> I don't buy this. Why should we know less if we sat facing >> eachother in >> Brussels ? >> I fail to see how the same knowledge might be an agreement in Lier >> and >> not be an agreement 30 km to the South. > > Which is precisely how you show that you have not understood what I > have been meaning. > > Whether at Lier or Brussels, our agreement is exactly the same. "we > have not discussed this, but we both play 5-card majors so I am almost > certain that he is showing 5 spades here". Of course. L40A1 is quite clear. If you know your partner usually plays 5-card majors, and you know that he knows that you do too, that's a "partnership understanding[] as to the methods adopted by a partnership... reached... implicitly through mutual... awareness of the players. You indisputably have an agreement. > Now in Brussels, if you say > to some LBF pair "no agreement" (but in french), they will assume that > means 5-card majors, so that expression can be accepted. But in Lier, > against some opponents, that same expression could well be interpreted > as meaning "ACOL", so we'd be wrong in using it. Why on Earth would you ever say "no agreement" when you definitively have an agreement? Regardless of where you're playing? Unless you're a liar and a cheat? > Our agreements are the same, but we are allowed to expect our > opponents to understand certain things as given. Those things may well > differ from opponent to opponent, so what is acceptable against one > opponent may not be against another. OTOH, if you don't know that partner usually plays 5-card majors, or if he doesn't know that you do, then you don't have an agreement, in which case it is both truthful and appopriate to say that you have no agreement. If you have an agreement you disclose it. You only say "no agreement" when in fact you have no agreement. Against any opponent, regardless of what they would be likely to assume if you lie. I think I've forgotten what Herman and Alain were disagreeing about. WTP here? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 8 18:58:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:58:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB85D3.1030902@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> <6BB48264-0E38-497B-9171-2EE20C2AF44B@starpower.net> <47FB85D3.1030902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E1FB1EE-D919-4493-95D2-88F722287D1C@starpower.net> On Apr 8, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Alain, you don't seem to understand my argument. When it turns out >>> that a player has the same idea about the meaning of a certain call >>> than his partner, it is up to him to prove that this is not due to >>> some form of partnership understanding. (The director is to >>> presume ...). >> >> "...in the absence of evidence to the contrary". I trust we do know >> the difference between that and "it is up to him to prove..." > > Yes, so just substitute my phrase with: it is up to him to provide > evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry for being slack with my wording. > In the cases we are talking about, such evidence is of course absent. > >>> Now of course it is possible that the understanding was just a lucky >>> guess. A player is allowed to say "We don't have any understanding". >>> He is allowed to look into his hand and guess a meaning from >>> that. But >>> he'll have to convince the TD that that is what he has done. >> >> The TD gets to look at the player's hand too, and if it is consistent >> with the player's story that's one piece of "evidence to the >> contrary". But if a TD determined to exercise a presumption of >> misexplanation requires him to "prove" otherwise, the player's hand, >> CC and notes, together, will not satisfy. The TD should make an >> ordinary (L85) balance-of-probabilities finding. "The director is to >> presume... in the absence of evidence to the contrary" requires >> "absence of evidence to the contrary" -- it is a directive that tells >> the TD only what to do when he can find no actual evidence to >> consider. > > But these cases are all of that nature! We are talking about two > players who maintain that they have no agreement, yet both know > precisely what was happening. So by definition they cannot provide any > evidence that they do NOT have the agreement they apparently have. Huh? We have a player who testifies that they have no agreement. Now that's not determinative or definitive evidence, and it may be discounted as self-serving, but it's certainly evidence, and cannot be simply ignored completely. Then we have a second player who testifies to the same thing. That's two pieces of evidence. If we have no reason to think they're lying, then the "balance of probabilities... in accordance with the weight of the evidence" [L85A1] is apparent. Herman is apparently telling his players that it is up to them to make a positive case that they are telling the truth, while simultaneously telling them that their testimony will be "by definition" worthless. >>> I realize there are cases where this is in fact true, but in the >>> vast >>> majority of cases there is reason to believe that players know more >>> than they are telling. >> >> Perhaps we should waterboard them. Seriously, ISTM that any director >> who can say this lacks sufficient competence at "ascertain[ing] the >> facts" [L85A] to be plying his trade. Perhaps I'm particularly naive >> for a TD, but it is only on the very rarest of occasions that I ever >> feel like I might have "reason to believe that [the] players [whom I >> am questioning] know more than they are telling". > > But we all know the facts. We have one player who tries to use a > particular call to show a particular hand (like Alain with his 4414 > bidding 3Di) and another one who apparently understands (Alain's > partner bidding 4He or whatever his second suit actually was). > Moreover these facts are NOT in dispute. The players are honest, and > we may even believe them when they say they have not talked about > this. Yet there is an apparent agreement - probably based on negative > inferences. Any time any two people guess at anything and come up with the same answer we have a similarly meaningless "apparent agreement". By this logic, if this pair doesn't have a matchpoint disaster, then they must have an agreement. Even if Herman is 100% convinced that they are honest and are telling the truth when they claim not to have an agreement, he will rule that they have an agreement. "By definition." Whatever happened to the TD's obligation to "ascertain the facts"? > Now I don't really care that I have to make a decision on whether or > not to believe these players. I am saying that even if they have not > discussed this sequence, they do have "partnership experience". As > such, the meaning had to be conveyed to the opponents. If it hasn't, I > shall check for damage. When I "have to make a decision on whether or not to believe these players", it matters to me whether or not they're telling the truth. Herman apparently finds no such connection. Why interrogate, why investigate, why worry one's pretty little head about finding the facts, when it's so much easier to just assume that they are lying and cheating "by definition" (all bridge players are liars and cheats, right?) regardless of any evidence, skip all that hard stuff, and just straightaway "check for damage". > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 8 19:07:57 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:07:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB8625.8020004@skynet.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be><006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <003c01c898ce$c7cb6620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FB2272.5090405@skynet.be> <6D4BBD69-AC75-404B-977C-8AC0076056E4@starpower.net> <47FB8625.8020004@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 8, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:44 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >>>> Herman, we know you're prepared to lie about these things. Some of >>>> us are >>>> not. cheers John. >>> >>> The same argument yet again. What is wrong with hiding my doubts to >>> opponents? Have you never doubled someone because he said "I think >>> ..."? If he'd simply stated the same without the doubt, and you >>> hadn't >>> doubled, do you call the TD afterwards saying "he wasn't certain, >>> but >>> he acted as if he was and now I demand that we'll score the >>> undertricks doubled. > > And there's the second fallacious argument again. > "Since it works to Herman's benefit, it must be forbidden." > > Will you never learn? Nobody has argued that. They have argued the converse... "Since it is (consensually regarded as) forbidden, but Herman insists he has the right to do it anyhow, it must work to Herman's benefit." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Tue Apr 8 20:10:59 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 19:10:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be><47FB2948.9060906@ulb.ac.be> <47FB666F.3080509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004901c899a3$e5f5a860$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > face value? > > What is the difference between "I can't remember if we have discussed > this" and "I can't remember what we decided"? The second is more > honest, true, so why then should we rule more severely on the more > honest one. > Isn't it better to ask the bidder for the reasons why he chose the > particular bid and decide from there if there is partnership agreement > or not? > Now you are making sense Herman :) cheers John >> >> Best regards >> >> Alain >> > > -- > 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 Tue Apr 8 20:13:58 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 19:13:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com><47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005c01c899a4$5074b050$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes >Alain, I know you, and I know you are a very ethical player. You seem to regard this thread as a personal attack, in which "never" means, "not even if Alain honestly says he doesn't know". That is not the meaning of "never" when I say: I think "no agreement" is never a correct and full answer. I realize that sometimes it is. But most of the time it's a cop-out from pairs who don't realize that even when they haven't agreed anything, they still have a lot of partnership experience. This is also true Herman, but part of my job is to find out. John. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 9 01:07:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 00:07:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 References: <54464DD1-EF7F-4B10-BE38-63A167A17201@starpower.net><2b1e598b0804080410p79da9ca5ya53f669f6654d359@mail.gmail.com> <300AF6C5-2B17-4483-B535-EC51F2599B20@starpower.net> Message-ID: <019c01c899cd$55aff740$0100a8c0@stefanie> Eric Landau: > Which leads us to the next question: what goes on the list? Two very > different approaches have been suggested: > > (1) The TD ascertains what the IBer thought he was doing when he made > the IB, and determines what the IB would consequently "mean". From > that "meaning", he determines the replacement calls that would be > "allowed" by L27B1. > > (2) The TD determines all of the possible "meanings" of the IB > consistent with the auction prior to it, and allows RCs that satisfy > L27B1 for (a) all, (b) any, or (c) some other combination, of them. > > The main argument for (2) is that by avoiding "mind reading" (which > some object to per se) we insure that two players making the same IB > on the same auction, playing the same methods, get the same ruling; > that is not the case with (1). > > The main argument for (1) comes from its down side, "that the > director will need to take some time to determine the list". True > enough. But with (2), he will need an order of magnitude or two more > time than with (1), which would seem to take the task of the > compiling the list in "real time" from somewhat problematic to > totally impossible. > There could be some combination of (1) and (2). For example, we could take into account what the IBer was doing, plus the one or two of the other most likely possibilities. So if the IB were meant as an opening bid, perhaps you couldn't award a penalty-free correction on that basis, but taking into account that a 1H response is also a likely meaning, award it on that basis. You could, of course, stop the exercise as soon as the possibility of a penalty-free correction is found. This would, I think, make a big difference in the time taken by the process. In practice, perhaps Probst is correct in that it will usually be obvious what the IBer's intention was, and in these cases the "meaning" is known by everyone and can be taken at face-value. I think that another thing that is important is that the RC must exactly fit within the system's requirements for that call. It was suggested recently that a player might make a RC that slightly distorts his hand, in order to get a penalty-free correction instead of having to guess at the final contract. I think that this is undesirable for two reasons: 1. If it should become clear by the IBer's subsequent bidding that he didn't quite (in some way or another) "have" his RC, then the IB will likely serve to give additional information not available from the legal auction. 2. I think that a penalty-free correction, with no UI restraints, is more than enough protection for a pair that can't be bothered to pay attention to the auction. Allowing a deviation as well would be ludicrous. And of course if this were permitted, a player could virtually *always* make a penalty-free correction even if it had nothing to do with his hand, with the aim of getting more information from partner. >From another message: Jan Peach asked: >Having fully explained the requirements of 27B1(b) (probably >several times) do I rectify an unsuitable call under 27B2 or 27B3? I think that the only rectification would be "director's error", since it has become clear that it is the director who must authorise a RC before it is made. And finally: what do people make of Ton's suggestion that after 1H-(P)-1H, a player's 2H bid (always permitted if both natural) can be taken as forcing, or in any case potentially more than eg 6-9? I think that this is wrong, and that, as above, anti-systemic treatments of RCs should be prohibited. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 9 01:16:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:16:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: In America it is commonplace for opening bids of 2D, 2H and 2S to be defined as natural weak two bids. However, there are huge differences of opinion about the appropriate suit quality, shape and strength for these weak twos. In his excellent book, "The Secrets of Winning Bridge", Jeff Rubens relates how, with a casual partner, he defined opening bids of 2D, 2H and 2S as non-systemic. The Rubens Method was one of the Worst in the World in terms of _efficiency_, but was one of the Best in the World in terms of _effectiveness_, since a slab of ambiguity had been excised from the system. Herman De Wael: [snip] >writing "non-systemic" on a CC is, IMO, almost cheating. Richard Hills: As Edgar Kaplan would put it, there ain't no such animal as an "almost cheat". WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism." 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 Wed Apr 9 07:06:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:06:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >There seems to be a defect in the laws. They assume that when an >explanation of a bid is wrong, there was either a misexplanation >of the partnership agreement or a failure to follow the >partnership agreement. > >There is a very common third possibility, that one player thought >a bid had one meaning and the other player thought it had a >different meaning. Richard Hills asserts: Some Laws are defective, but in my opinion Law 75 is fective. In situations where partner explains your call as having meaning X, but you intended your call as having meaning Y, there are four possibilities: (1) The agreement was X; you forgot the system; (2) The agreement was Y; pard forgot the system; (3) The agreement was Z; you both forgot the system; (4) No agreement; you both made unilateral assumptions. Only in case (1) has partner avoided a misinformation infraction, but in all four cases you have received UI, limiting your choice amongst logical alternatives. Robert Frick asserts: [snip] >So I have come to the conclusion that the opps have a right to >know what conventions I use when I bid, whether or not my >partner does. Unless I know I have made a mistake, I always >explain (at my first opportunity) what I meant my bid to mean. >This protects me, but I believe it is also the right thing to >do. [snip] >I think it RELATES to this discussion. Suppose I open 1H, my >pd bids a forcing 1NT, and I am looking at 4-5-2-2 >distribution. According to partnership agreement/ >understanding, my 2C will show 3 clubs. I know my partner will >understand it that way. I bid 2C with only two. This is not a >psyche. It is not a misbid. It is me doing the best to >describe my hand using our system. In essence, my partner and >I now have two different meanings for this bid. If my partner >explains it as showing 3 or more clubs, then I feel a duty to >explain to the opponents what my bid really means. [snip] Richard Hills: The opponents are entitled to know that: (a) You play the Forcing 1NT convention, but (b) You do not play the Flannery convention, so (c) A minimum opening bid 4-5-2-2 lacks a rebid after 1NT. But... If this is the first time that such an anomaly has surfaced in your partnership, the opponents are _not_ entitled to know which rebid of 2S, 2H, 2C or Pass you cut the Gordian Knot. 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 rbusch at ozemail.com.au Wed Apr 9 07:44:14 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:44:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 9 Message-ID: <47FC57AE.8020104@ozemail.com.au> Law 9: When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to laws 42 and 43). ISTM that this allows dummy, for example, to attempt to prevent an irregularity by a defender during the play such as the wrong defender attempting to lead. But this right is not listed in Law 42. The question is: are dummy's rights under Law 9 limited strictly to those specifically listed under Law 42 ( if so there seems little point in mentioning dummy at all in Law 9). Or does dummy have a general right to prevent any infraction, and laws 42 and 43 are covering specifically only some of those rights? Reg Busch From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Apr 9 08:22:46 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:22:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_9?= In-Reply-To: <47FC57AE.8020104@ozemail.com.au> References: <47FC57AE.8020104@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <1JjThm-1rotAO0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> From: Reg Busch > Law 9: When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention > to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is > concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent > another player's ?committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to > laws 42 and 43). > > ISTM that this allows dummy, for example, to attempt to prevent an > irregularity by a defender during the play such as the wrong defender > attempting to lead. But this right is not listed in Law 42. The > question is: are dummy's rights under Law 9 limited strictly to those > specifically listed under Law 42 ( if so there seems little point in > mentioning dummy at all in Law 9). Or does dummy have a general right > to prevent any infraction, and laws 42 and 43 are covering > specifically only some of those rights? The latter. The last sentence of Law 9A3 (see above) is a new one and hopefully worded thoughtfully. Dummy has the absolute right to prevent an irregularity ... as long as he did not curtail this right by violating Laws (42)/43. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 08:25:16 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:25:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FB867E.60801@skynet.be> References: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> <47FB78FF.1040405@ulb.ac.be> <47FB867E.60801@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 08/04/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> If at the table, all you say is "non-systemic", then you have > >> committed an infraction of less than full explanation. At the very > >> least you should explain what the other bids mean. The CC list these > >> other bids, and that is evidence that your explanation is incomplete. > >> > >> Furthermore, I rule that if you take the time to make your system as > >> complete as that, then you could also have found the time of > >> subtracting and seeing what is left. > > What if nothing is left ? > > When playing double-decked Stayman (or Stayman + Baron 2S) and 4-step > > responses, finding spades isn't a concern anymore, nor is relaying, so > > 2S might very well be without use > > If any bid by Staymaner is natural, i.e. a suggestion to play in that > > denomination, then a 2S bid can't exist. > > Who are we to decide that's impossible ? Inferior, perhaps. But that's > > not the TD's job. > > > > If it's inferior or impossible, it should be used. When it is used, > and especially if the user tells us there was some reason for that > (other than a mispull), that means it was not inferior, nor impossible. > > So I rule that the call was systemic. This is ridiculous. When Richard has extensive system notes which show that all hands fall into other systemic bids, and in addition tell you (in bold) thad 2S is non-systemic, you can't rule it's systemic. I, for one, would revoke your TD license in such a case on the spot (yeah, I know I can't). I'll add that I agree (at least partly) on some of your views regarding agreements, but not at all on this. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Best regards > > > > Alain > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 9 08:56:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 16:56:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC57AE.8020104@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Reg Busch asked: >...are dummy's rights under Law 9 limited strictly to >those specifically listed under Law 42 (if so there >seems little point in mentioning dummy at all in Law >9)... Richard Hills: But me no buts. Because of the use of the word "but" in Law 9A3, dummy's powers to prevent an irregularity are limited to Laws 42 and 43. In particular note Law 42B2 and Law 43A1(c). And the point of mentioning dummy in Law 9A3 is to include a highly relevant over-riding cross-reference. 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 Wed Apr 9 09:12:52 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:12:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 9 In-Reply-To: <1JjThm-1rotAO0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eidt Sent: woensdag 9 april 2008 8:23 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Law 9 From: Reg Busch > Law 9: When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention > to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is > concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent > another player's ?committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to > laws 42 and 43). > > ISTM that this allows dummy, for example, to attempt to prevent an > irregularity by a defender during the play such as the wrong defender > attempting to lead. But this right is not listed in Law 42. The > question is: are dummy's rights under Law 9 limited strictly to those > specifically listed under Law 42 ( if so there seems little point in > mentioning dummy at all in Law 9). Or does dummy have a general right > to prevent any infraction, and laws 42 and 43 are covering > specifically only some of those rights? The latter. The last sentence of Law 9A3 (see above) is a new one and hopefully worded thoughtfully. Dummy has the absolute right to prevent an irregularity ... as long as he did not curtail this right by violating Laws (42)/43. ton: That is what we meant, he can't even loose his right to do so. ton From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 10:02:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:02:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FB77E9.9090306@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> <47FB2948.9060906@ulb.ac.be> <47FB666F.3080509@skynet.be> <47FB77E9.9090306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FC7813.3080306@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> [skip] >> >>>> >>>> >>> And there comes a very interesting part of the problem : are you (or >>> anybody) allowed to discard all claims of "I don't know" (you said >>> yourself that the player shall prove his statement to the contrary, and >>> that'll be very difficult), merely because your evaluation is that a >>> substantial proportion of such claims are vitiated ? >>> My own experience is that people really don't know, very often so. >>> >>> >> Alain, as you well know, "I don't know", even when true, is MI in any >> case where a convention has been forgotten. >> >> > So all we need is a way to tell when it means "We didn't discuss it" and > when ti's "I've forgotten". In the second case, rule MI. In the first > case, allow guesses. > It wouldn't be fair to say "you have to prove you didn't indeed discuss" > and thereafter brush aside all possible attemps to do so. > The problem with that is that my point is trying to be that even when it's true that they did not discuss it, that does not mean there is no disclosable "system". I find your 4414 example a very good one. Surely if one player bids a singleton, and the other understands it to mean support for any other suit, then there is some form of "understanding". And I am very well open to accepting the story that the bid never came up in discussion, but I don't believe that matters. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 10:07:09 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:07:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <3E1FB1EE-D919-4493-95D2-88F722287D1C@starpower.net> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA18D2.9090503@ulb.ac.be> <001201c898b3$b7eade90$27c09bb0$@com> <47FA3460.8020403@ulb.ac.be> <47FB20BF.4030308@skynet.be> <6BB48264-0E38-497B-9171-2EE20C2AF44B@starpower.net> <47FB85D3.1030902@skynet.be> <3E1FB1EE-D919-4493-95D2-88F722287D1C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FC792D.6020002@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> But these cases are all of that nature! We are talking about two >> players who maintain that they have no agreement, yet both know >> precisely what was happening. So by definition they cannot provide any >> evidence that they do NOT have the agreement they apparently have. > > Huh? We have a player who testifies that they have no agreement. > Now that's not determinative or definitive evidence, and it may be > discounted as self-serving, but it's certainly evidence, and cannot > be simply ignored completely. Then we have a second player who > testifies to the same thing. That's two pieces of evidence. If we > have no reason to think they're lying, then the "balance of > probabilities... in accordance with the weight of the > evidence" [L85A1] is apparent. Herman is apparently telling his > players that it is up to them to make a positive case that they are > telling the truth, while simultaneously telling them that their > testimony will be "by definition" worthless. > No Eric, what I am saying is that the cases we are discussing are by nature like this. You cannot have a case like this where both partners testify to no agreement. Simply impossible. You are trying to disprove my points of view by coming up with hypothetical examples that are impossible. Take the case of Alain's 4414. Both partners have understood that 3Di showed a singleton. It is then impossible for both to also testify that they have absolutely no basis on which to support such an understanding. Not only can they not provide any evidence for there not being an understanding, they are providing us with evidence for the understanding! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 10:09:44 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:09:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be><006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <003c01c898ce$c7cb6620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FB2272.5090405@skynet.be> <6D4BBD69-AC75-404B-977C-8AC0076056E4@starpower.net> <47FB8625.8020004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FC79C8.6030603@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> And there's the second fallacious argument again. >> "Since it works to Herman's benefit, it must be forbidden." >> >> Will you never learn? > > Nobody has argued that. They have argued the converse... > > "Since it is (consensually regarded as) forbidden, but Herman insists > he has the right to do it anyhow, it must work to Herman's benefit." > And that is the third logical phallacy: It is NOT consensually regarded as forbidden. You start with one fallacy - then add a second - and then use both together to again say the same thing. LYING IS NOT FORBIDDEN !!!!!!!!! Giving misinformation is. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 10:10:05 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:10:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <23DBFA00-FC48-4DA7-BD8C-4D3AC96A6A8B@starpower.net> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <6FFAE4EE-5A88-4959-B443-BCA790FABBD1@starpower.net> <47FB22EF.1030102@skynet.be> <23DBFA00-FC48-4DA7-BD8C-4D3AC96A6A8B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FC79DD.1050205@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > One wonders whether Herman knows what a "meta-agreement" is. > HE DOES. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 10:12:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:12:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <23DBFA00-FC48-4DA7-BD8C-4D3AC96A6A8B@starpower.net> References: <47F490D0.6020103@skynet.be> <014501c89565$4d493ce0$e7dbb6a0$@nl> <47F4A7FC.6010602@skynet.be> <015601c89577$a156b440$e4041cc0$@nl> <40DA9FA2-D820-4972-A88B-D825BAA5C25D@starpower.net> <47F50380.6020407@skynet.be> <47F639A5.70105@skynet.be> <47F655C1.6020709@skynet.be> <006101c898ab$b85002a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FA36A5.1020707@skynet.be> <6FFAE4EE-5A88-4959-B443-BCA790FABBD1@starpower.net> <47FB22EF.1030102@skynet.be> <23DBFA00-FC48-4DA7-BD8C-4D3AC96A6A8B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FC7A60.4080007@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > It must follow that it is what you disclose when you don't have any > relevant specific agreement or partnership experience to reveal. > Indeed. Meta-arguments must be disclosed. So must arguments. But the point that started this sub-thread was wether or not one was obliged to reveal whether an understanding came from a firm agreement or from some meta-agreement. I said that one was not obliged to reveal this. And I don't even remember why that was important in the first place. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 10:16:35 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:16:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> <47FB78FF.1040405@ulb.ac.be> <47FB867E.60801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FC7B63.3030407@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> >> If it's inferior or impossible, it should be used. When it is used, of course there is a NOT missing there: If it's inferior or impossible, then it should not be used. >> and especially if the user tells us there was some reason for that >> (other than a mispull), that means it was not inferior, nor impossible. >> >> So I rule that the call was systemic. > > This is ridiculous. When Richard has extensive system notes which show > that all hands fall into other systemic bids, and in addition tell you > (in bold) thad 2S is non-systemic, you can't rule it's systemic. > NO, the ridiculous thing is Richard using it. He CANNOT pretend that a bid does not exist and then use it anyway. > I, for one, would revoke your TD license in such a case on the spot > (yeah, I know I can't). > > I'll add that I agree (at least partly) on some of your views > regarding agreements, but not at all on this. > When you haven't understood what I meant. If a player tells me a call is impossible, he says that there are no hands with which he would make that call. And then he makes the call anyway. So either: - He has 12 or 14 cards in his hand; or: - He has mispulled; or: he was not speaking the truth when he said there were no hands he would make the call with. I agree that the first two are possibilities, but if they are not the case - then I am ruling that there is ample evidence to throw the previous admission to the scrapheap. And I fail to see how you can disagree with this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 10:20:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:20:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FC7C4D.2040208@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 8, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> David Burn: >>> >>>>> Which is, perhaps, only to make Richard's point. If his partner bid >>>>> this non-existent 2S, what would Herman have Richard say by way of >>>>> explanation? >>> Herman De Wael: >>> >>>> Herman would not accept from Richard that this fairly common call >>>> had no meaning, nor that it had never come up before. Surely the >>>> meanings of all the other bids are known, so that leaves whatever is >>>> left. >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> In my idiosyncratic system (a.k.a. Worst Method in the World), all >>> possible hand types are encompassed by other calls, leaving 2S as an >>> idle bid. Furthermore, my system notes state - in bold type - 2S = >>> non-systemic. >>> >>> So when partner did bid 2S, I alerted and explained the call as non- >>> systemic. >>> >>> If Director De Wael refused to accept all that evidence, then in my >>> opinion Director De Wael had committed a blatant Director's error, a >>> clearcut failure to follow 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." >> If at the table, all you say is "non-systemic", then you have >> committed an infraction of less than full explanation. At the very >> least you should explain what the other bids mean. The CC list these >> other bids, and that is evidence that your explanation is incomplete. >> >> Furthermore, I rule that if you take the time to make your system as >> complete as that, then you could also have found the time of >> subtracting and seeing what is left. If it then also turns out that >> your partner holds a hand that can be described by none of the other >> possible bids, or if he has any good reason for selecting the bid, I >> shall rule that not only you did have an agreement about this call, >> but also that you actively decided to hide that agreement behind the >> words "non-systemic". >> At the very least, the words "very extreme hands" could be used to >> describe this bid. writing "non-systemic" on a CC is, IMO, almost >> cheating. > > There is absolutely nothing in TFLB that gives a director the > authority to require a pair to "take the time to make your system as > complete as that", No, but if you do take the time to list all possible answers to a particular sequence, then you should also take the time to come up with possible meanings for those answers. You cannot beforehand say "that call is impossible" and then use it, AND have partner understand it. Because what you keep forgetting is that this whole discussion is only about cases where partners apparently understand oneanother! If the partner does not understand a call, and ends up in a crazy contract, I don't care if there is MI as well. nor any legal rationale for punishing a pair for > failing to do so. Show me the law that says that players must know > what they're doing! If every TD did that to their players, it > wouldn't matter what the law says anymore, because TFLB would become > a useless curiosity of purely sentimental value to former duplicate > players. > And no, there is no such law or ruling. But we are not talking about impossible bids - we are talking about a bid that was so possible that it actually happened! > Why not, "I rule that if you had taken the time to become a world- > class bridge expert..."? Phooey. > > > Eric Landau > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 10:24:19 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:24:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FC7D33.3080900@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > In America it is commonplace for opening bids of 2D, 2H and > 2S to be defined as natural weak two bids. However, there > are huge differences of opinion about the appropriate suit > quality, shape and strength for these weak twos. > > In his excellent book, "The Secrets of Winning Bridge", > Jeff Rubens relates how, with a casual partner, he defined > opening bids of 2D, 2H and 2S as non-systemic. The Rubens > Method was one of the Worst in the World in terms of > _efficiency_, but was one of the Best in the World in > terms of _effectiveness_, since a slab of ambiguity had > been excised from the system. > > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > >> writing "non-systemic" on a CC is, IMO, almost cheating. > > Richard Hills: > > As Edgar Kaplan would put it, there ain't no such animal > as an "almost cheat". > > WBF Code of Practice, page 6: > > "A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics > where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws > in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has > conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to > criticism." > Let me re-phrase the above. If a player writes on his system notes that a particular call does not exist in a sequence, then he should not be using it afterwards. If he does use it, that means that he has found a hand that it is suitable for. If he can find such a hand at the table, he could also have found it when he was writing his system notes. To take the time and effort to write "non-systemic", when with a little more effort one could have written the hand the bid is now apparently done with, is IMO, deliberate concealing of partnership understandings. If the bid really does never come up - there is no problem, of course. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 9 10:35:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:35:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > In America it is commonplace for opening bids of 2D, 2H and > 2S to be defined as natural weak two bids. However, there > are huge differences of opinion about the appropriate suit > quality, shape and strength for these weak twos. > > In his excellent book, "The Secrets of Winning Bridge", > Jeff Rubens relates how, with a casual partner, he defined > opening bids of 2D, 2H and 2S as non-systemic. The Rubens > Method was one of the Worst in the World in terms of > _efficiency_, but was one of the Best in the World in > terms of _effectiveness_, since a slab of ambiguity had > been excised from the system. > > Another example I know of is a Belgian pair who played a strong club system, and dispensed with the 2NT opening, because they didn't need it as strong, and wouldn't like to give their opponents bidding room by playing it as some preempt or 2-suiter. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 10:37:58 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:37:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > >> Now in Brussels, if you say >> to some LBF pair "no agreement" (but in french), they will assume that >> means 5-card majors, so that expression can be accepted. But in Lier, >> against some opponents, that same expression could well be interpreted >> as meaning "ACOL", so we'd be wrong in using it. > > Why on Earth would you ever say "no agreement" when you definitively > have an agreement? Regardless of where you're playing? Unless > you're a liar and a cheat? > Eric has just called all of you liars and cheats. We are talking about people saying precisely this "no agreement" (or something alike). I was trying to make these people see that although they may have had no discussions about a particular subject, they definitely do have an agreement. Now Eric goes even further and calles them cheats. Not my words, mark! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 9 10:52:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:52:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Some Laws are defective, but in my opinion Law 75 is fective. In > situations where partner explains your call as having meaning X, > but you intended your call as having meaning Y, there are four > possibilities: > > (1) The agreement was X; you forgot the system; > (2) The agreement was Y; pard forgot the system; > (3) The agreement was Z; you both forgot the system; > (4) No agreement; you both made unilateral assumptions. > > Only in case (1) has partner avoided a misinformation infraction, > but in all four cases you have received UI, limiting your choice > amongst logical alternatives. > > Agree. And in case (4), you'll avoid both MI and UI by honestly telling there is no agreement. But some would like to hang and quarter those who do. Is that fair ? Do you read me, Herman ? A case where you can avoid BOTH MI and UI ! Notice that there is a subtle (4b) case : we agree that meta-agreements are in a way agreements and should be disclosed when they are at work. But there might be cases where meta-agreements contradict eachother, so that the meaning of the bid can't be defined. Both players will have to guess which meta-agreement takes precedence, and not all pairs have such meta-meta-agreements. In that case, "no agreement" might be a bit short, but "It's impossible to ascertain, because of conflict between system data" would contain UI. What's the right answer in that case ? There is even a case (4c) : there are indeed meta-agreements, but their use would be absurd in the case under scrutiny. Like you play all competitive new suits at level 3 by PH as fit-non-jumps, and your partner's 2S overcall is doubled *for penalties*. Now, if you bid 3 something, you're left without any agreement (it should be natural, I presume, but you didn't agree that, quite to the contrary). > > If this is the first time that such an anomaly has surfaced > in your partnership, the opponents are _not_ entitled to know > which rebid of 2S, 2H, 2C or Pass you cut the Gordian Knot. > > Adding to that the fact that you might wish to wary the way you do, for example shading a 2S bid a bit but not too much, and partner mightr not be aware of that even after one or two live cases. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 11:02:19 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:02:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Richard Hills: >> >> In America it is commonplace for opening bids of 2D, 2H and >> 2S to be defined as natural weak two bids. However, there >> are huge differences of opinion about the appropriate suit >> quality, shape and strength for these weak twos. >> >> In his excellent book, "The Secrets of Winning Bridge", >> Jeff Rubens relates how, with a casual partner, he defined >> opening bids of 2D, 2H and 2S as non-systemic. The Rubens >> Method was one of the Worst in the World in terms of >> _efficiency_, but was one of the Best in the World in >> terms of _effectiveness_, since a slab of ambiguity had >> been excised from the system. >> >> > Another example I know of is a Belgian pair who played a strong club > system, and dispensed with the 2NT opening, because they didn't need it > as strong, and wouldn't like to give their opponents bidding room by > playing it as some preempt or 2-suiter. > And that is perfectly allowed, of course. What I would not allow is for one player of that pair to then open 2NT and the partner explaining "Since we are playing strong club and weak twos, this must be a mini-gambling, a long minor expecting to make eight tricks on a helpful lead". Especially if that turns out to be what he has. This pair can never "prove" that they have not discussed this, ever, and so their mention on the SC "inexistent bid" is simply wrong, and deliberate concealment, and cheating. (always of course barring their admission that they forgot to adapt their card). If a call is non-existent, then it should not be used. if it is used, then it was not non-existent to start with. Barring mispulls of course - just to be ahead of Richard who told us that example three times already. > > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 9 10:53:30 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:53:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 9 In-Reply-To: <47C4F8DC027DB385@mail-6-de.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9-nl.tiscali.it) Message-ID: <20080409085337.7300854@rhubarb.custard.org> ton: That is what we meant, he can't even loose his right to do so. ton continued: I try to keep answers as short as possible. The above does not mean that 43B is not valid anymore. But he may warn defenders even if he has lost certain rights towards declarer. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 9 11:10:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:10:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC7D33.3080900@skynet.be> References: <47FC7D33.3080900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FC87E8.2040305@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Let me re-phrase the above. > > If a player writes on his system notes that a particular call does not > exist in a sequence, then he should not be using it afterwards. If he > does use it, that means that he has found a hand that it is suitable > for. If he can find such a hand at the table, he could also have found > it when he was writing his system notes. What if he found it in his bidding box when trying to reach for another bid ? Apart from being "not bridge", the regulation about the 1NT-2S-2NT bid meant that you would penalize a player for mispulling, which is contrary to the rules of this game. Notice that many pairs have a meta-agreement that "when the sequence wasn't discussed, it is natural and nonforcing" and this means that "unagreed" doesn't exist for them, but what when the bid obviously can't be natural and nonforcing ? The case I encountered most frequently of "gosh, we didn't discuss that, I wonder which it could be" is the new-suit bid after a major raise. There are at least three methods, and their frequencies are about equal. In this case, I'd accept an unusual pairing's claim that "we have no agreement", if only because I experienced it myself. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 9 12:16:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:16:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> In America it is commonplace for opening bids of 2D, 2H and >>> 2S to be defined as natural weak two bids. However, there >>> are huge differences of opinion about the appropriate suit >>> quality, shape and strength for these weak twos. >>> >>> In his excellent book, "The Secrets of Winning Bridge", >>> Jeff Rubens relates how, with a casual partner, he defined >>> opening bids of 2D, 2H and 2S as non-systemic. The Rubens >>> Method was one of the Worst in the World in terms of >>> _efficiency_, but was one of the Best in the World in >>> terms of _effectiveness_, since a slab of ambiguity had >>> been excised from the system. >>> >>> >>> >> Another example I know of is a Belgian pair who played a strong club >> system, and dispensed with the 2NT opening, because they didn't need it >> as strong, and wouldn't like to give their opponents bidding room by >> playing it as some preempt or 2-suiter. >> >> > > And that is perfectly allowed, of course. > > What I would not allow is for one player of that pair to then open 2NT > and the partner explaining "Since we are playing strong club and weak > twos, this must be a mini-gambling, a long minor expecting to make > eight tricks on a helpful lead". Especially if that turns out to be > what he has. > It's strange you wouldn't allow this, because the player disclosed his partnership's (infeential) agreements and did so correctly. WTP ? From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 13:19:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:19:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>> In America it is commonplace for opening bids of 2D, 2H and >>>> 2S to be defined as natural weak two bids. However, there >>>> are huge differences of opinion about the appropriate suit >>>> quality, shape and strength for these weak twos. >>>> >>>> In his excellent book, "The Secrets of Winning Bridge", >>>> Jeff Rubens relates how, with a casual partner, he defined >>>> opening bids of 2D, 2H and 2S as non-systemic. The Rubens >>>> Method was one of the Worst in the World in terms of >>>> _efficiency_, but was one of the Best in the World in >>>> terms of _effectiveness_, since a slab of ambiguity had >>>> been excised from the system. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Another example I know of is a Belgian pair who played a strong club >>> system, and dispensed with the 2NT opening, because they didn't need it >>> as strong, and wouldn't like to give their opponents bidding room by >>> playing it as some preempt or 2-suiter. >>> >>> >> And that is perfectly allowed, of course. >> >> What I would not allow is for one player of that pair to then open 2NT >> and the partner explaining "Since we are playing strong club and weak >> twos, this must be a mini-gambling, a long minor expecting to make >> eight tricks on a helpful lead". Especially if that turns out to be >> what he has. >> > It's strange you wouldn't allow this, because the player disclosed his > partnership's (infeential) agreements and did so correctly. WTP ? > The problem is that he said he would not use this bid, and then he did so anyway. So his disclosure is, quite obviously, wrong. We are obviously talking at cross-purposes here. Is it OK to have whatever agreements one wishes? YES (of course within the limits of the system policy, but that's another matter entirely). Is it OK to have an agreement to not open 2NT? YES Is it OK to bid whatever one wants? YES, provided it is not based on CPU. Then what's wrong here? Only that the combination of these three things is a VERY strong indication of a CPU. Separately, there is nothing wrong with either of these actions. Put together, they are so incompatible that one of them must be a lie. Since the bid cannot be a lie, the PU must be. And all this is of course far worse if the partner "understands". To return to your 4414: It's OK for you to have not written this out beforehand, it's OK to have not discussed this bid - who could think of it. It's OK for you to use the bid anyway. It's OK for your partner to understand it. BUT: It would not be OK for you to have written on your system notes: 3Di=impossible, since apparently it is possible, and some simple deduction means that you find out what it means. If you had made that thought process when filling out the system notes, you would have written "3Di=4414". I'm not blaming you for not filling in 3Di, but I would be blaming you if you wrote impossible, because that should mean that you discussed it, and arrived at the conclusion that you cannot find out what it is. Quite obviously, you can, since he did it at the table - you both did, in fact. Do you understand what I'm trying to get accross? Impossible calls are permitted in your system, but you should then not use them and expect partner to understand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 13:30:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:30:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC87E8.2040305@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FC7D33.3080900@skynet.be> <47FC87E8.2040305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FCA8E6.9030007@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Let me re-phrase the above. >> >> If a player writes on his system notes that a particular call does not >> exist in a sequence, then he should not be using it afterwards. If he >> does use it, that means that he has found a hand that it is suitable >> for. If he can find such a hand at the table, he could also have found >> it when he was writing his system notes. > What if he found it in his bidding box when trying to reach for another > bid ? I wrote seven messages like this, and only once did I forget to add "apart from a mispull". Of course Alain jumps on that one message. > Notice that many pairs have a meta-agreement that "when the sequence > wasn't discussed, it is natural and nonforcing" and this means that > "unagreed" doesn't exist for them, but what when the bid obviously can't > be natural and nonforcing ? > But then they don't have "no agreement", they do have a (meta-)agreement. > The case I encountered most frequently of "gosh, we didn't discuss that, > I wonder which it could be" is the new-suit bid after a major raise. > There are at least three methods, and their frequencies are about equal. > In this case, I'd accept an unusual pairing's claim that "we have no > agreement", if only because I experienced it myself. > I would also accept it - but the situation is different. Here, the one player is trying to use one of three possible systems, either because he thinks his partner has the same ideas as he, or because he knows only one system. His partner also knows it's one of three possibilities, and he should (at least) explain that to opponents. And then two things can happen: - the partner guesses correctly which of the three it is; or - the partner misguesses. The second case is not very interesting as there will probably be no damage, they may well end up wrongly. So we focus on the partner guessing correctly. This can have three reasons: - he guesses correctly that the bidder knows only one method; - he guesses correctly that they both believe the same method to be standard; - he just guesses without any clues. One and Two means the guess ought to be disclosed. How are you going to believe, as TD, that the reason is three, not one or two? Now if the partner explains his guess, whatever his reasons for doing so - he is not going to burden himself with trying to convince the TD of reason three, nor is he going to burden the director, nor is he risking an adverse ruling if he is unsuccessful in convincing the director. Which is why I believe guesses ought to be told opponents. And maybe why I am quite harsh in ruling when the player tries to convince me he had a true guess to make - when he guessed correctly. There might be a case for not revealing the guess when the partner says - I am using my own hand in guessing - you should guess too. That might convince me to rule differently. Otherwise, just tell them what yuo believe the bid means, even when you are not certain. > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 13:39:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:39:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FCAB01.8070403@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Some Laws are defective, but in my opinion Law 75 is fective. In >> situations where partner explains your call as having meaning X, >> but you intended your call as having meaning Y, there are four >> possibilities: >> >> (1) The agreement was X; you forgot the system; >> (2) The agreement was Y; pard forgot the system; >> (3) The agreement was Z; you both forgot the system; >> (4) No agreement; you both made unilateral assumptions. >> >> Only in case (1) has partner avoided a misinformation infraction, >> but in all four cases you have received UI, limiting your choice >> amongst logical alternatives. >> >> > Agree. And in case (4), you'll avoid both MI and UI by honestly telling > there is no agreement. But some would like to hang and quarter those who > do. Is that fair ? > Do you read me, Herman ? A case where you can avoid BOTH MI and UI ! > Yes, provided such cases exist, and can be proven to be true when they exist! > Notice that there is a subtle (4b) case : we agree that meta-agreements > are in a way agreements and should be disclosed when they are at work. I believe that with this (4b), (4a) becomes empty. I cannot imagine that a player makes a call which he knows his partner will not understand. He hopes his partner is on the same wavelength, using some meta-agreement that he hopes is the same as partner's. Then using the meta-agreement as agreement the true system again falls into class X, Y or Z, and situation (4) ceases to exist altogether. > But there might be cases where meta-agreements contradict eachother, so > that the meaning of the bid can't be defined. Both players will have to > guess which meta-agreement takes precedence, and not all pairs have such > meta-meta-agreements. In that case, "no agreement" might be a bit short, > but "It's impossible to ascertain, because of conflict between system > data" would contain UI. What's the right answer in that case ? In the end, the meta-meta-meta-...-meta-agreement will point to either X, Y, or Z. > There is even a case (4c) : there are indeed meta-agreements, but their > use would be absurd in the case under scrutiny. Like you play all > competitive new suits at level 3 by PH as fit-non-jumps, and your > partner's 2S overcall is doubled *for penalties*. Now, if you bid 3 > something, you're left without any agreement (it should be natural, I > presume, but you didn't agree that, quite to the contrary). > That simply means there is a meta-meta-agreement that tells what to do if the meta-agreement leads to absurd results. My point is still that if the hands points to X, and the response points to X, why should we rule any differently than to say that the system is X. And that leads to: if the partner is going to believe X, then either he tells his opponents about it or not. If he doesn't: he has two chances : a bad result or an adverse ruling; If he does: he also has two chances : a bad result or no ruling. Why should he not reveal he thinks the system is X? > >> If this is the first time that such an anomaly has surfaced >> in your partnership, the opponents are _not_ entitled to know >> which rebid of 2S, 2H, 2C or Pass you cut the Gordian Knot. >> >> > Adding to that the fact that you might wish to wary the way you do, for > example shading a 2S bid a bit but not too much, and partner mightr not > be aware of that even after one or two live cases. > > > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 9 14:16:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:16:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FCA8E6.9030007@skynet.be> References: <47FC7D33.3080900@skynet.be> <47FC87E8.2040305@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA8E6.9030007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FCB392.2040507@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> The case I encountered most frequently of "gosh, we didn't discuss that, >> I wonder which it could be" is the new-suit bid after a major raise. >> There are at least three methods, and their frequencies are about equal. >> In this case, I'd accept an unusual pairing's claim that "we have no >> agreement", if only because I experienced it myself. >> >> > > I would also accept it - but the situation is different. Here, the one > player is trying to use one of three possible systems, either because > he thinks his partner has the same ideas as he, or because he knows > only one system. > His partner also knows it's one of three possibilities, and he should > (at least) explain that to opponents. > And then two things can happen: > - the partner guesses correctly which of the three it is; or > - the partner misguesses. > > The second case is not very interesting as there will probably be no > damage, they may well end up wrongly. > > So we focus on the partner guessing correctly. This can have three > reasons: > - he guesses correctly that the bidder knows only one method; > - he guesses correctly that they both believe the same method to be > standard; > - he just guesses without any clues. > > One and Two means the guess ought to be disclosed. > How are you going to believe, as TD, that the reason is three, not one > or two? > > Now if the partner explains his guess, whatever his reasons for doing > so - he is not going to burden himself with trying to convince the TD > of reason three, nor is he going to burden the director, nor is he > risking an adverse ruling if he is unsuccessful in convincing the > director. > > Which is why I believe guesses ought to be told opponents. > And maybe why I am quite harsh in ruling when the player tries to > convince me he had a true guess to make - when he guessed correctly. > > And you shall say it's only a guess. Especially behind screens, where your screenmate will take necessary steps to enquire before the lead. This will help minimizing the impact of possible MI. Of course, there is always the case that your guess will be influenced by your hand, as you told, and that creates UI. Wasn't there some Mr. de Wael who said you shouldn't deliberately transmit UI ? Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 9 15:04:15 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:04:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Suppose you and your partner have no agreements about a call, no relevant meta-agreements, and no relevant previous auction. Your partner explains your bid as "no agreement". I think the laws completely support you. Until the director comes to the table to make a ruling on misinformation versus misexplanation. You patiently explain to the director that you cannot have evidence for the absence of a conversation, meta-agreement, or auction. The director nods sympathetically, reads you the law, and rules against you. ("but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.") Okay, I don't know what the director will really rule. This is probably one of the best examples you can give for breaking my "The opps deserve to know what my bid means even if my partner doesn't." But unless you want to outguess the director, the safest thing -- and probably the most enjoyable for you and the opps -- is to tell them what your bid meant (as soon as that is legal). From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 9 15:22:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:22:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <019c01c899cd$55aff740$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <54464DD1-EF7F-4B10-BE38-63A167A17201@starpower.net><2b1e598b0804080410p79da9ca5ya53f669f6654d359@mail.gmail.com> <300AF6C5-2B17-4483-B535-EC51F2599B20@starpower.net> <019c01c899cd$55aff740$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2E3059CF-C206-4EEF-A63E-2DB65F9BF1E7@starpower.net> On Apr 8, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> Which leads us to the next question: what goes on the list? Two very >> different approaches have been suggested: >> >> (1) The TD ascertains what the IBer thought he was doing when he made >> the IB, and determines what the IB would consequently "mean". From >> that "meaning", he determines the replacement calls that would be >> "allowed" by L27B1. >> >> (2) The TD determines all of the possible "meanings" of the IB >> consistent with the auction prior to it, and allows RCs that satisfy >> L27B1 for (a) all, (b) any, or (c) some other combination, of them. >> >> The main argument for (2) is that by avoiding "mind reading" (which >> some object to per se) we insure that two players making the same IB >> on the same auction, playing the same methods, get the same ruling; >> that is not the case with (1). >> >> The main argument for (1) comes from its down side, "that the >> director will need to take some time to determine the list". True >> enough. But with (2), he will need an order of magnitude or two more >> time than with (1), which would seem to take the task of the >> compiling the list in "real time" from somewhat problematic to >> totally impossible. > > There could be some combination of (1) and (2). For example, we > could take > into account what the IBer was doing, plus the one or two of the > other most > likely possibilities. So if the IB were meant as an opening bid, > perhaps you > couldn't award a penalty-free correction on that basis, but taking > into > account that a 1H response is also a likely meaning, award it on > that basis. If you take into account only "likely" meanings, as opposed to all possible ones, you negate the advantage of (2) by reintroducing subjectivity. There are two "sets" of meanings here: the intended one and all the rest. I don't see why we should pick and choose from the latter based solely on what a TD thinks is "likely" in the mind of the bidder. > You could, of course, stop the exercise as soon as the possibility > of a > penalty-free correction is found. This would, I think, make a big > difference > in the time taken by the process. I don't think you can. L9-10 don't permit it. The director has an obligation to explain "all the options available" and the player has the right to choose the option most advantageous to his side. L9B2 even suggests that it would be improper for the player to choose until he has had all the options provided to him. In addition, consistency goes out the window; we can't assume that the first possibility that comes to mind will be the same for different directors. > In practice, perhaps Probst is correct in that it will usually be > obvious > what the IBer's intention was, and in these cases the "meaning" is > known by > everyone and can be taken at face-value. That's a very strong argument for (1). If we take intention "at face- value" only in the usual case when it is known (as opposed to treating it as "ordinary UI"), we will need an entirely different jurisprudence, with very different outcomes and implications, for the minority of cases where it is not. It would seem far more satisfactory to handle those occasional cases by making the intention known to the table and handling them the same as the others. > I think that another thing that is important is that the RC must > exactly fit > within the system's requirements for that call. It was suggested > recently > that a player might make a RC that slightly distorts his hand, in > order to > get a penalty-free correction instead of having to guess at the final > contract. I don't think we can do this, unless we first repeal L40A3. But I do think it speaks to an area of unintended consequences of the new L27 that is worthy of far more attention and discussion than it has received to date. > I think that this is undesirable for two reasons: > > 1. If it should become clear by the IBer's subsequent bidding that > he didn't > quite (in some way or another) "have" his RC, then the IB will > likely serve > to give additional information not available from the legal auction. > > 2. I think that a penalty-free correction, with no UI restraints, > is more > than enough protection for a pair that can't be bothered to pay > attention to > the auction. Allowing a deviation as well would be ludicrous. And > of course > if this were permitted, a player could virtually *always* make a > penalty-free correction even if it had nothing to do with his hand, > with the > aim of getting more information from partner. I don't think it is either undesirable or unintended. It does allow us to avoid barring a player from the auction and continue to "play bridge" in far more circumstances. If it results in "giv[ing] additional information not available from the legal auction", we apply L27D to insure that no advantage can be taken of it -- ISTM that that's precisely what L27D is there for. A player who "[made] a penalty-free correction [that] had nothing to do with his hand" would do so at his own risk -- such a tactic could readily drive the auction off the rails and produce a far worse disaster than a guessed contract opposite a barred partner might. ISTM that making a tactical decision whether or not to risk a dangerous misdescription so as leave partner free to bid under the resulting misimpression (a decision that rates to depend largely on just how gross a misdescription would be required) is a legitmate exercise of bridge judgment for which superior decisions legitimately deserve better scores. These are exactly the sorts of issues that I had hoped to stimulate discussion of when I started this thread. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 9 16:05:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:05:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >>> Now in Brussels, if you say >>> to some LBF pair "no agreement" (but in french), they will assume >>> that >>> means 5-card majors, so that expression can be accepted. But in >>> Lier, >>> against some opponents, that same expression could well be >>> interpreted >>> as meaning "ACOL", so we'd be wrong in using it. >> >> Why on Earth would you ever say "no agreement" when you definitively >> have an agreement? Regardless of where you're playing? Unless >> you're a liar and a cheat? > > Eric has just called all of you liars and cheats. > We are talking about people saying precisely this "no agreement" (or > something alike). I was trying to make these people see that although > they may have had no discussions about a particular subject, they > definitely do have an agreement. Now Eric goes even further and calles > them cheats. Not my words, mark! I think I can speak for "all of [us]" (except Herman): When we say we have no agreement, we have no agreement. Herman says that when we say we have no actual agreement but reach the same conclusion as to the meaning of a call, we "definitely do", in fact, "have an agreement", hence are lying, "by definition". Because, Herman says, when we make an undefined bid with any given holding, hoping that partner will work out what we hoped to convey by doing so, and he manages to work it out successfully, that automatically constitutes a presumptive agreement that the bid shows whatever you hoped partner would think it did. Which means that as a player, confronting TD Herman in these circumstances, you will be automatically ruled against unless you can correctly describe what partner intended his call to mean, regardless of the truth of your actual partnership understandings. That is nothing more than an attempt on Herman's part to reopen the old, tired debate over the so-called "DWS" by sneaking it in through the TD entrance. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 9 16:13:09 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:13:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Notice that there is a subtle (4b) case : we agree that meta- > agreements > are in a way agreements and should be disclosed when they are at work. > But there might be cases where meta-agreements contradict > eachother, so > that the meaning of the bid can't be defined. Both players will > have to > guess which meta-agreement takes precedence, and not all pairs have > such > meta-meta-agreements. In that case, "no agreement" might be a bit > short, > but "It's impossible to ascertain, because of conflict between system > data" would contain UI. What's the right answer in that case ? Explain the (contradictory) meta-agreements in full. You will have to decide which takes precedence and how they apply in the circumstances, and so will your opponents. They are entitled to have all of the relevant information you might consider in making that decision. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 16:33:40 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:33:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FCD3C4.1070505@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> Eric has just called all of you liars and cheats. >> We are talking about people saying precisely this "no agreement" (or >> something alike). I was trying to make these people see that although >> they may have had no discussions about a particular subject, they >> definitely do have an agreement. Now Eric goes even further and calles >> them cheats. Not my words, mark! > > I think I can speak for "all of [us]" (except Herman): Don't presume to talk for anyone, and certainly not for me. > When we say we have no agreement, we have no agreement. > This is the most unbelievable thing you have ever written! We have been going for years and years about this, and there are many who feel that there is far too little correct explanation out there. To presume that every single bridge player (except Herman of course) is as ethical as you wish, is beyond belief. To presume that even on this list there are those who perfectly know what agreements mean, so that they can honestly say this without flinching, and say the truth, is slightly ridiculous. To actually mean that you have no agreements, you must be joking. At the very least you have the agreement, with anyone including a player who has never had a single lesson, that you pass with a Yarborough. So please don't say stupid things like the one above. OK. So let's translate the above to something more sensible. When we say we have no agreements, we have no more agreements than the ones we believe opponents already know. If you say that with that meaning, I have no problems with it. The problems start when your partner actually knows more than "no agreement" means to the opponents. Now if you say that this never happens, since all players are honest and know what to divulge, then this discussion is over and the one about angels on pintops is still out there. > Herman says that when we say we have no actual agreement but reach > the same conclusion as to the meaning of a call, we "definitely do", > in fact, "have an agreement", hence are lying, "by definition". > Yes, that is what Herman says. Of course you cannot be lying, and not a single player in the world ever lies, so Herman must be the one who is lying. > Because, Herman says, when we make an undefined bid with any given > holding, hoping that partner will work out what we hoped to convey by > doing so, and he manages to work it out successfully, that > automatically constitutes a presumptive agreement that the bid shows > whatever you hoped partner would think it did. > Yes, indeed it does. Why do you have any problems with that? Even if it were a mistake when ruling against you (because you of course never lie), wouldn't it be a perfectly rational ruling against something of lesser ethics? > Which means that as a player, confronting TD Herman in these > circumstances, you will be automatically ruled against unless you can > correctly describe what partner intended his call to mean, regardless > of the truth of your actual partnership understandings. > NO! If you cannot describe what your partner intended, you cannot be ruled to have an agreement. But you will probably have a bad board anyway. > That is nothing more than an attempt on Herman's part to reopen the > old, tired debate over the so-called "DWS" by sneaking it in through > the TD entrance. > I fail to see the link between the two. The only thing I see is Eric ranting on because he has Herman to rant against! > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 9 16:33:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:33:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > I think I can speak for "all of [us]" (except Herman): When we say > we have no agreement, we have no agreement. > > Herman says that when we say we have no actual agreement but reach > the same conclusion as to the meaning of a call, we "definitely do", > in fact, "have an agreement", hence are lying, "by definition". > > I think it's failry easy to falsify this conclusion, as I have said before. If you hesitate between two or more posibilities, and decide, not to guess one to base your ensuing bidding upon, but rather to pick one at random, for example by picking a card in your hand (let aside UI for the moment), there is some nonzero probability that you'll get it right. In that case, how could anybody say you've acted according to an agreement (even an implicit one) ? So, it is indeed possible to come up with the right aswer without knowing. That's why multiple choice quizzes are weighted. Just for fun, here is another example that proves that when you give the right answer it doesn't mean that you know it. I use it in my courses. When some student tells me that giving the right answer should always net you the points for the question, I ask them to come up to the blackboard, I draw some signs, and tell them : - That's Georgian. It reads approximately "ar vitsi". What does it mean ? - I don't know. (of course, they don't know) - Well, that's the right answer. Now does it mean that you know Georgian ? Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 9 17:49:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:49:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Notice that there is a subtle (4b) case : we agree that meta- >> agreements >> are in a way agreements and should be disclosed when they are at work. >> But there might be cases where meta-agreements contradict >> eachother, so >> that the meaning of the bid can't be defined. Both players will >> have to >> guess which meta-agreement takes precedence, and not all pairs have >> such >> meta-meta-agreements. In that case, "no agreement" might be a bit >> short, >> but "It's impossible to ascertain, because of conflict between system >> data" would contain UI. What's the right answer in that case ? > > Explain the (contradictory) meta-agreements in full. You will have > to decide which takes precedence and how they apply in the > circumstances, and so will your opponents. They are entitled to have > all of the relevant information you might consider in making that > decision. > There are two things wrong with that approach. First of all, it is much too complicated. Explaining possible agreements, and meta-agreements, and then why one or other meta-agreement ought to take precedence, will take up far too much time. Secondly, at the end of it all, you will have to decide anyway. And so will your opponents. And what if they draw a different conclusion than you do? You will say that you've given them everything you "knew". But maybe in drawing your conclusion, you used something like "I know my partner, and he is not as devious as that". You did not tell them that, and it turned out to be crucial. In the end, you came up with the correct meaning, and your opponents did not. It should not be up to the director to decide whether or not you told them everything. You could simply have told the conclusion you drew. I make one exception to this rule: if you use your hand to make the choice, then you can tell the two options and hope your hand more clearly shows partner's actual holdings than theirs does. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 9 19:52:54 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:52:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2008, at 7:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> What I would not allow is for one player of that pair to then >>> open 2NT >>> and the partner explaining "Since we are playing strong club and >>> weak >>> twos, this must be a mini-gambling, a long minor expecting to make >>> eight tricks on a helpful lead". Especially if that turns out to be >>> what he has. >> >> It's strange you wouldn't allow this, because the player disclosed >> his >> partnership's (infeential) agreements and did so correctly. WTP ? > > The problem is that he said he would not use this bid, and then he did > so anyway. So his disclosure is, quite obviously, wrong. > > We are obviously talking at cross-purposes here. Because Alain's hypothetical player has said that the bid is undefined in his system, and Herman has mistranslated that into "he said he would not use this bid". They are not the same thing. > Is it OK to have whatever agreements one wishes? YES (of course within > the limits of the system policy, but that's another matter entirely). > > Is it OK to have an agreement to not open 2NT? YES There is a difference between lacking an agreement as to the meaning of 2NT and undertaking a positive agreement that one will never bid 2NT, whether Herman sees the difference or not. > Is it OK to bid whatever one wants? YES, provided it is not based > on CPU. > > Then what's wrong here? Only that the combination of these three > things is a VERY strong indication of a CPU. > > Separately, there is nothing wrong with either of these actions. Put > together, they are so incompatible that one of them must be a lie. > Since the bid cannot be a lie, the PU must be. > > And all this is of course far worse if the partner "understands". If he might fail to understand, how is that anything other than positive disproof of the assertion that "they are so incompatible that one of them must be a lie"? Herman seems prepared to rule that they have a CPU but don't know about it! If "the PU must be", the possibility of an apparent misunderstanding based on lack of agreement cannot arise. Or is Herman prepared to rule that when a pair says they have not discussed a call, he will assume that they have not only discussed it, but have reached an agreement about it, then resolved, blatantly illegally, to keep it a secret -- and then forgotten about it!? But they must have had it at some point ("the PU must be"), so we will presume it regardless? It's just the same old DWS again: Explain your partner's intention correctly or be ruled against. Your actual agreements don't matter. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 19:55:17 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:55:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> References: <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0804091055uec0f075gf5b86ea0efa1b326@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > When we say > we have no agreement, we have no agreement. > I don't understand this at all. Eric, are you saying that the director must find "no agreement exists" if the player says "no agreement?" Are you asserting that "no agreement" functions like a get-out-of-jail-free card? Do you mean that if you just say "no agreement", the director should side with you every time? Are you saying that if you feel like you have no understanding, then you don't? And the director must agree with you? I think a point Richard Hills made earlier is worthwhile here. (Well, my own understanding of it might not match Richard's.) If a player says "No agreement," then under the 2008 laws the director or the opponents should ask---"But is there an understanding?" The word agreement should not be used. Let us use "understanding" instead of "agreement" in these kinds of statements. I am afraid that most players and directors define "agreement" too specifically. Sometimes way too specifically. They confuse themselves thinking of the dictionary definition. This is the main point that Herman is making, I believe. Perhaps "understanding" will not suffer the same problem. So please, consider avoiding the phrase "no agreement." It clouds the issue. Say "no understanding," if that is what you mean. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 9 20:07:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 14:07:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FCD3C4.1070505@skynet.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3C4.1070505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <519BD720-B094-4EC4-A25B-EC68308DDD59@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> When we say we have no agreement, we have no agreement. I'm sorry, was it not obvious that when I wrote "we say we have no agreement" that I meant "we say we have no agreement about the specific call in question", not "we say we have no agreements about anything whatsoever"? Did anyone but Herman misunderstand me? > This is the most unbelievable thing you have ever written! > We have been going for years and years about this, and there are many > who feel that there is far too little correct explanation out there. > To presume that every single bridge player (except Herman of course) > is as ethical as you wish, is beyond belief. > To presume that even on this list there are those who perfectly know > what agreements mean, so that they can honestly say this without > flinching, and say the truth, is slightly ridiculous. > To actually mean that you have no agreements, you must be joking. At > the very least you have the agreement, with anyone including a player > who has never had a single lesson, that you pass with a Yarborough. > > So please don't say stupid things like the one above. [and so on, and on, and on...] Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 9 20:25:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 14:25:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I think it's failry easy to falsify this conclusion, as I have said > before. > If you hesitate between two or more posibilities, and decide, not to > guess one to base your ensuing bidding upon, but rather to pick one at > random, for example by picking a card in your hand (let aside UI > for the > moment), there is some nonzero probability that you'll get it > right. In > that case, how could anybody say you've acted according to an > agreement > (even an implicit one) ? Good bridge players, when "hesitat[ing] between two or more possibilities", do not "guess". What they do is choose the action that maximizes the expected value of the eventual outcome given the uncertainty. They may choose an (optimal) action that is different from any that they would have chosen had they been certain that one of the possibilities was the correct one. One of the (many) flaws in the "DWS" approach is that it assumes that a player who is unsure of the meaning of his partner's call can only either "guess wrong" or "guess right", when he in fact need not -- and, if he's a decent player, normally will not -- guess at all. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 9 21:13:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:13:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Notice that there is a subtle (4b) case : we agree that meta- >>> agreements >>> are in a way agreements and should be disclosed when they are at >>> work. >>> But there might be cases where meta-agreements contradict >>> eachother, so >>> that the meaning of the bid can't be defined. Both players will >>> have to >>> guess which meta-agreement takes precedence, and not all pairs have >>> such >>> meta-meta-agreements. In that case, "no agreement" might be a bit >>> short, >>> but "It's impossible to ascertain, because of conflict between >>> system >>> data" would contain UI. What's the right answer in that case ? >> >> Explain the (contradictory) meta-agreements in full. You will have >> to decide which takes precedence and how they apply in the >> circumstances, and so will your opponents. They are entitled to have >> all of the relevant information you might consider in making that >> decision. > > There are two things wrong with that approach. > > First of all, it is much too complicated. > Explaining possible agreements, and meta-agreements, and then why one > or other meta-agreement ought to take precedence, will take up far too > much time. I can explain them almost as fast as I can think them, so that's not a problem. Of course, I may be under time pressure and it may take up far to much time to consider them and reach an appropriate conclusion, in which case I may just plunge ahead and do whatever seems right at the moment. Of course, that won't matter to Herman, who is prepared, if I get it right, to rule that I had a concealed agreement that I didn't know about that I derived from a set of meta-agreeements that I didn't recall. /sarcasm off I don't recall anyone suggesting that disclosure need only be correct and complete if time permits. > Secondly, at the end of it all, you will have to decide anyway. And so > will your opponents. And what if they draw a different conclusion than > you do? If they're better bridge players than I am, the fact that they drew a different conclusion probably means that they're right and I'm wrong. To pretend that what I concluded from the knowledge of my agreements (which I would not have disclosed) is in fact a partnership agreement is to preclude the opponents from figuring things out correctly for themselves; it is, in effect, a deliberate deception designed to make superior opponents go wrong. > You will say that you've given them everything you "knew". But > maybe in drawing your conclusion, you used something like "I know my > partner, and he is not as devious as that". You did not tell them > that, and it turned out to be crucial. > > In the end, you came up with the correct meaning, and your opponents > did not. It should not be up to the director to decide whether or not > you told them everything. You could simply have told the conclusion > you drew. Sure, *if* "in the end, [I come] up with the correct meaning", because then the director will never know the difference. But if I don't, the fact that I have given blatant and deliberate misinformation will come to light, and I'll spend the rest of my days in the bridge world trying to convince folks that I'm not a cheater, just an innocent DWS adherent. If a player who cannot determine the meaning of partner's bid could be counted on to come up with the correct meaning in the end every time, the DWS would work to perfection, would be totally uncontroversial, and would have been long since written into law. But in the real world, when you don't know, sometimes you don't work it out correctly, and then the DWS fails miserably: the opponents can't ever go right, and you get punished for the "crime" of encountering a "hole" in your system. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 21:46:39 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 14:46:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> References: <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0804091246y7f30f6bdk5284a2764b0e0ce1@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Good bridge players, when "hesitat[ing] between two or more > possibilities", do not "guess". What they do is choose the action > that maximizes the expected value of the eventual outcome given the > uncertainty. They may choose an (optimal) action that is different > from any that they would have chosen had they been certain that one > of the possibilities was the correct one. Eric has made this particular point several times before, and he is 100% correct up to here. > > One of the (many) flaws in the "DWS" approach is that it assumes that > a player who is unsure of the meaning of his partner's call can only > either "guess wrong" or "guess right", when he in fact need not -- > and, if he's a decent player, normally will not -- guess at all. > I don't want to get into DWS now, but I have a question for Eric: Would you be happy if the player in this case said something like, "I estimate an 80% chance that it was natural, and a 20% chance that it is basically Lebensohl" (said to opponents who understand Lebensohl). After all, the alerter has these probabilities in mind, because only with these numbers can he estimatge an expected value of the eventual outcome. I.e., are you asking the player in this case to specify at the table exactly (probabilistically) how he is going to treat that call that has more than one possible meaning? Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 9 22:51:32 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 16:51:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0804091055uec0f075gf5b86ea0efa1b326@mail.gmail.com> References: <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0804091055uec0f075gf5b86ea0efa1b326@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2171730A-149D-4EEE-90FC-E44CC37BE4A6@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> When we say >> we have no agreement, we have no agreement. > > I don't understand this at all. Eric, are you saying that the > director must find "no agreement exists" if the player says "no > agreement?" Are you asserting that "no agreement" functions like a > get-out-of-jail-free card? Do you mean that if you just say "no > agreement", the director should side with you every time? I am saying that when a player says "no agreement", that is an unagreed assertion of a fact, and that "when the Director is called upon to rule [and] the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:... [He] 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." [L85] Note that it says "is able to", not "chooses to". And I am saying that a TD who ignores those plain words because... "I say that 'no agreement' can NEVER be complete information," or because "While he's probably telling the truth that they both found it at the table, I am going to rule that it was partnership experience after all," or because "When it turns out that a player has the same idea about the meaning of a certain call than his partner, it is up to him to prove that this is not due to some form of partnership understanding," or because "In the vast majority of cases there is reason to believe that players know more than they are telling," [You know I could find lots more where these came from.] ...is neither a competent TD nor fit to be ruling here. > Are you saying that if you feel like you have no understanding, then > you don't? And the director must agree with you? I am saying that the director *may* agree with me if he has no reason whatsoever not to. I am disagreeing with the position that L75C ("the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary") requires the director to ignore any assertion of "no understanding" not accompanied by indisputable proof. > I think a point Richard Hills made earlier is worthwhile here. (Well, > my own understanding of it might not match Richard's.) If a player > says "No agreement," then under the 2008 laws the director or the > opponents should ask---"But is there an understanding?" The word > agreement should not be used. Let us use "understanding" instead of > "agreement" in these kinds of statements. I am afraid that most > players and directors define "agreement" too specifically. Sometimes > way too specifically. They confuse themselves thinking of the > dictionary definition. This is the main point that Herman is making, I > believe. Perhaps "understanding" will not suffer the same problem. > > So please, consider avoiding the phrase "no agreement." It clouds the > issue. Say "no understanding," if that is what you mean. Point taken. The bridge lexicon uses "agreement" for the normal meaning of "understanding", and "explicit agreement" for the normal meaning of "agreement". Which can lead players to take "agreement" in the narrower, dictionary, sense when it might be inappropriate to do so. But this terminological oddity is old news, and I doubt that it confuses TDs, or, for that matter, members of this forum. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 9 22:58:27 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:58:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> Message-ID: Just a psychological point. There have been a many experiments showing that people do not and probably cannot report all of the factors influencing their decision. IMO, there is just too much that can be happening unconsciously. For example, it takes considerable skill to say how you know something is a wall, or a bottle. (If you want to test this, ask people to define a bottle and see how many mention the bottleneck.) Or, when people judge weight, they use size as a small cue but they don't do it on purpose and don't know they are doing it. So Eric is not on solid ground if he means to claim that he can tell the opps all the factors that went into his decision. (And their weighting is not even communicable.) Bob Frick (who is usually not fond of credentials but will mention just in case it is useful that he has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology and has done published research on this topic) > On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> Notice that there is a subtle (4b) case : we agree that meta- >>>> agreements >>>> are in a way agreements and should be disclosed when they are at >>>> work. >>>> But there might be cases where meta-agreements contradict >>>> eachother, so >>>> that the meaning of the bid can't be defined. Both players will >>>> have to >>>> guess which meta-agreement takes precedence, and not all pairs have >>>> such >>>> meta-meta-agreements. In that case, "no agreement" might be a bit >>>> short, >>>> but "It's impossible to ascertain, because of conflict between >>>> system >>>> data" would contain UI. What's the right answer in that case ? >>> >>> Explain the (contradictory) meta-agreements in full. You will have >>> to decide which takes precedence and how they apply in the >>> circumstances, and so will your opponents. They are entitled to have >>> all of the relevant information you might consider in making that >>> decision. >> >> There are two things wrong with that approach. >> >> First of all, it is much too complicated. >> Explaining possible agreements, and meta-agreements, and then why one >> or other meta-agreement ought to take precedence, will take up far too >> much time. > > I can explain them almost as fast as I can think them, so that's not > a problem. > > Of course, I may be under time pressure and it may take up far to > much time to consider them and reach an appropriate conclusion, in > which case I may just plunge ahead and do whatever seems right at the > moment. Of course, that won't matter to Herman, who is prepared, if > I get it right, to rule that I had a concealed agreement that I > didn't know about that I derived from a set of meta-agreeements that > I didn't recall. /sarcasm off > > I don't recall anyone suggesting that disclosure need only be correct > and complete if time permits. > >> Secondly, at the end of it all, you will have to decide anyway. And so >> will your opponents. And what if they draw a different conclusion than >> you do? > > If they're better bridge players than I am, the fact that they drew a > different conclusion probably means that they're right and I'm > wrong. To pretend that what I concluded from the knowledge of my > agreements (which I would not have disclosed) is in fact a > partnership agreement is to preclude the opponents from figuring > things out correctly for themselves; it is, in effect, a deliberate > deception designed to make superior opponents go wrong. > >> You will say that you've given them everything you "knew". But >> maybe in drawing your conclusion, you used something like "I know my >> partner, and he is not as devious as that". You did not tell them >> that, and it turned out to be crucial. >> >> In the end, you came up with the correct meaning, and your opponents >> did not. It should not be up to the director to decide whether or not >> you told them everything. You could simply have told the conclusion >> you drew. > > Sure, *if* "in the end, [I come] up with the correct meaning", > because then the director will never know the difference. But if I > don't, the fact that I have given blatant and deliberate > misinformation will come to light, and I'll spend the rest of my days > in the bridge world trying to convince folks that I'm not a cheater, > just an innocent DWS adherent. > > If a player who cannot determine the meaning of partner's bid could > be counted on to come up with the correct meaning in the end every > time, the DWS would work to perfection, would be totally > uncontroversial, and would have been long since written into law. > But in the real world, when you don't know, sometimes you don't work > it out correctly, and then the DWS fails miserably: the opponents > can't ever go right, and you get punished for the "crime" of > encountering a "hole" in your system. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 10 00:56:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:56:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >tell them what your bid meant (as soon as that is legal). Richard Hills: One of the deep questions of philosophy is, "what is meaning"? For an answer I can recommend the instructive and entertaining book "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar". (An historical survey of philosophical schools illustrated by relevant jokes.) But for the purposes of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, the "meaning" of a call is that ascribed to it by _mutual_ partnership understanding, not by _unilateral_ intent. 2007 Law 75C - Mistaken Call "...South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently." 2007 Law 72A - Observance of Laws "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Richard Hills: In my opinion, choosing to _unnecessarily_ tell the opponents what cards you hold in your hand is an infraction of the 2007 Law 72A objective to strive for a higher score. 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 Apr 10 02:34:18 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:34:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be><47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be><47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be><14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net><47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be><5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net><2b1e598b0804091055uec0f075gf5b86ea0efa1b326@mail.gmail.com> <2171730A-149D-4EEE-90FC-E44CC37BE4A6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001401c89aa2$9c9355a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > On Apr 9, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> When we say >>> we have no agreement, we have no agreement. I think it's time to resurrect the sessions I played where explicitly we started the session with "We have no agreements, but those we discern during the session. The calls themselves have to be licensed". It was complicated that we also had to open all bids from 1C through 2N during the session. Of course this information; and the calls we HAD opened were available on our syscard as the evening progressed. There was no requirement to build a coherent system, of course. In one session We might end up playing Precision 2C, Multi 2D, Strong 2H, Lucas 2S, 2N 5-5 minors; 1NT 14-15 (we neither of us held a 16 or 13 point hand during the session); 4 card H, 4 card S, canape D and short club. This much we would have worked out. So partner opens 2D; we alert and say "no agreement, but it's licensed" ; the likely possibilities are Art GF; strong with D, weak 4-4 maj; 4414 11-15; weak with D, 45 maj, 11-15; but in a way you don't give a damn because it must be right to bid 2H as a response. Alert "probably conventional, but may just be covering the bases". The method scored about 53% over three or four outings, so one can hardly say we weren't trying. The HdW school is in serious trouble with this approach I think. >> >> I don't understand this at all. Eric, are you saying that the >> director must find "no agreement exists" if the player says "no >> agreement?" Are you asserting that "no agreement" functions like a >> get-out-of-jail-free card? Do you mean that if you just say "no >> agreement", the director should side with you every time? > > I am saying that when a player says "no agreement", that is an > unagreed assertion of a fact, and that "when the Director is called > upon to rule [and] the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as > follows:... [He] 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." [L85] Note that it says "is able > to", not "chooses to". > > And I am saying that a TD who ignores those plain words because... > > "I say that 'no agreement' can NEVER be complete information," or > because > > "While he's probably telling the truth that they both found it at the > table, I am going to rule that it was partnership experience after > all," or because > > "When it turns out that a player has the same idea about the meaning > of a certain call than his partner, it is up to him to prove that > this is not due to some form of partnership understanding," or because > > "In the vast majority of cases there is reason to believe that > players know more than they are telling," > > [You know I could find lots more where these came from.] ...is > neither a competent TD nor fit to be ruling here. > >> Are you saying that if you feel like you have no understanding, then >> you don't? And the director must agree with you? > > I am saying that the director *may* agree with me if he has no reason > whatsoever not to. I am disagreeing with the position that L75C > ("the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than > Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary") requires > the director to ignore any assertion of "no understanding" not > accompanied by indisputable proof. > >> I think a point Richard Hills made earlier is worthwhile here. (Well, >> my own understanding of it might not match Richard's.) If a player >> says "No agreement," then under the 2008 laws the director or the >> opponents should ask---"But is there an understanding?" The word >> agreement should not be used. Let us use "understanding" instead of >> "agreement" in these kinds of statements. I am afraid that most >> players and directors define "agreement" too specifically. Sometimes >> way too specifically. They confuse themselves thinking of the >> dictionary definition. This is the main point that Herman is making, I >> believe. Perhaps "understanding" will not suffer the same problem. >> >> So please, consider avoiding the phrase "no agreement." It clouds the >> issue. Say "no understanding," if that is what you mean. > > Point taken. The bridge lexicon uses "agreement" for the normal > meaning of "understanding", and "explicit agreement" for the normal > meaning of "agreement". Which can lead players to take "agreement" > in the narrower, dictionary, sense when it might be inappropriate to > do so. But this terminological oddity is old news, and I doubt that > it confuses TDs, or, for that matter, members of this forum. > > > 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 10 02:37:13 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:37:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080410103255.01d8c360@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 12:05 AM 10/04/2008, you wrote: >On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Eric Landau wrote: > >Because, Herman says, when we make an undefined bid with any given >holding, hoping that partner will work out what we hoped to convey by >doing so, and he manages to work it out successfully, that >automatically constitutes a presumptive agreement that the bid shows >whatever you hoped partner would think it did. And of course, if we do not manage to work out what is going on correctly, we crash and burn and the TD never gets called. So that leaves the cases where we guess incorrectly but still get a good score. The opponents call the cops, and then TD Herman, rules misinformation anyway? (I may be misrepresenting Herman here) Cheers Tony (Sydney) From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 10 02:44:46 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:44:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:56:06 -0400, wrote: > > 2007 Law 72A - Observance of Laws > > "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict > accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a > higher score than other contestants whilst complying with > the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in > these laws." Ha. This is debated in the letters to the editor to the ACBL Bulletin (you can see my sources of information), with no agreement. So I would rank it as a controversial law. It is contradicted by 81C5 (81C8 in the old rules), which clearly (in my mind!) establishes a player's rights to request that penalties be waived, even if that would clearly be to a player's advantage. Applying the Law of Specificity to this contradiction, I conclude (for now?) the following. It is appropriate to forfeit possible advantages through the application or nonapplication of the laws. It is NOT permitted to deliberately do poorly on a board because of bidding or play. Yes, that's a little self-serving. The principle of Specificity just gets you to it being okay to waive penalities. But it is so obviously wrong to deliberately do badly on a board because of bidding or play, I like my interpretation. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, choosing to _unnecessarily_ tell the > opponents what cards you hold in your hand is an > infraction of the 2007 Law 72A objective to strive for a > higher score. Hmmm. Does that mean that ethically I should appeal every director decision for which I think I have even the smallest chance of gaining? I am not allowed to tell an opponent to hold his/her hand back? Can I warn the opp before the opp commits an irregularity? Can I agree to sit E/W if the weaker field is NS? I think there is an exception, but basically Law 72A refers only to the bidding and play. (Don't most people give this interpretation to 73B1 in the old laws -- gratuitous information is illegal only when it communicates information relevant to bidding or play, not information that would affect compliance with proper procedures?) Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 10 03:06:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:06:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080409081805.27F53CCD056@mailgw2.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 2007 Law 9A3: "...However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's ?committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to laws 42 and 43)." Reg Busch: [snip] >>>Or does dummy have a general right to prevent any infraction, >>>and laws 42 and 43 are covering specifically only some of >>>those rights? Peter Eidt: >>The latter. >> >>The last sentence of Law 9A3 (see above) is a new one and >>hopefully worded thoughtfully. Dummy has the absolute right to >>prevent an irregularity ... as long as he did not curtail this >>right by violating Laws (42)/43. Ton Kooijman: >That is what we meant, he can't even loose his right to do so. > >I try to keep answers as short as possible. The above does not >mean that 43B is not valid anymore. But he may warn defenders >even if he has lost certain rights towards declarer. Richard Hills: Okay, I retract my previous misinterpretation of Laws 9, 42 and 43. I merely note that thoughtful but over-concise wording may be less effective than thoughtful but verbose wording. For example, I would prefer the 2018 version of the Lawbook to have a new clause under Law 42A (Dummy's Rights - Absolute Rights): 2018 Law 42A4: "Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by a defender." 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 Apr 10 03:45:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:45:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >Notice that there is a subtle (4b) case : we agree that meta-agreements >are in a way agreements and should be disclosed when they are at work. >But there might be cases where meta-agreements contradict each other, >so that the meaning of the bid can't be defined. Both players will have >to guess which meta-agreement takes precedence, and not all pairs have >such meta-meta-agreements. In that case, "no agreement" might be a bit >short, 2007 Law 40B6(a): "...disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience..." Richard Hills: To take a practical example, suppose pard bids 4NT in a competitive auction where it logically could have one of three meanings: (a) natural and to play, or (b) Blackwood, or (c) a minor-two suiter. If you have only two meta-agreements in this circumstance, one suggesting (a) and the other suggesting (b), you have an obligation to tell the opponents of your implicit agreement of not-(c), *not* the bit short "no agreement". Alain Gottcheiner: >but "It's impossible to ascertain, because of conflict between system >data" would contain UI. Richard Hills: _Might_ contain UI. Pard may have knowingly chosen an ambiguous bid, in full awareness of the conflicting meta-agreements, because pard deemed that other calls were even worse. Anyway, 2007 Law 40B6(a) means the opponents are entitled to *all* special information - even when you have specially agreed to play logically inconsistent methods - so if any UI is created that creation is mandatory. WBF Code of Practice, page 7: "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." Best wishes Richard James Hills 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 rbusch at ozemail.com.au Thu Apr 10 04:32:16 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:32:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd Message-ID: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> A few months ago, I submitted this question. North opens 1C, then realises that South had already opened 1C, pass from West. The NS 1C shows an opening hand with possibly only three clubs. North asks the TD whether he can make a RC of 3NT without penalty. In the NS methods 1C - 3NT would show 13-15 HCP with clubs the only 4 card suit. The one reply said that yes, North may bid 3NT because it is 'more precise'. Question 1 Following on from this: is it my duty as TD to ensure that the IBer's hand is systemically consistent with the RC - in this case that he has a 3-3-3-4 hand and 13-15 HCP?. Or is he allowed now to systemically mis-describe his hand with say a 4-3-3-3 hand in order to keep the bidding open? Question 2:If 3NT is acceptable because it is more specific, take the situation where NS playing 5 card majors may open on as few as two clubs ( non-forcing). So the 1C is artificial, but the IBer still may have recourse to 27B1(b). Is 3NT still OK as being more specific? If not, why not? Question 3:. After the auction 1C - 1C replaced with 3NT as permitted by the TD, South now bids 6NT. EW take the H ace and now East holds Jxxx in both black suits.. He has been told by South that the 3NT shows 13-15 with clubs as the only 4 card suit. Dummy has AQX in both black suits. East has to discard from a black suit -. no problem - he discards a spade. North who had three clubs and four spades to start with now cashes four spades to make his slam.. Do EW have a case for damage?.Law 27D allows an adjustment if 'without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different'. There was no gain from the actual infraction - the gain was from North's intentional mis-description of his hand (sanctioned by the TD), Is East expected to know that North is entitled to mis-describe his hand in this situation? Reg Busch From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 05:05:14 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 22:05:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> References: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0804092005y2e4ce723l1f770a3d569fe2c2@mail.gmail.com> Wonderful questions, Reg! I too am eager to hear an authoritative answer. I am no authority, but I have opinions anyway. My answers would be as follows: 1. No, he is not allowed to systemically misdescribe his hand to keep partner in the auction. Furthermore, I don't think that he should be allowed to bend the partnership agreements to correct with a zero-penalty bid. I would even put the burden of proof that on the partnership that no stretching is going on. I believe I am in the minority here, but this is my reasoning: We should not allow a two-tiered system where a player bids sufficiently when his hand perfectly meets the criteria for a bid and he bids insufficiently when he must stretch to meet the criteria. I admit there are other ways to handle this. 2. Same answer as #1. 3. Even if my answers above are deemed wrong, it seems clear that EW have a good case for damage. Jerry Fusselman 3. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 10 08:19:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:19:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Reg Busch: A few months ago, I submitted this question. North opens 1C, then realises that South had already opened 1C, pass from West. The NS 1C shows an opening hand with possibly only three clubs. North asks the TD whether he can make a RC of 3NT without penalty. In the NS methods 1C - 3NT would show 13-15 HCP with clubs the only 4 card suit. The one reply said that yes, North may bid 3NT because it is 'more precise'. Question 1 Following on from this: is it my duty as TD to ensure that the IBer's hand is systemically consistent with the RC - in this case that he has a 3-3-3-4 hand and 13-15 HCP?. Or is he allowed now to systemically mis-describe his hand with say a 4-3-3-3 hand in order to keep the bidding open? Richard Hills: >Yes and No. 2007 Law 40A3 gives a player a conditional right to >psyche. But the ABF is adopting a Law 40B3 regulation which prohibits >adoption of new partnership understandings after an irregularity. In >short, as soon as partner becomes aware that the system may vary after >an insufficient bid, then such variation cease to be a legal psyche, >and instead becomes an illegal CPU pseudo-psyche. Reg Busch: Question 2:If 3NT is acceptable because it is more specific, take the situation where NS playing 5 card majors may open on as few as two clubs ( non-forcing). So the 1C is artificial, but the IBer still may have recourse to 27B1(b). Is 3NT still OK as being more specific? If not, why not? Richard Hills: >Yes, still OK since still more precise. Reg Busch: Question 3:. After the auction 1C - 1C replaced with 3NT as permitted by the TD, South now bids 6NT. EW take the H ace and now East holds Jxxx in both black suits.. He has been told by South that the 3NT shows 13-15 with clubs as the only 4 card suit. Dummy has AQX in both black suits. East has to discard from a black suit -. no problem - he discards a spade. North who had three clubs and four spades to start with now cashes four spades to make his slam.. Do EW have a case for damage?.Law 27D allows an adjustment if 'without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different'. There was no gain from the actual infraction - the gain was from North's intentional mis-description of his hand (sanctioned by the TD), Is East expected to know that North is entitled to mis-describe his hand in this situation? Richard Hills: >Yes and No. If North legally psyched, no infraction, no adjustment. > >If North-South have committed MI after an illegal CPU pseudo-psyche, >then there are several infractions and a prima facie case of damage. >In this case Law 40 and Law 12 are the relevant Laws, not Law 27D. 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 Apr 10 08:43:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:43:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC7D33.3080900@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: >>If a player writes on his system notes that a particular call does >>not exist in a sequence, then he should not be using it afterwards. If >>he does use it, that means that he has found a hand that it is >>suitable for. If he can find such a hand at the table, he could also >>have found it when he was writing his system notes. To take the time >>and effort to write "non-systemic", when with a little more effort one >>could have written the hand the bid is now apparently done with, is >>IMO, deliberate concealing of partnership understandings. Richard Hills succinct answer: >A first-time unilateral action by *one* partner is not a pre-existing >mutual implicit understanding of *both* partners. 2007 Law 40A3. Eric Landau comprehensive answer: I am saying that when a player says "no agreement", that is an unagreed assertion of a fact, and that "when the Director is called upon to rule [and] the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:... [He] 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." [L85] Note that it says "is able to", not "chooses to". And I am saying that a TD who ignores those plain words because... "I say that 'no agreement' can NEVER be complete information," or because "While he's probably telling the truth that they both found it at the table, I am going to rule that it was partnership experience after all," or because "When it turns out that a player has the same idea about the meaning of a certain call than his partner, it is up to him to prove that this is not due to some form of partnership understanding," or because "In the vast majority of cases there is reason to believe that players know more than they are telling," [You know I could find lots more where these came from.] ...is neither a competent TD nor fit to be ruling here. 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 08:47:46 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:47:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FC7B63.3030407@skynet.be> References: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> <47FB78FF.1040405@ulb.ac.be> <47FB867E.60801@skynet.be> <47FC7B63.3030407@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 09/04/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >>> > >> If it's inferior or impossible, it should be used. When it is used, > > of course there is a NOT missing there: > If it's inferior or impossible, then it should not be used. Here you're correcting yourself, Herman - I said nothing of the above. > > >> and especially if the user tells us there was some reason for that > >> (other than a mispull), that means it was not inferior, nor impossible. > >> > >> So I rule that the call was systemic. > > > > This is ridiculous. When Richard has extensive system notes which show > > that all hands fall into other systemic bids, and in addition tell you > > (in bold) thad 2S is non-systemic, you can't rule it's systemic. > > > > NO, the ridiculous thing is Richard using it. > He CANNOT pretend that a bid does not exist and then use it anyway. Well, it wasn't Richard using it, as far as I remember his partner pulled the 2S stunt, not that it matters. > > > I, for one, would revoke your TD license in such a case on the spot > > (yeah, I know I can't). > > > > I'll add that I agree (at least partly) on some of your views > > regarding agreements, but not at all on this. > > > > When you haven't understood what I meant. > > If a player tells me a call is impossible, he says that there are no > hands with which he would make that call. And then he makes the call > anyway. So either: > - He has 12 or 14 cards in his hand; > or: > - He has mispulled; > or: > he was not speaking the truth when he said there were no hands he > would make the call with. > > I agree that the first two are possibilities, but if they are not the > case - then I am ruling that there is ample evidence to throw the > previous admission to the scrapheap. > > And I fail to see how you can disagree with this. I understand perfectly well what you mean. I still disagree. When a pair can prove to you that a bid is non-systemic, you just have to accept that. If one of the players thinks he's found some hole in the system, the pair obviously will have to discuss this afterward. Maybe they then will agree that there in fact is a hole which might be plugged by assigning some meaning to this 2S bid. In that case they will have an agreement about the call from that point on. At the moment, though, when such agreement is not in place, and the 2S bidders partner hasn't got a clue what might be intended by the bid, obviously there's no agreement. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 10 09:04:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:04:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2007 Law 72A - Observance of Laws "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Robert Frick: Ha. This is debated in the letters to the editor to the ACBL Bulletin (you can see my sources of information), with no agreement. [snip] Hmmm. Does that mean that ethically I should appeal every director decision for which I think I have even the smallest chance of gaining? [snip] Richard Hills (old "Masochism Tango" thread): >>>Edgar Kaplan asserted that tournament bridge >>>would cease to be a meaningful competition, unless >>>contestants acted as best as they could to win. >>> >>>A subsequent letter to Bridge World satirised >>>Kaplan's position by postulating this hypothetical: >>> >>>*You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match >>>choking on his food. If he dies, you win the match >>>by default.* >>> >>>In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted >>>that while the Bridge Laws were silent on whether to >>>let an opponent choke to death, he still deprecated >>>such an action. A Canberra colleague replied: >>I think the proper action when someone is choking to >>death at the bridge table is to call the Director. It >>probably rates as an irregularity. David Stevenson: >At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether >killing a TD should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a >warning on the first occasion. 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 Thu Apr 10 09:54:15 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:54:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0804092005y2e4ce723l1f770a3d569fe2c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wonderful questions, Reg! I too am eager to hear an authoritative answer. I am no authority, but I have opinions anyway. My answers would be as follows: ton: I am still considered to be an authority by at least some people (don't worry: just talking about bridge laws). But I hurry to say, mainly to avoid Grattan jumping in telling me and you that this can only be ....., that this is my very personal opinion. Yes a player after having made an insufficient call may misdescribe his hand. I thought that we described in detail the 1H - 1H situation, where partner may bid 2H now. This is not a matter of having a systemic agreement, this is a player who tries to find a solution for an irregularity not to be penalized. Just a suggestion in this rather complicated situation dealing with L 27. Could you try to make a clear distinction between lawful application and wishful thinking. We should make clear to the bridge world how to deal with insufficient bids. And once again this is not a 2007 invention, we deal with it in the same way for many decades already, though I start to understand that some regions were not aware of it. ton From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 10:06:58 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:06:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> <47FB78FF.1040405@ulb.ac.be> <47FB867E.60801@skynet.be> <47FC7B63.3030407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FDCAA2.1030006@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 09/04/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Harald Skj??ran wrote: >>>> If it's inferior or impossible, it should be used. When it is used, >> of course there is a NOT missing there: >> If it's inferior or impossible, then it should not be used. > > Here you're correcting yourself, Herman - I said nothing of the above. Indeed I was correcting myself - no-one else seemed to notice! >>>> and especially if the user tells us there was some reason for that >>>> (other than a mispull), that means it was not inferior, nor impossible. >>>> >>>> So I rule that the call was systemic. >>> This is ridiculous. When Richard has extensive system notes which show >>> that all hands fall into other systemic bids, and in addition tell you >>> (in bold) thad 2S is non-systemic, you can't rule it's systemic. >>> >> NO, the ridiculous thing is Richard using it. >> He CANNOT pretend that a bid does not exist and then use it anyway. > > Well, it wasn't Richard using it, as far as I remember his partner > pulled the 2S stunt, not that it matters. >>> I, for one, would revoke your TD license in such a case on the spot >>> (yeah, I know I can't). >>> >>> I'll add that I agree (at least partly) on some of your views >>> regarding agreements, but not at all on this. >>> >> When you haven't understood what I meant. >> >> If a player tells me a call is impossible, he says that there are no >> hands with which he would make that call. And then he makes the call >> anyway. So either: >> - He has 12 or 14 cards in his hand; >> or: >> - He has mispulled; >> or: >> he was not speaking the truth when he said there were no hands he >> would make the call with. >> >> I agree that the first two are possibilities, but if they are not the >> case - then I am ruling that there is ample evidence to throw the >> previous admission to the scrapheap. >> >> And I fail to see how you can disagree with this. > > I understand perfectly well what you mean. I still disagree. When a > pair can prove to you that a bid is non-systemic, you just have to > accept that. Oh, I would - but how are they ever going to be able to prove this? > If one of the players thinks he's found some hole in the > system, the pair obviously will have to discuss this afterward. Maybe > they then will agree that there in fact is a hole which might be > plugged by assigning some meaning to this 2S bid. In that case they > will have an agreement about the call from that point on. At the > moment, though, when such agreement is not in place, and the 2S > bidders partner hasn't got a clue what might be intended by the bid, > obviously there's no agreement. > And that is where you are not following. If one player, at the table, finds a plug in the whole, that means the plug was always there. If, after their discussion, they find out that the one player found the plug that was always there, then they had this "agreement" all along. Now obviously they are not going to come back to TD Harald and say "you would have been right in calling our bid systemic, please give an AS after all". Which is why TD Herman gives the AS from the word go. Of course we also have to deal with the fact that maybe they don't agree with the plug in the hole. Then you might say there was nothing wrong. But if they first get an AS depending on whether they later accept the bid to be systemic, surely they will find it non-systemic. My point is that if one player believes he is bidding according to system, and the other cannot quickly disprove it, then who shall decide what the system is? Obviously it has to be the TD, because the players are biased. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 10:12:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:12:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 9, 2008, at 7:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >>>> What I would not allow is for one player of that pair to then >>>> open 2NT >>>> and the partner explaining "Since we are playing strong club and >>>> weak >>>> twos, this must be a mini-gambling, a long minor expecting to make >>>> eight tricks on a helpful lead". Especially if that turns out to be >>>> what he has. >>> It's strange you wouldn't allow this, because the player disclosed >>> his >>> partnership's (infeential) agreements and did so correctly. WTP ? >> The problem is that he said he would not use this bid, and then he did >> so anyway. So his disclosure is, quite obviously, wrong. >> >> We are obviously talking at cross-purposes here. > > Because Alain's hypothetical player has said that the bid is > undefined in his system, and Herman has mistranslated that into "he > said he would not use this bid". They are not the same thing. > No they are not, but that is not what Alain's player said. A bid cannot be undefined, since it is then defined by omission of all the other hands that have a bid assigned to them. What I am talking about are bids that are said to be non-existent. And that means they should not be possible. >> Is it OK to have whatever agreements one wishes? YES (of course within >> the limits of the system policy, but that's another matter entirely). >> >> Is it OK to have an agreement to not open 2NT? YES > > There is a difference between lacking an agreement as to the meaning > of 2NT and undertaking a positive agreement that one will never bid > 2NT, whether Herman sees the difference or not. > Of course there is a difference, but the one cannot exist, only the other makes sense. Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you must be in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or 2Sp; so it probably has long clubs and a super-maximum. That "defines" the bid, whether Eric believes it does or not. >> Is it OK to bid whatever one wants? YES, provided it is not based >> on CPU. >> >> Then what's wrong here? Only that the combination of these three >> things is a VERY strong indication of a CPU. >> >> Separately, there is nothing wrong with either of these actions. Put >> together, they are so incompatible that one of them must be a lie. >> Since the bid cannot be a lie, the PU must be. >> >> And all this is of course far worse if the partner "understands". > > If he might fail to understand, how is that anything other than > positive disproof of the assertion that "they are so incompatible > that one of them must be a lie"? Herman seems prepared to rule that > they have a CPU but don't know about it! If "the PU must be", the > possibility of an apparent misunderstanding based on lack of > agreement cannot arise. > > Or is Herman prepared to rule that when a pair says they have not > discussed a call, he will assume that they have not only discussed > it, but have reached an agreement about it, then resolved, blatantly > illegally, to keep it a secret -- and then forgotten about it!? But > they must have had it at some point ("the PU must be"), so we will > presume it regardless? > > It's just the same old DWS again: Explain your partner's intention > correctly or be ruled against. Your actual agreements don't matter. > Except that in this case, the actual agreements are not known (to Eric) and so they cannot matter. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 10:14:09 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:14:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FDCC51.7060808@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > >>> If a player writes on his system notes that a particular call does >>> not exist in a sequence, then he should not be using it afterwards. If >>> he does use it, that means that he has found a hand that it is >>> suitable for. If he can find such a hand at the table, he could also >>> have found it when he was writing his system notes. To take the time >>> and effort to write "non-systemic", when with a little more effort one >>> could have written the hand the bid is now apparently done with, is >>> IMO, deliberate concealing of partnership understandings. > > Richard Hills succinct answer: > >> A first-time unilateral action by *one* partner is not a pre-existing >> mutual implicit understanding of *both* partners. 2007 Law 40A3. > > Eric Landau comprehensive answer: > > I am saying that when a player says "no agreement", that is an > unagreed assertion of a fact, and that "when the Director is called > upon to rule [and] the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as > follows:... [He] 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." [L85] Note that it says "is able > to", not "chooses to". > > And I am saying that a TD who ignores those plain words because... > > "I say that 'no agreement' can NEVER be complete information," or > because > > "While he's probably telling the truth that they both found it at the > table, I am going to rule that it was partnership experience after > all," or because > > "When it turns out that a player has the same idea about the meaning > of a certain call than his partner, it is up to him to prove that > this is not due to some form of partnership understanding," or because > > "In the vast majority of cases there is reason to believe that > players know more than they are telling," > > [You know I could find lots more where these came from.] ...is > neither a competent TD nor fit to be ruling here. > Just remember to blatantly lie in Richard's face next time you have him as a TD. If he rules against you, he's obviously neither a competent TD not fit to be ruling there. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 10:17:37 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:17:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FDCD21.2000203@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 9, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> I think it's failry easy to falsify this conclusion, as I have said >> before. >> If you hesitate between two or more posibilities, and decide, not to >> guess one to base your ensuing bidding upon, but rather to pick one at >> random, for example by picking a card in your hand (let aside UI >> for the >> moment), there is some nonzero probability that you'll get it >> right. In >> that case, how could anybody say you've acted according to an >> agreement >> (even an implicit one) ? > > Good bridge players, when "hesitat[ing] between two or more > possibilities", do not "guess". What they do is choose the action > that maximizes the expected value of the eventual outcome given the > uncertainty. They may choose an (optimal) action that is different > from any that they would have chosen had they been certain that one > of the possibilities was the correct one. > > One of the (many) flaws in the "DWS" approach is that it assumes that > a player who is unsure of the meaning of his partner's call can only > either "guess wrong" or "guess right", when he in fact need not -- > and, if he's a decent player, normally will not -- guess at all. > Thereby giving MI to opponents. I wish you would stop using DWS in this thread, Eric. This has nothing to do with the other. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 10:20:30 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:20:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <519BD720-B094-4EC4-A25B-EC68308DDD59@starpower.net> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3C4.1070505@skynet.be> <519BD720-B094-4EC4-A25B-EC68308DDD59@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FDCDCE.3010603@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 9, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> When we say we have no agreement, we have no agreement. > > I'm sorry, was it not obvious that when I wrote "we say we have no > agreement" that I meant "we say we have no agreement about the > specific call in question", not "we say we have no agreements about > anything whatsoever"? > > Did anyone but Herman misunderstand me? > Please Eric, that was not what I meant, and if you think you can get away with it that easily, then I'll just class your posts in the folder "personal drivel against Herman". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 10:24:22 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:24:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <001401c89aa2$9c9355a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be><47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be><47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be><14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net><47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be><5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net><2b1e598b0804091055uec0f075gf5b86ea0efa1b326@mail.gmail.com> <2171730A-149D-4EEE-90FC-E44CC37BE4A6@starpower.net> <001401c89aa2$9c9355a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47FDCEB6.2010407@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:51 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > > >> On Apr 9, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau >>> wrote: >>> >>>> When we say >>>> we have no agreement, we have no agreement. > > I think it's time to resurrect the sessions I played where explicitly we > started the session with "We have no agreements, but those we discern during > the session. The calls themselves have to be licensed". It was complicated > that we also had to open all bids from 1C through 2N during the session. Of > course this information; and the calls we HAD opened were available on our > syscard as the evening progressed. There was no requirement to build a > coherent system, of course. > > In one session We might end up playing Precision 2C, Multi 2D, Strong 2H, > Lucas 2S, 2N 5-5 minors; 1NT 14-15 (we neither of us held a 16 or 13 point > hand during the session); 4 card H, 4 card S, canape D and short club. This > much we would have worked out. > > So partner opens 2D; we alert and say "no agreement, but it's licensed" ; > the likely possibilities are Art GF; strong with D, weak 4-4 maj; 4414 > 11-15; weak with D, 45 maj, 11-15; but in a way you don't give a damn > because it must be right to bid 2H as a response. Alert "probably > conventional, but may just be covering the bases". The method scored about > 53% over three or four outings, so one can hardly say we weren't trying. > > The HdW school is in serious trouble with this approach I think. > No John, it isn't. The HdW school deals with real bridge, 99.99% of the time. Your method is very funny, but you surely cannot call upon it to make an exception to my views. Which, after all, is a very fine result for me. If the only thing you can come up with is some very funny story, that means you agree with me 99.99% of the time. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 10 10:26:36 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:26:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080410182330.02aa4260@mail.optusnet.com.au> Herman says: >Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three >answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this >fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you must be >in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it >is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or 2Sp; so >it probably has long clubs and a super-maximum. That "defines" the >bid, whether Eric believes it does or not. Wrong. I often sit down opposite players without discussing whether we're playing simple or "extended" stayman. So I respond 2NT saying no majors and minimum, which is safer than guessing 2D (neither major), but both majors in "extended" Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 10 11:20:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:20:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FDDBC7.1060509@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Herman De Wael asserted: > > >>> If a player writes on his system notes that a particular call does >>> not exist in a sequence, then he should not be using it afterwards. If >>> he does use it, that means that he has found a hand that it is >>> suitable for. If he can find such a hand at the table, he could also >>> have found it when he was writing his system notes. To take the time >>> and effort to write "non-systemic", when with a little more effort one >>> could have written the hand the bid is now apparently done with, is >>> IMO, deliberate concealing of partnership understandings. >>> > > Richard Hills succinct answer: > > >> A first-time unilateral action by *one* partner is not a pre-existing >> mutual implicit understanding of *both* partners. 2007 Law 40A3. >> > > Eric Landau comprehensive answer: > > I am saying that when a player says "no agreement", that is an > unagreed assertion of a fact, and that "when the Director is called > upon to rule [and] the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as > follows:... [He] 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." [L85] Note that it says "is able > to", not "chooses to". > > And I am saying that a TD who ignores those plain words because... > > "I say that 'no agreement' can NEVER be complete information," or > because > > "While he's probably telling the truth that they both found it at the > table, I am going to rule that it was partnership experience after > all," or because > > "When it turns out that a player has the same idea about the meaning > of a certain call than his partner, it is up to him to prove that > this is not due to some form of partnership understanding," or because > > "In the vast majority of cases there is reason to believe that > players know more than they are telling," > > [You know I could find lots more where these came from.] ...is > neither a competent TD nor fit to be ruling here. > > I would be less severe about argument 2, because that's what the Laws inscut us to do in some other caes, like L72B1 (the infamious "could have known" provision). But basically, there is a fundamental contradiction between the fact that they could be innocent (take my "black biox" example) and aren't given the chance to prove it. I would consider as sufficient the fact that the pair has detailed notes about many, many bidding sequences, and not one line, not even in the "meta" section, about the sequence under scrutiny. It would then reverse the presumption, and now the TD would need some very strong arguments to decide otherwise. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 10 11:20:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:20:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FDDBE7.6030704@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>> >>>> >>>>> Richard Hills: >>>>> >>>>> In America it is commonplace for opening bids of 2D, 2H and >>>>> 2S to be defined as natural weak two bids. However, there >>>>> are huge differences of opinion about the appropriate suit >>>>> quality, shape and strength for these weak twos. >>>>> >>>>> In his excellent book, "The Secrets of Winning Bridge", >>>>> Jeff Rubens relates how, with a casual partner, he defined >>>>> opening bids of 2D, 2H and 2S as non-systemic. The Rubens >>>>> Method was one of the Worst in the World in terms of >>>>> _efficiency_, but was one of the Best in the World in >>>>> terms of _effectiveness_, since a slab of ambiguity had >>>>> been excised from the system. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Another example I know of is a Belgian pair who played a strong club >>>> system, and dispensed with the 2NT opening, because they didn't need it >>>> as strong, and wouldn't like to give their opponents bidding room by >>>> playing it as some preempt or 2-suiter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> And that is perfectly allowed, of course. >>> >>> What I would not allow is for one player of that pair to then open 2NT >>> and the partner explaining "Since we are playing strong club and weak >>> twos, this must be a mini-gambling, a long minor expecting to make >>> eight tricks on a helpful lead". Especially if that turns out to be >>> what he has. >>> >>> >> It's strange you wouldn't allow this, because the player disclosed his >> partnership's (infeential) agreements and did so correctly. WTP ? >> >> > > The problem is that he said he would not use this bid, and then he did > so anyway. So his disclosure is, quite obviously, wrong. > > Nope. You're compelled tio disclose your agreements, not the frequence of your bids. > To return to your 4414: > > It's OK for you to have not written this out beforehand, it's OK to > have not discussed this bid - who could think of it. > > It's OK for you to use the bid anyway. > > It's OK for your partner to understand it. > > BUT: > > It would not be OK for you to have written on your system notes: > 3Di=impossible You know perfectly well what happened. The 3D bid wasn't written anywhere in our 70-page notes. According to all that was said before, this is evidence that it wasn't discussed, not evidence that it wasn't agreed. Now, if nothing is written about some bid on the CC, this doesn't mean the pair doesn't use it. There are a thousand other (good or bad) reasons. So, in fact, this pair never wrote anywhere nor pretended not to open 2NT, so your /reduction ad absurdum/ fails to work. > . > > I'm not blaming you for not filling in 3Di, but I would be blaming you > if you wrote impossible, because that should mean that you discussed > it, and arrived at the conclusion that you cannot find out what it is. > Quite obviously, you can, since he did it at the table - you both did, > in fact. > > Do you understand what I'm trying to get accross? > > Impossible calls are permitted in your system, but you should then not > use them and expect partner to understand. > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 10 11:22:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:22:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FDDC5F.6080701@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > No they are not, but that is not what Alain's player said. A bid > cannot be undefined, since it is then defined by omission of all the > other hands that have a bid assigned to them. That's absurd. If more than one bid is undefined in siome specific seqeance (like the non-weak-two example), they can't be defined by exclusion. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 10 12:06:04 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:06:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FDE68C.3070800@NTLworld.com> [richard hills] One of the deep questions of philosophy is, "what is meaning"? For an answer I can recommend the instructive and entertaining book "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar". (An historical survey of philosophical schools illustrated by relevant jokes. But for the purposes of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, the "meaning" of a call is that ascribed to it by _mutual_ partnership understanding, not by _unilateral_ intent. [nigel] IMO a call can be subject to "agreement" without a *current* mutual partnership understanding. Example: sometimes both partners simultaneously forget what they agreed. IMO that does not mean they have no agreement. Another example: you agree to play the complete Precision system according to Reese's "Precision Bidding and Precision Play" but neither of you have properly mastered it. For legal purposes, I maintain that the meaning of your calls should still be as defined in the book. A final example: the director should regard the convention card as more reliable than player's recollections. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 10 12:27:54 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:27:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FDEBAA.50409@NTLworld.com> There is a similar argument about this example: You are in a long-established partnership. Partner opens 4C which you have recently agreed shows a solid H suit. You hold HA. An opponent asks what 4C means. What do you answer? and what do you call. IMO the first question is easy - you explain your current agreement. What do you call? IMO that is harder. Opposite me you should probably bid 4H because a probable explanation's is that I have misplaced my DA; Instead, suppose that you judge that partner has forgotten the system. IMO the best action will depend on your *previous* agreement. For example, some play that 4C is always Gerber unless another agreement supervenes. Here, if you elect to pass 4C, aren't you guilty of utilising an *undisclosed agreement* that 4C used to be a natural pre-empt , in your system? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 10 12:55:12 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:55:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47FDE68C.3070800@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001401c89af9$6271ab90$bece403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Another example: you agree to play the complete Precision system > according to Reese's "Precision Bidding and Precision Play" but neither > of you have properly mastered it. For legal purposes, I maintain that > the meaning of your calls should still be as defined in the book. > +=+ Or the partners happen to have read different books on the system they agree to play. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 15:09:37 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:09:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0804091246y7f30f6bdk5284a2764b0e0ce1@mail.gmail.com> References: <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0804091246y7f30f6bdk5284a2764b0e0ce1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 9, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> Good bridge players, when "hesitat[ing] between two or more >> possibilities", do not "guess". What they do is choose the action >> that maximizes the expected value of the eventual outcome given the >> uncertainty. They may choose an (optimal) action that is different >> from any that they would have chosen had they been certain that one >> of the possibilities was the correct one. > > Eric has made this particular point several times before, and he is > 100% correct up to here. > >> One of the (many) flaws in the "DWS" approach is that it assumes that >> a player who is unsure of the meaning of his partner's call can only >> either "guess wrong" or "guess right", when he in fact need not -- >> and, if he's a decent player, normally will not -- guess at all. > > I don't want to get into DWS now, but I have a question for Eric: > Would you be happy if the player in this case said something like, "I > estimate an 80% chance that it was natural, and a 20% chance that it > is basically Lebensohl" (said to opponents who understand Lebensohl). As a TD, I'd be inclined accept this, if the opponents were satisfied and the player's subsequent actions were not inconsistent with it. > After all, the alerter has these probabilities in mind, because only > with these numbers can he estimatge an expected value of the eventual > outcome. I.e., are you asking the player in this case to specify at > the table exactly (probabilistically) how he is going to treat that > call that has more than one possible meaning? As a player, I wouldn't offer probabilities; they would feel too subjective. They're not (at least they surely wouldn't be in my case) quantitative results derived from known parameters. They're an intuitive estimate derived by considering various (non-quantifiable) factors: meta-agreements, prior partnership experience, and the like. I would disclose those "various factors" to the best of my ability, with the objective of giving my opponents the same "feel" for the situation that I have, leaving them to assess the numeric probabilities for themselves. As an average-ish player in a strong field (my typical situation), I'd expect to be giving them a 50-50 chance of coming up with better numbers than mine. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 15:09:47 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:09:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080410182330.02aa4260@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20080410182330.02aa4260@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47FE119B.5080201@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > Herman says: > > >> Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three >> answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this >> fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you must be >> in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it >> is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or 2Sp; so >> it probably has long clubs and a super-maximum. That "defines" the >> bid, whether Eric believes it does or not. > > Wrong. I often sit down opposite players without discussing whether > we're playing simple or "extended" stayman. So I respond 2NT > saying no majors and minimum, which is safer than guessing > 2D (neither major), but both majors in "extended" > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) Sorry Tony: Correct, but irrelevant. We are talking about pairs who say they have a full system in which certain bids are considered impossible. You give an example of a pair (yours) in which certain bids are "undiscussed". Not the same at all. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 15:10:44 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:10:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <47FDDC5F.6080701@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <47FDDC5F.6080701@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FE11D4.3090503@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> No they are not, but that is not what Alain's player said. A bid >> cannot be undefined, since it is then defined by omission of all the >> other hands that have a bid assigned to them. > That's absurd. If more than one bid is undefined in siome specific > seqeance (like the non-weak-two example), they can't be defined by > exclusion. > Yes they can - overlapping certainly, but not undefined in the way I understand it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 15:19:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:19:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FDDBE7.6030704@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <47FDDBE7.6030704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FE13EA.8060209@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> BUT: >> >> It would not be OK for you to have written on your system notes: >> 3Di=impossible > You know perfectly well what happened. The 3D bid wasn't written > anywhere in our 70-page notes. > According to all that was said before, this is evidence that it wasn't > discussed, not evidence that it wasn't agreed. > > Now, if nothing is written about some bid on the CC, this doesn't mean > the pair doesn't use it. There are a thousand other (good or bad) reasons. > So, in fact, this pair never wrote anywhere nor pretended not to open > 2NT, so your /reduction ad absurdum/ fails to work. > Alain, you have misunderstood completely. Your 4414 3Di-bid was not discussed, and not mentioned in your system notes. There is nothing wrong with that. My notes above were directed against Richard (iirc) who stated that in his system notes (hypothetically) was mentioned 2Sp=impossible. While I do accept that you write system notes and leave out certain bids (such as your 3Di) and then find a use for it at the table, I do not accept that you write system notes, actively decide and write down that a bid is impossible (such as Richard's 2Sp) and then find a use for it anyway. Notice also the difference between your two declarations to opponents: Your partner correctly concluded what 3Di would mean, and told the opponents; whereas Richard believes that it is OK to just say "non-systemic". You would probably not mind a ruling if your partner failed to grasp the meaning after all; whereas Richard maintains that it is OK to say "non-systemic" even if his partner works out what he's holding. You actively try to complete your system notes, I'm certain you've added the 3Di since then; whereas Richard actively hides possible hands behind a written "non-systemic". You practice full disclosure; Richard tries to hide things from his opponents. I apologize profusely to Richard if I have in any way misrepresented his actual points of view. I am merely trying to explain that Alain and I actually see things the same way, and that I am not trying to find a way of ruling against Alain, only against the likes of Richard. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 15:21:47 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:21:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FDDBC7.1060509@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FDDBC7.1060509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FE146B.4090808@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> > I would be less severe about argument 2, because that's what the Laws > inscut us to do in some other caes, like L72B1 (the infamious "could > have known" provision). > > But basically, there is a fundamental contradiction between the fact > that they could be innocent (take my "black biox" example) and aren't > given the chance to prove it. > I would consider as sufficient the fact that the pair has detailed notes > about many, many bidding sequences, and not one line, not even in the > "meta" section, about the sequence under scrutiny. It would then reverse > the presumption, and now the TD would need some very strong arguments to > decide otherwise. > Exactly. I concur. I also feel that this situation is very unlikely. A pair with very complete notes at some part of their system will not regularly come up with undiscussed auctions at another part. But it can happen, and I would certainly take it into account. > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 16:09:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:09:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <86D0B4B0-40A3-4F8E-AD1E-D0D5CC0EE5A3@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Just a psychological point. There have been a many experiments showing > that people do not and probably cannot report all of the factors > influencing their decision. IMO, there is just too much that can be > happening unconsciously. > > For example, it takes considerable skill to say how you know > something is > a wall, or a bottle. (If you want to test this, ask people to define a > bottle and see how many mention the bottleneck.) > > Or, when people judge weight, they use size as a small cue but they > don't > do it on purpose and don't know they are doing it. I accept this as a general principle of psychology: Everything we do is influenced by subconscious or intutitive process which we do not recognize and cannot explain. Indeed, the "quality" of those inexplicable subconscious or intuitive processes is one of the key factors that separates good bridge players from poor ones. But it's a bit too general to matter here. > So Eric is not on solid ground if he means to claim that he can > tell the > opps all the factors that went into his decision. (And their > weighting is > not even communicable.) I would be on equally unsolid ground if I attempted to explain all of the factors that went into my decision to play LHO instead of RHO for the missing queen, or my decision to go for the squeeze instead of playing for the break. As Bob reminds us, I will never be on solid ground if I claim that I can tell anybody every detail of every factor that went into anything I have ever said or done. I can only communicate what I consciously know, and my conscious knowledge of "all the factors" I may have been influenced by is, as the psychologists tell us, inherently incomplete. But the uncertainty we're discussing, with regard to partner's "intended meaning" of his call, doesn't affect that. When there is no uncertainty and I say I "know" what partner means, my knowledge derives from exactly those same factors -- explicit discussion, meta- agreements, partnership experience, and the like -- that I propose to communicate when I don't "know". In reality, my true understanding of partner's call will have the same residue of subconscious or intutitive thought of which I am consciously unaware, and my explanantion will be equally inherently incomplete. > Bob Frick (who is usually not fond of credentials but will mention > just in > case it is useful that he has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology and > has done > published research on this topic) We are discussing the relative merits of various manners of disclosure when one is uncertain as the meaning of partner's call. While everything Bob says is absolutely correct, ISTM that it applies with equal force to any form of explanation we might decide to offer, and therefore does not help us choose one over another. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 10 16:26:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:26:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <47FE119B.5080201@skynet.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20080410182330.02aa4260@mail.optusnet.com.au> <47FE119B.5080201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FE2381.5040909@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > We are talking about pairs who say they have a full system in which > certain bids are considered impossible. AG : I still don't see how and why this should be illegal to understand an 'impossible" bid. My teammates had, a few months ago, the following auction : North South pass 1C 1S 2NT 4NT 6C The 4NT bid is impossible, by mere addition of points (how could you be dreaming of bidding a slam on two more or less balanced hands and at most a so-so 31 total count ?) If they had asked South, no doubt she would have answered "it's an impossible bid". South came to the conclusion that, after bidding 1S, North realized she had miscounted her hand. She bid accordingly. She was right. Apparently, Herman would rule that, because the 4NT bid was decoded, they had a CPU that their pass could go as high as 15 HCP - a yellow system. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 16:41:01 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:41:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> References: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <85D9BFAE-9A83-464D-8727-D01BB2794A14@starpower.net> On Apr 9, 2008, at 10:32 PM, Reg Busch wrote: > A few months ago, I submitted this question. North opens 1C, then > realises that South had already opened 1C, pass from West. The NS 1C > shows an opening hand with possibly only three clubs. North asks > the TD > whether he can make a RC of 3NT without penalty. In the NS methods > 1C - > 3NT would show 13-15 HCP with clubs the only 4 card suit. The one > reply > said that yes, North may bid 3NT because it is 'more precise'. > Question 1 > > Following on from this: is it my duty as TD to ensure that the > IBer's > hand is systemically consistent with the RC - in this case that he > has a > 3-3-3-4 hand and 13-15 HCP?. Or is he allowed now to systemically > mis-describe his hand with say a 4-3-3-3 hand in order to keep the > bidding open? He is allowed to misdescribe his hand to avoid barring his partner. L27B is concerned only with the systemic meaning of various calls; it contains no constraints on what you're allowed to hold when you make them. L40A3 remains operative. > Question 2:If 3NT is acceptable because it is more specific, take the > situation where NS playing 5 card majors may open on as few as two > clubs ( non-forcing). So the 1C is artificial, but the IBer still may > have recourse to 27B1(b). Is 3NT still OK as being more specific? If > not, why not? It is perfectly OK. That 1C is artificial means that you cannot correct to 2C without penalty using L27B1(a); it has no bearing on the application of L27B1(b). > Question 3:. After the auction 1C - 1C replaced with 3NT as > permitted by > the TD, South now bids 6NT. EW take the H ace and now East holds > Jxxx in > both black suits.. He has been told by South that the 3NT shows 13-15 > with clubs as the only 4 card suit. Dummy has AQX in both black suits. > East has to discard from a black suit -. no problem - he discards a > spade. North who had three clubs and four spades to start with now > cashes four spades to make his slam.. Do EW have a case for > damage?.Law > 27D allows an adjustment if 'without assistance gained through the > infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different'. > There was no gain from the actual infraction - the gain was from > North's > intentional mis-description of his hand (sanctioned by the TD), Is > East > expected to know that North is entitled to mis-describe his hand in > this > situation? One gains from an infraction when one does better than one would have absent the infraction, whether the damage comes directly and immediately from the infracting act or is the consequence of some aspect of the situation further down the line. Had there been no IB, the auction would presumably have started 1C-P-1S. The TD determines the likely outcomes had that occurred, finding gain/damage if the outcome might have been less favorable to the IBer's side than their actual result. In this example, that seems clear. IMHO, this is a textbook case of a L27D adjustment for damage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 16:55:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:55:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0804092005y2e4ce723l1f770a3d569fe2c2@mail.gmail.com> References: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> <2b1e598b0804092005y2e4ce723l1f770a3d569fe2c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Wonderful questions, Reg! I too am eager to hear an authoritative > answer. I am no authority, but I have opinions anyway. My answers > would be as follows: > > 1. No, he is not allowed to systemically misdescribe his hand to keep > partner in the auction. Furthermore, I don't think that he should be > allowed to bend the partnership agreements to correct with a > zero-penalty bid. I would even put the burden of proof that on the > partnership that no stretching is going on. > > I believe I am in the minority here, but this is my reasoning: We > should not allow a two-tiered system where a player bids sufficiently > when his hand perfectly meets the criteria for a bid and he bids > insufficiently when he must stretch to meet the criteria. I admit > there are other ways to handle this. Excuse me? Does anybody think that anybody could possibly think that we *should* allow this? But what on Earth does that have to do with anything pertaining to Reg's post? You bet there are other ways to handle this! Here's one: A player bids sufficiently while scratching his right ear when his hand perfectly meets the criteria for a bid and he bids sufficiently while scratching his left ear when he must stretch to meet the criteria. Are these not legally and morally equivalent? Should they not be treated as such? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 17:41:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:41:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2008, at 2:19 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Reg Busch: > > A few months ago, I submitted this question. North opens 1C, then > realises that South had already opened 1C, pass from West. The NS 1C > shows an opening hand with possibly only three clubs. North asks > the TD > whether he can make a RC of 3NT without penalty. In the NS methods > 1C - > 3NT would show 13-15 HCP with clubs the only 4 card suit. The one > reply > said that yes, North may bid 3NT because it is 'more precise'. > > Question 1 > > Following on from this: is it my duty as TD to ensure that the > IBer's > hand is systemically consistent with the RC - in this case that he > has a > 3-3-3-4 hand and 13-15 HCP?. Or is he allowed now to systemically > mis-describe his hand with say a 4-3-3-3 hand in order to keep the > bidding open? > > Richard Hills: > >> Yes and No. 2007 Law 40A3 gives a player a conditional right to >> psyche. But the ABF is adopting a Law 40B3 regulation which >> prohibits >> adoption of new partnership understandings after an irregularity. In >> short, as soon as partner becomes aware that the system may vary >> after >> an insufficient bid, then such variation cease to be a legal psyche, >> and instead becomes an illegal CPU pseudo-psyche. That seems like quite a stretch. If I deviate from the systemic meaning of an RC, how is that any more or less of a "new partnership understanding" that if I had done so making the same call normally and sufficiently? Any "new partnership understanding" that might arise derives from the distortion per se, not from the fact that it was made subsequent to an IB. When partner becomes aware of the fact that I have misdescribed my hand to prevent his being barred from the auction, he will, in addition to his unchanged and invariant knowledge of our bidding methods, understand also that in the future, if I do not wish to see him barred from the auction after a make an IB, I will choose a call that will not bar him from the auction. That's hardly a "partnership understanding" in the sense L40 uses the term; it follows directly from the law itself and has nothing at all to do with one's bidding methods. The laws themselves cannot be treated by regulation as unauthorized information. Admittedly, L40 is so broad that it might be capable of being read to justify a regulation written, literally, as above. But read it carefully. As Richard describes it, it makes no distinction -- nor is there anything in L40 that could justify any distinction -- between "illegal CPU pseudo-psychs" that bar partner from the auction and those that do not! Oops. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 10 17:44:36 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:44:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: <86D0B4B0-40A3-4F8E-AD1E-D0D5CC0EE5A3@starpower.net> References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> <86D0B4B0-40A3-4F8E-AD1E-D0D5CC0EE5A3@starpower.net> Message-ID: > > We are discussing the relative merits of various manners of > disclosure when one is uncertain as the meaning of partner's call. > While everything Bob says is absolutely correct, ISTM that it applies > with equal force to any form of explanation we might decide to offer, > and therefore does not help us choose one over another. Hi Eric. What do you think of this argument? Say your partner makes a bid and you give the wrong explanation or say you are not sure of the meaning. If you and your partner have an explicit agreement about the meaning of your bid, then of course the opps deserve to hear it, even if you both have forgotten it and the proper ruling is misexplanation rather than misbid. Same thing for implicit agreements, meta-agreements, inferences from the meanings of other bids in your system, and relevant past auctions that could be developing an implicit agreement, right? Opps have the right to hear it, it is misexplanation if they don't? But in addition to the practical difficulties, you may be unable to report information your are using. I believe the opps also are entitled to this information if your partner used it. Most of the time, a close-enough explanation will do. But when your partner thinks a bid has one meaning, and you don't know the meaning or get it wrong, that seems to be the situation where you are most likely to leave out relevant information. The best you can do is a good-faith explanation of practical size, and I guess that is all the laws ask of you. But I don't think you will have good evidence against the ruling of misexplanation, since misexplanation has now become very likely, even if you cannot identify information you have left out. Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 17:49:36 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:49:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13203670-27D8-4D86-937B-41E113AD51FA@starpower.net> On Apr 10, 2008, at 2:19 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Reg Busch: > > Question 3:. After the auction 1C - 1C replaced with 3NT as > permitted by > the TD, South now bids 6NT. EW take the H ace and now East holds > Jxxx in > both black suits.. He has been told by South that the 3NT shows 13-15 > with clubs as the only 4 card suit. Dummy has AQX in both black suits. > East has to discard from a black suit -. no problem - he discards a > spade. North who had three clubs and four spades to start with now > cashes four spades to make his slam.. Do EW have a case for > damage?.Law > 27D allows an adjustment if 'without assistance gained through the > infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different'. > There was no gain from the actual infraction - the gain was from > North's > intentional mis-description of his hand (sanctioned by the TD), Is > East > expected to know that North is entitled to mis-describe his hand in > this > situation? > > Richard Hills: > >> Yes and No. If North legally psyched, no infraction, no adjustment. I don't think you can get by L27D quite so easily. Not adjusting requires you to be satisfied that had North heard the auction correctly he would have chosen the same 3NT "psych" rather than making his normal systemic call. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 18:27:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:27:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <47FE2381.5040909@ulb.ac.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20080410182330.02aa4260@mail.optusnet.com.au> <47FE119B.5080201@skynet.be> <47FE2381.5040909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47FE3FE5.7010605@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> We are talking about pairs who say they have a full system in which >> certain bids are considered impossible. > AG : I still don't see how and why this should be illegal to understand > an 'impossible" bid. You still don't get it, Alain. There is nothing illegal about having impossible bids, or even of making them, and of understanding them. What I find impossible, and evidence of something fishy, is Richard's WRITING DOWN in his system notes that a bid is impossible, and then still find a use for it. If you haven't worked out something, you can find it at the table - but if you decide to write down a bid as impossible, that means you have thought about it. > My teammates had, a few months ago, the following > auction : > > North South > > pass 1C > 1S 2NT > 4NT 6C > > The 4NT bid is impossible, by mere addition of points (how could you be > dreaming of bidding a slam on two more or less balanced hands and at > most a so-so 31 total count ?) > If they had asked South, no doubt she would have answered "it's an > impossible bid". > South came to the conclusion that, after bidding 1S, North realized she > had miscounted her hand. She bid accordingly. She was right. > > Apparently, Herman would rule that, because the 4NT bid was decoded, > they had a CPU that their pass could go as high as 15 HCP - a yellow system. > No of course not - because their system notes did not mention that 4NT was impossible. And anyway, suppose Richard would do something like this, I would also allow it, since it is of course possible to make an impossible bid with an impossible hand. > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 10 18:30:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:30:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: <86D0B4B0-40A3-4F8E-AD1E-D0D5CC0EE5A3@starpower.net> References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> <86D0B4B0-40A3-4F8E-AD1E-D0D5CC0EE5A3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FE4098.5080305@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Just a psychological point. There have been a many experiments showing >> that people do not and probably cannot report all of the factors >> influencing their decision. IMO, there is just too much that can be >> happening unconsciously. >> >> For example, it takes considerable skill to say how you know >> something is >> a wall, or a bottle. (If you want to test this, ask people to define a >> bottle and see how many mention the bottleneck.) >> >> Or, when people judge weight, they use size as a small cue but they >> don't >> do it on purpose and don't know they are doing it. > > I accept this as a general principle of psychology: Everything we do > is influenced by subconscious or intutitive process which we do not > recognize and cannot explain. Indeed, the "quality" of those > inexplicable subconscious or intuitive processes is one of the key > factors that separates good bridge players from poor ones. But it's > a bit too general to matter here. > >> So Eric is not on solid ground if he means to claim that he can >> tell the >> opps all the factors that went into his decision. (And their >> weighting is >> not even communicable.) > > I would be on equally unsolid ground if I attempted to explain all of > the factors that went into my decision to play LHO instead of RHO for > the missing queen, or my decision to go for the squeeze instead of > playing for the break. As Bob reminds us, I will never be on solid > ground if I claim that I can tell anybody every detail of every > factor that went into anything I have ever said or done. > > I can only communicate what I consciously know, and my conscious > knowledge of "all the factors" I may have been influenced by is, as > the psychologists tell us, inherently incomplete. But the > uncertainty we're discussing, with regard to partner's "intended > meaning" of his call, doesn't affect that. When there is no > uncertainty and I say I "know" what partner means, my knowledge > derives from exactly those same factors -- explicit discussion, meta- > agreements, partnership experience, and the like -- that I propose to > communicate when I don't "know". In reality, my true understanding > of partner's call will have the same residue of subconscious or > intutitive thought of which I am consciously unaware, and my > explanantion will be equally inherently incomplete. > >> Bob Frick (who is usually not fond of credentials but will mention >> just in >> case it is useful that he has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology and >> has done >> published research on this topic) > > We are discussing the relative merits of various manners of > disclosure when one is uncertain as the meaning of partner's call. > While everything Bob says is absolutely correct, ISTM that it applies > with equal force to any form of explanation we might decide to offer, > and therefore does not help us choose one over another. > > > Eric Landau I was baffled to see your name here, Eric. Not because you said something completely true, but because it so wonderfully reflects my feelings. If you "know" what partner intends, that is something you should tell opponents. It is not enough to give them "all" the information that led you to that knowledge, since you can never really tell all of them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 18:52:54 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:52:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <662B3159-7DC0-4F7E-A4EE-45D94ED14B0C@starpower.net> On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three > answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this > fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you must be > in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it > is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or 2Sp; so > it probably has long clubs and a super-maximum. That "defines" the > bid, whether Eric believes it does or not. That's Herman's try. My bidding judgment differs. Here's mine: Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you must be in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or 2Sp; so it probably has four cards in both majors and a super-maximum. That, too, "defines" the bid, whether I believe it does or not. Who's right? Which of us has "defined" the bid correctly? If Herman is correct that we if we understand what was intended we must be using some implicit "definition", and that that definition is subject to disclosure, that question *must* be answerable. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 19:02:02 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:02:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FDCD21.2000203@skynet.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FDCD21.2000203@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:17 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> One of the (many) flaws in the "DWS" approach is that it assumes that >> a player who is unsure of the meaning of his partner's call can only >> either "guess wrong" or "guess right", when he in fact need not -- >> and, if he's a decent player, normally will not -- guess at all. > > Thereby giving MI to opponents. > I wish you would stop using DWS in this thread, Eric. This has nothing > to do with the other. In the "DWS" thread, Herman argued that a player who is uncertain as to the meaning of his partner's call should endeavor to correctly describe partner's intended meaning, without regard to the partnership's actual agreements. In the current thread, Herman argues that a TD facing a player who is uncertain as to the meaning of his partner's call should rule that he has acted properly if and only if he correctly describes partner's intended meaning, without regard to the partnership's actual agreements. No connection? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 19:10:18 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:10:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FDCDCE.3010603@skynet.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3C4.1070505@skynet.be> <519BD720-B094-4EC4-A25B-EC68308DDD59@starpower.net> <47FDCDCE.3010603@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:20 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Apr 9, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> When we say we have no agreement, we have no agreement. >> >> I'm sorry, was it not obvious that when I wrote "we say we have no >> agreement" that I meant "we say we have no agreement about the >> specific call in question", not "we say we have no agreements about >> anything whatsoever"? >> >> Did anyone but Herman misunderstand me? > > Please Eric, that was not what I meant, and if you think you can get > away with it that easily, then I'll just class your posts in the > folder "personal drivel against Herman". Please, Herman, if that was not what you meant, why did you respond by writing the following: "To actually mean that you have no agreements, you must be joking. At the very least you have the agreement, with anyone including a player who has never had a single lesson, that you pass with a Yarborough. So please don't say stupid things like the one above."? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 20:01:30 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:01:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> <86D0B4B0-40A3-4F8E-AD1E-D0D5CC0EE5A3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1DEA7C54-9B5D-4C74-9FF9-C807693BEF63@starpower.net> On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> We are discussing the relative merits of various manners of >> disclosure when one is uncertain as the meaning of partner's call. >> While everything Bob says is absolutely correct, ISTM that it applies >> with equal force to any form of explanation we might decide to offer, >> and therefore does not help us choose one over another. > > Hi Eric. What do you think of this argument? Say your partner makes > a bid > and you give the wrong explanation or say you are not sure of the > meaning. > > If you and your partner have an explicit agreement about the > meaning of > your bid, then of course the opps deserve to hear it, even if you both > have forgotten it and the proper ruling is misexplanation rather than > misbid. > > Same thing for implicit agreements, meta-agreements, inferences > from the > meanings of other bids in your system, and relevant past auctions that > could be developing an implicit agreement, right? Opps have the > right to > hear it, it is misexplanation if they don't? > > But in addition to the practical difficulties, you may be unable to > report > information your are using. I believe the opps also are entitled to > this > information if your partner used it. > > Most of the time, a close-enough explanation will do. But when your > partner thinks a bid has one meaning, and you don't know the > meaning or > get it wrong, that seems to be the situation where you are most > likely to > leave out relevant information. > > The best you can do is a good-faith explanation of practical size, > and I > guess that is all the laws ask of you. But I don't think you will have > good evidence against the ruling of misexplanation, since > misexplanation > has now become very likely, even if you cannot identify information > you > have left out. The ACBL has offered some good, practical advice to ordinary players who do not wish to be burdoned with detailed knowledge of the disclosure rules: Tell them whatever you know about your agreements (implicit as well as explicit) that might be relevant. Do your best to be as helpful as you can. They are entitled to know as much about your bidding methods as you do. However, do not reveal anything that you could not have known before you looked at your cards. On BLML, I argue about the jots and commas in the laws, but at the table I take the ACBL approach. I recommend it to everyone. Beyond that, we get into some rather deep questions. If our subconscious mind has absorbed some datum that it has chosen to make unavailable to our conscious thinking process, can we be said to "know" it? Can we "know" things that aren't true? Can the bridge laws require our explanations to be perfect when God has denied the achievement of perfection to Man in punishment for partaking of the fruit of some old tree? Can one fail morally for failing to achieve some goal if one has tried one's best? I mean, these are certainly interesting questions and all that, but probably best left to the philosophers, psychologists and theologians. These are not roads we need travel to decide how to cope with practical problems of bridge jurisprudence. But we do need to recognize that because bridge is played by human beings, the bridge laws cannot be interpreted to require players to achieve the humanly impossible. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 10 20:14:10 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:14:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3C4.1070505@skynet.be> <519BD720-B094-4EC4-A25B-EC68308DDD59@starpower.net> <47FDCDCE.3010603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FE58F2.2070805@NTLworld.com> I don't subscribe to the DWS -- I think that you should - try to describe the agreed meaning of partner's bid - not guess what partner mistakenly believes it to mean. But I agree with Herman on lots of points ... Most players who say "no agreement" seem to land on their feet more often than I do when I lose the place at the Bridge table. Hence I tend to agree with Herman that negative inferences are more often available than people will admit. I accept Richard Hill's contention that a call can have no systemic meaning and if partner makes such a call it's *likely* to be a mistake. I agree with Herman, however, that it's *possible* that partner has made the call deliberately, with some hand that the partnership haven't anticipated, in the hope that partner can interpret it by excluding agreed meanings attributed to other calls available in that context. Finally, I believe that those who are certain of their partnership agreements are a minority. Herman is correct, at least in my case: in order to explain the systemic meaning of my partner's call, I must *always* guess; I am *never* certain of the systemic meaning of a call. Also, I feel that, in this regard, I am a more a typical bridge-player than those infallible BLMLers. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 10 20:35:07 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:35:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd References: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> <2b1e598b0804092005y2e4ce723l1f770a3d569fe2c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006b01c89b39$99e3bf60$70709951@stefanie> JF > 1. No, he is not allowed to systemically misdescribe his hand to keep > partner in the auction. Furthermore, I don't think that he should be > allowed to bend the partnership agreements to correct with a > zero-penalty bid. I would even put the burden of proof that on the > partnership that no stretching is going on. I agree, and I think that this is very important. Otherwise the opponents may be damaged by misinformation, and the partner of the IBer will have UI that partner's bid is not exactly what the system says it is (it is not necessary for a similar incident to have happened previously; the fact that it is permitted will be sufficient to create UI). But this UI, under the new Law 27, would be AI, and the misinformation would presumably be part of the "penalty-free" bit. So it seems clear that no deviation from system, no matter how minor, should be allowed. > > I believe I am in the minority here, but this is my reasoning: We > should not allow a two-tiered system where a player bids sufficiently > when his hand perfectly meets the criteria for a bid and he bids > insufficiently when he must stretch to meet the criteria. I admit > there are other ways to handle this. Well, this is cheating. We should be assuming that the IB is accidental. This does not change the fact that a pair must never benefit from having made one. > > 2. Same answer as #1. > > 3. Even if my answers above are deemed wrong, it seems clear that EW > have a good case for damage. Yes. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 10 22:25:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: <47FE4098.5080305@skynet.be> References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> <86D0B4B0-40A3-4F8E-AD1E-D0D5CC0EE5A3@starpower.net> <47FE4098.5080305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <33F59491-D37D-408B-8A7B-87BAF40D0F5B@starpower.net> On Apr 10, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Just a psychological point. There have been a many experiments >>> showing >>> that people do not and probably cannot report all of the factors >>> influencing their decision. IMO, there is just too much that can be >>> happening unconsciously. >>> >>> For example, it takes considerable skill to say how you know >>> something is >>> a wall, or a bottle. (If you want to test this, ask people to >>> define a >>> bottle and see how many mention the bottleneck.) >>> >>> Or, when people judge weight, they use size as a small cue but they >>> don't >>> do it on purpose and don't know they are doing it. >> >> I accept this as a general principle of psychology: Everything we do >> is influenced by subconscious or intutitive process which we do not >> recognize and cannot explain. Indeed, the "quality" of those >> inexplicable subconscious or intuitive processes is one of the key >> factors that separates good bridge players from poor ones. But it's >> a bit too general to matter here. >> >>> So Eric is not on solid ground if he means to claim that he can >>> tell the >>> opps all the factors that went into his decision. (And their >>> weighting is >>> not even communicable.) >> >> I would be on equally unsolid ground if I attempted to explain all of >> the factors that went into my decision to play LHO instead of RHO for >> the missing queen, or my decision to go for the squeeze instead of >> playing for the break. As Bob reminds us, I will never be on solid >> ground if I claim that I can tell anybody every detail of every >> factor that went into anything I have ever said or done. >> >> I can only communicate what I consciously know, and my conscious >> knowledge of "all the factors" I may have been influenced by is, as >> the psychologists tell us, inherently incomplete. But the >> uncertainty we're discussing, with regard to partner's "intended >> meaning" of his call, doesn't affect that. When there is no >> uncertainty and I say I "know" what partner means, my knowledge >> derives from exactly those same factors -- explicit discussion, meta- >> agreements, partnership experience, and the like -- that I propose to >> communicate when I don't "know". In reality, my true understanding >> of partner's call will have the same residue of subconscious or >> intutitive thought of which I am consciously unaware, and my >> explanantion will be equally inherently incomplete. >> >>> Bob Frick (who is usually not fond of credentials but will mention >>> just in >>> case it is useful that he has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology and >>> has done >>> published research on this topic) >> >> We are discussing the relative merits of various manners of >> disclosure when one is uncertain as the meaning of partner's call. >> While everything Bob says is absolutely correct, ISTM that it applies >> with equal force to any form of explanation we might decide to offer, >> and therefore does not help us choose one over another. > I was baffled to see your name here, Eric. > Not because you said something completely true, but because it so > wonderfully reflects my feelings. I suspect Herman would not have written this had he understood what I wrote.... > If you "know" what partner intends, that is something you should tell > opponents. It is not enough to give them "all" the information that > led you to that knowledge, since you can never really tell all of > them. ...But I expect he has not, as this reply is in no way responsive. Bob was addressing what you do if you "don't know" what partner intends. My point was that the axiom of psychology of which Bob reminds us is not only true in that context, but a universal Truth that is applicable everywhere. As such, it has nothing to tell us about the merits of one form of disclosure over another. It says: True: If you "don't know" partner's intention and therefore attempt to disclose your knowledge of the relevant factors from which that intention might be deduced, you will be influenced by factors of which you are not (nor have ever been) consciously aware, so your knowledge, and thus your disclosure, will be necessarily incomplete and imperfect. [This, I believe, was the essence of Bob's original message, to which I was responding.] But equally true: If you do "know" partner's intention and therefore attempt to disclose your knowlege of what his call actually "means", you will be influenced by factors of which you are not (nor have ever been) consciously aware, so your knowledge, and thus your disclosure, will be necessarily incomplete and imperfect. [This was the essence of what I was trying to say in defense of my own position.] And also equally true: If your partner, who perforce knows his own "intention", attempts to disclose his knowledge of what his own call actually "means", he will be influenced by factors of which he is not (nor has ever been) consciously aware, so his knowledge, and thus his disclosure, will be necessarily incomplete and imperfect. [This was added here to drive the point further home: Bob's axiom applies even when it would be entirely natural and reasonable to presume no possibility of uncertainty.] As all these, and more, derive directly from Bob's universal Truth, I don't see how it serves to further the discussion. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 10 22:52:54 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:52:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd References: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> <85D9BFAE-9A83-464D-8727-D01BB2794A14@starpower.net> Message-ID: <011001c89b4c$d9952870$70709951@stefanie> From: "Eric Landau" > He is allowed to misdescribe his hand to avoid barring his partner. > L27B is concerned only with the systemic meaning of various calls; it > contains no constraints on what you're allowed to hold when you make > them. L40A3 remains operative. > Are you sure that this is true? It seems to me that it should not be the case. One thing it ensures is that there will never be a case where an error-free correction cannot be made. Stefanie Rohan London, England From john at asimere.com Fri Apr 11 01:53:24 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:53:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be><47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be><47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be><14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net><47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be><5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net><2b1e598b0804091055uec0f075gf5b86ea0efa1b326@mail.gmail.com> <2171730A-149D-4EEE-90FC-E44CC37BE4A6@starpower.net><001401c89aa2$9c9355a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47FDCEB6.2010407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005d01c89b66$1119c490$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Landau" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:51 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes >> >> >>> On Apr 9, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Eric Landau >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> When we say >>>>> we have no agreement, we have no agreement. >> >> I think it's time to resurrect the sessions I played where explicitly we >> started the session with "We have no agreements, but those we discern >> during >> the session. The calls themselves have to be licensed". It was >> complicated >> that we also had to open all bids from 1C through 2N during the session. >> Of >> course this information; and the calls we HAD opened were available on >> our >> syscard as the evening progressed. There was no requirement to build a >> coherent system, of course. >> >> In one session We might end up playing Precision 2C, Multi 2D, Strong 2H, >> Lucas 2S, 2N 5-5 minors; 1NT 14-15 (we neither of us held a 16 or 13 >> point >> hand during the session); 4 card H, 4 card S, canape D and short club. >> This >> much we would have worked out. >> >> So partner opens 2D; we alert and say "no agreement, but it's licensed" ; >> the likely possibilities are Art GF; strong with D, weak 4-4 maj; 4414 >> 11-15; weak with D, 45 maj, 11-15; but in a way you don't give a damn >> because it must be right to bid 2H as a response. Alert "probably >> conventional, but may just be covering the bases". The method scored >> about >> 53% over three or four outings, so one can hardly say we weren't trying. >> >> The HdW school is in serious trouble with this approach I think. >> > > No John, it isn't. The HdW school deals with real bridge, 99.99% of > the time. Your method is very funny, but you surely cannot call upon > it to make an exception to my views. > Which, after all, is a very fine result for me. If the only thing you > can come up with is some very funny story, that means you agree with > me 99.99% of the time. > Herman; i do agree with you a lot of the time. 99 overstates it though. > > -- > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 11 03:23:24 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:23:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: <1DEA7C54-9B5D-4C74-9FF9-C807693BEF63@starpower.net> References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> <86D0B4B0-40A3-4F8E-AD1E-D0D5CC0EE5A3@starpower.net> <1DEA7C54-9B5D-4C74-9FF9-C807693BEF63@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:01:30 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >>> We are discussing the relative merits of various manners of >>> disclosure when one is uncertain as the meaning of partner's call. >>> While everything Bob says is absolutely correct, ISTM that it applies >>> with equal force to any form of explanation we might decide to offer, >>> and therefore does not help us choose one over another. >> >> Hi Eric. What do you think of this argument? Say your partner makes >> a bid >> and you give the wrong explanation or say you are not sure of the >> meaning. >> >> If you and your partner have an explicit agreement about the >> meaning of >> your bid, then of course the opps deserve to hear it, even if you both >> have forgotten it and the proper ruling is misexplanation rather than >> misbid. >> >> Same thing for implicit agreements, meta-agreements, inferences >> from the >> meanings of other bids in your system, and relevant past auctions that >> could be developing an implicit agreement, right? Opps have the >> right to >> hear it, it is misexplanation if they don't? >> >> But in addition to the practical difficulties, you may be unable to >> report >> information your are using. I believe the opps also are entitled to >> this >> information if your partner used it. >> >> Most of the time, a close-enough explanation will do. But when your >> partner thinks a bid has one meaning, and you don't know the >> meaning or >> get it wrong, that seems to be the situation where you are most >> likely to >> leave out relevant information. >> >> The best you can do is a good-faith explanation of practical size, >> and I >> guess that is all the laws ask of you. But I don't think you will have >> good evidence against the ruling of misexplanation, since >> misexplanation >> has now become very likely, even if you cannot identify information >> you >> have left out. > > The ACBL has offered some good, practical advice to ordinary players > who do not wish to be burdoned with detailed knowledge of the > disclosure rules: Tell them whatever you know about your agreements > (implicit as well as explicit) that might be relevant. Do your best > to be as helpful as you can. They are entitled to know as much about > your bidding methods as you do. However, do not reveal anything that > you could not have known before you looked at your cards. > > On BLML, I argue about the jots and commas in the laws, but at the > table I take the ACBL approach. I recommend it to everyone. A sensible answer. Is it agreed that if the director is called in this situation, the ruling should be misexplanation rather than misbid? I am thinking that that (1) the presumption (by law) is misexplanation, (2) you have no evidence for misbid, and (3) you are already admitting to some misexplanation. From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Fri Apr 11 09:38:17 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:38:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> ton wrote: >ton: > >Yes a player after having made an insufficient call may misdescribe his >hand. > >I thought that we described in detail the 1H - 1H situation, where partner >may bid 2H now. >This is not a matter of having a systemic agreement, this is a player who >tries to find a solution for an irregularity not to be penalized. > >Just a suggestion in this rather complicated situation dealing with L 27. >Could you try to make a clear distinction between lawful application and >wishful thinking. We should make clear to the bridge world how to deal with >insufficient bids. > >And once again this is not a 2007 invention, we deal with it in the same way >for many decades already, though I start to understand that some regions >were not aware of it. > > Reg: Ton, you are discussing Law 27B1(a), which we are all familiar with, and where the offender is specifically permitted to misbid his hand. And where everyone at the table knows this. I am talking about a new Law 27B1(b), which does not specifically allow or disallow misbids by the offender. But, to apply your very good advice about lawful application and wishful thinking, may I go on? Stephanie and Robert both believe strongly that the RC should not be allowed unless it conforms with the pair's system agreements. IMHO the new Law would have been better had it included this proviso (or perhaps this was seen as too high a hurdle). But I must accept that a strict reading of the Law would not disallow the 3NT bid, even though it was not systemic. Or is it posible that, in these days when courts all over the world are finding 'implied' rights and obligations. our various RAs may be able to find an implied obligation that the RB must be consistent with the sustem? Eric is confident that he has the answer: One gains from an infraction when one does better than one would have absent the infraction, whether the damage comes directly and immediately from the infracting act or is the consequence of some aspect of the situation further down the line. Had there been no IB, the auction would presumably have started 1C-P-1S. The TD determines the likely outcomes had that occurred, finding gain/damage if the outcome might have been less favorable to the IBer's side than their actual result. In this example, that seems clear. IMHO, this is a textbook case of a L27D adjustment for damage. Reg:I wish I could be so confident. Again applying Ton's principles: Under 27D the *only* grounds for adjustment are where the outcome of the board could well have been different 'without assistance gained through the infraction'. Assessing the outcome of the board without the IB is not part of this assessment. Under Law 27D, this comes only after deciding to adjust, and is used to decide the quantum of the adjustment. As I see it, any damage has resulted not from any help from the IB per se, but from the subsequent deliberate misbid. There is no relief under Law for damage from a misbid, deliberate or not. Are we in the consequent / subsequent area here? I must admit that,had I to make a decision on this situation, I would allow the misbid of 3NT but very reluctantly (all the more so because it makes me complicit in a deliberate misbid), because I have to accept that the Laws allow it (whether this was the intention of the Lawmakers is another matter). If the opponents are damaged, I would adjust under 27D. Not because I'm convinced that the Laws as written give me such power, but clearly there has been damage that needs to be redressed. I seem to be going back to the old days when Kaplan's advice to directors was to rule what you think is fair, and then find a law to justify it! Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much like the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - 1C corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a 5/0 spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you adjust? Reg Busch > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 09:43:29 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:43:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FDCAA2.1030006@skynet.be> References: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> <47FB78FF.1040405@ulb.ac.be> <47FB867E.60801@skynet.be> <47FC7B63.3030407@skynet.be> <47FDCAA2.1030006@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 10/04/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > On 09/04/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Harald Skj??ran wrote: > >>>> If it's inferior or impossible, it should be used. When it is used, > >> of course there is a NOT missing there: > >> If it's inferior or impossible, then it should not be used. > > > > Here you're correcting yourself, Herman - I said nothing of the above. > > Indeed I was correcting myself - no-one else seemed to notice! > > >>>> and especially if the user tells us there was some reason for that > >>>> (other than a mispull), that means it was not inferior, nor impossible. > >>>> > >>>> So I rule that the call was systemic. > >>> This is ridiculous. When Richard has extensive system notes which show > >>> that all hands fall into other systemic bids, and in addition tell you > >>> (in bold) thad 2S is non-systemic, you can't rule it's systemic. > >>> > >> NO, the ridiculous thing is Richard using it. > >> He CANNOT pretend that a bid does not exist and then use it anyway. > > > > Well, it wasn't Richard using it, as far as I remember his partner > > pulled the 2S stunt, not that it matters. > >>> I, for one, would revoke your TD license in such a case on the spot > >>> (yeah, I know I can't). > >>> > >>> I'll add that I agree (at least partly) on some of your views > >>> regarding agreements, but not at all on this. > >>> > >> When you haven't understood what I meant. > >> > >> If a player tells me a call is impossible, he says that there are no > >> hands with which he would make that call. And then he makes the call > >> anyway. So either: > >> - He has 12 or 14 cards in his hand; > >> or: > >> - He has mispulled; > >> or: > >> he was not speaking the truth when he said there were no hands he > >> would make the call with. > >> > >> I agree that the first two are possibilities, but if they are not the > >> case - then I am ruling that there is ample evidence to throw the > >> previous admission to the scrapheap. > >> > >> And I fail to see how you can disagree with this. > > > > I understand perfectly well what you mean. I still disagree. When a > > pair can prove to you that a bid is non-systemic, you just have to > > accept that. > > Oh, I would - but how are they ever going to be able to prove this? > > > If one of the players thinks he's found some hole in the > > system, the pair obviously will have to discuss this afterward. Maybe > > they then will agree that there in fact is a hole which might be > > plugged by assigning some meaning to this 2S bid. In that case they > > will have an agreement about the call from that point on. At the > > moment, though, when such agreement is not in place, and the 2S > > bidders partner hasn't got a clue what might be intended by the bid, > > obviously there's no agreement. > > > > And that is where you are not following. 'Here you're completely wrong. I follow every single argument you're giving. But I disagree with your conclusions. >If one player, at the table, > finds a plug in the whole, that means the plug was always there. If, > after their discussion, they find out that the one player found the > plug that was always there, then they had this "agreement" all along. This is where you are wrong. It's not enough that one player believes he's found a hole and the plug - if the other player either don't see a hole at all or are in disagreement as to what plug would fit, then there's no agreement at all until they have discussed the situation and agreed upon a solution. > > Now obviously they are not going to come back to TD Harald and say > "you would have been right in calling our bid systemic, please give an > AS after all". Which is why TD Herman gives the AS from the word go. I agree with you that if there's only one possible solution from their other agreements, meta-agreements and how they both apply logic, then they do have an implicit agreement. > > Of course we also have to deal with the fact that maybe they don't > agree with the plug in the hole. Then you might say there was nothing > wrong. But if they first get an AS depending on whether they later > accept the bid to be systemic, surely they will find it non-systemic. OK, seems we're not in total disagreement here after all. :-) > > My point is that if one player believes he is bidding according to > system, and the other cannot quickly disprove it, then who shall > decide what the system is? Obviously it has to be the TD, because the > players are biased. In the actual case there's no doubt IMO that the 2S bid was non-systemic. Richard never told us why his partner pulled this stunt on him. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 11 10:30:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:30:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <47FB678E.1060402@skynet.be> <47FB78FF.1040405@ulb.ac.be> <47FB867E.60801@skynet.be> <47FC7B63.3030407@skynet.be> <47FDCAA2.1030006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FF219A.6060109@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >> If one player, at the table, >> finds a plug in the whole, that means the plug was always there. If, >> after their discussion, they find out that the one player found the >> plug that was always there, then they had this "agreement" all along. > > This is where you are wrong. It's not enough that one player believes > he's found a hole and the plug - if the other player either don't see > a hole at all or are in disagreement as to what plug would fit, then > there's no agreement at all until they have discussed the situation > and agreed upon a solution. The problem with that view is that when faced with a ruling, the other player is not going to admit that the hole is plugged up in a logical fashion. And the player himself is not going to argue very hard either, not in the face of the director. Far better to simply admit misbid. Which is why I believe that when one player gives a logical reason for why he bid what he did, the Director should rule misinformation. Perhaps unless the partner can point to obvious phallacies in the reasoning. I believe you and Alain to be very good players, but you are looking at this from the point of view of the ethical player: I know what I know and that is that. If you look at it from the point of view of the Director, it's a different picture. And the strange thing is: you are both so ethical players that you would probably give the explanation at the table. Why then are you so against me if I want to rule against your perhaps less ethical colleague, who hides behind "no agreement"? >> Now obviously they are not going to come back to TD Harald and say >> "you would have been right in calling our bid systemic, please give an >> AS after all". Which is why TD Herman gives the AS from the word go. > > I agree with you that if there's only one possible solution from their > other agreements, meta-agreements and how they both apply logic, then > they do have an implicit agreement. > Thanks for that - I believe that is the case I was talking about. >> Of course we also have to deal with the fact that maybe they don't >> agree with the plug in the hole. Then you might say there was nothing >> wrong. But if they first get an AS depending on whether they later >> accept the bid to be systemic, surely they will find it non-systemic. > > OK, seems we're not in total disagreement here after all. :-) Of course not! >> My point is that if one player believes he is bidding according to >> system, and the other cannot quickly disprove it, then who shall >> decide what the system is? Obviously it has to be the TD, because the >> players are biased. > > In the actual case there's no doubt IMO that the 2S bid was > non-systemic. Richard never told us why his partner pulled this stunt > on him. > That's true, Richard never told us. Except if it was the case of the mispull. Which would be allowed, of course. But I fail to see how you can say so without doubt that the bid was non-systemic. All you know is that this was written on the SC. If the player has a good reason (even if only in his own opinion) then the SC was wrong! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 11 10:44:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:44:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <662B3159-7DC0-4F7E-A4EE-45D94ED14B0C@starpower.net> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <662B3159-7DC0-4F7E-A4EE-45D94ED14B0C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FF24E2.1050608@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three >> answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this >> fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you must be >> in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it >> is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or 2Sp; so >> it probably has long clubs and a super-maximum. That "defines" the >> bid, whether Eric believes it does or not. > > That's Herman's try. My bidding judgment differs. Here's mine: > > Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three > answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this > fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you must be > in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it > is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or 2Sp; so > it probably has four cards in both majors and a super-maximum. That, > too, "defines" the bid, whether I believe it does or not. > > Who's right? Which of us has "defined" the bid correctly? If Herman > is correct that we if we understand what was intended we must be > using some implicit "definition", and that that definition is subject > to disclosure, that question *must* be answerable. > > Well Eric, it is hard to define this without knowledge of the meta-agreements at work in this partnership. In my partnership (and I do play weak Stayman), 4He shows a 4-card and does not deny a 4-card spades (as seems only natural). So If I have 2 4-card suits, and my partner is weak, it can never be good to bid 2NT. OTOH, 2Di denies both majors, but can be passed. So if partner is weak, 2NT might be better than 2Di passed out. Anyway, I would never bid 2NT, but if my partner did it, that's what I would conclude. But you have just proven one point. Both of us play the same system, and yet we get a different result for the "impossible" bid. Now say we play against oneanother, and my partner were to bid 2NT, and she does have 3325 and 17 points, precisely what I would expect. If I were to explain to you, at the table, the meanings of 2Di, 2He and 2Sp, and say "draw your own conclusions", then you would come up with a different conclusion than I would. Yet I would know precisely and correctly what my partner had. Would you not feel misinformed? How would the TD have to decide whether I am telling the truth when I say we've never bid that way before? How would the TD decide we had not both read an age-old article ages ago? I came accross something like that yesterday. She Me 2Di (multi) (pass) 2He (pass) 2Sp 3He 3Sp Without the 3He, 3Sp would obviously be a limit raise (I cannot show this in the first round if I am not willing to go past 2He opposite weak hearts). But with the 3He, I might be willing to go to 3Sp in defence. It came to me that we could use a double over 3He (or a 3He bid over 3Cl/3Di) to show the limit raise. I todl her, but she said "not now". Suppose we have the same auction tomorrow. She forgets explain it correctly, and says afterwards "we have not agreed this, I just used common sense". I can then give the TD all our system notes, where this is not mentioned. How is the TD going to find out about our (informal) talk yesterday? It is absolutely true that we have not "agreed" on this. Yet we have an "understanding". I know it's the rule of coincidence, and we don't want that as law. But do we want people to do this unpunished? > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 11 10:51:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:51:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FDCD21.2000203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47FF269A.8070207@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:17 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> One of the (many) flaws in the "DWS" approach is that it assumes that >>> a player who is unsure of the meaning of his partner's call can only >>> either "guess wrong" or "guess right", when he in fact need not -- >>> and, if he's a decent player, normally will not -- guess at all. >> Thereby giving MI to opponents. >> I wish you would stop using DWS in this thread, Eric. This has nothing >> to do with the other. > > In the "DWS" thread, Herman argued that a player who is uncertain as > to the meaning of his partner's call should endeavor to correctly > describe partner's intended meaning, without regard to the > partnership's actual agreements. > > In the current thread, Herman argues that a TD facing a player who is > uncertain as to the meaning of his partner's call should rule that he > has acted properly if and only if he correctly describes partner's > intended meaning, without regard to the partnership's actual agreements. > > No connection? > Of course not! Because in the DWS thread, the true and actual agreements are known, and they are not what is explained. It is wilful "lying" as you so often state (and I agree - I only don't agree that this is unacceptable). Whereas in this thread, the true and actual agreements are unknown. Not even the responder knows them, but he guesses them (correctly). So totally different as to make me quite mad if you equate them. Because you make it seem to this list as if my sayings in this thread are as ridiculous as (you believe) those of the DWS (to be). And although I stand firmly behind the DWS, I don't want that same lable for all my pronouncements. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 11 12:06:51 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:06:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47FF383B.6070908@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] One of the (many) flaws in the "DWS" approach is that it assumes that a player who is unsure of the meaning of his partner's call can only either "guess wrong" or "guess right", when he in fact need not -- and, if he's a decent player, normally will not -- guess at all. [nige1] Eric Landau is correct: - Some players are sure of their agreements. - Most players are *never* certain of their agreements. - In the past, many of us (like me) have tried to "guess right". - It now seems that more players are adopting Eric's way out. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 11 13:34:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:34:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd > ton wrote: > >>ton: >> >>Yes a player after having made an insufficient call may misdescribe his >>hand. >> >>I thought that we described in detail the 1H - 1H situation, where partner >>may bid 2H now. >>This is not a matter of having a systemic agreement, this is a player who >>tries to find a solution for an irregularity not to be penalized. >> >>Just a suggestion in this rather complicated situation dealing with L 27. >>Could you try to make a clear distinction between lawful application and >>wishful thinking. We should make clear to the bridge world how to deal >>with >>insufficient bids. >> >>And once again this is not a 2007 invention, we deal with it in the same >>way >>for many decades already, though I start to understand that some regions >>were not aware of it. >> >> > Reg: > Ton, you are discussing Law 27B1(a), which we are all familiar with, > and where the offender is specifically permitted to misbid his hand. And > where everyone at the table knows this. I am talking about a new Law > 27B1(b), which does not specifically allow or disallow misbids by the > offender. But, to apply your very good advice about lawful application > and wishful thinking, may I go on? > > Stephanie and Robert both believe strongly that the RC should not be > allowed unless it conforms with the pair's system agreements. IMHO the > new Law would have been better had it included this proviso (or perhaps > this was seen as too high a hurdle). But I must accept that a strict > reading of the Law would not disallow the 3NT bid, even though it was > not systemic. Or is it posible that, in these days when courts all over > the world are finding 'implied' rights and obligations. our various RAs > may be able to find an implied obligation that the RB must be consistent > with the sustem? > > Eric is confident that he has the answer: > > One gains from an infraction when one does better than one would have > absent the infraction, whether the damage comes directly and > immediately from the infracting act or is the consequence of some > aspect of the situation further down the line. Had there been no IB, > the auction would presumably have started 1C-P-1S. The TD determines > the likely outcomes had that occurred, finding gain/damage if the > outcome might have been less favorable to the IBer's side than their > actual result. In this example, that seems clear. > > IMHO, this is a textbook case of a L27D adjustment for damage. > > Reg:I wish I could be so confident. Again applying Ton's principles: > Under 27D the *only* grounds for adjustment are where the outcome of the board could well have been different 'without assistance gained through the infraction'. Assessing the outcome of the board without the IB is not part of this assessment. Under Law 27D, this comes only after deciding to adjust, and is used to decide the quantum of the adjustment. > > As I see it, any damage has resulted not from any help from the IB per se, but from the subsequent deliberate misbid. There is no relief under Law for damage from a misbid, deliberate or not. Are we in the consequent / subsequent area here? > > I must admit that,had I to make a decision on this situation, I would allow the misbid of 3NT but very reluctantly (all the more so because it makes me complicit in a deliberate misbid), because I have to accept that the Laws allow it (whether this was the intention of the Lawmakers is another matter). If the opponents are damaged, I would adjust under 27D. Not because I'm convinced that the Laws as written give me such power, but clearly there has been damage that needs to be redressed. I seem to be going back to the old days when Kaplan's advice to directors was to rule what you think is fair, and then find a law to justify it! > > Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much like the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - 1C corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a 5/0 spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you adjust? > > Reg Busch > +=+ I do make the point that the law should be stripped to its essential language when it is read. However, it should be noted also that if the player is observed to make such a 'misbid' on a plurality of occasions it becomes an implicit partnership understanding - and see Law 40B3. Concerning the example offered by Reg at the end of the above, we should examine the position dispassionately and not be influenced by the emotional content of his "17 imps hang on your decision". So let us consider how we would rule if 6NT makes 13 top tricks while 6S has one (trump) loser. 13 tricks against twelve. Would that be nothing more than 'rub of the green'? If your answer is 'yes' then the same principle applies when one slam makes and the other not - something the player could not foresee when, acting as the law allows, he selected his action. Let us be reminded also that 27D applies to "assistance gained through the infraction". Here the infraction provides no assistance, as I see it, the ultimate outcome being a product of the chance lie of the cards. I do suggest that the law has not changed in such a manner as to prevent unpredictable 'rub of the green' occurrences. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 11 14:19:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:19:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Laws of Duplicate bridge 2007 Message-ID: <006c01c89bce$5de7a6d0$5ed6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott References: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> <2b1e598b0804092005y2e4ce723l1f770a3d569fe2c2@mail.gmail.com> <006b01c89b39$99e3bf60$70709951@stefanie> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2008, at 2:35 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > JF > >> 1. No, he is not allowed to systemically misdescribe his hand to >> keep >> partner in the auction. Furthermore, I don't think that he should be >> allowed to bend the partnership agreements to correct with a >> zero-penalty bid. I would even put the burden of proof that on the >> partnership that no stretching is going on. > > I agree, and I think that this is very important. Otherwise the > opponents > may be damaged by misinformation, and the partner of the IBer will > have UI > that partner's bid is not exactly what the system says it is (it is > not > necessary for a similar incident to have happened previously; the > fact that > it is permitted will be sufficient to create UI). But this UI, > under the new > Law 27, would be AI, and the misinformation would presumably be > part of the > "penalty-free" bit. So it seems clear that no deviation from > system, no > matter how minor, should be allowed. "The partner of the IBer will have UI that partner's bid is not exactly what the system says it is"? That's ridiculous. It says that if the IBer has a hand perfectly suited for some L27B1(b) RC he will choose something else to avoid confounding partner's expectation! ISTM that if there is an obvious "understanding" that derives directly from the conditions of L27B1, and might well be expected to be understood without discussion, is that an IBer who could have made a penalty-free RC using L27B1(a) but chooses a L27B1(b) correction instead will always have exactly what the system dictates. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 11 15:32:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:32:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: <011001c89b4c$d9952870$70709951@stefanie> References: <47FD7C30.9020003@ozemail.com.au> <85D9BFAE-9A83-464D-8727-D01BB2794A14@starpower.net> <011001c89b4c$d9952870$70709951@stefanie> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:52 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> He is allowed to misdescribe his hand to avoid barring his partner. >> L27B is concerned only with the systemic meaning of various calls; it >> contains no constraints on what you're allowed to hold when you make >> them. L40A3 remains operative. > > Are you sure that this is true? Well... of course not. It seems obvious to me. But the WBF could come along tomorrow and decree otherwise. L27 is all about system and methods; either your methods allow a L27B correction or they don't. Absolutely nothing in L27 even mentions, much less places requirements or prohibitions on, the IBer's actual holding. There is nothing in L27 to suggest that it overrides L40A3, and that law has not been repealed. > It seems to me that it should not be the > case. Well, I disagree, but that's why BLML exists. > One thing it ensures is that there will never be a case where an > error-free correction cannot be made. I suspect Stefanie mistyped. If she meant "a penalty-free correction", as I suspect, that is clearly incorrect. L27 is all about system and methods; either your methods allow a L27B correction or they don't. Quite often they don't. When they do, it's not unlikely to be restricted to a L27B1(a) correction, with no L27B1(b) option available. The requirements of L27B1(b) -- actual holdings aside -- are fairly strict, and I should be surprised if they're satisfied more than about half the time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 11 15:55:39 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:55:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FF383B.6070908@NTLworld.com> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FF383B.6070908@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:06:51 -0400, Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > One of the (many) flaws in the "DWS" approach is that it assumes that > a player who is unsure of the meaning of his partner's call can only > either "guess wrong" or "guess right", when he in fact need not -- > and, if he's a decent player, normally will not -- guess at all. > > [nige1] > Eric Landau is correct: > - Some players are sure of their agreements. > - Most players are *never* certain of their agreements. > - In the past, many of us (like me) have tried to "guess right". > - It now seems that more players are adopting Eric's way out. If you say that you do not know what partner's bid means, then you have an obligation to report all relevant meta-agreements, past auctions, etc., which is usually impossible. Then your explanation is incomplete. What happens if the director is called? Will you be able to provide evidence that partner misbid the hand? Due to a "fect" in the laws, the director's two choices are misbid and misexplanation. We know you didn't explain it fully enough. I don't know what "misbid" means here -- your partner thought you would understand the bid and you didn't? How are you going to get evidence for that (especially if you guess right)? If you say what partner's bid means and you are right, the opps aren't injured. Bob, who is new to this list and does not understand why everyone seems to be focusing on the laws concerning what you have to explain about partner's bid and ignoring what happens when the director is called to make a ruling. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 11 16:08:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:08:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws In-Reply-To: References: <47FC83B1.3040509@ulb.ac.be> <58878353-77C0-47CD-BB30-4079997B0F97@starpower.net> <47FCE57E.8080201@skynet.be> <86D0B4B0-40A3-4F8E-AD1E-D0D5CC0EE5A3@starpower.net> <1DEA7C54-9B5D-4C74-9FF9-C807693BEF63@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0453441D-6DD9-424E-8C34-6065A6A2DEFD@starpower.net> On Apr 10, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:01:30 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> The ACBL has offered some good, practical advice to ordinary players >> who do not wish to be burdoned with detailed knowledge of the >> disclosure rules: Tell them whatever you know about your agreements >> (implicit as well as explicit) that might be relevant. Do your best >> to be as helpful as you can. They are entitled to know as much about >> your bidding methods as you do. However, do not reveal anything that >> you could not have known before you looked at your cards. >> >> On BLML, I argue about the jots and commas in the laws, but at the >> table I take the ACBL approach. I recommend it to everyone. > > A sensible answer. > > Is it agreed that if the director is called in this situation, the > ruling > should be misexplanation rather than misbid? I am thinking that > that (1) > the presumption (by law) is misexplanation, (2) you have no > evidence for > misbid, and (3) you are already admitting to some misexplanation. Not at all. I don't see how (2) or (3) could have come from a generic behavior guideline, when no actual situation or scenario has been mentioned. But it is (1) that is dangerous. L75 is definitive about what constitues a misexplanation versus what constitutes a misbid. It is up to the TD to investigate, weigh the available evidence (which includes players' testimony as well as CCs, bidding notes, and the like), and decide which it was. L85A requires that he do this "in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is *able* to collect" [emphasis mine]. That is a positive obligation to collect either enough evidence to make a definitive finding one way or the other, or as much evidence as he reasonably can before he gives up trying. The "presumption of misexplanation" in L75C tells the TD what to rule if, after he has thoroughly investigated and collected all the evidence he "is able to" (which does *not* mean "chose to"), he still cannot come to a conclusion. It is unfortunately easy for lazy or incompetent TDs (or those with odd and peculiar notions about how full disclosure is supposed to work) to ignore their madated duty and proceed directly to the "presumption of misexplanation" with little or no actual investigation. It is even easier for those who choose to read "self- serving testimony should be discounted" as if it said "self-serving testimony should be ignored". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 11 16:39:27 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:39:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <3B0506E1-796D-4F1F-AC74-517B99DA365C@starpower.net> On Apr 11, 2008, at 3:38 AM, Reg Busch wrote: > Eric is confident that he has the answer: > > One gains from an infraction when one does better than one would have > absent the infraction, whether the damage comes directly and > immediately from the infracting act or is the consequence of some > aspect of the situation further down the line. Had there been no IB, > the auction would presumably have started 1C-P-1S. The TD determines > the likely outcomes had that occurred, finding gain/damage if the > outcome might have been less favorable to the IBer's side than their > actual result. In this example, that seems clear. > > IMHO, this is a textbook case of a L27D adjustment for damage. > > Reg:I wish I could be so confident. Again applying Ton's principles: > Under 27D the *only* grounds for adjustment are where the outcome > of the board could well have been different 'without assistance > gained through the infraction'. Assessing the outcome of the board > without the IB is not part of this assessment. Under Law 27D, this > comes only after deciding to adjust, and is used to decide the > quantum of the adjustment. > > As I see it, any damage has resulted not from any help from the IB > per se, but from the subsequent deliberate misbid. There is no > relief under Law for damage from a misbid, deliberate or not. Are > we in the consequent / subsequent area here? One could indeed argue, as a point of semantics, that the damage was not the result of "any help from the IB per se", but, fortunately, we need only find that the IB provided "assistance". All that requires, in a nutshell, is "IB, damage; no IB, no damage". To decide whether "the outcome of the board could well have been different", we must answer the question "different from what?", and the only sensible answer to that is what would have happened on a normal auction without the IB. > I must admit that,had I to make a decision on this situation, I > would allow the misbid of 3NT but very reluctantly (all the more so > because it makes me complicit in a deliberate misbid), because I > have to accept that the Laws allow it (whether this was the > intention of the Lawmakers is another matter). If the opponents are > damaged, I would adjust under 27D. Not because I'm convinced that > the Laws as written give me such power, but clearly there has been > damage that needs to be redressed. I seem to be going back to the > old days when Kaplan's advice to directors was to rule what you > think is fair, and then find a law to justify it! Well, as Reg says, "Clearly there has been damage that needs to be redressed." Damage that wouldn't have happened without the IB. Damage that, perforce, required the "assistance" of the IB. If you don't offer redress in such cases, what on Earth do you think L27D *is* there for? > Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much > like the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - > 1C corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. > As it happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their > spade fit. 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) > 6S fails on a 5/0 spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on > your decision. Do you adjust? Do I think that if responder had seen partner's 1C opening he would have responded 1S and reached 6S? Of course I adjust. In a flash. Couldn't be clearer. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Fri Apr 11 16:53:37 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:53:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <001d01c89be3$d2980a00$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reg Busch" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd > I must admit that,had I to make a decision on this situation, I would > allow the misbid of 3NT but very reluctantly (all the more so because it > makes me complicit in a deliberate misbid), because I have to accept that > the Laws allow it (whether this was the intention of the Lawmakers is > another matter). If the opponents are damaged, I would adjust under 27D. > Not because I'm convinced that the Laws as written give me such power, but > clearly there has been damage that needs to be redressed. I seem to be > going back to the old days when Kaplan's advice to directors was to rule > what you think is fair, and then find a law to justify it! Quite right too :) > > Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much like > the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - 1C > corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it > happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. > 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a 5/0 > spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you > adjust? My inclination is to adjust. They have gained from the infraction. John > > Reg Busch > > >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 11 17:14:01 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:14:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <47FF24E2.1050608@skynet.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <662B3159-7DC0-4F7E-A4EE-45D94ED14B0C@starpower.net> <47FF24E2.1050608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0DBB5DF7-CCD5-4E2E-B8F4-F616BE38723A@starpower.net> On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three >>> answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this >>> fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you >>> must be >>> in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it >>> is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or >>> 2Sp; so >>> it probably has long clubs and a super-maximum. That "defines" the >>> bid, whether Eric believes it does or not. >> >> That's Herman's try. My bidding judgment differs. Here's mine: >> >> Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three >> answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this >> fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you must be >> in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it >> is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or 2Sp; so >> it probably has four cards in both majors and a super-maximum. That, >> too, "defines" the bid, whether I believe it does or not. >> >> Who's right? Which of us has "defined" the bid correctly? If Herman >> is correct that we if we understand what was intended we must be >> using some implicit "definition", and that that definition is subject >> to disclosure, that question *must* be answerable. > > Well Eric, it is hard to define this without knowledge of the > meta-agreements at work in this partnership. > In my partnership (and I do play weak Stayman), 4He shows a 4-card and > does not deny a 4-card spades (as seems only natural). So If I have 2 > 4-card suits, and my partner is weak, it can never be good to bid 2NT. > OTOH, 2Di denies both majors, but can be passed. So if partner is > weak, 2NT might be better than 2Di passed out. > > Anyway, I would never bid 2NT, but if my partner did it, that's what I > would conclude. > > But you have just proven one point. Both of us play the same system, > and yet we get a different result for the "impossible" bid. Now say we > play against oneanother, and my partner were to bid 2NT, and she does > have 3325 and 17 points, precisely what I would expect. If I were to > explain to you, at the table, the meanings of 2Di, 2He and 2Sp, and > say "draw your own conclusions", then you would come up with a > different conclusion than I would. Yet I would know precisely and > correctly what my partner had. > Would you not feel misinformed? How would the TD have to decide > whether I am telling the truth when I say we've never bid that way > before? How would the TD decide we had not both read an age-old > article ages ago? That's all well and good. Sounds nice, and delivers a happy ending. But its logic falls apart completely if, after all that, partner puts down a 4-4-3-2 hand. Herman's logic is based on the premise that when partner makes an undefined bid, he will "know precisely and correctly what [he holds]". If he's merely asserting that without justification, it may well prove untrue. If he has some objective knowledge to justify such confidence, he has (illegally) failed to disclose it. But in all of Herman's examples, partner always figures out what that undefined bid means, and always gets it right. > I came accross something like that yesterday. > > She Me > 2Di (multi) (pass) 2He (pass) > 2Sp 3He 3Sp > > Without the 3He, 3Sp would obviously be a limit raise (I cannot show > this in the first round if I am not willing to go past 2He opposite > weak hearts). But with the 3He, I might be willing to go to 3Sp in > defence. It came to me that we could use a double over 3He (or a 3He > bid over 3Cl/3Di) to show the limit raise. I todl her, but she said > "not now". Suppose we have the same auction tomorrow. She forgets > explain it correctly, and says afterwards "we have not agreed this, I > just used common sense". I can then give the TD all our system notes, > where this is not mentioned. > How is the TD going to find out about our (informal) talk yesterday? > It is absolutely true that we have not "agreed" on this. Yet we have > an "understanding". > > I know it's the rule of coincidence, and we don't want that as law. > But do we want people to do this unpunished? Yesterday you discussed a convention. Today partner remembered it well enough to respond to it correctly, but somehow "forg[ot to] explain it". And you're worried that this will go unpunished? (It could, of course, if you and your partner are both prepared to tell outright lies to the TD and manage to get away with it, but that's not news.) Because nobody actually uttered the word "agreement"? I do believe that TFLB is up to dealing with this situation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 11 17:41:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:41:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <47FF269A.8070207@skynet.be> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FDCD21.2000203@skynet.be> <47FF269A.8070207@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:51 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> In the "DWS" thread, Herman argued that a player who is uncertain as >> to the meaning of his partner's call should endeavor to correctly >> describe partner's intended meaning, without regard to the >> partnership's actual agreements. >> >> In the current thread, Herman argues that a TD facing a player who is >> uncertain as to the meaning of his partner's call should rule that he >> has acted properly if and only if he correctly describes partner's >> intended meaning, without regard to the partnership's actual >> agreements. >> >> No connection? > > Of course not! > > Because in the DWS thread, the true and actual agreements are known, > and they are not what is explained. It is wilful "lying" as you so > often state (and I agree - I only don't agree that this is > unacceptable). > > Whereas in this thread, the true and actual agreements are unknown. > Not even the responder knows them, but he guesses them (correctly). That's Herman's side of the debate. The other side contends that the "true and actual agreements" *are* known; they are known, such as it is, to be "we do not have any (relevant) agreement". His views are consistent with his advice to players, both resting on the presumption that a player who claims not to have an agreement is being untruthful; he has a "true and actual agreement" whether he knows it or not. The other debatable assumption here is reflected in those parentheses. By writing "he guesses them (correctly)" rather than "he guesses them correctly", Herman dismisses the possibility that he might guess them incorrectly from his universe of discourse. > So totally different as to make me quite mad if you equate them. > Because you make it seem to this list as if my sayings in this thread > are as ridiculous as (you believe) those of the DWS (to be). Any interpretation of the disclosure laws by which a player cannot provide proper and legal full disclosure without telling outright lies is similar enough to any other to be equally ridiculous AFAIC. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 11 18:03:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:03:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: <001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred> References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> <001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <0F781582-CEFE-4C4B-A284-4CC93097DE82@starpower.net> On Apr 11, 2008, at 7:34 AM, wrote: > From: "Reg Busch" > >> Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much >> like >> the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - 1C >> corrected >> after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it >> happens this >> time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. 6NT >> makes but >> at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a 5/0 spade >> break. >> EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you adjust? >>> > > Let us be reminded also that 27D applies to "assistance > gained through > the infraction". Here the infraction provides no assistance, as I > see it, > the ultimate outcome being a product of the chance lie of the cards. An interesting take. Would you see it the same way if you knew that 6NT was impregnable to bad breaks, and therefore a demonstrably superior contract? > I do suggest that the law has not changed in such a manner as to > prevent > unpredictable 'rub of the green' occurrences. You swung 17 IMPs because (a) with "assistance gained through the infraction" you bid 6NT instead of 6S, and (b) spades were 5-0. "Rub of the green" takes (b) out of consideration, but shouldn't, IMO, neutralize (a). Of course, this does cut either way, so if 6S is a demonstrably superior contract that goes off on 5-0 spades while 6NT makes on some unlikely lucky breaks (perhaps because someone couldn't lead a spade?), then we have a case for "rub of the green". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 11 18:23:15 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:23:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be> <47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be> <47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be> <47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be> <47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FF383B.6070908@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47FF9073.7090503@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick] If you say that you do not know what partner's bid means, then you have an obligation to report all relevant meta-agreements, past auctions, etc., which is usually impossible. Then your explanation is incomplete. [Nige1] Eric Landau tells us that current law forbids guessing. Instead, players are enjoined to rehearse the arguments that led to their tentative conclusion. That is harder to do and appears to be beyond the intellectual powers of many players. Anyway, if all players rigidly conformed to the recommended protocol, the game would slow down to a snail's pace. Most players *can* make a reasonable *guess* at the the meaning of partner's call. In practice, some players do still guess (illegally). but players are rapidly learning that it is better to answer "undiscussed". We can but hope that, by 2018, the law will be rationalised to mandate guessing. From mustikka at charter.net Fri Apr 11 22:02:42 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:02:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be><47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be><47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be><47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be><47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FF383B.6070908@NTLworld.com> <47FF9073.7090503@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <003f01c89c0f$0109ef90$d8165e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > [Robert Frick] > If you say that you do not know what partner's bid means, then you have > an obligation to report all relevant meta-agreements, past auctions, > etc., which is usually impossible. Then your explanation is incomplete. > > [Nige1] > Eric Landau tells us that current law forbids guessing. Instead, > players are enjoined to rehearse the arguments that led to their > tentative conclusion. That is harder to do and appears to be beyond the > intellectual powers of many players. Anyway, if all players rigidly > conformed to the recommended protocol, the game would slow down to a > snail's pace. Most players *can* make a reasonable *guess* at the the > meaning of partner's call. In practice, some players do still guess > (illegally). but players are rapidly learning that it is better to > answer "undiscussed". We can but hope that, by 2018, the law will be > rationalised to mandate guessing. I should hope not... When there is no agreement, the truthful and lawful answer is "no agreement" Anything else is a lie and I hope the laws will never mandate lying to the opponents no matter how acceptable or well-intentioned it [lying] might be to some individuals. The recommended protocol does not in any way tell us to blurb out flat "No agreement" and leave it at that. There are some cases where this is sufficient, obviously, but more often one is obligated to explain relevant meta-agreements if there are some, and perhaps offer what alternate calls mean so that opponents are then in the same position to guess as the explainer is. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 12 02:43:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:43:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au><47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au><001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred> <0F781582-CEFE-4C4B-A284-4CC93097DE82@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003f01c89c36$3e2c3230$a8d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd > You swung 17 IMPs because (a) with "assistance gained through the > infraction" you bid 6NT instead of 6S, and (b) spades were 5-0. "Rub > of the green" takes (b) out of consideration, but shouldn't, IMO, > neutralize (a). > +=+ I question whether it is right to say that the infraction has provided any such assistance. I do not see the mere creation of circumstances (application of law) in which something can happen as providing positive help to the player to reach the contract in which he landed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 12 12:05:44 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:05:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <0DBB5DF7-CCD5-4E2E-B8F4-F616BE38723A@starpower.net> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <662B3159-7DC0-4F7E-A4EE-45D94ED14B0C@starpower.net> <47FF24E2.1050608@skynet.be> <0DBB5DF7-CCD5-4E2E-B8F4-F616BE38723A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48008978.7030308@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three >>>> answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this >>>> fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you >>>> must be >>>> in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it >>>> is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or >>>> 2Sp; so >>>> it probably has long clubs and a super-maximum. That "defines" the >>>> bid, whether Eric believes it does or not. >>> That's Herman's try. My bidding judgment differs. Here's mine: >>> >>> Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three >>> answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this >>> fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you must be >>> in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it is: it >>> is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or 2Sp; so >>> it probably has four cards in both majors and a super-maximum. That, >>> too, "defines" the bid, whether I believe it does or not. >>> >>> Who's right? Which of us has "defined" the bid correctly? If Herman >>> is correct that we if we understand what was intended we must be >>> using some implicit "definition", and that that definition is subject >>> to disclosure, that question *must* be answerable. >> Well Eric, it is hard to define this without knowledge of the >> meta-agreements at work in this partnership. >> In my partnership (and I do play weak Stayman), 4He shows a 4-card and >> does not deny a 4-card spades (as seems only natural). So If I have 2 >> 4-card suits, and my partner is weak, it can never be good to bid 2NT. >> OTOH, 2Di denies both majors, but can be passed. So if partner is >> weak, 2NT might be better than 2Di passed out. >> >> Anyway, I would never bid 2NT, but if my partner did it, that's what I >> would conclude. >> >> But you have just proven one point. Both of us play the same system, >> and yet we get a different result for the "impossible" bid. Now say we >> play against oneanother, and my partner were to bid 2NT, and she does >> have 3325 and 17 points, precisely what I would expect. If I were to >> explain to you, at the table, the meanings of 2Di, 2He and 2Sp, and >> say "draw your own conclusions", then you would come up with a >> different conclusion than I would. Yet I would know precisely and >> correctly what my partner had. >> Would you not feel misinformed? How would the TD have to decide >> whether I am telling the truth when I say we've never bid that way >> before? How would the TD decide we had not both read an age-old >> article ages ago? > > That's all well and good. Sounds nice, and delivers a happy ending. > > But its logic falls apart completely if, after all that, partner puts > down a 4-4-3-2 hand. > No, because as a Director, we will not be called in that case. More often than not, the pair will score a bad result at the table. So we're only concerned with the case where the player guesses correctly. > Herman's logic is based on the premise that when partner makes an > undefined bid, he will "know precisely and correctly what [he > holds]". If he's merely asserting that without justification, it may > well prove untrue. If he has some objective knowledge to justify > such confidence, he has (illegally) failed to disclose it. But in > all of Herman's examples, partner always figures out what that > undefined bid means, and always gets it right. > Indeed, because the other cases don't reach the director! And I would probably rule the same way on Alain's 4414 regardless of whether his partner understands or not. But that would be harder to call "understanding". >> >> I know it's the rule of coincidence, and we don't want that as law. >> But do we want people to do this unpunished? > > Yesterday you discussed a convention. Today partner remembered it > well enough to respond to it correctly, but somehow "forg[ot to] > explain it". And you're worried that this will go unpunished? (It > could, of course, if you and your partner are both prepared to tell > outright lies to the TD and manage to get away with it, but that's > not news.) Because nobody actually uttered the word "agreement"? I > do believe that TFLB is up to dealing with this situation. > Sorry, we never "discussed" this convention, and we certainly did not "agree" to it. but do you see the problem with your stance? I would tell the director about my previous mentioning of the convention. You would stick to your system notes and "no agreement". I'm being honest - you're not. I will get ruled against, and you would not, because TD Eric would believe him when player Eric says "no agreement". > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 12 12:09:31 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:09:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <003f01c89c0f$0109ef90$d8165e47@DFYXB361> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be><47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be><47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be><47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be><47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FF383B.6070908@NTLworld.com> <47FF9073.7090503@NTLworld.com> <003f01c89c0f$0109ef90$d8165e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <48008A5B.4040003@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 9:23 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > > >> [Robert Frick] >> If you say that you do not know what partner's bid means, then you have >> an obligation to report all relevant meta-agreements, past auctions, >> etc., which is usually impossible. Then your explanation is incomplete. >> >> [Nige1] >> Eric Landau tells us that current law forbids guessing. Instead, >> players are enjoined to rehearse the arguments that led to their >> tentative conclusion. That is harder to do and appears to be beyond the >> intellectual powers of many players. Anyway, if all players rigidly >> conformed to the recommended protocol, the game would slow down to a >> snail's pace. Most players *can* make a reasonable *guess* at the the >> meaning of partner's call. In practice, some players do still guess >> (illegally). but players are rapidly learning that it is better to >> answer "undiscussed". We can but hope that, by 2018, the law will be >> rationalised to mandate guessing. > > I should hope not... When there is no agreement, the truthful and lawful > answer is "no agreement" Anything else is a lie and I hope the laws will > never mandate lying to the opponents no matter how acceptable or > well-intentioned it [lying] might be to some individuals. > This is even worse. The "lying" argument now goes as far as saying that it becomes illegal to answer more than you ought to. I don't want to play bridge like that, and if you're going to convict me for lying by telling my opponents my guesses, then I'll be glad to be out of your tournaments because I don't want my opponents to do so either. I'll go play bridge with the honest people. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mustikka at charter.net Sat Apr 12 18:30:22 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:30:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be><47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be><47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be><47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be><47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FF383B.6070908@NTLworld.com> <47FF9073.7090503@NTLworld.com><003f01c89c0f$0109ef90$d8165e47@DFYXB361> <48008A5B.4040003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c89cba$81bc98d0$d8165e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Guthrie" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 9:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes >> >> >>> [Robert Frick] >>> If you say that you do not know what partner's bid means, then you have >>> an obligation to report all relevant meta-agreements, past auctions, >>> etc., which is usually impossible. Then your explanation is incomplete. >>> >>> [Nige1] >>> Eric Landau tells us that current law forbids guessing. Instead, >>> players are enjoined to rehearse the arguments that led to their >>> tentative conclusion. That is harder to do and appears to be beyond the >>> intellectual powers of many players. Anyway, if all players rigidly >>> conformed to the recommended protocol, the game would slow down to a >>> snail's pace. Most players *can* make a reasonable *guess* at the the >>> meaning of partner's call. In practice, some players do still guess >>> (illegally). but players are rapidly learning that it is better to >>> answer "undiscussed". We can but hope that, by 2018, the law will be >>> rationalised to mandate guessing. >> >> I should hope not... When there is no agreement, the truthful and lawful >> answer is "no agreement" Anything else is a lie and I hope the laws will >> never mandate lying to the opponents no matter how acceptable or >> well-intentioned it [lying] might be to some individuals. >> > > This is even worse. The "lying" argument now goes as far as saying > that it becomes illegal to answer more than you ought to. > I don't want to play bridge like that, and if you're going to convict > me for lying by telling my opponents my guesses, then I'll be glad to > be out of your tournaments because I don't want my opponents to do so > either. I'll go play bridge with the honest people. > omg From mustikka at charter.net Sun Apr 13 02:54:42 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:54:42 -0700 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be><47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be><47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be><47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be><47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FF383B.6070908@NTLworld.com> <47FF9073.7090503@NTLworld.com><003f01c89c0f$0109ef90$d8165e47@DFYXB361> <48008A5B.4040003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01c89d00$f5ecd940$d8165e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Guthrie" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 9:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes >> >> >>> [Robert Frick] >>> If you say that you do not know what partner's bid means, then you have >>> an obligation to report all relevant meta-agreements, past auctions, >>> etc., which is usually impossible. Then your explanation is incomplete. >>> >>> [Nige1] >>> Eric Landau tells us that current law forbids guessing. Instead, >>> players are enjoined to rehearse the arguments that led to their >>> tentative conclusion. That is harder to do and appears to be beyond the >>> intellectual powers of many players. Anyway, if all players rigidly >>> conformed to the recommended protocol, the game would slow down to a >>> snail's pace. Most players *can* make a reasonable *guess* at the the >>> meaning of partner's call. In practice, some players do still guess >>> (illegally). but players are rapidly learning that it is better to >>> answer "undiscussed". We can but hope that, by 2018, the law will be >>> rationalised to mandate guessing. >> >> I should hope not... When there is no agreement, the truthful and lawful >> answer is "no agreement" Anything else is a lie and I hope the laws will >> never mandate lying to the opponents no matter how acceptable or >> well-intentioned it [lying] might be to some individuals. Herman wrote: > > This is even worse. The "lying" argument now goes as far as saying > that it becomes illegal to answer more than you ought to. > I don't want to play bridge like that, and if you're going to convict > me for lying by telling my opponents my guesses, then I'll be glad to > be out of your tournaments because I don't want my opponents to do so > either. I'll go play bridge with the honest people. > Herman snipped the following from my post. Quote begin. The recommended protocol does not in any way tell us to blurb out flat "No agreement" and leave it at that. There are some cases where this is sufficient, obviously, but more often one is obligated to explain relevant meta-agreements if there are some, and perhaps offer what alternate calls mean so that opponents are then in the same position to guess as the explainer is. Quote end. Then he responded to the truncated comments. Then he went haywire upon me. This will be my last time on BLML. There is an abrasive element on this forum which destroys civility. During my many years of semi-lurker here, I have learned a few things. Thank you all. Raija From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Sun Apr 13 04:52:43 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:52:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited Message-ID: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> From Reg: I posed this problem: Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much like the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - 1C corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a 5/0 spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you adjust? Two exprienced TDs (Eric and John) would adjust. Grattan wouldn't. I wouldn't. I see this as analogous to the 1997 situation where you bar partner by an insufficient conventional bid, and have a bash at 3NT, a terrible contract you would not have reached in a normal auction. But it makes via a magic lie of the cards. This is rub of the green. The offenders have blundered into a good spot and are entitled to their results.It seems to me that the approach of Eric and John would take away any good result the offenders happen to get.But doesn't the fact that very experienced TDs can reach different conclusions suggest that we need more guidelines? Let me presume to state what I see as the rationale underlying Law 27. Start with 27A1(a) e.g. 1H - 1H (corrected to 2H). Under 16D, the 1H call is UI. But Law 27 specifically exempts this from 16D. Why? Because,if 16D applied,it would make the subsequent auction a farce. But opponents are protected under 27D.If the IB even though it is AI enables offenders to find a better spot than they might have, the TD will adjust. For example, bot sides know after the IB that they are going to game. If the extra room allowed them to bid to a slam they may not have found in a normal auction, the TD will adjust. On to 27B1(b). The same rationale. It is only if the information frm the IB itself helps the offenders to a good score that the TD will adjust under 27D. In an earlier submission, I raised the question of whether the IB replaced under 27B1(b) was UI. Richard suggested that it wasn't by virtue of the TD's ruling that the RC had the same meaning. But I still contend that, while it may not be important in practice, by definition it is UI under 16D, and hasn't been exempted by law as has the IB in 27B1(a). I have directed at all levels in Australia for 30 years, and I'm having difficulty in fully understanding the new Law 27. And the evidence above shows that very experienced TDs can take opposing viewpoints,I feel sorry for the playing club directors when they are called for this quite common infraction. The ABF plan to adopt the 2007 Laws on June 1st. Perhaps unwisely I have agreed to conduct an unofficial seminar for club directors in my non-metropolitan area, with several medium sized clubs all with playing directors. I'm still not sure how to explain the new Law 27 to them. I console myself with the thought that we'll probably have lots of wrong ru;lings, but the players won't understand the Law either so there may not be too many ructions, Top of my wishlist is this: That the WBF urgently issue some specific and detailed guidelines on the intent and the practical application of Law 27, with lots of examples. Some of the things I wish to see are: (others may have more) 1. For a RC under Law 27B1(b), does the hand have to be consistent with the partnership agreement? For example: with a 1C - 1C (promising only three clubs) can the IB be replaced with a 3NT bid systemically promising four clubs? 2. If that is not a requirement, are the opponents protected by 27D if they are damaged by the misbid? (As I see it, they are not at present).If the TD allows the non-systemic 3NT, should he advise opponents that the bid is now not necessarily systemic? 3. Is 27D to be applied only in the narrow sense that I have already mentioned, or does it have a more wide-ranging meaning? 4. Is the IB replaced under 27B1(b) UI or AI? If the WBF does not issue such guidelines, does the local RA have the right to do so/ I don;t believe that this is so - as I see it, only the WBF can issue interpretations of its own laws. Reg From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Apr 13 08:45:01 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:45:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 12:52 PM 13/04/2008, you wrote: > From Reg: I posed this problem: cut a bit >I have directed at all levels in Australia for 30 years, and I'm having >difficulty in fully understanding the new Law 27. And the evidence above >shows that very experienced TDs can take opposing viewpoints,I feel sorry >for the playing club directors when they are called for this quite common >infraction. The ABF plan to adopt the 2007 Laws on June 1st. Perhaps >unwisely I have agreed to conduct an unofficial seminar for club directors >in my non-metropolitan area, with several medium sized clubs all with >playing directors. I'm still not sure how to explain the new Law 27 to >them. I console myself with the thought that we'll probably have lots of >wrong ru;lings, but the players won't understand the Law either so there >may not be too many ructions, > >Top of my wishlist is this: That the WBF urgently issue some specific and >detailed guidelines on the intent and the practical application of Law 27, >with lots of examples. Some of the things I wish to see are: (others may >have more) amen. As you know I have been trying out the 2007 and 2008 L27 for some time. Another little quirk I have discovered is in the case 1C (1S) 1H. I have suggested either neg. double or 2H without penalty. If you allow X, then you have to go to the hand records and check to see whether the same number of tricks is made if the "wrong" player declares in hearts. It may not happen often, but presumably you need to check every time. This to my mind is the textbook example of an L27D correction. (I vote firmly with Grattan on the example case, but presumably the director has already suggested that 3NT is without penalty in that case.) I would never play a system where 1C (pass) 3NT absolutely denied a 4 card major, but if their system notes say that a correction to 2 or 3 NT absolutely denies a 4 card major, then in my opinion they cannot bid same with a 4 card major without barring partner. So they say to TD you, I want to deny my 4 card major, and bid 3NT anyway just so that partner can keep in the auction. Say I, you should have thought of that when you werent watching the bidding. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Sun Apr 13 09:48:24 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:48:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> <6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au> Tony Musgrove wrote: >At 12:52 PM 13/04/2008, you wrote: > > >> From Reg: I posed this problem: >> >> > >cut a bit > > > >>I have directed at all levels in Australia for 30 years, and I'm having >>difficulty in fully understanding the new Law 27. And the evidence above >>shows that very experienced TDs can take opposing viewpoints,I feel sorry >>for the playing club directors when they are called for this quite common >>infraction. The ABF plan to adopt the 2007 Laws on June 1st. Perhaps >>unwisely I have agreed to conduct an unofficial seminar for club directors >>in my non-metropolitan area, with several medium sized clubs all with >>playing directors. I'm still not sure how to explain the new Law 27 to >>them. I console myself with the thought that we'll probably have lots of >>wrong ru;lings, but the players won't understand the Law either so there >>may not be too many ructions, >> >>Top of my wishlist is this: That the WBF urgently issue some specific and >>detailed guidelines on the intent and the practical application of Law 27, >>with lots of examples. Some of the things I wish to see are: (others may >>have more) >> >> > >amen. As you know I have been trying out the 2007 and 2008 L27 for some >time. Another little >quirk I have discovered is in the case 1C (1S) 1H. I have suggested >either neg. double or >2H without penalty. If you allow X, then you have to go to the hand >records and check >to see whether the same number of tricks is made if the "wrong" player >declares in >hearts. It may not happen often, but presumably you need to check every >time. This to >my mind is the textbook example of an L27D correction. > > > Reg: Tony, I disagree - that is, if my interpretation of 20D is correct . This is another rub of the green situation where by chance a different hand is playing the contract with a different lead. Surely we can't take away every good result the side get after an IB? >(I vote firmly with Grattan on the example case, but presumably the >director has >already suggested that 3NT is without penalty in that case.) I would >never play a >system where 1C (pass) 3NT absolutely denied a 4 card major, but if their >system >notes say that a correction to 2 or 3 NT absolutely denies a 4 card major, >then in >my opinion they cannot bid same with a 4 card major without barring partner. > > Reg: But under what Law? >So they say to TD you, I want to deny my 4 card major, and bid 3NT anyway just >so that partner can keep in the auction. Say I, you should have thought >of that >when you werent watching the bidding. > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 13 10:21:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:21:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <000e01c89d00$f5ecd940$d8165e47@DFYXB361> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be><47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be><47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be><47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be><47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FF383B.6070908@NTLworld.com> <47FF9073.7090503@NTLworld.com><003f01c89c0f$0109ef90$d8165e47@DFYXB361> <48008A5B.4040003@skynet.be> <000e01c89d00$f5ecd940$d8165e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <4801C289.6030001@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:09 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes > > >> raija wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Guthrie" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 9:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes >>> >>> >>>> [Robert Frick] >>>> If you say that you do not know what partner's bid means, then you have >>>> an obligation to report all relevant meta-agreements, past auctions, >>>> etc., which is usually impossible. Then your explanation is incomplete. >>>> >>>> [Nige1] >>>> Eric Landau tells us that current law forbids guessing. Instead, >>>> players are enjoined to rehearse the arguments that led to their >>>> tentative conclusion. That is harder to do and appears to be beyond the >>>> intellectual powers of many players. Anyway, if all players rigidly >>>> conformed to the recommended protocol, the game would slow down to a >>>> snail's pace. Most players *can* make a reasonable *guess* at the the >>>> meaning of partner's call. In practice, some players do still guess >>>> (illegally). but players are rapidly learning that it is better to >>>> answer "undiscussed". We can but hope that, by 2018, the law will be >>>> rationalised to mandate guessing. >>> I should hope not... When there is no agreement, the truthful and lawful >>> answer is "no agreement" Anything else is a lie and I hope the laws will >>> never mandate lying to the opponents no matter how acceptable or >>> well-intentioned it [lying] might be to some individuals. > > Herman wrote: >> This is even worse. The "lying" argument now goes as far as saying >> that it becomes illegal to answer more than you ought to. >> I don't want to play bridge like that, and if you're going to convict >> me for lying by telling my opponents my guesses, then I'll be glad to >> be out of your tournaments because I don't want my opponents to do so >> either. I'll go play bridge with the honest people. >> > > > Herman snipped the following from my post. > Quote begin. > The recommended protocol does not in any way tell us to blurb out flat "No > agreement" and leave it at that. There are some cases where this is > sufficient, obviously, but more often one is obligated to explain relevant > meta-agreements if there are some, and perhaps offer what alternate calls > mean so that opponents are then in the same position to guess as the > explainer is. > Quote end. > > Then he responded to the truncated comments. > Then he went haywire upon me. > > > This will be my last time on BLML. There is an abrasive element on this > forum which destroys civility. > During my many years of semi-lurker here, I have learned a few things. > Thank you all. > > Raija Well, Raija, I could say the same thing. People constantly misquote and misreact. To all posts, not just yours. Giving up is no way forward. If I have misquoted and misunderstood you, I apologise. You repeat your first sentence, and say "more often than not ...". Yet you speak in a second sentence of the lesser frequent position as if it is the most important one. You made it sound as if being allowed to say "no agreement" is sacrosanct and it would be worse to guess, as that would be lying. That is what I reacted to. Now maybe it seems as if I am only talking about the majority cases, and forget the small minority where "no agreement" is true and even complete. Forgive me for that. But it cannot be right to keep talking about minorities and stick to standpoints that the other has already agreed to. You say that one should communicate meta-agreements, but should not state guesses. How many guesses have you recently made that were not based on some meta-agreement or other? Is it not best to simply say that you should say everything you know, and that includes things you are not certain about. Call them guesses or not, but explain them anyway. Again, if I have acted incivil in any way, I apologize. But it seems to me as if you're being long-toed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Apr 13 14:21:14 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:21:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: <4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au> References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> <6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au> <4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080413221823.039e2aa8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 05:48 PM 13/04/2008, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >At 12:52 PM 13/04/2008, you wrote: > > > > > >> From Reg: I posed this problem: > >> > >> > > > >cut a bit > > > > > > > >>I have directed at all levels in Australia for 30 years, and I'm having > >>difficulty in fully understanding the new Law 27. And the evidence above > >>shows that very experienced TDs can take opposing viewpoints,I feel sorry > >>for the playing club directors when they are called for this quite common > >>infraction. The ABF plan to adopt the 2007 Laws on June 1st. Perhaps > >>unwisely I have agreed to conduct an unofficial seminar for club directors > >>in my non-metropolitan area, with several medium sized clubs all with > >>playing directors. I'm still not sure how to explain the new Law 27 to > >>them. I console myself with the thought that we'll probably have lots of > >>wrong ru;lings, but the players won't understand the Law either so there > >>may not be too many ructions, > >> > >>Top of my wishlist is this: That the WBF urgently issue some specific and > >>detailed guidelines on the intent and the practical application of Law 27, > >>with lots of examples. Some of the things I wish to see are: (others may > >>have more) > >> > >> > > > >amen. As you know I have been trying out the 2007 and 2008 L27 for some > >time. Another little > >quirk I have discovered is in the case 1C (1S) 1H. I have suggested > >either neg. double or > >2H without penalty. If you allow X, then you have to go to the hand > >records and check > >to see whether the same number of tricks is made if the "wrong" player > >declares in > >hearts. It may not happen often, but presumably you need to check every > >time. This to > >my mind is the textbook example of an L27D correction. > > > > > > >Reg: Tony, I disagree - that is, if my interpretation of 20D is correct >. This is another rub of the green situation where by chance a different >hand is playing the contract with a different lead. Surely we can't take >away every good result the side get after an IB? Actually, I have been thinking about this over another bottle and I think my previous worries were dead wrong. I guess I was distracted by the new allowance of a negative double, but really in the undisturbed auction, either player could have ended up declaring, so no further problem from me, Tony (Sydney) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Apr 13 14:22:05 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:22:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes In-Reply-To: <003f01c89c0f$0109ef90$d8165e47@DFYXB361> References: <47F9E098.1050909@ulb.ac.be><47F9F151.7040402@skynet.be> <47FA1751.1020505@ulb.ac.be><47FA3A1C.404@skynet.be> <47FA420B.4000605@ulb.ac.be><47FB24FA.7020706@skynet.be> <47FB2B76.2080502@ulb.ac.be><47FB6898.2030100@skynet.be> <14C19A82-33F5-485C-9A3E-48AB95F81F76@starpower.net> <47FC8066.2090402@skynet.be> <5E7EA7DB-D4EC-45E4-B4FE-066F7D00B321@starpower.net> <47FCD3A5.3000204@ulb.ac.be> <975EFFB8-0579-4E9C-B73E-E911108A4041@starpower.net> <47FF383B.6070908@NTLworld.com> <47FF9073.7090503@NTLworld.com> <003f01c89c0f$0109ef90$d8165e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <4801FAED.3000701@NTLworld.com> [raija] I should hope not... When there is no agreement, the truthful and lawful answer is "no agreement" Anything else is a lie and I hope the laws will never mandate lying to the opponents no matter how acceptable or well-intentioned it [lying] might be to some individuals. [raija] I don't advocate lying; just a change in the rules to recognize the indisputable fact that many players are unsure of their agreements. A guess at the likely truth is not a lie, when - you are uncertain and - the rules mandate a guess and - everybody knows it is a guess An example of a lie is to write "Anything else is a lie" if you know that statement to be false but still want readers to believe it. :) From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Apr 13 15:43:59 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:43:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: <001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: > Reg: > Ton, you are discussing Law 27B1(a), which we are all familiar with, > and where the offender is specifically permitted to misbid his hand. And > where everyone at the table knows this. I am talking about a new Law > 27B1(b), which does not specifically allow or disallow misbids by the > offender. ton: I meant to discuss both B1 a and b As far as I understand what we wanted with L 27B there is no distinction in the treatment of a and b. Don't ask me why we added in a that L 16D does not apply, and didn't do so in b. The statement that the auction proceeds without further rectification implies in my opinion that L16D does not apply. So the statement in a that it doesn't is superfluous (or kind of confirmation). ton From john at asimere.com Sun Apr 13 15:51:44 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:51:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <003e01c89d6d$825d5550$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reg Busch" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:52 AM Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited > From Reg: I posed this problem: > > Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much like > the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - 1C > corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it > happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. > 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a 5/0 > spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you > adjust? > > Two exprienced TDs (Eric and John) would adjust. Grattan wouldn't. I > wouldn't. I see this as analogous to the 1997 situation where you bar > partner by an insufficient conventional bid, and have a bash at 3NT, a > terrible contract you would not have reached in a normal auction. But it > makes via a magic lie of the cards. This is rub of the green. The > offenders have blundered into a good spot and are entitled to their > results.It seems to me that the approach of Eric and John would take away > any good result the offenders happen to get.But doesn't the fact that very > experienced TDs can reach different conclusions suggest that we need more > guidelines? Mm. I see a difference in interpretation between "making the bid good" when I wouldn't adjust and using the new law, which seems to me to be so much stricter that we may fall into "could have known" territory. I could easily be wrong in this interpretation. I'd be interested in ton's and Grattan's take on this. An example; precision club; 2C p 1N corrected to 3N (both 13-15, and 3N response more tightly defined). Here we're in New law territory as 3N is not a minimum bid in the denomination, so I'd be inclined to adjust if necessary, see below. ISTM that the Law for "making the bid good" is quite 'laisser faire' and we understand this one well. ROTG is fine and we don't adjust (well I DO if the UI is used, but that's not the point at issue). The New law however requires the infractor to put some real effort into finding a call that doesn't bar partner and for my taste has a different "look and feel". In a sense it's not the 27 we know and love. Maybe I'm way off target. John From schoderb at msn.com Sun Apr 13 16:28:31 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:28:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd References: Message-ID: Could it be that since b includes words that are not a simple repetition of the words used to correct an IB at the next legal level --- we indicate the same strain by using different words --- there is possible information that may need a Law 16D action? My memory was that in softening the Law we were trying to be careful not to give too much leeway to the b provision. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd > > > Reg: > > Ton, you are discussing Law 27B1(a), which we are all familiar with, > > and where the offender is specifically permitted to misbid his hand. And > > where everyone at the table knows this. I am talking about a new Law > > 27B1(b), which does not specifically allow or disallow misbids by the > > offender. > > > ton: > > I meant to discuss both B1 a and b > As far as I understand what we wanted with L 27B there is no distinction > in > the treatment of a and b. > Don't ask me why we added in a that L 16D does not apply, and didn't do so > in b. The statement that the auction proceeds without further > rectification > implies in my opinion that L16D does not apply. So the statement in a that > it doesn't is superfluous (or kind of confirmation). > > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Apr 13 17:24:51 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:24:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Regrets Message-ID: <480225C3.5030909@aol.com> We have already lost Ed Reppert, and now raija (mustikka). They were two of my favourite blmlers and I always found their comments interesting and often clever/funny. I think it is most regrettable that we are losing some of our best people but not those whose messages are less amusing and interesting. Is there nothing we can do to stop this? JE From jimfox00 at cox.net Sun Apr 13 18:43:40 2008 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:43:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Regrets In-Reply-To: <480225C3.5030909@aol.com> References: <480225C3.5030909@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E7168ADC0524B71A6053CAEB865DDF7@JIMVISTA> Simple, find people with more backbone who can post amusing and interesting messages (if we don't already have them). Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: 04/13/2008 11:25 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] Regrets We have already lost Ed Reppert, and now raija (mustikka). They were two of my favourite blmlers and I always found their comments interesting and often clever/funny. I think it is most regrettable that we are losing some of our best people but not those whose messages are less amusing and interesting. Is there nothing we can do to stop this? JE _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 13 18:47:12 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:47:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Regrets In-Reply-To: <480225C3.5030909@aol.com> References: <480225C3.5030909@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:24:51 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > We have already lost Ed Reppert, and now raija (mustikka). They were two > of my favourite blmlers and I always found their comments interesting > and often clever/funny. I think it is most regrettable that we are > losing some of our best people but not those whose messages are less > amusing and interesting. Is there nothing we can do to stop this? JE An important purpose of BLML is to argue/debate/discuss differing viewpoints. That naturally leads to uncivil behavior, humans being what they are, unless the people show wisdom and work hard to avoid it. To me, the members of BLML in general do a GREAT job of this. raija perhaps did not work at this. He characterized Nigel's point of view as Nigel advocating the players should lie. I sincerely doubt that (1) Nigel (or whoever) used the word lying to characterize their own positions, or that (2) Nigel appreciated that word being used to portray his position, or that (3) any intelligent discussion was advanced by the use of that term. raija wrote: "There is an abrasive element on this forum which destroys civility." If he felt his civility was being destroyed, I believe he is making a good choice to leave. I would of course prefer that he stay and practice being civil and ignoring uncivility, but it is his life and his decision. As for strategies (is there nothing we can do...), you can try to be civil, and you can ignore those who are not. If everyone believes someone is uncivil and ignores that person, then they will leave. But it looks like BLML is doing as good of job as you can. Bordering on the uncivil, but it seems useful... Many years ago I joined a newsgroup dominated by people who thought alike and were not civil to differing opinions (but they were civil to each other). I expressed a viewpoint opposed to theirs, and I was civil throughout the battle that followed while they were not. This battle ended when they all left the newsgroup to form their own newsgroup. That was not the outcome I was striving for, but that is what happened (http://satyagraha1.com/mybattle.htm). It would probably be natural if I hated raija for his perceived attacks on me. But we had recently had a pleasant interaction, and I had hoped to create a friendly relationship. I am sorry that he has left. But, as you may have guessed, I am unsympathetic if he is trying to portray himself as the injured nonoffending side. Bob From jimfox00 at cox.net Mon Apr 14 01:56:14 2008 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:56:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Regrets In-Reply-To: References: <480225C3.5030909@aol.com> Message-ID: That's she, not he. Good points none the less. Mmbridge -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: 04/13/2008 12:47 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Regrets On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:24:51 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > We have already lost Ed Reppert, and now raija (mustikka). They were > two of my favourite blmlers and I always found their comments > interesting and often clever/funny. I think it is most regrettable > that we are losing some of our best people but not those whose > messages are less amusing and interesting. Is there nothing we can do > to stop this? JE An important purpose of BLML is to argue/debate/discuss differing viewpoints. That naturally leads to uncivil behavior, humans being what they are, unless the people show wisdom and work hard to avoid it. To me, the members of BLML in general do a GREAT job of this. raija perhaps did not work at this. He characterized Nigel's point of view as Nigel advocating the players should lie. I sincerely doubt that (1) Nigel (or whoever) used the word lying to characterize their own positions, or that (2) Nigel appreciated that word being used to portray his position, or that (3) any intelligent discussion was advanced by the use of that term. raija wrote: "There is an abrasive element on this forum which destroys civility." If he felt his civility was being destroyed, I believe he is making a good choice to leave. I would of course prefer that he stay and practice being civil and ignoring uncivility, but it is his life and his decision. As for strategies (is there nothing we can do...), you can try to be civil, and you can ignore those who are not. If everyone believes someone is uncivil and ignores that person, then they will leave. But it looks like BLML is doing as good of job as you can. Bordering on the uncivil, but it seems useful... Many years ago I joined a newsgroup dominated by people who thought alike and were not civil to differing opinions (but they were civil to each other). I expressed a viewpoint opposed to theirs, and I was civil throughout the battle that followed while they were not. This battle ended when they all left the newsgroup to form their own newsgroup. That was not the outcome I was striving for, but that is what happened (http://satyagraha1.com/mybattle.htm). It would probably be natural if I hated raija for his perceived attacks on me. But we had recently had a pleasant interaction, and I had hoped to create a friendly relationship. I am sorry that he has left. But, as you may have guessed, I am unsympathetic if he is trying to portray himself as the injured nonoffending side. Bob _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 14 03:41:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:41:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FDE68C.3070800@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >A final example: the director should regard the convention card as >more reliable than player's recollections. Richard Hills; The Director will _usually_ regard the system card as more reliable than a player's recollections. In the ACBL, for example, it was (and is?) traditional for the system card to be printed on the other side of a player's score card. Hence system cards had to be rewritten at the start of each session by each member of the partnership. Ergo, one or both partners might accidentally omit to write down one or more of their mutual partnership understandings. 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 Apr 14 04:15:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:15:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47FDDBC7.1060509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Eric Landau comprehensive answer: >>I am saying that when a player says "no agreement", that is an >>unagreed assertion of a fact, and that "when the Director is called >>upon to rule [and] the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as >>follows:... [He] 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." [L85] Note that it says "is able >>to", not "chooses to". >> >>And I am saying that a TD who ignores those plain words because... >> >>"I say that 'no agreement' can NEVER be complete information," or >>because >> >>"While he's probably telling the truth that they both found it at the >>table, I am going to rule that it was partnership experience after >>all," or because >> >>"When it turns out that a player has the same idea about the meaning >>of a certain call than his partner, it is up to him to prove that >>this is not due to some form of partnership understanding," or because >> >>"In the vast majority of cases there is reason to believe that >>players know more than they are telling," >> >>[You know I could find lots more where these came from.] ...is >>neither a competent TD nor fit to be ruling here. Alain Gottcheiner: >I would be less severe about argument 2, because that's what the Laws >instruct us to do in some other caes, like [1997] L72B1 (the infamous >"could have known" provision). Richard Hills: Comparing apples with oranges. The 2007 Law 23 (1997 Law 72B1) applies _after_ it has been determined that a player committed an infraction. The 2007 Law 85A1 applies when the facts are disputed, for example _whether_ an infraction of misinformation has occurred. Alain Gottcheiner: >But basically, there is a fundamental contradiction between the fact >that they could be innocent (take my "black box" example) and aren't >given the chance to prove it. Richard Hills: Again a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2007 Law 85A1. The pair are not guilty until they "prove" themselves innocent. If there is no indisputable "proof" either way, then Eric Landau: >>in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." >>[L85] Note that it says "is able to", not "chooses to". Richard Hills: On the other hand, Alain's basic point is well made. Only an incompetent TD will automatically rule against the pair without listening to their evidence (or alternatively listening to but refusing to weigh their evidence). 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 geller at nifty.com Mon Apr 14 06:54:42 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:54:42 +0900 Subject: [blml] Fect in the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200804140454.AA13270@geller204.nifty.com> Usually in the ACBL (at least when I played there) players would write their convention card and keep it, and then use a second scorecard (folded inside the one with the agreements) for the score for each session. Nowadays of course there is an on-line ACBL convention card editor used by most serious pairs. So this isn't really a problem for them. For casual, ad hoc, pairings they may well write it out at the beginning of the session..... -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >Nigel Guthrie: > >[snip] > >>A final example: the director should regard the convention card as >>more reliable than player's recollections. > >Richard Hills; > >The Director will _usually_ regard the system card as more reliable >than a player's recollections. > >In the ACBL, for example, it was (and is?) traditional for the system >card to be printed on the other side of a player's score card. > >Hence system cards had to be rewritten at the start of each session >by each member of the partnership. Ergo, one or both partners might >accidentally omit to write down one or more of their mutual >partnership understandings. > > >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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From schoderb at msn.com Sat Apr 12 03:44:53 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:44:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au><47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au><001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred><0F781582-CEFE-4C4B-A284-4CC93097DE82@starpower.net> <003f01c89c36$3e2c3230$a8d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Thank you Grattan. It's not even close. To try to screw around the laws to make it less than a "rub of the green" changes the entire game of bridge.. I hope we all survive this convoluted thinking and rationalization before our game goes down the drain. To posit that having to guess, and being lucky in your guess is not part of the game of bridge is to make it less than the wonderful game that it is. Kojak ----- > You swung 17 IMPs because (a) with "assistance gained through the > infraction" you bid 6NT instead of 6S, and (b) spades were 5-0. "Rub > of the green" takes (b) out of consideration, but shouldn't, IMO, > neutralize (a). > +=+ I question whether it is right to say that the infraction has provided any such assistance. I do not see the mere creation of circumstances (application of law) in which something can happen as providing positive help to the player to reach the contract in which he landed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080411/f619cd44/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 14 10:04:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:04:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert "newbie" Frick: [snip] >Bob, who is new to this list and does not understand why everyone seems >to be focusing on the laws concerning what you have to explain about >partner's bid and ignoring what happens when the director is called to >make a ruling. Richard "old as the" Hills: Many years ago, a blmler who has been described as peddling a "corrosive heresy" (by a co-author of the Lawbook) argued that since a TD should always or almost always rule "Undiscussed" as false, it would save time if the player lied about their partnership's non-agreement, and instead explained a guess about their partner's cards as an agreement. In more recent times that corrosive heretic claims to have been misquoted on this particular topic, now conceding that a TD should often rule "Undiscussed" as true. Jeff Easterson: >>We have already lost Ed Reppert, and now raija (mustikka). They were >>two of my favourite blmlers and I always found their comments >>interesting and often clever/funny. I think it is most regrettable >>that we are losing some of our best people but not those whose >>messages are less amusing and interesting. >> >>Is there nothing we can do to stop this? JE Richard Hills: As some day it must happen that a victim must be found, I've got a little list - I've got a little list Of blml offenders who might well be under ground And who never would be missed - who never would be missed! There's the pestilential nuisances who write large monographs, Those posters who write flabby text in endless paragraphs - All pedants who obscurify, and "autochthon" you flat - All persons who in quoting you, misquote your posts like *that* - And all rude writers who on four-letter words insist - They'd none of 'em be missed - they'd none of 'em be missed! CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list - he's got 'em on the list; And they'll none of 'em be missed - they'll none of 'em be missed. There's the corrosive heretic, and the others of their race, And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! And the people posting polemics, who flame it in your face, They never would be missed - they never would be missed! Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All likely Laws but ours, and every country but his own; Plus the weirdo from the provinces, who writes rubbish as a crank, And who doesn't read the Lawbook, but still TDs will spank; And that singular anomaly, the pseudo-humorist - I don't think they'd be missed - I'm sure they'd not be missed! Best pseudo-witty 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 14 11:13:43 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:13:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au> <4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisited < [The Reg Busch question was: The bidding goes 1C - 1C corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a 5/0 spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you adjust?] << (Reg Busch) I have directed at all levels in Australia for 30 years, and I'm having difficulty in fully understanding the new Law 27. And shows that very experienced TDs can take opposing viewpoints, I feel sorry for the playing club directors when they are called for this quite common infraction. The ABF plan to adopt the 2007 Laws on June 1st. Perhaps unwisely I have agreed to conduct an unofficial seminar for club directors in my non-metropolitan area, with several medium sized clubs all with playing directors. I'm still not sure how to explain the new Law 27 to them. I console myself with the thought that we'll probably have lots of wrong rulings, but the players won't understand the Law either so there may not be too many ructions, > Top of my wishlist is this: That the WBF urgently issue some specific and detailed guidelines on the intent and the practical application of Law 27, << +=+ The question is whether the circumstances cited demonstrate a 'rub of the green' situation. My comment was: [Subsequently I added:] <<+=+ I question whether it is right to say that the infraction has provided any such assistance. I do not see the mere creation of circumstances (application of law) in which something can happen as providing positive help to the player to reach the contract in which he landed. >> ......................................................................................... We will not have a WBF Laws Committee input until a meeting in Beijing. However, the EBL is conducting a seminar for its top TDs at the end of May and some useful thoughts may come from that. I understand the WBF CTD is actually to do the presentation on Law 27. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 14 11:45:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:45:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Regrets References: <480225C3.5030909@aol.com> Message-ID: <00ca01c89e14$4fb5ace0$b0d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Regrets > That's she, not he. > > Good points none the less. > > Mmbridge > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Sent: 04/13/2008 12:47 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Regrets > > > It would probably be natural if I hated raija for his perceived attacks on > me. But we had recently had a pleasant interaction, and I had hoped to > create a friendly relationship. I am sorry that he has left. But, as you > may > have guessed, I am unsympathetic if he is trying to portray himself as the > injured nonoffending side. > > Bob > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 14 14:23:01 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:23:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au><47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au><001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred><0F781582-CEFE-4C4B-A284-4CC93097DE82@starpower.net> <003f01c89c36$3e2c3230$a8d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48034CA5.1040008@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I question whether it is right to say that the infraction has provided any such assistance. I do not see the mere creation of circumstances (application of law) in which something can happen as providing positive help to the player to reach the contract in which he landed. [WILLIAM SCHODER] Thank you Grattan. It's not even close. To try to screw around the laws to make it less than a "rub of the green" changes the entire game of bridge.. I hope we all survive this convoluted thinking and rationalization before our game goes down the drain. To posit that having to guess, and being lucky in your guess is not part of the game of bridge is to make it less than the wonderful game that it is. [nigel] IMO most players would agree. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Apr 14 14:13:29 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:13:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48034A69.7040202@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Many years ago, a blmler who has been described as peddling a "corrosive heresy" (by a co-author of the Lawbook) argued that since a TD should always or almost always rule "Undiscussed" as false, it would save time if the player lied about their partnership's non-agreement, and instead explained a guess about their partner's cards as an agreement. [Nigel] Richard may be referring Herman de Wael; but he could be referring to me. Herman and I both believe that the current law is flawed and disclosure is hampered because few players are certain of their agreements. My position is different from Herman's, however. For example ... - Herman recommends that you guess partner's *intended* meaning; whereas I think you should guess your partnership agreement. - Herman claims his recommendation is legal; whereas I recognize that mine requires a law-change. - As explained many times in my replies to previous posts by Richard and others, I've never recommended lying. Incidentally, when I cannot remember a systemic agreement, I leave the table, so that my partner can explain his own call. I believe that there would be less of a problem with inadequate disclosure, if the law-book detailed and recommended this protocol. I reckon there would also be an instant improvement in player's memories. In the UK, I haven't heard a director suggest this. Richard recommends such a protocol and tells us that it is standard practice in Australia, where it always involves a director call. The director-call must slow down proceedings and it is hard to see why "Richard's protocol" requires the presence of a director. IMO, "Richard's protocol" should be detailed and recommended in the 2018 law-book. In the mean-time it should be specified in local regulations. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 14 15:39:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:39:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48034A69.7040202@NTLworld.com> References: <48034A69.7040202@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48035E7F.6030402@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Nigel] > Richard may be referring Herman de Wael; but he could be referring to > me. Herman and I both believe that the current law is flawed and > disclosure is hampered because few players are certain of their > agreements. My position is different from Herman's, however. > > For example ... > - Herman recommends that you guess partner's *intended* meaning; > whereas I think you should guess your partnership agreement. > AG : I don't understand this. IMOBO only four cases might happen : 1 - you have anagreement, and know what it is, so you explain 2 - you have no agreement, even inferential or meta- , so you say so 3 - you have an agreement, but can't remember what it is ; just say it (yes, it creates UI, but that's your fault), follow the protocol you describe yourself hereunder. 4 - you're unsure whether you have any agreement - same as case 3 Why risk guessing and misleading them ? In the current MS style, creating UI is better than creating MI, so you should act accordingly. Using your suggestion is very much dWS-like, which couldn't be to your liking. > Incidentally, when I cannot remember a systemic agreement, I leave the > table, so that my partner can explain his own call. I believe that there > would be less of a problem with inadequate disclosure, if the law-book > detailed and recommended this protocol. I reckon there would also be an > instant improvement in player's memories. > > In the UK, I haven't heard a director suggest this. Richard recommends > such a protocol and tells us that it is standard practice in Australia, > where it always involves a director call. The director-call must slow > down proceedings and it is hard to see why "Richard's protocol" requires > the presence of a director. > Agreed. I like this. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 14 16:08:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:08:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48034A69.7040202@NTLworld.com> References: <48034A69.7040202@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48036542.9050105@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills] > Many years ago, a blmler who has been described as peddling a "corrosive > heresy" (by a co-author of the Lawbook) argued that since a TD should > always or almost always rule "Undiscussed" as false, it would save time > if the player lied about their partnership's non-agreement, and instead > explained a guess about their partner's cards as an agreement. > That summary is partly what I indeed advocate, but the wording is unfortunate. > [Nigel] > Richard may be referring Herman de Wael; but he could be referring to > me. Herman and I both believe that the current law is flawed and > disclosure is hampered because few players are certain of their > agreements. My position is different from Herman's, however. > > For example ... > - Herman recommends that you guess partner's *intended* meaning; > whereas I think you should guess your partnership agreement. Well, what's the difference? Either you know the agreement, and then there is no need for guessing, or you don't, and then you can only assume that the director will rule that the agreement conforms to your partner's intentions. So the two are, in practice, the same. > - Herman claims his recommendation is legal; whereas I recognize that > mine requires a law-change. I don't see how a recommendation can be illegal. Players are required to explain something. They do not say "I believe that it is Stayman" (or when they do, that will be interpreted as), they say "Stayman". Either Stayman is their partner's intent or it is not. But it cannot be illegal to recommend that one should say "Stayman". It might be illegal to say Stayman (particularly if partner holds clubs). > - As explained many times in my replies to previous posts by Richard > and others, I've never recommended lying. > Neither do I. Who would ever recommend lying? It is the strange attitude of some people who equate "Stayman" sith lying if one omits "I think it is ..". Those same people do not seem to mind lying when they forget to add "Three weeks ago, we again discussed this sequence and agreed to ..". I'm tired of that argument. > Incidentally, when I cannot remember a systemic agreement, I leave the > table, so that my partner can explain his own call. I believe that there > would be less of a problem with inadequate disclosure, if the law-book > detailed and recommended this protocol. I reckon there would also be an > instant improvement in player's memories. > It could work, yes, but it also give UI. I believe it is better to simply state one meaning. > In the UK, I haven't heard a director suggest this. Richard recommends > such a protocol and tells us that it is standard practice in Australia, > where it always involves a director call. The director-call must slow > down proceedings and it is hard to see why "Richard's protocol" requires > the presence of a director. > > IMO, "Richard's protocol" should be detailed and recommended in the 2018 > law-book. In the mean-time it should be specified in local regulations. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 14 16:14:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:14:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: <003f01c89c36$3e2c3230$a8d4403e@Mildred> References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au><47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au><001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred> <0F781582-CEFE-4C4B-A284-4CC93097DE82@starpower.net> <003f01c89c36$3e2c3230$a8d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <04121A8E-6E19-40B6-BBC7-5AD2730D5673@starpower.net> On Apr 11, 2008, at 8:43 PM, wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> You swung 17 IMPs because (a) with "assistance gained through the >> infraction" you bid 6NT instead of 6S, and (b) spades were 5-0. "Rub >> of the green" takes (b) out of consideration, but shouldn't, IMO, >> neutralize (a). > > +=+ I question whether it is right to say that > the infraction has provided any such assistance. > I do not see the mere creation of circumstances > (application of law) in which something can > happen as providing positive help to the player > to reach the contract in which he landed. ISTM there have to be some circumstances under which you adjust. In this case, for example, it is obvious that you could not apply "rub of the green" at matchpoints, as 6NT would have received the same top even if 6S were making at the other tables. When 6NT scores better than 6S, you can always adjust, you can never adjust, or you can apply some criterion to decide which. The only such criterion I can come up with is the a priori expected value of your score in 6S vs. 6NT: adjust if the infraction helped you get to a better contract that got you your expected better score, but not if it put you in an inferior contract that got lucky. I'm certainly prepared to consider others, but can't think of any. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 14 16:37:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:37:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <48008978.7030308@skynet.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <662B3159-7DC0-4F7E-A4EE-45D94ED14B0C@starpower.net> <47FF24E2.1050608@skynet.be> <0DBB5DF7-CCD5-4E2E-B8F4-F616BE38723A@starpower.net> <48008978.7030308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3E6B6B7C-E16D-46E0-B892-B94B95D921FC@starpower.net> On Apr 12, 2008, at 6:05 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> >>>>> Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only >>>>> three >>>>> answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree >>>>> this >>>>> fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you >>>>> must be >>>>> in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it >>>>> is: it >>>>> is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or >>>>> 2Sp; so >>>>> it probably has long clubs and a super-maximum. That "defines" the >>>>> bid, whether Eric believes it does or not. >>>> That's Herman's try. My bidding judgment differs. Here's mine: >>>> >>>> Take a 2NT response to weak stayman, which ought to have only three >>>> answers. Either you agree never to bid 2NT, or you don't agree this >>>> fully. If you bid it, you cannot be in the first case, so you >>>> must be >>>> in the second one. Now you say the bid is not defined, but it >>>> is: it >>>> is not a hand that would want partner to pass out 2Di, 2He or >>>> 2Sp; so >>>> it probably has four cards in both majors and a super-maximum. >>>> That, >>>> too, "defines" the bid, whether I believe it does or not. >>>> >>>> Who's right? Which of us has "defined" the bid correctly? If >>>> Herman >>>> is correct that we if we understand what was intended we must be >>>> using some implicit "definition", and that that definition is >>>> subject >>>> to disclosure, that question *must* be answerable. >>> Well Eric, it is hard to define this without knowledge of the >>> meta-agreements at work in this partnership. >>> In my partnership (and I do play weak Stayman), 4He shows a 4- >>> card and >>> does not deny a 4-card spades (as seems only natural). So If I >>> have 2 >>> 4-card suits, and my partner is weak, it can never be good to bid >>> 2NT. >>> OTOH, 2Di denies both majors, but can be passed. So if partner is >>> weak, 2NT might be better than 2Di passed out. >>> >>> Anyway, I would never bid 2NT, but if my partner did it, that's >>> what I >>> would conclude. >>> >>> But you have just proven one point. Both of us play the same system, >>> and yet we get a different result for the "impossible" bid. Now >>> say we >>> play against oneanother, and my partner were to bid 2NT, and she >>> does >>> have 3325 and 17 points, precisely what I would expect. If I were to >>> explain to you, at the table, the meanings of 2Di, 2He and 2Sp, and >>> say "draw your own conclusions", then you would come up with a >>> different conclusion than I would. Yet I would know precisely and >>> correctly what my partner had. >>> Would you not feel misinformed? How would the TD have to decide >>> whether I am telling the truth when I say we've never bid that way >>> before? How would the TD decide we had not both read an age-old >>> article ages ago? >> >> That's all well and good. Sounds nice, and delivers a happy ending. >> >> But its logic falls apart completely if, after all that, partner puts >> down a 4-4-3-2 hand. > > No, because as a Director, we will not be called in that case. More > often than not, the pair will score a bad result at the table. > So we're only concerned with the case where the player guesses > correctly. Sorry, Herman, but whether your logic and consequent statements and actions at the table (a) do or do not make sense, (b) are truthful or untruthful, (c) are legal or illegal, (d) are ethical or not, (e) are cheating or not -- etc. -- DO NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT THE DIRECTOR GETS CALLED! Nor do they depend on whether they get you a good score or a bad score. >> Herman's logic is based on the premise that when partner makes an >> undefined bid, he will "know precisely and correctly what [he >> holds]". If he's merely asserting that without justification, it may >> well prove untrue. If he has some objective knowledge to justify >> such confidence, he has (illegally) failed to disclose it. But in >> all of Herman's examples, partner always figures out what that >> undefined bid means, and always gets it right. > > Indeed, because the other cases don't reach the director! > And I would probably rule the same way on Alain's 4414 regardless of > whether his partner understands or not. But that would be harder to > call "understanding". So anything is legal if there's no way the opponents will know to call the director? >>> I know it's the rule of coincidence, and we don't want that as law. >>> But do we want people to do this unpunished? >> >> Yesterday you discussed a convention. Today partner remembered it >> well enough to respond to it correctly, but somehow "forg[ot to] >> explain it". And you're worried that this will go unpunished? (It >> could, of course, if you and your partner are both prepared to tell >> outright lies to the TD and manage to get away with it, but that's >> not news.) Because nobody actually uttered the word "agreement"? I >> do believe that TFLB is up to dealing with this situation. > > Sorry, we never "discussed" this convention, and we certainly did not > "agree" to it. but do you see the problem with your stance? I would > tell the director about my previous mentioning of the convention. You > would stick to your system notes and "no agreement". I'm being honest > - you're not. I will get ruled against, and you would not, because TD > Eric would believe him when player Eric says "no agreement". Player Eric is neither a liar nor a cheater, despite what Herman writes. He would never say "no agreement" (to either his opponents or the TD) when aware of his "previous mentioning of the convention". TD Eric knows that player Eric is neither a liar nor a cheater, and what's more, TD Eric gives the same benefit of the doubt to any other player for whom he lacks evidence to the contrary. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 14 17:42:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:42:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <3E6B6B7C-E16D-46E0-B892-B94B95D921FC@starpower.net> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <662B3159-7DC0-4F7E-A4EE-45D94ED14B0C@starpower.net> <47FF24E2.1050608@skynet.be> <0DBB5DF7-CCD5-4E2E-B8F4-F616BE38723A@starpower.net> <48008978.7030308@skynet.be> <3E6B6B7C-E16D-46E0-B892-B94B95D921FC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48037B48.9000707@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Sorry, Herman, but whether your logic and consequent statements and > actions at the table (a) do or do not make sense, (b) are truthful or > untruthful, (c) are legal or illegal, (d) are ethical or not, (e) are > cheating or not -- etc. -- DO NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT THE > DIRECTOR GETS CALLED! AG : IBTD. Choosing theuir poison after a LOOT is legal (even mandatory) after calling the director ONLY. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 14 17:45:24 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:45:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27: appeal director's opinion? In-Reply-To: <04121A8E-6E19-40B6-BBC7-5AD2730D5673@starpower.net> References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> <001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred> <0F781582-CEFE-4C4B-A284-4CC93097DE82@starpower.net> <003f01c89c36$3e2c3230$a8d4403e@Mildred> <04121A8E-6E19-40B6-BBC7-5AD2730D5673@starpower.net> Message-ID: "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.." Sorry if this is obvious or already discussed. As I read this, the proper ruling does not care whether the director's opinion was right or wrong. So the players can't appeal the accuracy of the director's opinion, because accuracy isn't a part of the law. Details: If the director understood the law wrong, then an appeal could be made and/or the ruling could be changed. (e.g., the director allowed a change from a 6-9 HCP range to a 6-12 HCP range, misunderstanding the law. The director's opinion at the time was NOT that the replacement bid had a "more precise meaning", properly understood.) I am not sure what happens if the director changes his/her mind. I am guessing that the law applies to the director's opinion at the time the ruling was made. Example: 1NT P 2D 2S 2H A director might not allow the correction to 3H because 2H denies a super-accept and 3H probably does not. But it is a subtle point. The director does not think of it and opines that 3H has a more precise meaning than 2H. Later the opps think of this argument and present it to the director, who accepts the argument and changes his mind. Too late, right? From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 14 18:11:21 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:11:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <84407085-23A8-4AC9-8174-53F63AA90370@starpower.net> On Apr 12, 2008, at 10:52 PM, Reg Busch wrote: > From Reg: I posed this problem: > > Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much > like the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - > 1C corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. > As it happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their > spade fit. 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) > 6S fails on a 5/0 spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on > your decision. Do you adjust? > > Two exprienced TDs (Eric and John) would adjust. Grattan wouldn't. > I wouldn't. I see this as analogous to the 1997 situation where you > bar partner by an insufficient conventional bid, and have a bash at > 3NT, a terrible contract you would not have reached in a normal > auction. But it makes via a magic lie of the cards. This is rub of > the green. The offenders have blundered into a good spot and are > entitled to their results.It seems to me that the approach of Eric > and John would take away any good result the offenders happen to > get.But doesn't the fact that very experienced TDs can reach > different conclusions suggest that we need more guidelines? If, "aided" by an infraction, you reach "a terrible contract you would not have reached in a normal auction [that] makes via a magic lie of the cards", then indeed "this is rub of the green", and I would *not* adjust. But it is equally possible in Reg's scenario that 6NT was a superior contract you would not have reached in a normal auction that makes regardless of the lie (or, in a different situation, on a normal lie) of the cards. I argue that you should adjust in that case, and therefore must make that determination before you can rule. > Let me presume to state what I see as the rationale underlying Law > 27. Start with 27A1(a) e.g. 1H - 1H (corrected to 2H). Under 16D, > the 1H call is UI. But Law 27 specifically exempts this from 16D. > Why? Because,if 16D applied,it would make the subsequent auction a > farce. But opponents are protected under 27D.If the IB even though > it is AI enables offenders to find a better spot than they might > have, the TD will adjust. For example, bot sides know after the IB > that they are going to game. If the extra room allowed them to bid > to a slam they may not have found in a normal auction, the TD will > adjust. I think we agree on this. I think the disagreement is over whether it would change the meaning of the above paragraph to replace "a better spot" with "a better-scoring spot". > On to 27B1(b). The same rationale. It is only if the information > frm the IB itself helps the offenders to a good score that the TD > will adjust under 27D. In an earlier submission, I raised the > question of whether the IB replaced under 27B1(b) was UI. Richard > suggested that it wasn't by virtue of the TD's ruling that the RC > had the same meaning. But I still contend that, while it may not be > important in practice, by definition it is UI under 16D, and hasn't > been exempted by law as has the IB in 27B1(a). It is not "exempted" because there's nothing to "unauthorize". For the RC to meet the criterion in L27B1(b) it must be the case that there is no information from the IB not available from the RC, and the information from the RC is authorized. > I have directed at all levels in Australia for 30 years, and I'm > having difficulty in fully understanding the new Law 27. And the > evidence above shows that very experienced TDs can take opposing > viewpoints,I feel sorry for the playing club directors when they > are called for this quite common infraction. The ABF plan to adopt > the 2007 Laws on June 1st. Perhaps unwisely I have agreed to > conduct an unofficial seminar for club directors in my non- > metropolitan area, with several medium sized clubs all with playing > directors. I'm still not sure how to explain the new Law 27 to > them. I console myself with the thought that we'll probably have > lots of wrong ru;lings, but the players won't understand the Law > either so there may not be too many ructions, > > Top of my wishlist is this: That the WBF urgently issue some > specific and detailed guidelines on the intent and the practical > application of Law 27, with lots of examples. Some of the things I > wish to see are: (others may have more) > 1. For a RC under Law 27B1(b), does the hand have to be consistent > with the partnership agreement? For example: with a 1C - 1C > (promising only three clubs) can the IB be replaced with a 3NT bid > systemically promising four clubs? I believe we have a clear consensus that a literal reading cannot constrain the RC to match the IBer's actual hand (about which there is no mention whatsoever), albeit perhaps not a consensus as to whether that is the WBF's intended interpretation. > 2. If that is not a requirement, are the opponents protected by 27D > if they are damaged by the misbid? (As I see it, they are not at > present). If no to #1, then we must have a yes here, to prevent IBs from conferring an otherwise unavailable advantage. > If the TD allows the non-systemic 3NT, should he advise opponents > that the bid is now not necessarily systemic? I don't see why. He doesn't do that in other situations, and in this one there are better reasons than usual for the opponents to allow for the possibility. To maintain a level playing field, however, you need to read the law (as I do) as entitling both the IBer and his opponents to be informed, before the RC is chosen, as to which RCs will bar the IBer's partner from the auction and which won't. > 3. Is 27D to be applied only in the narrow sense that I have > already mentioned, or does it have a more wide-ranging meaning? > > 4. Is the IB replaced under 27B1(b) UI or AI? That fact of the IB is consensually AI; there is debate as to whether or not its intended meaning is. I would argue very strongly that the answer is tied to the question of whether or not the TD must determine that intended meaning in order to apply L27B1 properly, which is itself a matter of debate. I would also argue that he should, for reasons of practical necessity, but my case for that lacks the logical force of the connection between what the TD must decide and what he should be obligated to inform the table of. IMO neither a TD's ruling nor any findings of fact on which it was based should ever be treated as UI. > If the WBF does not issue such guidelines, does the local RA have > the right to do so/ I don;t believe that this is so - as I see it, > only the WBF can issue interpretations of its own laws. The WBF will remain faithful to its overriding, fundamental, but unwritten, paramount principle: Regardless of what the lawbook says, RAs get to do whatever they want. What Reg writes makes perfect sense, but just ain't so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 14 18:40:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:40:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <3E6B6B7C-E16D-46E0-B892-B94B95D921FC@starpower.net> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <662B3159-7DC0-4F7E-A4EE-45D94ED14B0C@starpower.net> <47FF24E2.1050608@skynet.be> <0DBB5DF7-CCD5-4E2E-B8F4-F616BE38723A@starpower.net> <48008978.7030308@skynet.be> <3E6B6B7C-E16D-46E0-B892-B94B95D921FC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <480388F2.2030908@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> But its logic falls apart completely if, after all that, partner puts >>> down a 4-4-3-2 hand. >> No, because as a Director, we will not be called in that case. More >> often than not, the pair will score a bad result at the table. >> So we're only concerned with the case where the player guesses >> correctly. > > Sorry, Herman, but whether your logic and consequent statements and > actions at the table (a) do or do not make sense, (b) are truthful or > untruthful, (c) are legal or illegal, (d) are ethical or not, (e) are > cheating or not -- etc. -- DO NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT THE > DIRECTOR GETS CALLED! Nor do they depend on whether they get you a > good score or a bad score. > But of course they do! You have two options: either you explain what you think, or you say "no agreement". There are also two possibilities: either you think correctly or you don't. If you have guessed correctly, and you explained accordingly, there will be no problem. If you have guessed correctly, and you said "no agreement", the director will be called. If you guessed incorrectly, and you explained accordingly, there will have been misinformation - but you're probably in a bad score anyway. And if you guessed incorrectly, and have said "no agreement", then the bad score will make opponents none the wiser if you did have some agreement or not. So all other cases don't matter. All the Director will see are cases where a player "guessed" correctly and yet said "no agreement". Now you may want to try to make the director accept that you did not in fact have any agreement - but on what basis did you guess then? I don't believe in true 50/50 guesses. I believe every partnership has "something" which induced the guess. Which is why I will rule that there was "something". And of course YES, I have said quite often enough that it CAN happen. You can spend your first day in Zambia playing bridge with a total stranger from Afghanistan, playing the first board 2 seconds after you've met, and having absolutely no clue what the Afghan standard is. But those cases are rare, and quite easy for the director to pick out. Other than that - I simply don't believe there is "nothing". > > So anything is legal if there's no way the opponents will know to > call the director? > No, it's not legal either - but the opponents aren't damaged! >> Sorry, we never "discussed" this convention, and we certainly did not >> "agree" to it. but do you see the problem with your stance? I would >> tell the director about my previous mentioning of the convention. You >> would stick to your system notes and "no agreement". I'm being honest >> - you're not. I will get ruled against, and you would not, because TD >> Eric would believe him when player Eric says "no agreement". > > Player Eric is neither a liar nor a cheater, despite what Herman > writes. He would never say "no agreement" (to either his opponents > or the TD) when aware of his "previous mentioning of the > convention". TD Eric knows that player Eric is neither a liar nor a > cheater, and what's more, TD Eric gives the same benefit of the doubt > to any other player for whom he lacks evidence to the contrary. > So player Eric will never say "no agreement". Yet blml-er Eric is shouting high and loud that TD Herman is wrong if he doesn't believe player Eric when player Eric would say "no agreement". If you don't do it, why bother if I rule against some other, less ethical player than yourself? > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 14 19:05:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:05:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> <6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <2CADB76B-E642-46C4-8704-C83C4C556E3F@starpower.net> On Apr 13, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 12:52 PM 13/04/2008, you wrote: >> From Reg: I posed this problem: > > cut a bit > >> I have directed at all levels in Australia for 30 years, and I'm >> having >> difficulty in fully understanding the new Law 27. And the evidence >> above >> shows that very experienced TDs can take opposing viewpoints,I >> feel sorry >> for the playing club directors when they are called for this quite >> common >> infraction. The ABF plan to adopt the 2007 Laws on June 1st. Perhaps >> unwisely I have agreed to conduct an unofficial seminar for club >> directors >> in my non-metropolitan area, with several medium sized clubs all with >> playing directors. I'm still not sure how to explain the new Law >> 27 to >> them. I console myself with the thought that we'll probably have >> lots of >> wrong ru;lings, but the players won't understand the Law either so >> there >> may not be too many ructions, >> >> Top of my wishlist is this: That the WBF urgently issue some >> specific and >> detailed guidelines on the intent and the practical application of >> Law 27, >> with lots of examples. Some of the things I wish to see are: >> (others may >> have more) > > amen. As you know I have been trying out the 2007 and 2008 L27 for > some > time. Another little > quirk I have discovered is in the case 1C (1S) 1H. I have > suggested > either neg. double or > 2H without penalty. If you allow X, then you have to go to the hand > records and check > to see whether the same number of tricks is made if the "wrong" player > declares in > hearts. It may not happen often, but presumably you need to check > every > time. This to > my mind is the textbook example of an L27D correction. > > (I vote firmly with Grattan on the example case, but presumably the > director has > already suggested that 3NT is without penalty in that case.) I would > never play a > system where 1C (pass) 3NT absolutely denied a 4 card major, but if > their > system > notes say that a correction to 2 or 3 NT absolutely denies a 4 card > major, > then in > my opinion they cannot bid same with a 4 card major without barring > partner. > So they say to TD you, I want to deny my 4 card major, and bid 3NT > anyway just > so that partner can keep in the auction. Say I, you should have > thought > of that > when you werent watching the bidding. Forget the IB for a moment. The auction goes 1C-P-. 3NT would absolutely deny a four-card major, and you have one, but you decide for tactical reasons that you want to bid 3NT anyhow. Do you call the director to ask permission? Do you think that if you did it might be denied? Do you not think that the director would explain your right to bid whatever you want, as conveyed by L40A3 subject to the constraints of L40C1? Where in L27 is there anything at all to suggest that it might nullify L40A3? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 14 19:34:37 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:34:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <480388F2.2030908@skynet.be> References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <662B3159-7DC0-4F7E-A4EE-45D94ED14B0C@starpower.net> <47FF24E2.1050608@skynet.be> <0DBB5DF7-CCD5-4E2E-B8F4-F616BE38723A@starpower.net> <48008978.7030308@skynet.be> <3E6B6B7C-E16D-46E0-B892-B94B95D921FC@starpower.net> <480388F2.2030908@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 14, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Player Eric is neither a liar nor a cheater, despite what Herman >> writes. He would never say "no agreement" (to either his opponents >> or the TD) when aware of his "previous mentioning of the >> convention". TD Eric knows that player Eric is neither a liar nor a >> cheater, and what's more, TD Eric gives the same benefit of the doubt >> to any other player for whom he lacks evidence to the contrary. > > So player Eric will never say "no agreement". Yet blml-er Eric is > shouting high and loud that TD Herman is wrong if he doesn't believe > player Eric when player Eric would say "no agreement". If you don't do > it, why bother if I rule against some other, less ethical player than > yourself? Because BLMLer Eric knows that "TD Eric gives the same benefit of the doubt to any other player for whom he lacks evidence to the contrary". BLMLer Eric shouts high and loud that TD Herman is wrong if he does not do the same. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 14 19:53:37 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:53:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] personal Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: <2CADB76B-E642-46C4-8704-C83C4C556E3F@starpower.net> References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> <6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2CADB76B-E642-46C4-8704-C83C4C556E3F@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:05:55 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 13, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> At 12:52 PM 13/04/2008, you wrote: >>> From Reg: I posed this problem: >> >> cut a bit >> >>> I have directed at all levels in Australia for 30 years, and I'm >>> having >>> difficulty in fully understanding the new Law 27. And the evidence >>> above >>> shows that very experienced TDs can take opposing viewpoints,I >>> feel sorry >>> for the playing club directors when they are called for this quite >>> common >>> infraction. The ABF plan to adopt the 2007 Laws on June 1st. Perhaps >>> unwisely I have agreed to conduct an unofficial seminar for club >>> directors >>> in my non-metropolitan area, with several medium sized clubs all with >>> playing directors. I'm still not sure how to explain the new Law >>> 27 to >>> them. I console myself with the thought that we'll probably have >>> lots of >>> wrong ru;lings, but the players won't understand the Law either so >>> there >>> may not be too many ructions, >>> >>> Top of my wishlist is this: That the WBF urgently issue some >>> specific and >>> detailed guidelines on the intent and the practical application of >>> Law 27, >>> with lots of examples. Some of the things I wish to see are: >>> (others may >>> have more) >> >> amen. As you know I have been trying out the 2007 and 2008 L27 for >> some >> time. Another little >> quirk I have discovered is in the case 1C (1S) 1H. I have >> suggested >> either neg. double or >> 2H without penalty. If you allow X, then you have to go to the hand >> records and check >> to see whether the same number of tricks is made if the "wrong" player >> declares in >> hearts. It may not happen often, but presumably you need to check >> every >> time. This to >> my mind is the textbook example of an L27D correction. >> >> (I vote firmly with Grattan on the example case, but presumably the >> director has >> already suggested that 3NT is without penalty in that case.) I would >> never play a >> system where 1C (pass) 3NT absolutely denied a 4 card major, but if >> their >> system >> notes say that a correction to 2 or 3 NT absolutely denies a 4 card >> major, >> then in >> my opinion they cannot bid same with a 4 card major without barring >> partner. >> So they say to TD you, I want to deny my 4 card major, and bid 3NT >> anyway just >> so that partner can keep in the auction. Say I, you should have >> thought >> of that >> when you werent watching the bidding. > > Forget the IB for a moment. The auction goes 1C-P-. 3NT would > absolutely deny a four-card major, and you have one, but you decide > for tactical reasons that you want to bid 3NT anyhow. Do you call > the director to ask permission? Do you think that if you did it > might be denied? Do you not think that the director would explain > your right to bid whatever you want, as conveyed by L40A3 subject to > the constraints of L40C1? > > Where in L27 is there anything at all to suggest that it might > nullify L40A3? Hi Eric. Personal reply, I am trying not to post as much as I would like to BLML. If the director allows the 3NT correction even with a 4-card major, and if the player knows that, then the 3NT bid is now given the extra meaning that the player might have a four-card major and selected 3NT anyway as the least of bad choices. In the new laws, apparently this knowledge is treated as AI. Your example is difficult to construct a use of this AI, but what about this? 1C 3NT 4NT(1) 5S 6S 4NT is a quantitative invitation to slam. Partnership agreements might make it clear on the meaning of the 5S bid. If not, opener is more likely to interpret it as a spade suit if 3NT was a correction to the insufficient bid of 1C. I am not saying that the 3NT correction should be disallowed, even though I would prefer that. I am actually very confused on that. Using the old laws, the opp in front of me opens 1C and I try to open 1C. Can I correct to 2C with a 3-card club suit? Then won't my partner take into account that I don't have a 5-card club suit? And if I can do it with the new laws, the problem is worse, because the change will be AI. I am just saying that Law40A3 probably does not supply the support you are looking for. Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 14 21:24:15 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:24:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] personal Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> <6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2CADB76B-E642-46C4-8704-C83C4C556E3F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <808281FE-89E3-4B67-B940-91876E61A08A@starpower.net> On Apr 14, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:05:55 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> Forget the IB for a moment. The auction goes 1C-P-. 3NT would >> absolutely deny a four-card major, and you have one, but you decide >> for tactical reasons that you want to bid 3NT anyhow. Do you call >> the director to ask permission? Do you think that if you did it >> might be denied? Do you not think that the director would explain >> your right to bid whatever you want, as conveyed by L40A3 subject to >> the constraints of L40C1? >> >> Where in L27 is there anything at all to suggest that it might >> nullify L40A3? > > If the director allows the 3NT correction even with a 4-card major, > and if > the player knows that, then the 3NT bid is now given the extra meaning > that the player might have a four-card major and selected 3NT > anyway as > the least of bad choices. > > In the new laws, apparently this knowledge is treated as AI. Your > example > is difficult to construct a use of this AI, but what about this? > > 1C 3NT > 4NT(1) 5S > 6S > > 4NT is a quantitative invitation to slam. Partnership agreements might > make it clear on the meaning of the 5S bid. If not, opener is more > likely > to interpret it as a spade suit if 3NT was a correction to the > insufficient bid of 1C. > > I am not saying that the 3NT correction should be disallowed, even > though > I would prefer that. I am actually very confused on that. Using the > old > laws, the opp in front of me opens 1C and I try to open 1C. Can I > correct > to 2C with a 3-card club suit? Then won't my partner take into account > that I don't have a 5-card club suit? And if I can do it with the new > laws, the problem is worse, because the change will be AI. > > I am just saying that Law40A3 probably does not supply the support > you are > looking for. My argument admittedly rests on a premise that is itself subject to debate, but one I am prepared to defend, that L10C1 requires the director to inform the table as to which potential RCs will bar the IBer's partner and which will not, making that information authorized to both sides. L40A3: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." L40C1: "A player may deviate from his side?s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." Now I may have four spades, but any call in my system that would systemically show (or not deny) four spades may be one which will result in my partner's being barred. Opponents are entitled full knowledge of my bidding methods, including this information. Barring one's partner is a bad thing, and may, depending on circumstances, strike me as a worse choice than misdescribing my hand to partner. So I am far more likely to deviate from my system under these circumstances than I would be if I hadn't made the IB and were unconstrained. I am far more likely to deviate from my system rather than bar my partner if I can get by with a relatively minor deviation (such as suppressing a four-card major), and, if I do decide to deviate, will surely choose whichever call represents the smallest deviation of those available. Partner knows all of that, and will understand that here I am orders of magnitude more likely to have bid 3NT with a suppressed four-card major than would be the case in a normal auction. But while partner knows all that stuff, and can readily deduce the likelihood of a deviation from it, so do my opponents, and so can they. Absolutely none of it gives partner "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents"; they're at the table too. So WTP? Under the old law, yes, you could correct 1C to 2C, as both are "incontrovertably not conventional", and, yes, partner would take into account that you might not have a five-card club suit, and, yes, that would be treated as AI because "L16D does not apply". L27B1(a) is the same law, reworded slightly but substantively unchanged, and none of this is affected by the addition of L27B1(b). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 00:02:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:02:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <84407085-23A8-4AC9-8174-53F63AA90370@starpower.net> Message-ID: Reg Busch: >If the WBF does not issue such guidelines, does the local RA have >the right to do so? I don't believe that this is so - as I see it, >only the WBF can issue interpretations of its own laws. Richard Hills: Yes and no. 2007 Law 80A3: "The Regulating Authority may _delegate_ its powers (retaining ultimate responsibility for their exercise) or it may assign them (in which case it has no further responsibility for their exercise)." Richard Hills: While the WBF Laws Committee retains ultimate responsibility for the interpretation of the Lawbook, in an old WBF LC minute the committee advised that it was _delegating_ to Zones and National Bridge Organisations the power to make interim interpretations of ambiguous Laws, until such time as those interim interpretations were over-ridden by a decision of the WBF LC. 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 Apr 15 00:31:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:31:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48034A69.7040202@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] > - Herman claims his recommendation is legal; whereas I recognize >that mine requires a law-change. Richard Hills: In the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, space constraints cause the planet Earth to be given the one word description "Harmless". (Although thorough research by Ford Prefect means that a much better description will appear in the next edition of the Guide, "Mostly Harmless".) I agree that Nigel recommending a law change is Harmless, not a corrosive heresy. While even the corrosive heresy of a blmler repeatedly and wilfully misinterpreting the Lawbook contrary to the intent of its co- authors is Mostly Harmless, since blml lurkers and activists in ever-increasing numbers save time by deleting the postings of the corrosive heretic without bothering to read them. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Incidentally, when I cannot remember a systemic agreement, I leave >the table, so that my partner can explain his own call. I believe >that there would be less of a problem with inadequate disclosure, >if the law-book detailed and recommended this protocol. I reckon >there would also be an instant improvement in player's memories. > >In the UK, I haven't heard a director suggest this. Richard >recommends such a protocol and tells us that it is standard >practice in Australia, where it always involves a director call. >The director-call must slow down proceedings and it is hard to see >why "Richard's protocol" requires the presence of a director. > >IMO, "Richard's protocol" should be detailed and recommended in >the 2018 law-book. In the mean-time it should be specified in >local regulations. Richard Hills: As previously explained, "Richard's protocol" is a misnomer. The protocol was actually mandated by an official WBF LC minute interpreting the 1997 Lawbook. Given this fact, it seems odd that the protocol was not more explicitly included in the 2007 Lawbook - unless the Drafting Sub-Committee made a deliberate decision to repeal the previous WBF LC interpretation, which also seems odd. 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 Apr 15 02:36:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:36:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003f01c89c0f$0109ef90$d8165e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: Raija wrote: >>I should hope not... When there is no agreement, the truthful and >>lawful answer is "no agreement" Anything else is a lie and I hope >>the laws will never mandate lying to the opponents no matter how >>acceptable or well-intentioned it [lying] might be to some >>individuals. >> >>The recommended protocol does not in any way tell us to blurb out >>flat "No agreement" and leave it at that. There are some cases >>where this is sufficient, obviously, but more often one is >>obligated to explain relevant meta-agreements if there are some, >>and perhaps offer what alternate calls mean so that opponents are >>then in the same position to guess as the explainer is. Richard Hills: A corrosive heretic gave a misleading impression of Raija's argument by snipping the second paragraph, then responded with this flame. Corrosive heretic: >This is even worse. The "lying" argument now goes as far as saying >that it becomes illegal to answer more than you ought to. Richard Hills: The WBF Laws Committee has so ruled in one of its official minutes. That states that if a deliberate extraneous-to-Law action creates UI, then that deliberate extraneous-to-Law action is an infraction. Corrosive heretic: >I don't want to play bridge like that, 2007 Law 72A: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws..." Corrosive heretic: >and if you're going to convict me for lying by telling my >opponents my guesses, Richard Hills: Deliberately misdescribing a unilateral guess as a mutual partnership understanding is not only an infraction of the 2007 Law 20F1, but also a more severe infraction of the 2007 Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Corrosive heretic: >then I'll be glad to be out of your tournaments because I don't >want my opponents to do so either. I'll go play bridge with the >honest people. Grattan Endicott: >>>+=+ I have learnt the hard way that it is very dangerous to >>>interpret the English language used by others, especially >>>those who do not have a native speaker's access to its >>>inferences and intricacies, in a pejorative sense. There is >>>a need to look behind the use of a word to see what the >>>individual is trying to say - and not be too ready to assume >>>they intend my/our usage of it. This even applies between >>>my native English and American English, something I have >>>found out to my cost when my meaning is distorted by >>>the American usage of a friend and misunderstood. >>> Tread softly .... >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Yes, tread very softly when arguing that those whose views differ from your own are not "honest people" or that they peddle a "corrosive heresy". 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 Apr 15 03:06:39 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:06:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd In-Reply-To: References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au><47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au><001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred><0F781582-CEFE-4C4B-A284-4CC93097DE82@starpower.net> <003f01c89c36$3e2c3230$a8d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c89e94$f64b7d70$e2e27850$@com> [GE] I question whether it is right to say that the infraction has provided any such assistance. I do not see the mere creation of circumstances (application of law) in which something can happen as providing positive help to the player to reach the contract in which he landed. [WS] Thank you Grattan. It's not even close. To try to screw around the laws to make it less than a "rub of the green" changes the entire game of bridge..? I hope we all survive this convoluted thinking and rationalization before our game goes down the drain. To posit that having to guess, and being lucky in your guess is not part of the game of bridge is to make it less than the wonderful game that it is. [DALB] One way of looking at this may be to say that if a pair reach an awful contract because one of them has to guess what to bid, their opponents have not been damaged. Surely the opponents will get a bad result when the contract makes - but occasionally, one gets a bad result at bridge when one's opponents reach an awful contract in an entirely legal auction. The "proximate cause" of the damage was not that the opponents guessed to bid an awful contract (which happened because of the infraction) but that the contract made (which did not happen because of the infraction, but because of malign Fate). The same may apply to cases where a pair reach a good contract because one of them has to guess what to bid - left to their own devices, they would have reached a worse contract. The argument is more tenuous here, but the principle is this: you are not damaged because your opponents are forced to guess what to do (which happens because of the infraction) but when they guess correctly (which does not happen because of the infraction, but because of malign Fate). One could even describe this as the "Rueful Rabbit Principle" - an opponent does something not because he meant to but because he was choking on an almond biscuit at the time, but what he did turned out to be a stroke of genius. Should he keep his result? Of course he should. This seems to coincide with Eric's view that damage should be measured against expectation and not against the actual result (unsurprisingly, perhaps, because it may have been I who suggested the view to him in the first place). It may also coincide with Ton Kooijman's and Edgar Kaplan's views on the Battle of Waterloo. What it does not coincide with, unfortunately, is the wording of the Laws. I would urge that this be remedied as much as, and as soon as, practicable. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 15 03:22:46 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:22:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001901c89e97$462d3fc0$1ed3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > While the WBF Laws Committee retains ultimate responsibility for > the interpretation of the Lawbook, in an old WBF LC minute the > committee advised that it was _delegating_ to Zones and National > Bridge Organisations the power to make interim interpretations of > ambiguous Laws, until such time as those interim interpretations > were over-ridden by a decision of the WBF LC. > +=+ "The Committee made observation that interim interpretations of Law are made by Zonal Organizations. Where significant conflicts are identified the Committee will consider its view at its next meeting." (WBF LC minutes of 24th August 1998.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 15 03:36:15 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:36:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001e01c89e99$1d233290$1ed3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills: > > The WBF Laws Committee has so ruled in one of > its official minutes. That states that if a deliberate > extraneous-to-Law action creates UI, then that > deliberate extraneous-to-Law action is an infraction. > +=+ I think not. The LC has ruled that the use in the auction or play of information derived from an extraneous action may be deemed an infraction of law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 05:07:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:07:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01c89e99$1d233290$1ed3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The WBF Laws Committee has so ruled in one of >>its official minutes. That states that if a deliberate >>extraneous-to-Law action creates UI, then that >>deliberate extraneous-to-Law action is an infraction. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I think not. The LC has ruled that the use in the >auction or play of information derived from an extraneous >action may be deemed an infraction of law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ WBF LC minutes, 30 October 2001, item 8 (as paraphrased in the EBU White Book): "A question about the meaning of a call (even of an alerted call) may provide unauthorised information to partner. For example, suppose a Stayman 2C response to 1NT is alerted in accordance with the regulations for the tournament and a player then asks its meaning. A partner of the enquirer who subsequently leads a club against an ensuing 3NT may well be called upon to demonstrate that he has a hand from which very few players would choose an opening lead in a different suit. The point is that it is not safe to assume that a question provides no unauthorised information just because it is about an alerted call." Richard Hills: Oops. I have many Regrets for misleading blmlers, since Grattan's recollection is correct, and for once my elephantine memory has failed me. I should take an aspirin. Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar, page 13: "Why is an elephant big, gray and wrinkled?" "Because if he was small, white, and round, he'd be an aspirin." 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 Apr 15 05:26:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:26:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >We will not have a WBF Laws Committee input until a meeting >in Beijing. However, the EBL is conducting a seminar for its top >TDs at the end of May and some useful thoughts may come from >that. I understand the WBF CTD is actually to do the >presentation on Law 27. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: If issues of EBL copyright (or Max Bavin copyright) do not intervene, would it be possible for a transcript of this Law 27 presentation to be placed on blml? 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 Apr 15 05:41:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:41:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48037B48.9000707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: >>Sorry, Herman, but whether your logic and consequent statements and >>actions at the table (a) do or do not make sense, (b) are truthful or >>untruthful, (c) are legal or illegal, (d) are ethical or not, (e) are >>cheating or not -- etc. -- DO NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT THE >>DIRECTOR GETS CALLED! Alain Gottcheiner quibbled: >AG : IBTD. Choosing their poison after a LOOT is legal (even >mandatory) after calling the director ONLY. Richard Hills counter-quibbles: I Beg To Differ squared. It is always legal for the LOOTer's LHO to choose *a* poison - an acceptance of the lead out of turn - whether or not the Director is summoned, provided that no-one has drawn attention to the irregularity. 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 15 05:41:43 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:41:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] or... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, that last email assumed you did not know my world, and you probably do. I can understand you being tired of Herman, but I cannot otherwise understand the emotion behind your position. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 08:15:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:15:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27: appeal director's opinion? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >"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.." > >Sorry if this is obvious or already discussed. As I read this, the >proper ruling does not care whether the director's opinion was right or >wrong. [big snip] Richard Hills: Four rabbis were having a discussion. Rabbi Hillel's argument was obviously correct. But the other three rabbis took the democratic view that their logically fallacious argument must be correct, since they outnumbered Rabbi Hillel three to one, . Then a Voice from the heavens thundered: "RABBI HILLEL IS OBVIOUSLY CORRECT!" So the other three rabbis shrugged their shoulders, with their spokesman saying, "Okay, three to two." 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 hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 15 09:46:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:46:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: References: <47FC7FEF.6070704@ulb.ac.be> <47FC861B.2000109@skynet.be> <47FC9779.4030606@ulb.ac.be> <47FCA65B.5050603@skynet.be> <397A616D-36CA-4663-A4E8-FA40497F44B6@starpower.net> <47FDCBF6.2040405@skynet.be> <662B3159-7DC0-4F7E-A4EE-45D94ED14B0C@starpower.net> <47FF24E2.1050608@skynet.be> <0DBB5DF7-CCD5-4E2E-B8F4-F616BE38723A@starpower.net> <48008978.7030308@skynet.be> <3E6B6B7C-E16D-46E0-B892-B94B95D921FC@starpower.net> <480388F2.2030908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48045D42.1030107@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > Because BLMLer Eric knows that "TD Eric gives the same benefit of the > doubt to any other player for whom he lacks evidence to the > contrary". BLMLer Eric shouts high and loud that TD Herman is wrong > if he does not do the same. > The problem with that view is that the laws ask for a reverse of proof. The director shall rule mistaken information in the absence of proof of the contrary! > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 15 09:52:24 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:52:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01c89e99$1d233290$1ed3403e@Mildred> References: <001e01c89e99$1d233290$1ed3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48045EB8.7070604@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "Loquacity storms the ear, but > modesty takes the heart." > - Thomas Fuller. > > ************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:36 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> Richard Hills: >> >> The WBF Laws Committee has so ruled in one of >> its official minutes. That states that if a deliberate >> extraneous-to-Law action creates UI, then that >> deliberate extraneous-to-Law action is an infraction. >> >> > +=+ I think not. The LC has ruled that the use in the > auction or play of information derived from an extraneous > action may be deemed an infraction of law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > You don't need any minutes or comments, chaps. L73B1 is enough. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 15 10:14:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:14:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >If everyone believes someone is uncivil and ignores that person, then >they will leave. But it looks like BLML is doing as good of job as >you can. > >Bordering on the uncivil, but it seems useful... Many years ago I >joined a newsgroup dominated by people who thought alike and were not >civil to differing opinions (but they were civil to each other). I >expressed a viewpoint opposed to theirs, and I was civil throughout >the battle that followed while they were not. [snip] Richard Hills: I admire Bob's application of Mohandas Gandhi's principles to the modern age of the blogosphere. Alas, as a lesser mortal, I lack the will to retract recent incivilities from me to another blmler who has (in my opinion) repeatedly (but perhaps unintentionally) insinuated that other blmlers (and one now ex-blmler) are unethical. So, since I am a moral midget, I will choose Bob's alternative option of simply ignoring that (possibly unintentionally uncivil) blmler in future, to protect my metaphorical "long toes". Apropos of this discussion of the ethics of blml postings, ethicist Randy Cohen is quoted on page 91 of "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar": >>Although I'm happy in my current job, having recently received a >>promotion (I'm the new Thane of Cawdor), that's not enough for my >>wife who is eager for me to get ahead. I'm not saying I lack >>ambition, but I am reluctant to do what it takes to climb higher - >>the long hours, the bloody murders. And yet, don't I have a >>special obligation to consider my wife's desires? We are, after >>all, a family. >> >>Macbeth, Scotland 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Apr 15 14:13:12 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:13:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48049BD8.1010105@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Deliberately misdescribing a unilateral guess as a mutual partnership understanding is not only an infraction of the 2007 Law 20F1, but also a more severe infraction of the 2007 Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." [Nigel] I hope this is not so clear-cut. If players did not "bend" this law, there would be little disclosure. I am *never* certain of partnership agreements, but if I'm reasonably sure, I make my best guess. Sometimes (like almost all players) I guess wrong. I don't regard this as lying; because I am trying to disclose our agreements. On the contrary it is those who try to conform to the letter of the law, who are economical with the truth. They avoid illegal guesses. When they are uncertain, they habitually trotting out the "no agreement" mantra. If you offered such a player ?1M if he guessed right, I reckon that you would almost certainly be ?1M poorer. IMO, The BLML discussion about meta-agreements is woolly. Some players are incapable of extracting and describing all relevant half remembered principles, hazy semi-conscious negative inferences and so on. Others simply cannot manage to do all this in real time. Robert Frick explains the problem far better than I ever could. The current law is surreal. It takes almost no account of the practical psychological problems intrinsic in disclosure. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 15 15:07:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:07:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48049BD8.1010105@NTLworld.com> References: <48049BD8.1010105@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4804A889.6030108@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > IMO, The BLML discussion about meta-agreements is woolly. Some players > are incapable of extracting and describing all relevant half remembered > principles, hazy semi-conscious negative inferences and so on. Others > simply cannot manage to do all this in real time. Robert Frick explains > the problem far better than I ever could. > > The current law is surreal. It takes almost no account of the practical > psychological problems intrinsic in disclosure. > > I don't see this as a problem, even though I agree that you describe the situation pretty well. If a player isn't able to draw inferences from his system quickly enough to explain them to his opponents, then it's his fault if that causes damage to his opponents. He is allwed to play something simpler, to be sure. Notice that negative inferences aren't always that sure, and *this* creates a problem about disclosure. For example, if you play strong jump shifts, there is an inference that partner doesn't hold a hand worth one when he makes a 1/1 response ; however, he might have decided not to do one for any reason (one frequent reason is that he's afraid you could forget you use it). Take this live case for example : 1C 1S X p 2NT For those who make 2NT 16-17 and play 15-17 NT, there is an inference that partner's hand is at least a mildly unbalanced. This is what I read in a near-beginner's course about sputnik doubles recently. Now, if partner has decided not to open 1NT holding a hand that justifies such an opening -don't ask me why-, what does your inference become ? Perhaps that's why some don't tell all their inferences and, no, I don't know the solution. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Apr 15 15:35:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:35:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] personal Law 27 revisited References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au><2CADB76B-E642-46C4-8704-C83C4C556E3F@starpower.net> <808281FE-89E3-4B67-B940-91876E61A08A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0adf01c89efd$938b8d10$70709951@stefanie> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:05:55 -0400, Eric Landau wrote >My argument admittedly rests on a premise that is itself subject to >debate, but one I am prepared to defend, that L10C1 requires the >director to inform the table as to which potential RCs will bar the >IBer's partner and which will not, making that information authorized >to both sides. I have not been able to find the recent message in which it it suggested (I don't remember by whom) that this process need not take place away from the table. But I think that this is silly. The "negotiation" between the director and the IBer will make a great deal of unnecessary UI available. Of course, the fact that the correction is penalty-free should be made known to all. Does it not seem that a number of the problems with this Law would be solved if the IB were UI to partner? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Apr 15 15:55:03 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:55:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited and other random stuff References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au><47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> <001d01c89be3$d2980a00$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <0ae001c89f00$4e641f60$70709951@stefanie> > From: "Reg Busch" > >> Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much like >> the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - 1C >> corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it >> happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. >> 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a >> 5/0 spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you >> adjust? > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > My inclination is to adjust. They have gained from the infraction. John > I fear that the "rub-of-the-green" interpretation is the one that will be adopted by the WBF. Players who lose out thereby will not be happy at all. Even if they are not deemed "by law" to have gained by the infraction, the fact that they have nonetheless done just that will be inescapable, and will cause much grief. This, I think, is one reason why any penalty-free RC (perhaps apart from "making the bid good") should be 100% accurate according to the systemic agreements. This will at least minimise the kind of thing we are discussing here. But John, I know that you feel very strongly about one's legal right to psyche. Do you think that it should be limited in this situation? About "rub-of-the-green" in general, there was some discussion of it in this group, back when Bobby Wolfe was banging on endlessly about it. I had thought that the notion that the NOS "got" their equity when the OS bid to an inferior or worse scoring contract was, at the time, totally discredited, and "equity" has since then (not just here, but in the wide world) been determined *after* the play of the hand. Does anyone know the source of the WBF's fanatical belief that a player who cannot be bothered to make legal calls or play legal cards be protected from the possibility of being harmed thereby? And... Does anyone think that the "having none, partner?" nonsense can be restored to its old penalty by regulation? After all, the Law (63?) says that there is a risk of UI. So if partner transmits UI by asking and your use of it causes you to realise that you have not followed suit when you could have, you have been prevented from revoking by UI. So presumably the adjustment is the restoration of the revoke penalty. Stefanie Rohan London, England From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Apr 15 16:26:00 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:26:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another stupid question (abbreviations) Message-ID: <4804BAF8.4060602@aol.com> What does RC mean? It is not on the list but must be obvious since everyone blithely uses it. I'm probably the only one too dim to understand it. (RC = recovery? rectification?) Ahoy, JE From geller at nifty.com Tue Apr 15 16:28:37 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:28:37 +0900 Subject: [blml] Another stupid question (abbreviations) In-Reply-To: <4804BAF8.4060602@aol.com> References: <4804BAF8.4060602@aol.com> Message-ID: <200804151428.AA13294@geller204.nifty.com> RC=Replacement Call Jeff Easterson ????????: >What does RC mean? It is not on the list but must be obvious since >everyone blithely uses it. I'm probably the only one too dim to >understand it. (RC = recovery? rectification?) Ahoy, JE > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 15 17:24:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:24:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream Message-ID: <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> I've been having a recurring dream of late, and I thought I'd share it. I am a disembodied consciousness floating in the upper corner of a featureless room. Four people sit at a table playing bridge. One of them looks very much like me, and wears a nametag reading "Eric". The other three have nametags that say "West", "Partner" and "East". A small green imp sits on the floor in the corner to my right, watching the players intently. I can't quite make out his name tag, but it seems to be something like "Blimel". I am aware that the table is in mid-auction, using spoken bidding. East and West are out of the auction, and Partner seems to have some sort of strong minor-suited hand. As my senses sharpen, Partner bids 4NT, and East turns to Eric and says, "What is that, please?" "Well," Eric replies, "it could be asking me for my better minor, or it could be Blackwood; I don't know which." As East and West turn towards Eric looking a bit nonplussed, the imp jumps to his feat screaming (rather quietly; he has very small lungs). "Not good enough! More! More! You have to tell them more!" At this point, the dream takes one of two turns. On the days when my dinner agreed with me... "There's no more to tell," says Eric nonchalantly, "It could be asking me for my better minor, or it could be Blackwood; I don't know which. Five clubs." The players exhale, lean back in their chairs, and look happy. The imp goes back to his corner, muttering under his breath. East and West have a little bit of information about Eric's hand to which they are not technically entitled. Partner, whose actions were in any case constrained by his obligation to follow through on his original intent, has been reassured that Eric will actually show up with what he is required to presume he has. And Eric has shut up the imp, at least for now. I can't quite make out the rest of the auction, but it is quickly over. East leads, and Eric tables the dummy. As everyone, including me, the imp and the ceiling fan knew to expect, he has a club preference and no aces. The dream ends. But on the days when my dinner hasn't entirely agreed with me... "There's no more to tell," says Eric nonchalantly, "It could be asking me for my better minor, or it could be Blackwood; I don't know which." At which point my disembodied consciousness, in the manner of dreams, gets sucked into Eric's skull and our minds start to merge. I look at our cards and see that we have a club preference and an ace. In the few seconds this has taken, the imp has again jumped to his feet, sputtering, apoplectic. "That's totally ridiculous! You can't just stonewall like that! Don't you read BLML? Don't you even read what YOU YOURSELF write on BLML? You have meta-agreements! You have partnership experience! You read books! You play in clubs! If you don't tell them more than that, you're a ch... che... chee... That's totally ridiculous!" He pauses for an instant to regain his breath. I hear ourself saying, "But I can't tell you, because that's not what I'm thinking about, because it doesn't matter, because it's not going to affect what I bid." "Well you may not be thinking about it yet, but you'd better start, because sooner or later you're going to have to bid something." The imp sounds like he's talking through gritted teeth, even though he doesn't actually seem to have any teeth. "You can't make a bid until you figure out what partner means, and if you can't figure it out you're going to have to go with the probabilities, and if you can't even figure out that much you're going to have to flip a coin, but you're going to have to decide, and you'd better tell them what you decided, and you'd better bid based on whatever you told them because if you don't I'm gonna git up a posse and string you up!" As he says this, his nametag morphs into a Sheriff's silver star, and a noose materializes in his hand. He starts swinging it slowly back and forth. But I'm not thinking about all that stuff, because it doesn't matter, because it's not going to affect what I bid. So what am I thinking about. Let's listen in... If I bid 5C when partner wanted aces, we'll probably miss a good slam. How many matchpoints will that be worth if the slam makes? How good is it? What's the chance that bad breaks will hold us to 11 tricks, or 12 if he would have bid a grand and stops in a small, for a lucky good score? If I bid 5D when partner wanted a preference, we'll wind up in the wrong suit. How likely is that to matter? How "wrong" will it be? Might we be able to take as many tricks in the inferior fit? Or even luck out and do better? Will we get any field protection from pairs getting overboard? On which road am I more likely to find some path that doesn't lead to a zero-matchpoint disaster? When I'm done with my thinking, I take a call. Now, if I bid 5C, in absolutely no way whatsoever does that mean, or even vaguely suggest, that I "decided", or "guessed", or "think", that partner intended 4NT to ask for minors. And if I bid 5D, in absolutely no way whatsoever does that mean, or even vaguely suggest, that I "decided", or "guessed", or "think", that partner intended 4NT as Blackwood. Sure, if you put a gun to my head now and forced me to go back and think about all that stuff I wasn't thinking about earlier, it is a virtual certainty that I would eventally be able to decide that partner's 4NT was more likely to have been intended one way or the other. But the a priori odds that I would come up with the answer that's "consistent" with the bid I chose are exactly 50-50. How do I explain this to the imp and avoid the necktie party? Can anyone out there help me? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Apr 15 18:43:11 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:43:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27: appeal director's opinion? References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au><47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au><001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred><0F781582-CEFE-4C4B-A284-4CC93097DE82@starpower.net><003f01c89c36$3e2c3230$a8d4403e@Mildred><04121A8E-6E19-40B6-BBC7-5AD2730D5673@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0b5401c89f17$cb027820$70709951@stefanie> Robert Frick: > A director might not allow the correction to 3H because 2H denies a > super-accept and 3H probably does not. But it is a subtle point. The > director does not think of it and opines that 3H has a more precise > meaning than 2H. Later the opps think of this argument and present it to > the director, who accepts the argument and changes his mind. Too late, > right? However, if the OS feel they have been damaged, they can present that case to an AC, can't they? Stefanie Rohan London, England From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 16 00:05:47 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:05:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:24:49 EDT." <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200804152151.OAA12103@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > I've been having a recurring dream of late, and I thought I'd share it. > > I am a disembodied consciousness floating in the upper corner of a > featureless room. Four people sit at a table playing bridge. One of > them looks very much like me, and wears a nametag reading "Eric". > The other three have nametags that say "West", "Partner" and > "East". A small green imp sits on the floor in the corner to my > right, watching the players intently. I can't quite make out his > name tag, but it seems to be something like "Blimel". ... > How do I explain this to the imp and avoid the necktie party? Can > anyone out there help me? Now, if this were *my* dream, I'd say "This is a matchpoint game, and imps aren't welcome", at which point the imp would turn purple and fly out of the room through the refrigerator, West would pull the 17 Diamonds card out of his bidding box, North would trump that with the ace of spades, and I would immediately find myself walking down the middle of the freeway in my underwear. How come your dreams make so much more sense than mine? Maybe I need a better mattress.... :) -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 16 00:07:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:07:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48049BD8.1010105@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Deliberately misdescribing a unilateral guess as a mutual partnership >>understanding is not only an infraction of the 2007 Law 20F1, but also >>a more severe infraction of the 2007 Law 72B1: "A player must not >>infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed >>rectification he is willing to accept." Nigel Guthrie: >I hope this is not so clear-cut. If players did not "bend" this law, >there would be little disclosure. I am *never* certain of partnership >agreements, but if I'm reasonably sure, I make my best guess. >Sometimes (like almost all players) I guess wrong. I don't regard this >as lying; because I am trying to disclose our agreements. Richard Hills: Indeed not so clear-cut. The situation I was describing was: (a) you know that partner has made a non-systemic or non-agreed call, (b) you try to guess partner's unilateral intent in making the call, (c) you misdescribe your guess as a mutual partnership understanding. In the situation that Nigel describes, he is not trying to subvert the 2007 Law 20F1, but instead doing his best to fulfil Law 20F1. 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 Wed Apr 16 00:30:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:30:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48045D42.1030107@skynet.be> Message-ID: Walt Whitman: Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. Herman De Wael asserted: >The problem with that view is that the laws ask for a reverse of >proof. The director shall rule mistaken information in the absence >of proof of the contrary! 2007 Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of ***evidence*** to the contrary." 2007 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." Richard Hills quibbles: This assertion that the Lawbook requires a reversal of the onus of proof - a player is Guilty unless proved Innocent - is based on the assumption that the word "proof" has an identical meaning to the word "evidence". I suggest that my esteemed interlocutor consult a dictionary. 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 Wed Apr 16 01:20:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:20:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric's dream: >"Well," Eric replies, "it could be asking me for my better >minor, or it could be Blackwood; I don't know which." Richard's dream: "Well," Richard replies, "it could be asking me for my better minor, or it could be Blackwood; We have no _a priori_ mutual partnership understanding as to which it is, but now that I have looked at the cards in my hand, I am 100% certain _a posteori_." Is Richard required to explain which of partner's two possible intentions is now an _a posteriori_ certainty? 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 16 02:25:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:25:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001e01c89e99$1d233290$1ed3403e@Mildred> <48045EB8.7070604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001401c89f5b$e8b167c0$8fc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Richard Hills: >> >> The WBF Laws Committee has so ruled in one of >> its official minutes. That states that if a deliberate >> extraneous-to-Law action creates UI, then that >> deliberate extraneous-to-Law action is an infraction. >> >> > +=+ I think not. The LC has ruled that the use in the > auction or play of information derived from an extraneous > action may be deemed an infraction of law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > You don't need any minutes or comments, chaps. L73B1 is enough. < +=+ Law 73B1 is concerned with deliberate actions for the purpose of communicating with partner. It does not relate to deliberate actions that have the incidental effect of conveying UI to partner. In the latter instances the creation of UI is not an offence, but to make use of it in the auction or play is an offence. The reason a 'Reveley' adjustment is not permissible is that the infraction to which Law 12B applies in a Law 16B scenario is the use of the UI after it has been made available. The point at which the assigned adjusted score is assessed is immediately prior to the infraction, which is to say after the UI has been made available and before it has been used. The law disallows the use of a call based upon the UI and any auction proceeding by way of a call based upon the UI may not therefore be contemplated. If the action conveying the UI were part of the infraction the point of assessment of the adjusted score would be prior to creation of the UI, at which earlier point no route of progressing the auction is barred (in which case a 'Reveley' ruling would be legitimate). I showed the latter paragraph (on Reveley rulings) to Max Bavin. He commented: "Excellent! And many thanks for writing it.". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 16 03:47:03 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:47:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au><47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au><001901c89bca$2dd4d0c0$5ed6403e@Mildred><0F781582-CEFE-4C4B-A284-4CC93097DE82@starpower.net><003f01c89c36$3e2c3230$a8d4403e@Mildred> <04121A8E-6E19-40B6-BBC7-5AD2730D5673@starpower.net> Message-ID: <004501c89f63$c50a3ba0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisitedd > On Apr 11, 2008, at 8:43 PM, > wrote: > >> From: "Eric Landau" >> >>> You swung 17 IMPs because (a) with "assistance gained through the >>> infraction" you bid 6NT instead of 6S, and (b) spades were 5-0. "Rub >>> of the green" takes (b) out of consideration, but shouldn't, IMO, >>> neutralize (a). >> >> +=+ I question whether it is right to say that >> the infraction has provided any such assistance. >> I do not see the mere creation of circumstances >> (application of law) in which something can >> happen as providing positive help to the player >> to reach the contract in which he landed. > > ISTM there have to be some circumstances under which you adjust. In > this case, for example, it is obvious that you could not apply "rub > of the green" at matchpoints, as 6NT would have received the same top > even if 6S were making at the other tables. When 6NT scores better > than 6S, you can always adjust, you can never adjust, or you can > apply some criterion to decide which. The only such criterion I can > come up with is the a priori expected value of your score in 6S vs. > 6NT: adjust if the infraction helped you get to a better contract > that got you your expected better score, but not if it put you in an > inferior contract that got lucky. I'm certainly prepared to consider > others, but can't think of any. > In view of comments above and those by Kojak, I'm convinced. It's RotG. Thanks guys. John > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 16 04:07:13 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:07:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited and other random stuff References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au><47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au><001d01c89be3$d2980a00$0901a8c0@JOHN> <0ae001c89f00$4e641f60$70709951@stefanie> Message-ID: <007e01c89f66$963a68b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisited and other random stuff > >> From: "Reg Busch" > > >>> Eric and others: Applying 27D as you see it, take a situation much like >>> the current one but a littlle different. The bidding goes 1C - 1C >>> corrected after consulting the TD to 3NT. Again South bids 6NT. As it >>> happens this time the IB has prevented NS from finding their spade fit. >>> 6NT makes but at the other table (and most of the field) 6S fails on a >>> 5/0 spade break. EW claim damage. 17 imps hang on your decision. Do you >>> adjust? >> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >> My inclination is to adjust. They have gained from the infraction. John >> > I fear that the "rub-of-the-green" interpretation is the one that will be > adopted by the WBF. Players who lose out thereby will not be happy at all. > Even if they are not deemed "by law" to have gained by the infraction, the > fact that they have nonetheless done just that will be inescapable, and > will > cause much grief. > > This, I think, is one reason why any penalty-free RC (perhaps apart from > "making the bid good") should be 100% accurate according to the systemic > agreements. This will at least minimise the kind of thing we are > discussing > here. > > But John, I know that you feel very strongly about one's legal right to > psyche. Do you think that it should be limited in this situation? I'm having troubles with the new 27. My mother used to say "make it good dearie" and this is how the old Law 27 worked. We accepted that "making it good" might have a somewhat different tenor, but it did allow bridge to continue to be played and provided the original insufficient bid was practically ignored we could get on with the game. (OK, we argue with me about this a bit, but in practice it's how it happens). I'm having trouble with the tenor of the new "Find a bid that means the same or tighter", which fundamentally changes how bridge is played. ... and in particular, because the wording is very much stricter, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't also tighten up on consequences. As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I'm now convinced not to adjust as this one is RotG., but there are nuances in the new 27 that I've not entirely clarified to my own satisfaction. To answer your question, I'm working on "Probst cheat" methods at the moment related to the new 27. I usually find them at the table and I'll report back. :) Does that help? John > > 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 Apr 16 06:34:35 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:34:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited and other random stuff In-Reply-To: <007e01c89f66$963a68b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> <001d01c89be3$d2980a00$0901a8c0@JOHN> <0ae001c89f00$4e641f60$70709951@stefanie> <007e01c89f66$963a68b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416142011.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Mad Dog: >I'm having troubles with the new 27. My mother used to say "make it good >dearie" and this is how the old Law 27 worked. I have a different thought about L27 every day, but when John Probst is having troubles with it as well, I panic. Today I had the following to rule on: 9 8 3 K J 3 2 8 4 A K 6 3 Q 2 10 5 A Q 8 6 10 9 7 4 A Q 9 6 2 K 10 3 J 9 10 7 5 2 A K J 7 6 4 5 J 7 3 Q 8 4 Dealer South, who opened 1S. West follows with 1D. I started by offereing her 2D without penalty, and then added that it may be possible under some circumstances to replace the bid with a double, again without penalty. Naturally she then wanted to know whether she was really allowed a double, whereupon we retired away from the table. If it matters, I did not find out until later that she had missed the opening bid, and I do not think that anyone at the table had any idea what the bidder had intended. Anyway, I allowed a double, thinking that she is strong enough to double and then bid diamonds, at a pinch. I am a bit uneasy about potentially bringing the hearts into the picture. Fortunately the opponents bid and made 4S, so no further problems. What do you think? Regards, Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 16 07:00:33 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:00:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> This seems quite close to our recent discussions: K Q 10 8 Q 10 8 A 9 7 3 9 5 4 J 7 6 5 2 7 5 2 J 6 4 K Q 6 2 10 5 4 A Q J 10 7 K 3 A 8 3 A K 8 3 J 8 8 6 4 2 Teams, NS Vul, Dealer South. Both pairs "Grand" masters, so have finished the lessons. South opens 1C (not alerted) West bids 2C (self alerting in Australia, no-one asks) North bids 3C (self alerting), and then says "I should have alerted 1C - could be short" East asks about 3C. South not sure, opines "I think he has clubs". East now guesses that his partner has a Michael's and bids 3S, partner converts to 3NT down lots (perhaps doubled). EW play a two way system. Over natural clubs, and even "better minor" they play 2C as Michaels, but over short clubs (2 ), they play 2C as natural. NS have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to examine it, so she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is natural. Her partner has been relying on the NS explanations to guess that partner has the majors. I am called, at which time North is telling his partner "of course I can't have clubs, I would have doubled 2C if I had them????" (only RJH does this). In any case I say that South's explanation caused damage, without which East would have passed. I adjusted to 3NT by South 1 off. At no time, had either North or South asked about West's 2C bid. I am getting aggravation from both North and South for this ruling. They think East should have believed his partner's bidding rather than their explanation which was in a sequence which hadn't come up before. We do not have an AC, so you are they, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 16 07:32:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:32:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4804A889.6030108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >Take this live case for example : > >1C 1S X p >2NT > >For those who make 2NT 16-17 and play 15-17 NT, there is an inference >that partner's hand is at least mildly unbalanced. This is what I read >in a near-beginner's course about sputnik doubles recently. > >Now, if partner has decided not to open 1NT holding a hand that >justifies such an opening -don't ask me why-, what does your inference >become ? > >Perhaps that's why some don't tell all their inferences and, no, I >don't know the solution. Richard Hills: I know the solution. Explain mutual partnership understandings. Let the opponents have as much "a priori" information that you do. If, for example, your partnership had the "a priori" mutual understanding that it was mandatory to open 15-17 hcp balanced hands with 1NT, then you also had an "a priori" mutual understanding that a 2NT rebid in the above sequence shows at least mildly unbalanced shape. The "a posteriori" -don't ask me why- fact that partner misbid or psyched in this auction is not relevant to your explanation of the 2NT rebid. On the other hand, your partnership might have had a different "a priori" mutual understanding, a la Charles Goren, that one does not open a strong 1NT when holding a worthless doubleton. In that parallel universe your explanation of the 2NT rebid would change, mutatis mutandis. 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 16 08:03:44 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:03:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4804A889.6030108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416160144.03d40258@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 03:32 PM 16/04/2008, you wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner: > >[snip] > > >Take this live case for example : > > > >1C 1S X p > >2NT > > > >For those who make 2NT 16-17 and play 15-17 NT, there is an inference > >that partner's hand is at least mildly unbalanced. This is what I read > >in a near-beginner's course about sputnik doubles recently. > > > >Now, if partner has decided not to open 1NT holding a hand that > >justifies such an opening -don't ask me why-, what does your inference > >become ? > > > >Perhaps that's why some don't tell all their inferences and, no, I > >don't know the solution. > >Richard Hills: > >I know the solution. Explain mutual partnership understandings. Let >the opponents have as much "a priori" information that you do. > >If, for example, your partnership had the "a priori" mutual >understanding that it was mandatory to open 15-17 hcp balanced hands >with 1NT, then you also had an "a priori" mutual understanding that a >2NT rebid in the above sequence shows at least mildly unbalanced shape. > >The "a posteriori" -don't ask me why- fact that partner misbid or >psyched in this auction is not relevant to your explanation of the 2NT >rebid. > >On the other hand, your partnership might have had a different "a >priori" mutual understanding, a la Charles Goren, that one does not >open a strong 1NT when holding a worthless doubleton. In that parallel >universe your explanation of the 2NT rebid would change, mutatis >mutandis. > >What's the problem? I think it would show perhaps singleton Q of hearts, and otherwise balanced (ish) 15-17. Tony (Sydney) From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 16 08:25:59 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:25:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: ton: I am not sure you like this answer: you should have offered West the opportunity to replace his call. The interesting question then is whether his partner has to assume that his call shows Michael's if he does not replace it. Could be another long thread in blml. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove Sent: woensdag 16 april 2008 7:01 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required This seems quite close to our recent discussions: K Q 10 8 Q 10 8 A 9 7 3 9 5 4 J 7 6 5 2 7 5 2 J 6 4 K Q 6 2 10 5 4 A Q J 10 7 K 3 A 8 3 A K 8 3 J 8 8 6 4 2 Teams, NS Vul, Dealer South. Both pairs "Grand" masters, so have finished the lessons. South opens 1C (not alerted) West bids 2C (self alerting in Australia, no-one asks) North bids 3C (self alerting), and then says "I should have alerted 1C - could be short" East asks about 3C. South not sure, opines "I think he has clubs". East now guesses that his partner has a Michael's and bids 3S, partner converts to 3NT down lots (perhaps doubled). EW play a two way system. Over natural clubs, and even "better minor" they play 2C as Michaels, but over short clubs (2 ), they play 2C as natural. NS have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to examine it, so she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is natural. Her partner has been relying on the NS explanations to guess that partner has the majors. I am called, at which time North is telling his partner "of course I can't have clubs, I would have doubled 2C if I had them????" (only RJH does this). In any case I say that South's explanation caused damage, without which East would have passed. I adjusted to 3NT by South 1 off. At no time, had either North or South asked about West's 2C bid. I am getting aggravation from both North and South for this ruling. They think East should have believed his partner's bidding rather than their explanation which was in a sequence which hadn't come up before. We do not have an AC, so you are they, Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 16 08:25:59 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:25:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: ton: I am not sure you like this answer: you should have offered West the opportunity to replace his call. The interesting question then is whether his partner has to assume that his call shows Michael's if he does not replace it. Could be another long thread in blml. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove Sent: woensdag 16 april 2008 7:01 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required This seems quite close to our recent discussions: K Q 10 8 Q 10 8 A 9 7 3 9 5 4 J 7 6 5 2 7 5 2 J 6 4 K Q 6 2 10 5 4 A Q J 10 7 K 3 A 8 3 A K 8 3 J 8 8 6 4 2 Teams, NS Vul, Dealer South. Both pairs "Grand" masters, so have finished the lessons. South opens 1C (not alerted) West bids 2C (self alerting in Australia, no-one asks) North bids 3C (self alerting), and then says "I should have alerted 1C - could be short" East asks about 3C. South not sure, opines "I think he has clubs". East now guesses that his partner has a Michael's and bids 3S, partner converts to 3NT down lots (perhaps doubled). EW play a two way system. Over natural clubs, and even "better minor" they play 2C as Michaels, but over short clubs (2 ), they play 2C as natural. NS have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to examine it, so she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is natural. Her partner has been relying on the NS explanations to guess that partner has the majors. I am called, at which time North is telling his partner "of course I can't have clubs, I would have doubled 2C if I had them????" (only RJH does this). In any case I say that South's explanation caused damage, without which East would have passed. I adjusted to 3NT by South 1 off. At no time, had either North or South asked about West's 2C bid. I am getting aggravation from both North and South for this ruling. They think East should have believed his partner's bidding rather than their explanation which was in a sequence which hadn't come up before. We do not have an AC, so you are they, Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 15 09:49:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:49:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48045E01.1040005@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Raija wrote: > > >>> I should hope not... When there is no agreement, the truthful and >>> lawful answer is "no agreement" Anything else is a lie and I hope >>> the laws will never mandate lying to the opponents no matter how >>> acceptable or well-intentioned it [lying] might be to some >>> individuals. >>> >>> The recommended protocol does not in any way tell us to blurb out >>> flat "No agreement" and leave it at that. There are some cases >>> where this is sufficient, obviously, but more often one is >>> obligated to explain relevant meta-agreements if there are some, >>> and perhaps offer what alternate calls mean so that opponents are >>> then in the same position to guess as the explainer is. >>> > > Richard Hills: > > A corrosive heretic gave a misleading impression of Raija's argument > /Oportet hareres/ esse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080415/15dd9846/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 16 09:13:56 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:13:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080416064817.2A964CF3A26@mailgw2.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: >I am not sure you like this answer: you should have offered West >the opportunity to replace his call. 2007 Law 20F4: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." Richard Hills: According to the facts presented by Tony, yet another infraction committed by North-South was North's failure to _immediately_ summon Tony, as required by the 2007 Law 20F4* (1997 Law 75D1*). *Footnote: There is no justification for intentionally infracting this Law if one's purpose is to consequently improve one's score. Ton Kooijman: >The interesting question then is whether his partner has to >assume that his call shows Michael's if he does not replace it. >Could be another long thread in blml. 2007 Laws 16A1(a) and 16A1(d): "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 ..... (d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." 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 Wed Apr 16 09:37:51 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:37:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <200804160626.m3G6QUh0025580@mail34.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> <200804160626.m3G6QUh0025580@mail34.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416173608.03d40258@mail.optusnet.com.au> t 04:25 PM 16/04/2008, you wrote: >ton: >I am not sure you like this answer: you should have offered West the >opportunity to replace his call. >The interesting question then is whether his partner has to assume that his >call shows Michael's if he does not replace it. Could be another long thread >in blml. > >ton Thanks for this answer. However I was only called after 3NT by West had expired several tricks. NS in fact thought East was having a double shot, Regards, Tony (Sydney) From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 16 10:15:05 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:15:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4805B589.8020605@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Walt Whitman: > > Do I contradict myself? > Very well then, I contradict myself. > I am large, I contain multitudes. > > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> The problem with that view is that the laws ask for a reverse of >> proof. The director shall rule mistaken information in the absence >> of proof of the contrary! > > 2007 Law 21B1(b): > > "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of ***evidence*** to the contrary." > > 2007 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." > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > This assertion that the Lawbook requires a reversal of the onus > of proof - a player is Guilty unless proved Innocent - is based > on the assumption that the word "proof" has an identical meaning > to the word "evidence". I suggest that my esteemed interlocutor > consult a dictionary. > The esteemed interlocutor is well aware that this is one of those english words (like lunch/dinner) that he frequently uses interchangeably when he shouldn't. He wishes to enter a plea of attenuating circumstances, as his mother tongue lacks the distinction between these two words. He realizes quite well that he should have used "evidence" in the sentence quoted above. That being said, Richard does present an interesting dilemma: On who does the burden of proof lie when determining the truthfulness of the sentence "no agreement"? By nature, there cannot be any evidence for such a statement, nor can there be any evidence against it - or can there? I believe that what Richard and I separate here is that Richard wishes to stress that there should at least be some evidence for there being an agreement. Whereas I am looking at this from the point of view from the Director who is called at the table. That only happens when there was a correct "guess". I believe this is the evidence Richard is looking for. So while Richard looks at the world at large, I only look at the cases the Director is called in. I think we may both be right, me in saying that there is misinformation in such cases, Richard in stressing that in the larger field, more evidence is needed. Does that settle our difference here, Richard? > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 16 10:37:00 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:37:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream In-Reply-To: <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> References: <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4805BAAC.90506@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > I've been having a recurring dream of late, and I thought I'd share it. > Nice story, Eric. I'll be commenting in the text, but I thought I'd start with a general comment. Eric throws together two very different statements about bridge: A) "the opponents are entitled to know what your agreements are". B) "you have to tell the opponents what your agreements are". These two look the same, but they are absolutely different! A) is completely true, and there is only one problem with it: we may not know what the agreements are. The TD will rule on that, after the deal has been played, and looking at the player's hand, which will usually give some indication to the player's intent. Barring evidence to the contrary, the TD will rule that the agreement is equal to the player's intent, and if the opponents were not told this, they were misinformed. OTOH, B) is impossible. It is not possible to know what the agreement is, all the time. So a player cannot be expected to always follow B. Not realizing that there is a difference leads to many on blml to spout arguments that are sometimes ridiculous. Now let's go to Eric's prose: > I am a disembodied consciousness floating in the upper corner of a > featureless room. Four people sit at a table playing bridge. One of > them looks very much like me, and wears a nametag reading "Eric". > The other three have nametags that say "West", "Partner" and > "East". A small green imp sits on the floor in the corner to my > right, watching the players intently. I can't quite make out his > name tag, but it seems to be something like "Blimel". > > I am aware that the table is in mid-auction, using spoken bidding. > East and West are out of the auction, and Partner seems to have some > sort of strong minor-suited hand. As my senses sharpen, Partner bids > 4NT, and East turns to Eric and says, "What is that, please?" > > "Well," Eric replies, "it could be asking me for my better minor, or > it could be Blackwood; I don't know which." > This sentence does not satisfy A): the opponents are entitled to know that North intended asking for minors, and this sentence does not do that. Whatever else it does is not important. > As East and West turn towards Eric looking a bit nonplussed, the imp > jumps to his feat screaming (rather quietly; he has very small > lungs). "Not good enough! More! More! You have to tell them more!" > The imp is wrong. If you don't know, you cannot tell. The opponents are entitled to more, but they will not get it, apparently. > At this point, the dream takes one of two turns. > > On the days when my dinner agreed with me... > > "There's no more to tell," says Eric nonchalantly, "It could be > asking me for my better minor, or it could be Blackwood; I don't know > which. Five clubs." > > The players exhale, lean back in their chairs, and look happy. The > imp goes back to his corner, muttering under his breath. East and > West have a little bit of information about Eric's hand to which they > are not technically entitled. Partner, whose actions were in any > case constrained by his obligation to follow through on his original > intent, has been reassured that Eric will actually show up with what > he is required to presume he has. And Eric has shut up the imp, at > least for now. > But the opponents do not have the information they are entitled to. We'll just see if they need redress. > I can't quite make out the rest of the auction, but it is quickly > over. East leads, and Eric tables the dummy. As everyone, including > me, the imp and the ceiling fan knew to expect, he has a club > preference and no aces. > > The dream ends. > It was no nightmare then, or you would have held one ace and club preference, or no aces and diamonds ... Aha: here comes the nightmare: > But on the days when my dinner hasn't entirely agreed with me... > > "There's no more to tell," says Eric nonchalantly, "It could be > asking me for my better minor, or it could be Blackwood; I don't know > which." At which point my disembodied consciousness, in the manner > of dreams, gets sucked into Eric's skull and our minds start to > merge. I look at our cards and see that we have a club preference > and an ace. In the few seconds this has taken, the imp has again > jumped to his feet, sputtering, apoplectic. > > "That's totally ridiculous! You can't just stonewall like that! > Don't you read BLML? Don't you even read what YOU YOURSELF write on > BLML? You have meta-agreements! You have partnership experience! > You read books! You play in clubs! If you don't tell them more than > that, you're a ch... che... chee... That's totally ridiculous!" He > pauses for an instant to regain his breath. > > I hear ourself saying, "But I can't tell you, because that's not what > I'm thinking about, because it doesn't matter, because it's not going > to affect what I bid." > > "Well you may not be thinking about it yet, but you'd better start, > because sooner or later you're going to have to bid something." The > imp sounds like he's talking through gritted teeth, even though he > doesn't actually seem to have any teeth. "You can't make a bid until > you figure out what partner means, and if you can't figure it out > you're going to have to go with the probabilities, and if you can't > even figure out that much you're going to have to flip a coin, but > you're going to have to decide, and you'd better tell them what you > decided, and you'd better bid based on whatever you told them because > if you don't I'm gonna git up a posse and string you up!" As he says > this, his nametag morphs into a Sheriff's silver star, and a noose > materializes in his hand. He starts swinging it slowly back and forth. > > But I'm not thinking about all that stuff, because it doesn't matter, > because it's not going to affect what I bid. > > So what am I thinking about. Let's listen in... > > If I bid 5C when partner wanted aces, we'll probably miss a good > slam. How many matchpoints will that be worth if the slam makes? > How good is it? What's the chance that bad breaks will hold us to 11 > tricks, or 12 if he would have bid a grand and stops in a small, for > a lucky good score? > > If I bid 5D when partner wanted a preference, we'll wind up in the > wrong suit. How likely is that to matter? How "wrong" will it be? > Might we be able to take as many tricks in the inferior fit? Or even > luck out and do better? Will we get any field protection from pairs > getting overboard? > > On which road am I more likely to find some path that doesn't lead to > a zero-matchpoint disaster? > > When I'm done with my thinking, I take a call. > > Now, if I bid 5C, in absolutely no way whatsoever does that mean, or > even vaguely suggest, that I "decided", or "guessed", or "think", > that partner intended 4NT to ask for minors. And if I bid 5D, in > absolutely no way whatsoever does that mean, or even vaguely suggest, > that I "decided", or "guessed", or "think", that partner intended 4NT > as Blackwood. > > Sure, if you put a gun to my head now and forced me to go back and > think about all that stuff I wasn't thinking about earlier, it is a > virtual certainty that I would eventally be able to decide that > partner's 4NT was more likely to have been intended one way or the > other. But the a priori odds that I would come up with the answer > that's "consistent" with the bid I chose are exactly 50-50. > > How do I explain this to the imp and avoid the necktie party? Can > anyone out there help me? > I can. It doesn't matter what you say, or what you bid. Everything you say will be UI to your partner, who will be bound by your bid anyway - as you said. Everything you say will be useful information to your opponents, who are getting things they are not entitled to - like your misunderstanding. Most things you say will be misinformation, except one thing: your correct guess. So there are three things you can do to maximalize your result: A) bid 5C, since you correctly worked out that the expectancy is better than by bidding 5D; B) not tell them you are not certain; since that is not something they are entitled to, but will use if you do tell them that; C) guess one meaning, tell them that, and hope it's correct, and accept the TD's ruling if it's not. There is no need to base your bid on your guess. I never said there should be. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 16 10:40:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:40:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4805BB66.5050908@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric's dream: > >> "Well," Eric replies, "it could be asking me for my better >> minor, or it could be Blackwood; I don't know which." > > Richard's dream: > > "Well," Richard replies, "it could be asking me for my better > minor, or it could be Blackwood; We have no _a priori_ mutual > partnership understanding as to which it is, but now that I > have looked at the cards in my hand, I am 100% certain _a > posteori_." > > Is Richard required to explain which of partner's two possible > intentions is now an _a posteriori_ certainty? > No Richard, you are not. Your opponents are entitled to know your partner was asking for minors. How you find out what you are going to tell them is your problem - but if you tell them anything else, they are misinformed. Let's leave the discussion as to how the TD will determine the real agreement for later. The real agreement cannot be "no agreement", since your partner used a conventional bid with clear intent. > > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 16 10:45:01 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:45:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4805BC8D.8030809@skynet.be> West had correct information and bid accordingly; East was correctly informed and should have assumed partner would not have bid not knowing what it meant; or relied on the TD to turn his score back. East bid wrongly and dug his own grave. But I realize this is harsh and North's non-alert caused the problems, so I might allow the TD at the table to rule the board unplayable. but that's his call, he's at the table and knows the level to which alerts are assumed to be right or correct there. Tony Musgrove wrote: > This seems quite close to our recent discussions: > > K Q 10 8 > Q 10 8 > A 9 7 3 > 9 5 > > 4 J 7 6 5 2 > 7 5 2 J 6 4 > K Q 6 2 10 5 4 > A Q J 10 7 K 3 > > A 8 3 > A K 8 3 > J 8 > 8 6 4 2 > > Teams, NS Vul, Dealer South. Both pairs "Grand" masters, so > have finished the lessons. > > South opens 1C (not alerted) > West bids 2C (self alerting in Australia, no-one asks) > North bids 3C (self alerting), and then says "I should have alerted 1C > - could be short" > East asks about 3C. > > South not sure, opines "I think he has clubs". > > East now guesses that his partner has a Michael's and bids 3S, partner converts > to 3NT down lots (perhaps doubled). > EW play a two way system. Over natural clubs, and even "better minor" they > play 2C as Michaels, but over short clubs (2 ), they play 2C as natural. NS > have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to examine it, > so she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is natural. > Her partner has been relying on the NS explanations to guess that partner has > the majors. > > I am called, at which time North is telling his partner "of course I can't > have clubs, I would have doubled 2C if I had them????" (only RJH does > this). In any case I say that South's explanation caused damage, without > which East > would have passed. I adjusted to 3NT by South 1 off. At no time, had > either North or South asked about West's 2C bid. > > I am getting aggravation from both North and South for this ruling. They > think East should have believed his partner's bidding rather than their > explanation which was in a sequence which hadn't come up before. > > We do not have an AC, so you are they, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 16 11:50:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:50:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited and other random stuff In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416142011.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> <001d01c89be3$d2980a00$0901a8c0@JOHN> <0ae001c89f00$4e641f60$70709951@stefanie> <007e01c89f66$963a68b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <6.1.0.6.2.20080416142011.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4805CBFD.9030107@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > Mad Dog: > > > >> I'm having troubles with the new 27. My mother used to say "make it good >> dearie" and this is how the old Law 27 worked. >> > > I have a different thought about L27 every day, but when John Probst is having > troubles with it as well, I panic. > > Today I had the following to rule on: > > 9 8 3 > K J 3 2 > 8 4 > A K 6 3 > > Q 2 10 5 > A Q 8 6 10 9 7 4 > A Q 9 6 2 K 10 3 > J 9 10 7 5 2 > > A K J 7 6 4 > 5 > J 7 3 > Q 8 4 > > Dealer South, who opened 1S. West follows with 1D. I started > by offereing her 2D without penalty, and then added that it may > be possible under some circumstances to replace the bid with > a double, again without penalty. > Naturally she then wanted to know whether she was really > allowed a double, whereupon we retired away from the table. > If it matters, I did not find out until later that she had missed > the opening bid, and I do not think that anyone at the table had > any idea what the bidder had intended. > > Anyway, I allowed a double, thinking that she is strong enough > to double and then bid diamonds, at a pinch. I am a bit uneasy > about potentially bringing the hearts into the picture. Fortunately > the opponents bid and made 4S, so no further problems. > > What do you think? > I think it's wrong, because before the player rebids diamonds on her second turn, partner will know about that suit without being allowed to. This might be a decisive factor if he wants to know whether to double a 4S bid by n?3, for example. Also, the fact that you allowed the double in lieu of 1D "because the hand is strong enough for that", transmits the information, not contained either in the 1D bid or in the double, that the hand was quite strong. Best regards Alain From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 16 11:54:28 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:54:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <4805BC8D.8030809@skynet.be> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> <4805BC8D.8030809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416194907.03cffec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Herman: At 06:45 PM 16/04/2008, you wrote: >West had correct information and bid accordingly; >East was correctly informed and should have assumed partner would not >have bid not knowing what it meant; or relied on the TD to turn his >score back. East bid wrongly and dug his own grave. > >But I realize this is harsh and North's non-alert caused the problems, >so I might allow the TD at the table to rule the board unplayable. but >that's his call, he's at the table and knows the level to which alerts >are assumed to be right or correct there. Can this be the Herman we know and love? Certainly West did nothing wrong, East was misinformed, should perhaps have believed partner. The board cannot be ruled unplayable since a result was obtained ( I forget what, perhaps -500). Isn't Herman TD going to say "your hand shows you were asking for a club stopper, so that is what your explanation should have been"? Cheers Tony (Sydney) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 16 12:24:14 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:24:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] is it the worst method ? Message-ID: <4805D3CE.2010307@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, I shouldn't have spoken, so much about impossible bids with you all. My punishment came yesterday evening. But it teaches an interesting lesson. 1C 1D* 1NT** 2C*** 2S * T-Walsh = Hearts ** 15-17 ; facultative with either 3 hearts or 4 spades, may not have both. *** asks for number of hearts : 2D = 2 (occasionally 1) ; 2H = 3. Could be a signoff with D+H or a variety of medium or strong hands. Now, as you can see, an impossible bid has sneaked in. Nobody asked me what it meant - first hurdle overcome. Now, what does the bid mean ? I needed to guess and thought that the most probable explanation was a kind of "superacceptance", with 3 strong hearts and 3 strong spades Or perhaps partner had 4S and 3H (which wouldn't have been a 1NT rebid) and tried to recover by using this impossible bid. That wasn't partner's intent, and the result was a bit ridiculous. As there was a drink after the matches, there were enough players to interview. I got a dozen answers, that can be broken down in five groups : a - superacceptance with spade strength b - double fit, say 2443 (possible within our 1C opening), perhaps 1345 and bare honor c - partner has 4 hearts (kind of step response), whether she knew it at the moment she bid 1NT or not d - 4225 (imcompatible with the 1NT rebid, but that could explain the impossible bid) e - I don't give a damn, and just bid out my hand without climbing too high. Partner responsible for the mess. Players who never played with eachother gave the same answer. This had to happen, because there were more interviewees than plausible answers. Isn't the morale of the story obvious ? Take those two players who barely know eachother, but both answered (b). If they had sat facing eachother for any reason (I came in as an emergency substitute, why not one of them ?), and one of them had invented the bid, the other would have understood it, and would have had to answer "never discussed nor agreed upon" to any question asked. Whence, contrary to what some of us said before, it is possible to face a totally unagreed bid (it was even for us, a fairly well trained partnership) AND guess what it means, no matter how or why, in total honesty. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 16 12:47:04 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:47:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <4805BC8D.8030809@skynet.be> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> <4805BC8D.8030809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c89faf$35b55ab0$a1201010$@no> West had correct information and bid accordingly, but East did not "know" that! East "knows" that West at the time he bid 2C had an explanation that the 1C opening bid was natural (not alerted) according to which West has a Michael's. South "explanation" of the 3C bid from North corroborates this knowledge. The fact that East subsequently is correctly informed by North doesn't change this knowledge, but rather adds some uncertainty for East: Did West know that the 1C opening bid should have been alerted, or did West rely upon the missing alert that the 1C bid was natural? Proper procedure had been for North to call TD instead of just stating that he should have alerted 1C (1997 Law 75D1). TD would then have offered West to change his 2C bid, an offer West would have declined. East now has an easy pass to North's 3C bid and North South would have had no better auction than to land in 3NT which goes down one. IMO this eventual ruling by TD was correct. The reactions from North and South that "East should have believed his partner's bidding rather than their explanation" is ridiculous, especially when East had every reason from the explanations by both North (missing alert of 1C) and South ("North has clubs") to believe that West indeed had a Michael's. East is not entitled to know that West is aware of misinformation from opponents and West is not allowed to in any way alert East of such fact. Regards Sven > West had correct information and bid accordingly; > East was correctly informed and should have assumed partner would not > have bid not knowing what it meant; or relied on the TD to turn his > score back. East bid wrongly and dug his own grave. > > But I realize this is harsh and North's non-alert caused the problems, > so I might allow the TD at the table to rule the board unplayable. but > that's his call, he's at the table and knows the level to which alerts > are assumed to be right or correct there. > > Tony Musgrove wrote: > > This seems quite close to our recent discussions: > > > > K Q 10 8 > > Q 10 8 > > A 9 7 3 > > 9 5 > > > > 4 J 7 6 5 2 > > 7 5 2 J 6 4 > > K Q 6 2 10 5 4 > > A Q J 10 7 K 3 > > > > A 8 3 > > A K 8 3 > > J 8 > > 8 6 4 2 > > > > Teams, NS Vul, Dealer South. Both pairs "Grand" masters, so > > have finished the lessons. > > > > South opens 1C (not alerted) > > West bids 2C (self alerting in Australia, no-one asks) > > North bids 3C (self alerting), and then says "I should have alerted 1C > > - could be short" > > East asks about 3C. > > > > South not sure, opines "I think he has clubs". > > > > East now guesses that his partner has a Michael's and bids 3S, partner converts > > to 3NT down lots (perhaps doubled). > > EW play a two way system. Over natural clubs, and even "better minor" they > > play 2C as Michaels, but over short clubs (2 ), they play 2C as natural. NS > > have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to examine it, > > so she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is natural. > > Her partner has been relying on the NS explanations to guess that partner has > > the majors. > > > > I am called, at which time North is telling his partner "of course I can't > > have clubs, I would have doubled 2C if I had them????" (only RJH does > > this). In any case I say that South's explanation caused damage, without > > which East > > would have passed. I adjusted to 3NT by South 1 off. At no time, had > > either North or South asked about West's 2C bid. > > > > I am getting aggravation from both North and South for this ruling. They > > think East should have believed his partner's bidding rather than their > > explanation which was in a sequence which hadn't come up before. > > > > We do not have an AC, so you are they, > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 16 13:06:16 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:06:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: Message-ID: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" ; Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 7:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required > ton: > I am not sure you like this answer: you should have offered West the > opportunity to replace his call. Yep, but the TD already knows West doesn't want to, see below. > The interesting question then is whether his partner has to assume that > his > call shows Michael's if he does not replace it. Could be another long > thread > in blml. ton, I think you've missed the point that West knows that his 2C bid is the correct system call (opps play short club and only West knows this). He'll also know that he could change his call since he's finished Bridge 101. East doesn't know about "short club" and North's explanation serves to confuse. Had East had access to a SC (which he didn't) he too would have seen "short club" and wouldn't have bid 3S. This is one where the bridge lawyers won't adjust ("could have protected himself") but a bridge player would.("I believe your explanation, to do otherwise says I think you're a cheat"). In that sense I play bridge. John > > ton > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > Sent: woensdag 16 april 2008 7:01 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required > > This seems quite close to our recent discussions: > > K Q 10 8 > Q 10 8 > A 9 7 3 > 9 5 > > 4 J 7 6 5 2 > 7 5 2 J 6 4 > K Q 6 2 10 5 4 > A Q J 10 7 K 3 > > A 8 3 > A K 8 3 > J 8 > 8 6 4 2 > > Teams, NS Vul, Dealer South. Both pairs "Grand" masters, so have finished > the lessons. > > South opens 1C (not alerted) > West bids 2C (self alerting in Australia, no-one asks) > North bids 3C (self alerting), and then says "I should have alerted 1C > - could be short" > East asks about 3C. > > South not sure, opines "I think he has clubs". > > East now guesses that his partner has a Michael's and bids 3S, partner > converts to 3NT down lots (perhaps doubled). > EW play a two way system. Over natural clubs, and even "better minor" > they > play 2C as Michaels, but over short clubs (2 ), they play 2C as natural. > NS > have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to examine it, > so > she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is natural. > Her partner has been relying on the NS explanations to guess that partner > has the majors. > > I am called, at which time North is telling his partner "of course I can't > have clubs, I would have doubled 2C if I had them????" (only RJH does > this). In any case I say that South's explanation caused damage, without > which East would have passed. I adjusted to 3NT by South 1 off. At no > time, had either North or South asked about West's 2C bid. > > I am getting aggravation from both North and South for this ruling. They > think East should have believed his partner's bidding rather than their > explanation which was in a sequence which hadn't come up before. > > We do not have an AC, so you are they, > > 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 john at asimere.com Wed Apr 16 13:18:13 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:18:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4805B589.8020605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003001c89fb3$906d3e60$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: snip >> > > The esteemed interlocutor is well aware that this is one of those > english words (like lunch/dinner) that he frequently uses > interchangeably when he shouldn't. He wishes to enter a plea of > attenuating circumstances, as his mother tongue lacks the distinction > between these two words. He realizes quite well that he should have > used "evidence" in the sentence quoted above. > > That being said, Richard does present an interesting dilemma: On who > does the burden of proof lie when determining the truthfulness of the > sentence "no agreement"? By nature, there cannot be any evidence for > such a statement, nor can there be any evidence against it - or can there? > > I believe that what Richard and I separate here is that Richard wishes > to stress that there should at least be some evidence for there being > an agreement. Whereas I am looking at this from the point of view from > the Director who is called at the table. That only happens when there > was a correct "guess". I believe this is the evidence Richard is > looking for. > > So while Richard looks at the world at large, I only look at the cases > the Director is called in. I think we may both be right, me in saying > that there is misinformation in such cases, Richard in stressing that > in the larger field, more evidence is needed. > > Does that settle our difference here, Richard? > One is minded of the spoof work performance charts prevalent in the 70's and much beloved of 'Human Resource creatures" who had to fulfil their job dysfunction by grading excellent down to unsatisfactory on matters totally unrelated to the business Communication: 1.Excellent: Provides clear and compelling argument in favor of his case (US spelling intentional) 2.Good: Can be argumentative 3.Normal: Argues with others 4.Poor: Argues with himself 5.Unsatisfactory: Loses those arguments. Richard. This gets the full 5 I'm afraid. Best, John >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard James Hills > > -- > 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 Wed Apr 16 13:25:52 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:25:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au><4805BC8D.8030809@skynet.be> <000a01c89faf$35b55ab0$a1201010$@no> Message-ID: <004301c89fb4$a15040a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 11:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required > West had correct information and bid accordingly, but East did not "know" > that! > > East "knows" that West at the time he bid 2C had an explanation that the > 1C > opening bid was natural (not alerted) according to which West has a > Michael's. South "explanation" of the 3C bid from North corroborates this > knowledge. The fact that East subsequently is correctly informed by North > doesn't change this knowledge, but rather adds some uncertainty for East: > Did West know that the 1C opening bid should have been alerted, or did > West > rely upon the missing alert that the 1C bid was natural? Tony. You've got Sven and me so far. and we ain't gonna move. How many on your AC? Next case please :) John From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 16 13:25:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:25:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" ; > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 7:25 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required > > >> ton: >> I am not sure you like this answer: you should have offered West the >> opportunity to replace his call. > > Yep, but the TD already knows West doesn't want to, see below. > >> The interesting question then is whether his partner has to assume that >> his >> call shows Michael's if he does not replace it. Could be another long >> thread >> in blml. > > > ton, I think you've missed the point that West knows that his 2C bid is the > correct system call (opps play short club and only West knows this). He'll > also know that he could change his call since he's finished Bridge 101. > East doesn't know about "short club" and North's explanation serves to > confuse. Had East had access to a SC (which he didn't) he too would have > seen "short club" and wouldn't have bid 3S. This is one where the bridge > lawyers won't adjust ("could have protected himself") but a bridge player > would.("I believe your explanation, to do otherwise says I think you're a > cheat"). In that sense I play bridge. John Ton's point is well made though. North should realize that his non-alert was a mistake, and he should have called the director. The TD would not have allowed West to change his call, after asking if West knew that the call was alertable. In that sense, North is at fault. OTOH, East-West ARE guilty of not protecting themselves. When North states he should have alerted, but he did not call the TD, East-West could have. West doesn't do so, since he knows the call was alertable, so he did not get MI. But only he knows that. When East does not call the TD, he should trust West to have called him, or of having nothing to ask for. I realize you don't want to play like this, John, but apparently these people do - so let them, but also let them suffer the consequences. >> ton >> -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Apr 16 13:40:53 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:40:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinfo, help required Message-ID: <4805E5C5.3040400@aol.com> Two perhaps naive questions: (1) Aren't pairs required to have two CCs on the table there? (2) Why didn't the player (East I think) without the opponents CC in front of him simply reach over and take it and see what the opponents' bids meant? Ciao, JE From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Apr 16 14:00:20 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:00:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Direcotor/ player viewpont Message-ID: <4805EA54.1000800@NTLworld.com> IMO, the trend to complex and incomprehensible rules is destroying the game of Bridge. I hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately, most players seem to be apathetic about what seems to be happening to their game. Most directors are also players. but directors seem to have a rosier view of the rules of Bridge than players. If BLML directors are "in denial" of alleged failings in the rules, possible reasons are ... - Equity law gives directors an easier life. Some law-abiding players are gratified by the idea of a game for ladies and gentlemen where a deliberate infraction is unthinkable. Most players silently lick their wounds when they receive inadequate redress, realising that protest will be ineffectual. Habitual law-breakers might protest vociferously if the rules had a significant deterrent element. - Directors fear that if the trend to more sophisticated and subjective rules were reversed, their job would become less interesting; their discretion to decide events would diminish; and their role would become less important. - Directors fear that it may damage their future to be in open conflict with Bridge legal authorities. On BLML, constructive criticism is often ignored or nit-picked (although I, personally. do receive the occasional supportive private email -- Thank you). Just read the vitriolic invective heaped on Herman for his constructive suggestions. He may be repetitive and even mistaken -- but does he really deserve all that gratuitous abuse? - The WBFLC mainly consists of and solicits feedback from directors. Some players may even be reluctant to criticise for fear of antagonising law-enforcers. In any case, if the WBFLC consider players' views, they have first been filtered and censored by NBO administrators. From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 16 14:02:03 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:02:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinfo, help required References: <4805E5C5.3040400@aol.com> Message-ID: <002701c89fb9$af0844e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:40 PM Subject: [blml] Misinfo, help required > Two perhaps naive questions: (1) Aren't pairs required to have two CCs > on the table there? (2) Why didn't the player (East I think) without > the opponents CC in front of him simply reach over and take it and see > what the opponents' bids meant? Ciao, JE > Wahey! the Probst cheat prospers! North could have said "could be 2 cards" and didn't. You guys bang on about "could protect themselves". I bang on about "Why should my opponent want to mislead me?" The Probst cheat wants to play in your games. You give him a huge edge. cheers john. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 16 15:19:34 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:19:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] is it the worst method ? In-Reply-To: <4805D3CE.2010307@ulb.ac.be> References: <4805D3CE.2010307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4805FCE6.9020802@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > I shouldn't have spoken, so much about impossible bids with you all. My > punishment came yesterday evening. But it teaches an interesting lesson. > > 1C 1D* > 1NT** 2C*** > 2S > > * T-Walsh = Hearts > ** 15-17 ; facultative with either 3 hearts or 4 spades, may not have both. > *** asks for number of hearts : 2D = 2 (occasionally 1) ; 2H = 3. Could > be a signoff with D+H or a variety of medium or strong hands. > > Now, as you can see, an impossible bid has sneaked in. > > Nobody asked me what it meant - first hurdle overcome. > Now, what does the bid mean ? I needed to guess and thought that the > most probable explanation was a kind of "superacceptance", with 3 strong > hearts and 3 strong spades > Or perhaps partner had 4S and 3H (which wouldn't have been a 1NT rebid) > and tried to recover by using this impossible bid. > That wasn't partner's intent, and the result was a bit ridiculous. > > As there was a drink after the matches, there were enough players to > interview. I got a dozen answers, that can be broken down in five groups : > a - superacceptance with spade strength > b - double fit, say 2443 (possible within our 1C opening), perhaps 1345 > and bare honor > c - partner has 4 hearts (kind of step response), whether she knew it at > the moment she bid 1NT or not > d - 4225 (imcompatible with the 1NT rebid, but that could explain the > impossible bid) > e - I don't give a damn, and just bid out my hand without climbing too > high. Partner responsible for the mess. > > Players who never played with eachother gave the same answer. This had > to happen, because there were more interviewees than plausible answers. > > Isn't the morale of the story obvious ? Take those two players who > barely know eachother, but both answered (b). If they had sat facing > eachother for any reason (I came in as an emergency substitute, why not > one of them ?), and one of them had invented the bid, the other would > have understood it, and would have had to answer "never discussed nor > agreed upon" to any question asked. > > Whence, contrary to what some of us said before, it is possible to face > a totally unagreed bid (it was even for us, a fairly well trained > partnership) AND guess what it means, no matter how or why, in total > honesty. > I'm not saying that it's impossible - it's just impossible to prove that it was mere good luck! You interviewed several players, two of whom said the same thing. You call this coincidence. But they weren't playing together - were they? If they were, the fact that they gave the same answer might still be coincidence; but it might also be that they were on the same wavelength for some unknown (maybe even to them) reason. Your partner made a silly bid, which you did not understand. Explaining "no agreement" then does not harm anyone. But if you did understand, or even just guessed the meaning - your opponents are damaged. It is up to you to prove that you did not use an agreement. > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 16 19:12:37 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:12:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > Ton's point is well made though. North should realize that his > non-alert was a mistake, and he should have called the director. The > TD would not have allowed West to change his call, after asking if > West knew that the call was alertable. > > In that sense, North is at fault. > > OTOH, East-West ARE guilty of not protecting themselves. When North > states he should have alerted, but he did not call the TD, East-West > could have. West doesn't do so, since he knows the call was alertable, > so he did not get MI. But only he knows that. When East does not call > the TD, he should trust West to have called him, or of having nothing > to ask for. Honestly, this is bull**** Herman of all people knows perfectly well that East and West are not allowed to exchange information in any way other than by legal calls and play. This includes information exchanged by means of questions asked or not asked, and also information arising from summoning or not summoning the Director. East may not base his actions on any "trust West to have called him [TD] or having nothing to ask for". East had substantial reasons from the explanations received to believe that the 1C opening bid was natural and that North had clubs, and that West therefore apparently had the Michael's type of hand according to their agreements on the 2C overbid. When East eventually received information that this might not be so he had no way of ascertaining if West knew all the time that they had received incorrect information. Remember that North cannot change the meaning of West's call by changing his own explanation. But North (and nobody else) was bound by (1997) Law 75D1 to summon TD immediately in the situation described. He cannot ignore this duty and afterwards blame East for not having summoned TD. Anyway TD can, and shall offer West the option of changing his call (if he is summoned to the table in time). The choice of changing his call is up to West's own discretion. The statement that TD would not have allowed West to change his call is unbelievable. TD cannot rule whether or not to allow a change of call without knowing West's card, so if he makes any such ruling he is actually exposing vital information about West's hand to the extent that the board probably becomes unplayable. (A separate matter is that TD after the play ends can investigate if West in his [TD's] opinion had sufficient justification to change the call if he did so.) Rather than being prohibited by TD in changing his call West must in case be given the opportunity to state (without giving any reason) that he does not want to change it. East will then legally know the true nature of West's 2C overbid. This is one of the situations where OS should not be heard on a claim that NOS should have avoided the damage by "protecting themselves". Frankly, had I been on an AC with an appeal like this I would seriously consider keeping the fee for "appeal without merit". Sven. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 16 20:16:47 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:16:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au><4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au> <00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie> From: > <<+=+ I question whether it is right to say that > the infraction has provided any such assistance. > I do not see the mere creation of circumstances > (application of law) in which something can > happen as providing positive help to the player > to reach the contract in which he landed. >> This is a truly outrageous thing to say. 27C2. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the contract could well have been different*, and the non-offending side is damaged. An insufficient bid is never resolved without the director having arrived at the table and applied the relevant law. So an insufficient bid can provide assistance only after the "application of law" subsequent to the infraction itself. Thus if "application of law" cancels adjustments, then one will never be made. The sentence above could not be clearer, in my opinion. The NOS is damaged when 6S or 6NT or whatever is reached, and after it is played the OS receive a better score than they would have been likely to find if the IB and the RC had not been made. Therefore, one adjusts. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 16 22:16:07 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:16:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited and other random stuff In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416142011.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> <001d01c89be3$d2980a00$0901a8c0@JOHN> <0ae001c89f00$4e641f60$70709951@stefanie> <007e01c89f66$963a68b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <6.1.0.6.2.20080416142011.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Apr 16, 2008, at 12:34 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > I have a different thought about L27 every day, but when John > Probst is having > troubles with it as well, I panic. > > Today I had the following to rule on: > > 9 8 3 > K J 3 2 > 8 4 > A K 6 3 > > Q 2 10 5 > A Q 8 6 10 9 7 4 > A Q 9 6 2 K 10 3 > J 9 10 > 7 5 2 > > A K J 7 6 4 > 5 > J 7 3 > Q 8 4 > > Dealer South, who opened 1S. West follows with 1D. I started > by offereing her 2D without penalty, and then added that it may > be possible under some circumstances to replace the bid with > a double, again without penalty. > Naturally she then wanted to know whether she was really > allowed a double, whereupon we retired away from the table. > If it matters, I did not find out until later that she had missed > the opening bid, and I do not think that anyone at the table had > any idea what the bidder had intended. > > Anyway, I allowed a double, thinking that she is strong enough > to double and then bid diamonds, at a pinch. I am a bit uneasy > about potentially bringing the hearts into the picture. Fortunately > the opponents bid and made 4S, so no further problems. > > What do you think? I would not have allowed it, as P-1D (or 1C-1D, if you think that should matter) could be a hand with just diamonds, not strong enough for a double then a free bid, without support, or even tolerance, for hearts or clubs. 1S-X carries, at minimum, the information that the doubler does not have this kind of hand (I know of no version of takeout doubles in which the double doesn't guarantee at least either heart tolerance or extra values), so is not a L27B1(b) option as I read it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 16 22:38:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:38:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Apr 16, 2008, at 1:00 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > This seems quite close to our recent discussions: > > K Q 10 8 > Q 10 8 > A 9 7 3 > 9 5 > > 4 J 7 6 5 2 > 7 5 2 J 6 4 > K Q 6 2 10 5 4 > A Q J 10 7 K 3 > > A 8 3 > A K 8 3 > J 8 > 8 6 4 2 > > Teams, NS Vul, Dealer South. Both pairs "Grand" masters, so > have finished the lessons. > > South opens 1C (not alerted) > West bids 2C (self alerting in Australia, no-one asks) > North bids 3C (self alerting), and then says "I should have > alerted 1C > - could be short" > East asks about 3C. > > South not sure, opines "I think he has clubs". > > East now guesses that his partner has a Michael's and bids 3S, > partner converts > to 3NT down lots (perhaps doubled). > EW play a two way system. Over natural clubs, and even "better > minor" they > play 2C as Michaels, but over short clubs (2 ), they play 2C as > natural. NS > have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to > examine it, > so she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is > natural. > Her partner has been relying on the NS explanations to guess that > partner has > the majors. > > I am called, at which time North is telling his partner "of course > I can't > have clubs, I would have doubled 2C if I had them????" (only RJH does > this). In any case I say that South's explanation caused damage, > without > which East > would have passed. I adjusted to 3NT by South 1 off. At no time, had > either North or South asked about West's 2C bid. > > I am getting aggravation from both North and South for this > ruling. They > think East should have believed his partner's bidding rather than > their > explanation which was in a sequence which hadn't come up before. > > We do not have an AC, so you are they, If this N-S actually keeps me awake to sit on an AC for this (and aren't essentially novices), they get a full-board penalty for a frivolous protest (OK, maybe half a board if I'm feeling generous). The damage derives directly from North's failure to alert 1C. The whole point of giving an alert is warn your opponents that they ought to look at your CC or ask about your call. North didn't, so East didn't, and that caused the damage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 16 23:02:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:02:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream In-Reply-To: <4805BAAC.90506@skynet.be> References: <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> <4805BAAC.90506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9C3C71E0-19A5-41E4-AE40-CA05CD0BC888@starpower.net> On Apr 16, 2008, at 4:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> >> How do I explain this to the imp and avoid the necktie party? Can >> anyone out there help me? > > I can. > > It doesn't matter what you say, or what you bid. > Everything you say will be UI to your partner, who will be bound by > your bid anyway - as you said. > Everything you say will be useful information to your opponents, who > are getting things they are not entitled to - like your > misunderstanding. > Most things you say will be misinformation, except one thing: your > correct guess. > So there are three things you can do to maximalize your result: > A) bid 5C, since you correctly worked out that the expectancy is > better than by bidding 5D; > B) not tell them you are not certain; since that is not something they > are entitled to, but will use if you do tell them that; > C) guess one meaning, tell them that, and hope it's correct, and > accept the TD's ruling if it's not. > > There is no need to base your bid on your guess. I never said there > should be. Hmmm... so, in my dream, I would do (C) by flipping a coin, and then if I get a good score, it will or will not get taken away from me depending on whether the outcome of my coin flip matches partner's intention. OK, but... Doesn't that produce exactly the same expected outcome as my telling them absolutely nothing, then if I get a good score, having the TD flip a coin to decide whether to take it away from me? Would that be a good idea? Isn't the only difference who flips the coin? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 17 00:19:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:19:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4805BB66.5050908@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Your opponents are entitled to know your partner was asking for >minors. How you find out what you are going to tell them is your >problem - but if you tell them anything else, they are >misinformed. Richard Hills: My esteemed interlocutor is obviously a newbie Director, who has yet to comprehend the 2007 Law 40A3: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." In other words, a first-time unilateral action by _one_ partner is not a pre-existing mutual understanding of _both_ partners. Herman De Wael: >The real agreement cannot be "no agreement", since your partner >used a conventional bid with clear intent. Richard Hills: The road to hell is paved with good conventions. My esteemed interlocutor is obviously a newbie logician, since he uses unsubstantiated and irrelevant assertions to bolster his case. Bridge players choose non-systemic calls all the time at the table, in the fond but false belief that they are systemic. One common example is the Chameleon System: (a) in a particular auction, a player looks at their own cards, then doubles, thinking that their double is obviously penalties, but (b) some time later, in the same particular auction, the same player looks at their own cards, then doubles, thinking that their double is obviously takeout. That player made the classic mistake of assuming that their unilateral intention must be a mutual partnership understanding. My esteemed interlocutor has made the same classic mistake. However, if this newbie TD abandons his cherished but false opinions, instead following the advice of Ton Kooijman and Grattan Endicott, this newbie TD might eventually also become a respected and authoritative poster to blml. 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 Thu Apr 17 00:35:34 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:35:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <00f001c8a012$2f66a250$2ec39851@stefanie> EL: > The damage derives directly from North's failure to alert 1C. The > whole point of giving an alert is warn your opponents that they ought > to look at your CC or ask about your call. North didn't, so East > didn't, and that caused the damage. > Eric, I think you (and others) have misunderstood the original post; I did too, at first, until I went back and reread it. West had the correct information before his turn to call. East had the correct information before it was his turn to call. Yes, the OS should have summoned the director, or East could have done. However, there should be no redress when one is given the correct information but chooses not to believe it (well, Londoners will remember a case from a long time ago. But the NAC put it right.) I cannot believe that people are saying that East didn't know whether West had the correct information before West bid. This is none of East's business. East assumes that Est had the correct information. I really think that this is basic, and does not qualify as "protecing oneself", which I think one should virtually never be forced to do. If this EW are inexperienced, I would probably adjust. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 17 01:13:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:13:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Regrets [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4804A889.6030108@ulb.ac.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20080416160144.03d40258@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <01a601c8a017$7734cc60$2ec39851@stefanie> Alain Gottcheiner: (I ithink) >> >For those who make 2NT 16-17 and play 15-17 NT, {snip) Richard Hills: >> >>I know the solution. Explain mutual partnership understandings. Let >>the opponents have as much "a priori" information that you do. >> >>If, for example, your partnership had the "a priori" mutual >>understanding that it was mandatory to open 15-17 hcp balanced hands >>with 1NT, then you also had an "a priori" mutual understanding that a >>2NT rebid in the above sequence shows at least mildly unbalanced shape. Tony Musgrove: > > I think it would show perhaps singleton Q of hearts, and otherwise > balanced (ish) 15-17. If the partnership had virtually the same range for a 1NT opening and for a 1NT rebid, they must have made some distinction between them. Of course it may be some sort of ad-lib after the interference; but anyway disclosure here should not be too much of a challenge. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 17 01:23:37 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:23:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream References: <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> <4805BAAC.90506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <01d901c8a018$e5d4b1c0$2ec39851@stefanie> HdW: > So there are three things you can do to maximalize your result: > A) bid 5C, since you correctly worked out that the expectancy is > better than by bidding 5D; > B) not tell them you are not certain; since that is not something they > are entitled to, but will use if you do tell them that; > C) guess one meaning, tell them that, and hope it's correct, and > accept the TD's ruling if it's not. > How about D) call the director and leave the table, and ask partner to explain what his bid was supposed to mean (if it was clearly artificial, he must think you have an agreement.) Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 17 01:46:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:46:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4805B589.8020605@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [big snip] >"no agreement"? By nature, there cannot be any evidence for >such a statement, [big snip] Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. As the esteemed Eric Landau has noted, there is almost always a starting point of _verbal evidence_ from the pair concerned that they have "no agreement". Therefore, I would expect an esteemed Director - or even a MadDog Director - to continue by asking whether the pair had any relevant analogous understandings. Law 20F1: "...about relevant alternative calls available that were not made..." Richard Hills: If no such relevant analogous information existed, then the only item in the scales of justice is the original verbal evidence, causing Eric, MadDog and myself to rule "no agreement". Herman De Wael: >He wishes to enter a plea of attenuating circumstances, as >his mother tongue lacks the distinction between these two >words. Richard Hills: Fascinating. How will the esteemed translator correctly render the meaning of Law 85A1 if the mother tongue lacks a distinction between "evidence" and "proof"? 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 Apr 17 02:05:44 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:05:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> <00f001c8a012$2f66a250$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <005701c8a01e$c845cda0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required > > If this EW are inexperienced, I would probably adjust. > If the EW were Lamford/Rohan, I'd still adjust. 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 Thu Apr 17 02:59:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:59:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] is it the worst method ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4805FCE6.9020802@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: [big snip] >Your partner made a silly bid, which you did not >understand. Explaining "no agreement" then does not >harm anyone. But if you [...] even just guessed the >meaning - your opponents are damaged. 2007 Law 75C: "...Here there is no _infraction_ of Law, since East- West did receive an accurate description of the North- South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands..." 2007 Law 12B1: "...Damage exists when, because of an _infraction_..." 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 Apr 17 03:40:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:40:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003001c89fb3$906d3e60$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>>Whereas I am looking at this from the point of view from >>>the Director who is called at the table. That only happens >>>when there was a correct "guess". I believe this is the >>>evidence Richard is looking for. John (MadDog) Probst: >>4.Poor: Argues with himself >>5.Unsatisfactory: Loses those arguments. >> >>Richard. This gets the full 5 I'm afraid. Best, John Richard Hills: Okay, I will get a proxy to argue my case for me. Hans van Staveren (3rd April 2008): >Take the analogy with so called patterns of hands. At the >end of any session, especially when computer dealt hands are >used, you will hear a player explaining the similarity of >all the hands, conforming to an alarming pattern. Of course >any set of hands has some pattern. But if you want to >investigate the dealing software for an actual error leading >to this pattern, you have to throw away this set of hands as >evidence. You already used it as a trigger for investigation. >But I digress slightly. You'll have to excuse me as the >author of BigDeal. John (MadDog) Probst: >>Communication: >>1.Excellent: Provides clear and compelling argument in favor >>of his case Richard Hills: Yes, Hans points out that Herman De Wael's approach to collecting evidence is flawed, due to reliance on a single and known-to-be-biased sample which served the dual purpose of triggering the investigation. (Indeed, Herman himself admits the sample to be biased, given that misguesses leading to -800 do not trigger an arrival of TD De Wael at the table.) Similar biased sampling, as opposed to random sampling, led to the notorious Literary Digest poll of 1936, which predicted that Landon would beat Roosevelt in a landslide (although they did get the landslide bit right). So the appropriate action for the Director is to avoid an automatic ruling in favour of Landon, but instead to "throw away" the correct guess as evidence, substituting unbiased evidence from the subsequent investigation. 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 17 03:51:14 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:51:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree. I call this the "My bid means what I think it means" illusion. It will come up in real life communication all of the time -- the next time someone is ambiguous, note how blissfully unaware they are of the ambiguity. So IF the goal is to tell the opps the true correct meaning of a bid given partnership agreements, partner will probably tend to do a better job in the long run than the bidder. This does not resolve the partner's obligations to reveal all agreements, meta-agreements, etc. that bidder might have used. And it is difficult to show that the "my bid means what I think means" illusion has occurred, as you will know if you have ever tried to explain it to partner when you think he/she has done it. Bob On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:19:53 -0400, wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> Your opponents are entitled to know your partner was asking for >> minors. How you find out what you are going to tell them is your >> problem - but if you tell them anything else, they are >> misinformed. > > Richard Hills: > > My esteemed interlocutor is obviously a newbie Director, who has > yet to comprehend the 2007 Law 40A3: > > "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement > provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed > partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." > > In other words, a first-time unilateral action by _one_ partner > is not a pre-existing mutual understanding of _both_ partners. > > Herman De Wael: > >> The real agreement cannot be "no agreement", since your partner >> used a conventional bid with clear intent. > > Richard Hills: > > The road to hell is paved with good conventions. My esteemed > interlocutor is obviously a newbie logician, since he uses > unsubstantiated and irrelevant assertions to bolster his case. > > Bridge players choose non-systemic calls all the time at the > table, in the fond but false belief that they are systemic. > > One common example is the Chameleon System: > > (a) in a particular auction, a player looks at their own cards, > then doubles, thinking that their double is obviously penalties, > > but > > (b) some time later, in the same particular auction, the same > player looks at their own cards, then doubles, thinking that > their double is obviously takeout. > > That player made the classic mistake of assuming that their > unilateral intention must be a mutual partnership understanding. > > My esteemed interlocutor has made the same classic mistake. > However, if this newbie TD abandons his cherished but false > opinions, instead following the advice of Ton Kooijman and > Grattan Endicott, this newbie TD might eventually also become a > respected and authoritative poster to blml. > > > 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 From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 17 08:11:02 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:11:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au><00f001c8a012$2f66a250$2ec39851@stefanie> <005701c8a01e$c845cda0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <026d01c8a051$d0856f60$2ec39851@stefanie> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" (SR:)>> If this EW are inexperienced, I would probably adjust. >> > > If the EW were Lamford/Rohan, I'd still adjust. Why, John? Who was misinformed? Or would you adjust based on the failure to call the director after failing to alert? Stefanie Rohan London, England From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Apr 17 09:38:16 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:38:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: <004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au> <6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au> <4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au> <00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred> <004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: On 16/04/2008, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > From: > > > <<+=+ I question whether it is right to say that > > the infraction has provided any such assistance. > > I do not see the mere creation of circumstances > > (application of law) in which something can > > happen as providing positive help to the player > > to reach the contract in which he landed. >> > > This is a truly outrageous thing to say. > > 27C2. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if > he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the contract > could well have been different*, and the non-offending side is damaged. > > > > An insufficient bid is never resolved without the director having arrived at > the table and applied the relevant law. So an insufficient bid can provide > assistance only after the "application of law" subsequent to the infraction > itself. Thus if "application of law" cancels adjustments, then one will > never be made. > > > > The sentence above could not be clearer, in my opinion. The NOS is damaged > when 6S or 6NT or whatever is reached, and after it is played the OS receive > a better score than they would have been likely to find if the IB and the RC > had not been made. Therefore, one adjusts. I disagree. If you assisted by the IB/RC happened to be able to show a hand you'd be unable to show in normal instances, and thus reach a superior spot, you adjust. Not after you've put yourself in a position where you just have to guess or are unable to show your hand - that's "rub of the green", and should not be adjusted. It's ridiculous IMO that you get the score after bidding to 6NT when that gives you a bad score, but not if 6NT scores well. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > > Stefanie Rohan > > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Apr 17 09:44:29 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:44:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited and other random stuff In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416142011.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au> <47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au> <001d01c89be3$d2980a00$0901a8c0@JOHN> <0ae001c89f00$4e641f60$70709951@stefanie> <007e01c89f66$963a68b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <6.1.0.6.2.20080416142011.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On 16/04/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Mad Dog: > > > >I'm having troubles with the new 27. My mother used to say "make it good > >dearie" and this is how the old Law 27 worked. > > I have a different thought about L27 every day, but when John Probst is having > troubles with it as well, I panic. > > Today I had the following to rule on: > > 9 8 3 > K J 3 2 > 8 4 > A K 6 3 > > Q 2 10 5 > A Q 8 6 10 9 7 4 > A Q 9 6 2 K 10 3 > J 9 10 7 5 2 > > A K J 7 6 4 > 5 > J 7 3 > Q 8 4 > > Dealer South, who opened 1S. West follows with 1D. I started > by offereing her 2D without penalty, and then added that it may > be possible under some circumstances to replace the bid with > a double, again without penalty. > Naturally she then wanted to know whether she was really > allowed a double, whereupon we retired away from the table. > If it matters, I did not find out until later that she had missed > the opening bid, and I do not think that anyone at the table had > any idea what the bidder had intended. > > Anyway, I allowed a double, thinking that she is strong enough > to double and then bid diamonds, at a pinch. I am a bit uneasy > about potentially bringing the hearts into the picture. Fortunately > the opponents bid and made 4S, so no further problems. > > What do you think? Hmm, a t/o double could en theory be made on a diamond void (extreme), while a 1D opening show a minimum number of diamonds (3/4/5) according to agreements and a 1D overcall (4)5+ diamonds. So a lot of hands you include in a double couldn't possibly make a 1D call. Thus I'd never allow double here. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Regards, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 17 09:57:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:57:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > So the appropriate action for the Director is to avoid an > automatic ruling in favour of Landon, but instead to "throw > away" the correct guess as evidence, substituting unbiased > evidence from the subsequent investigation. > Leaving cheats with what? Automatic believing of their "no agreement" saying? OK Richard, you rule that way, I'll rule the other way. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 17 10:00:07 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:00:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48070387.9050108@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> Your opponents are entitled to know your partner was asking for >> minors. How you find out what you are going to tell them is your >> problem - but if you tell them anything else, they are >> misinformed. > > Richard Hills: > > My esteemed interlocutor is obviously a newbie Director, who has > yet to comprehend the 2007 Law 40A3: > > "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement > provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed > partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." > > In other words, a first-time unilateral action by _one_ partner > is not a pre-existing mutual understanding of _both_ partners. > And so a bid which is clearly not natural, yet understood by partner, is not based on understanding? You've got to be kidding. Everytime from now on that I'll play with a new partner, I'll just say "no agreement", while fully understanding everything he means. You want to play that way? I don't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 17 10:03:08 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:03:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream In-Reply-To: <9C3C71E0-19A5-41E4-AE40-CA05CD0BC888@starpower.net> References: <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> <4805BAAC.90506@skynet.be> <9C3C71E0-19A5-41E4-AE40-CA05CD0BC888@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4807043C.40906@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 16, 2008, at 4:37 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> How do I explain this to the imp and avoid the necktie party? Can >>> anyone out there help me? >> I can. >> >> It doesn't matter what you say, or what you bid. >> Everything you say will be UI to your partner, who will be bound by >> your bid anyway - as you said. >> Everything you say will be useful information to your opponents, who >> are getting things they are not entitled to - like your >> misunderstanding. >> Most things you say will be misinformation, except one thing: your >> correct guess. >> So there are three things you can do to maximalize your result: >> A) bid 5C, since you correctly worked out that the expectancy is >> better than by bidding 5D; >> B) not tell them you are not certain; since that is not something they >> are entitled to, but will use if you do tell them that; >> C) guess one meaning, tell them that, and hope it's correct, and >> accept the TD's ruling if it's not. >> >> There is no need to base your bid on your guess. I never said there >> should be. > > Hmmm... so, in my dream, I would do (C) by flipping a coin, and then > if I get a good score, it will or will not get taken away from me > depending on whether the outcome of my coin flip matches partner's > intention. OK, but... Doesn't that produce exactly the same > expected outcome as my telling them absolutely nothing, then if I get > a good score, having the TD flip a coin to decide whether to take it > away from me? Would that be a good idea? Isn't the only difference > who flips the coin? > NO ERIC. It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you explain something to opponents! I don't care how you find out what partner's intention was, or even if you get it right. What I don't want to see happen is that you stubbornly refuse to say anything more than "no agreement", and subsequently appear to have an agreement after all. If you tell them the wrong thing, too bad, you've tried. But if you hide behind "no agreement" then you've been unhelpful. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 17 10:06:00 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:06:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream In-Reply-To: <01d901c8a018$e5d4b1c0$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> <4805BAAC.90506@skynet.be> <01d901c8a018$e5d4b1c0$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <480704E8.90603@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HdW: >> So there are three things you can do to maximalize your result: >> A) bid 5C, since you correctly worked out that the expectancy is >> better than by bidding 5D; >> B) not tell them you are not certain; since that is not something they >> are entitled to, but will use if you do tell them that; >> C) guess one meaning, tell them that, and hope it's correct, and >> accept the TD's ruling if it's not. >> > How about D) call the director and leave the table, and ask partner to > explain what his bid was supposed to mean (if it was clearly artificial, he > must think you have an agreement.) > That last sentence is very important - he thinks you have an agreement! All those who are looking for additional evidence can find it right there. The option that Stefanie takes is a valid one, but it has one disadvantage: although you are telling opponents what they are entitled to, you are also telling them something they are not entitled to: namely that you don't know. And in addition you are giving UI to partner (not that that is very important in most cases). By guessing and accepting a ruling when you guessed incorrectly you avoid these extra informations. > Stefanie Rohan -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 17 10:08:21 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> Message-ID: <48070575.9000502@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > The statement that TD would not have allowed West to > change his call is unbelievable. You'd better believe it - one of the conditions for changing the call is not fulfilled - West must have had wrong information. If he says he read the SC - he no longer has wrong information, so he does not get two bites at the same cherry. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 17 10:12:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:12:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] is it the worst method ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4807066B.1020209@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > > [big snip] > >> Your partner made a silly bid, which you did not >> understand. Explaining "no agreement" then does not >> harm anyone. But if you [...] even just guessed the >> meaning - your opponents are damaged. > > 2007 Law 75C: > > "...Here there is no _infraction_ of Law, since East- > West did receive an accurate description of the North- > South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate > description of the North-South hands..." > In that case, the opponents received a full explanation of an agreement, which the TD decided was correct - so obviously there is no infraction. In the cases we are talking about, the player hides behind "no agreement". Who decides whether this is true? Of course, Richard has already decided that this is true, so Herman must be wrong if he decides it was wrong. Richard is the master of circular reasoning. He is right, so I must be wrong. > 2007 Law 12B1: > > "...Damage exists when, because of an _infraction_..." > > > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 17 09:43:50 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:43:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <00f001c8a012$2f66a250$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> <00f001c8a012$2f66a250$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <000101c8a05e$c71744a0$5545cde0$@no> On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > EL: > > > The damage derives directly from North's failure to alert 1C. The > > whole point of giving an alert is warn your opponents that they ought > > to look at your CC or ask about your call. North didn't, so East > > didn't, and that caused the damage. > > > Eric, I think you (and others) have misunderstood the original post; I did > too, at first, until I went back and reread it. > > West had the correct information before his turn to call. East had the > correct information before it was his turn to call. The problem is that although East had the correct information at his own turn to call he had the incorrect information when he saw/heard West's call and had no legal way to find out whether West's call was based on the same incorrect information or was based on knowledge that (at the time) was unknown to East. And BTW South's explanation of the 3C bid by North seems enigmatic. I shall not believe any fairly experienced partnership that this situation is "undiscussed", it cannot be that exceptional? Did North ever claim that he made a psychic bid? If he did he is even more vulnerable from failing to properly alert 1C. This is one case where I indeed "smell a rat". Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 17 11:22:20 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:22:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] is it the worst method ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480716CC.8030401@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Herman De Wael asserted: > > [big snip] > > >> Your partner made a silly bid, which you did not >> understand. Explaining "no agreement" then does not >> harm anyone. But if you [...] even just guessed the >> meaning - your opponents are damaged. >> > > 2007 Law 75C: > > "...Here there is no _infraction_ of Law, since East- > West did receive an accurate description of the North- > South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate > description of the North-South hands..." > > 2007 Law 12B1: > > "...Damage exists when, because of an _infraction_..." > > Looks like a very clear answer. And may I remember everyone that "barring evidence to the contrary, one shall suppose misinformation", but in my hypothzetical example of two players that never met, there is very strong evidence that "no agreement" is the right explanation, so the abovementioned supposition would be out. Best regards alain From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 17 12:19:26 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:19:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au><00f001c8a012$2f66a250$2ec39851@stefanie><005701c8a01e$c845cda0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <026d01c8a051$d0856f60$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <001701c8a074$837766b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > (SR:)>> If this EW are inexperienced, I would probably adjust. >>> >> >> If the EW were Lamford/Rohan, I'd still adjust. > > Why, John? Who was misinformed? Or would you adjust based on the failure > to > call the director after failing to alert? The original infraction governs. John > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Apr 17 12:46:26 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:46:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be><000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> <48070575.9000502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002c01c8a078$4954e800$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required > Sven Pran wrote: >> The statement that TD would not have allowed West to >> change his call is unbelievable. > > You'd better believe it - one of the conditions for changing the call > is not fulfilled - West must have had wrong information. If he says he > read the SC - he no longer has wrong information, so he does not get > two bites at the same cherry. > Quite so, Herman. I don't see any problem here at all. Shall we just play bridge. We are having an auction and I've read opps SC. RHO makes an alertable call and because I know what's going on I make my systemic call. LHO bids and then says "Oops I should have alerted." In my case (and because I know the Law) I'd just say "fine, thanks". But most players call in the NYPD, and assuming the TD's competent we get it sorted. In my case I'd rather carry on "playing bridge" and I don't need a TD as I've not been damaged. THIS IS ILLEGAL of course. So what? The TD's got plenty of other things to do. Let's suppose our small green imp had been watching, the Td had been called and he'd donned the proverbial purple blazer and arrived. Since he'd have seen everything relevant he'd say "fine, no damage, play on" We see this every day and it goes on all the time. "Oops I should have alerted"; "no problem" and if the TD were called every time we'd need a TD for every 7 tables. Not a single one of my playing peer group would call in the TD. It's actually how bridge players play bridge. Anyway, when my partner gets to call he enquires, is told a lie and screws up. If you're going to scream "could protect himself" then the Probst cheat has found a game where he can prosper. Well done. Pribst himself is not going to play in YOUR game - that's for certain. I invite Kojak, Grattam. ton, Max, Sven, Eric and Harald to play in MY games with Probst. There are others I'd invite too; apologies for not naming you. PS. I'm having interlocutory problems here. Richard can you recommend your counsellor please :) cheers john > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 17 13:11:41 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:11:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <002c01c8a078$4954e800$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be><000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> <48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <002c01c8a078$4954e800$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4807306D.9050807@NTLworld.com> [John Probst] I invite Kojak, Grattam. ton, Max, Sven, Eric and Harald to play in MY games with Probst. There are others I'd invite too; apologies for not naming you. [John Junor] Pass the sick bag, Alice. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 17 14:47:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:47:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <002c01c8a078$4954e800$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be><000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> <48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <002c01c8a078$4954e800$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <480746F9.2070308@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > > Quite so, Herman. I don't see any problem here at all. Shall we just play > bridge. We are having an auction and I've read opps SC. RHO makes an > alertable call and because I know what's going on I make my systemic call. > LHO bids and then says "Oops I should have alerted." In my case (and because > I know the Law) I'd just say "fine, thanks". But most players call in the > NYPD, and assuming the TD's competent we get it sorted. In my case I'd > rather carry on "playing bridge" and I don't need a TD as I've not been > damaged. THIS IS ILLEGAL of course. So what? The TD's got plenty of other > things to do. Let's suppose our small green imp had been watching, the Td > had been called and he'd donned the proverbial purple blazer and arrived. > Since he'd have seen everything relevant he'd say "fine, no damage, play on" > > We see this every day and it goes on all the time. "Oops I should have > alerted"; "no problem" and if the TD were called every time we'd need a TD > for every 7 tables. Indeed. And this is true of many other gestures that officially are irregularities. In Brussels, if a TD had to be summoned every time a declarer says "small spade" or "spade" (an infraction to L46A, to which everyone knows the remedy), rounds would take twice as long. Not to mention dummies fetching drinks (L74C8) and players turning their cards face down too early (who has ever seen a ruling based on L65A ?). Best regards Alain From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Apr 17 15:45:25 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:45:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <48075475.1090604@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 16, 2008, at 1:00 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> This seems quite close to our recent discussions: >> >> K Q 10 8 >> Q 10 8 >> A 9 7 3 >> 9 5 >> >> 4 J 7 6 5 2 >> 7 5 2 J 6 4 >> K Q 6 2 10 5 4 >> A Q J 10 7 K 3 >> >> A 8 3 >> A K 8 3 >> J 8 >> 8 6 4 2 >> >> Teams, NS Vul, Dealer South. Both pairs "Grand" masters, so >> have finished the lessons. >> >> South opens 1C (not alerted) >> West bids 2C (self alerting in Australia, no-one asks) >> North bids 3C (self alerting), and then says "I should have >> alerted 1C >> - could be short" >> East asks about 3C. >> >> South not sure, opines "I think he has clubs". >> >> East now guesses that his partner has a Michael's and bids 3S, >> partner converts >> to 3NT down lots (perhaps doubled). >> EW play a two way system. Over natural clubs, and even "better >> minor" they >> play 2C as Michaels, but over short clubs (2 ), they play 2C as >> natural. NS >> have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to >> examine it, >> so she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is >> natural. >> Her partner has been relying on the NS explanations to guess that >> partner has >> the majors. >> >> I am called, at which time North is telling his partner "of course >> I can't >> have clubs, I would have doubled 2C if I had them????" (only RJH does >> this). In any case I say that South's explanation caused damage, >> without >> which East >> would have passed. I adjusted to 3NT by South 1 off. At no time, had >> either North or South asked about West's 2C bid. >> >> I am getting aggravation from both North and South for this >> ruling. They >> think East should have believed his partner's bidding rather than >> their >> explanation which was in a sequence which hadn't come up before. >> >> We do not have an AC, so you are they, > > If this N-S actually keeps me awake to sit on an AC for this (and > aren't essentially novices), they get a full-board penalty for a > frivolous protest (OK, maybe half a board if I'm feeling generous). > > The damage derives directly from North's failure to alert 1C. The > whole point of giving an alert is warn your opponents that they ought > to look at your CC or ask about your call. North didn't, so East > didn't, and that caused the damage. i think it's not so clear-cut. north was airy with his duties but, fortunately, west looked at the cc and found the information, and east was alerted just in time, before he had to call. maybe the main culprit is south who gave an opinion (about 3C) instead of an agreement which seemed not to exist. east should also have corrected his explanation of the agreement about 2C when he was ultimately informed of the nature of the 1C opening. many points to investigate for the td. jpr > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 17 16:07:13 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:07:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <48075991.4080208@NTLworld.com> [Tony Musgrove] This seems quite close to our recent discussions: Teams, NS Vul, Dealer South. Both pairs "Grand" masters, so have finished the lessons. .................... K Q 10 8 .................... Q 10 8 .................... A 9 7 3 .................... 9 5 4 ........................................ J 7 6 5 2 7 5 2 .................................... J 6 4 K Q 6 2 .................................. 10 5 4 A Q J 10 7 ............................... K 3 .................... A 8 3 .................... A K 8 3 .................... J 8 .................... 8 6 4 2 South opens 1C (not alerted) West bids 2C (self alerting in Australia, no-one asks) North bids 3C (self alerting), and then says "I should have alerted 1C - could be short" East asks about 3C. South not sure, opines "I think he has clubs". East now guesses that his partner has a Michael's and bids 3S, partner converts to 3NT down lots (perhaps doubled). EW play a two way system. Over natural clubs, and even "better minor" they play 2C as Michaels, but over short clubs (2 ), they play 2C as natural. NS have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to examine it, so she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is natural. Her partner has been relying on the NS explanations to guess that partner has the majors. I am called, at which time North is telling his partner "of course I can't have clubs, I would have doubled 2C if I had them????" (only RJH does this). In any case I say that South's explanation caused damage, without which East would have passed. I adjusted to 3NT by South 1 off. At no time, had either North or South asked about West's 2C bid. I am getting aggravation from both North and South for this ruling. They think East should have believed his partner's bidding rather than their explanation which was in a sequence which hadn't come up before. We do not have an AC, so you are they, [nige1] IMO NS thrice fell from grace ... - They should have two identical system cards. - North failed to alert 1C. - South misexplained 3C. Also, when attention is drawn to an infraction, all the players are breaking the law by failing to call the director. If the BLML consensus is that this law is wrong, then I feel that contributors should fight for an immediate change in the law, rather than ignore it as directors and deliberately flout it as players. If the law-makers themselves also agree that it is OK to break this law, then perhaps they should read the laws that they write before submitting them for ratification. Furthermore, according to some daft regulation, East may have contributed to his own downfall by failing to ask to "protect himself". (This insane rule seems to require West to shoot himself and partner in the foot because if it turns out that South's 1C is natural, East may be subject to UI restrictions) Nevertheless ... The first three infractions combined to cause direct damage to EW; so I reckon that Tony should rule for EW. It is hard to judge what might have happened with no infractions; and I've no idea *what* the legal ruling should be; but I guess 60-40 would be equitable. Also Tony might make NS play "simple system" until they get 2 cards and remember some of their agreements. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 17 17:28:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:28:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <48075475.1090604@meteo.fr> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> <48075475.1090604@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <48076CA0.7070308@ulb.ac.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > i think it's not so clear-cut. north was airy with his duties but, > fortunately, west looked at the cc and found the information, and east > was alerted just in time, before he had to call. maybe the main culprit > is south who gave an opinion (about 3C) instead of an agreement which > seemed not to exist. AG : Maybe "maybe" is an understatement. South assumed 2C was artificial, while North assumed it was natural. The right dialog should have been : - What's 3C ? - What's 2C ? - What's 1C ? - Could be 2 cards. - Natural, then. - Asking for a stopper, then. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 17 17:57:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:57:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] is it the worst method ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <480716CC.8030401@ulb.ac.be> References: <480716CC.8030401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48077367.6020003@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Herman De Wael asserted: >> >> [big snip] >> >> >>> Your partner made a silly bid, which you did not >>> understand. Explaining "no agreement" then does not >>> harm anyone. But if you [...] even just guessed the >>> meaning - your opponents are damaged. >>> >> 2007 Law 75C: >> >> "...Here there is no _infraction_ of Law, since East- >> West did receive an accurate description of the North- >> South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate >> description of the North-South hands..." >> >> 2007 Law 12B1: >> >> "...Damage exists when, because of an _infraction_..." >> >> > > Looks like a very clear answer. > > And may I remember everyone that "barring evidence to the contrary, one > shall suppose misinformation", but in my hypothzetical example of two > players that never met, there is very strong evidence that "no > agreement" is the right explanation, so the abovementioned supposition > would be out. > I have often stated that the players from Zambia and Afghanistan do not fall under my blanket statement that "no agreement" is most certainly insufficient. I have also often stated that if "no agreement" means "we have no more agreements than what you may readily expect, after all, we all know one another", then that too is OK. Other than that, I simply don't believe it is true when an artificial call is correctly understood by the partner. > Best regards > > alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 17 18:25:26 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:25:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <48075991.4080208@NTLworld.com> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> <48075991.4080208@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000401c8a0a7$a4d404c0$ee7c0e40$@no> On Behalf Of Guthrie ................ > The first three infractions combined to cause direct damage to EW; so I > reckon that Tony should rule for EW. It is hard to judge what might have > happened with no infractions; and I've no idea *what* the legal ruling > should be; but I guess 60-40 would be equitable. Also Tony might make NS > play "simple system" until they get 2 cards and remember some of their > agreements. Once a result has been (or can be) obtained on a board the 1997 laws (which appears applicable here) do not permit the Director to award any artificial adjusted score on that board. So 60-40 is an illegal ruling. (The 2007 laws permit the director to award an artificial adjusted score in place of a weighted adjusted score if the possible scores to be weighted are numerous or not obvious. This can hardly be the case here). Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 17 18:37:37 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:37:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <48070575.9000502@skynet.be> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> <48070575.9000502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no> I agree if West confirmed that he knew the real agreements on the 1C opening bid at the time he made his 2C bid. Did he? I haven't seen any statement to that effect in the OP? Maybe I overlooked something? But if he did (at the request by opponents or the Director) then that information was also authorized for East, being a consequence of the irregularity committed by North. However the actions taken by East seem to directly contradict any theory that such confirmation was made by West. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 17. april 2008 10:08 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required > > Sven Pran wrote: > > The statement that TD would not have allowed West to > > change his call is unbelievable. > > You'd better believe it - one of the conditions for changing the call > is not fulfilled - West must have had wrong information. If he says he > read the SC - he no longer has wrong information, so he does not get > two bites at the same cherry. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 17 19:04:04 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:04:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> So the appropriate action for the Director is to avoid an >> automatic ruling in favour of Landon, but instead to "throw >> away" the correct guess as evidence, substituting unbiased >> evidence from the subsequent investigation. > > Leaving cheats with what? Automatic believing of their "no agreement" > saying? > OK Richard, you rule that way, I'll rule the other way. Leaving honest players with what? Automatic rejection of their of their "no agreement" saying? I like Richard's way better. I understand perfectly well why those who truly believe that in the world of competitive bridge the cheats outnumber the honest players would see things the opposite way, but I am not among them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 17 19:13:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:13:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream In-Reply-To: <4807043C.40906@skynet.be> References: <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> <4805BAAC.90506@skynet.be> <9C3C71E0-19A5-41E4-AE40-CA05CD0BC888@starpower.net> <4807043C.40906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <69DD1943-47C3-437D-AE9C-261003EC9AF9@starpower.net> On Apr 17, 2008, at 4:03 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Hmmm... so, in my dream, I would do (C) by flipping a coin, and then >> if I get a good score, it will or will not get taken away from me >> depending on whether the outcome of my coin flip matches partner's >> intention. OK, but... Doesn't that produce exactly the same >> expected outcome as my telling them absolutely nothing, then if I get >> a good score, having the TD flip a coin to decide whether to take it >> away from me? Would that be a good idea? Isn't the only difference >> who flips the coin? > > NO ERIC. > > It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you explain something to > opponents! > I don't care how you find out what partner's intention was, or even if > you get it right. > > What I don't want to see happen is that you stubbornly refuse to say > anything more than "no agreement", and subsequently appear to have an > agreement after all. > > If you tell them the wrong thing, too bad, you've tried. But if you > hide behind "no agreement" then you've been unhelpful. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS HERMAN. Doesn't that produce exactly the same expected outcome as my telling them absolutely nothing, then if I get a good score, having the TD flip a coin to decide whether to take it away from me? Would that be a good idea? Isn't the only difference who flips the coin? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu Apr 17 22:00:38 2008 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:00:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] 5hearts/6hearts Message-ID: <4807AC66.3090606@cs.elte.hu> Play with screen. After a long auction North bids 5H, East pass; N pushes the tray; South: 6H, West pass and then both West and South take their bidding cards to the bidding boxes and push the half-empty tray back. East leads something against the 5H, the dummy lays down, and East feels something strange and ask: "whats the contract?" After the anwser TD is called. How to judge now? cheers Laci From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 17 21:26:40 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: Online -- at least when I played but I think everywhere -- the players self-alert and tell opps the intended meaning of their bid. (BIM = the opps learn the Bidder's Intended Meaning). This would work horribly in face-to-face-bridge, where partner would (usually) be hearing the intended meaning. So face to face bridge has developed and refined PUM -- the opps get to hear Partner's explanation of the partnership Understandings and agreements about the Meaning of the bid. (PUM = Partner's Understood Meaning). I like BIM, and I think it's good for bridge. If you want to fight against BIM, I think Herman De Wael is not the problem -- the corrosive influence is players experiencing BIM and liking it. The underlying premise of BIM is that the opps deserve to know the bidder's intended meaning, even if partner does not. The reason for any miscommunication between partners is irrelevant. Put another way, the partnership in a sense has an obligation to agree on the meaning of their bids. If they do not, they are the "offending side". If they can recover, fine. But the opps should not be punished by players not knowing the meaning of all of their bids. So the BIM agenda would be (1) how can we make face-to-face bridge capture these principles, and (2) how can we interpret (or change) the laws to fit this plan? One BIM solution is this -- when you do not know your partner's intended meaning, leave the table and let partner explain it. A second BIM solution is that when you say the meaning of partner's bid and you are wrong, the opps are protected. This is how the laws work for misexplanations. This is not how the laws work for misbids, and that is a long story. The serious problem for BIM is the (potential) legality of "no agreement". Consider this auction 2C(1) X(2) XX(3) 2D 2H ? (1) Strong and artificial -- Standard American (2) Showing clubs (3) Meaning undiscussed. Whether or not you compete with your black two-suiter depends on the meaning of the redouble. If the redouble shows a bust, maybe you want to; if it shows stuff, then competing is not as good of idea. So you ask. The correct answer here was "no agreement". They hadn't agreed. From the perspective of PUM, that answer achieves perfection. From the perspective of BIM, that answer is hell. Okay, hell is an overstatement. But it's not the way I would prefer to play bridge. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 18 00:43:40 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:43:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Dark Knight [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: As Director, you are summoned to the table because there is a factual dispute as to whether a card has been played. Do you rule: (a) The summoning of you to the table is overwhelming evidence that the card has been played, since you never would have been summoned if the card had not been played. Therefore you automatically rule "played card" and move on to the next Director call. Or (b) The summoning of you to the table is merely tautological evidence that the facts are in dispute; it is zero evidence as to which purported set of facts is true. Therefore, you seek actual evidence as to whether the card has been played before ruling. John (MadDog) Probst is a type (b) Director. In order to gain actual evidence, MadDog keeps a Joker in his shirt pocket. MadDog invites all four players to demonstrate with the Joker the angle they believe that the allegedly played card was held. Then he rules according to the unbalance of the Joker and the balance of probabilities. 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 Fri Apr 18 01:27:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:27:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>substituting unbiased evidence from the subsequent >>investigation. Herman De Wael: >Leaving cheats with what? Automatic believing of their "no >agreement" saying? Richard Hills: My esteemed interlocutor should again consult a dictionary. In that case he might be able to realise that his straw man argument of "automatic believing" is inconsistent with my actual words of "substituting unbiased evidence from the subsequent investigation". Herman De Wael: >OK Richard, you rule that way, I'll rule the other way. Richard Hills: So my esteemed interlocutor admits that he commits a Director's error (failing to obey Law 85A1) by an automatic assumption that all players are liars? And in some cases, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? One hopes that my esteemed interlocutor is a millionaire, since real-life legal action from a customer aggrieved at being arbitrarily called a liar would inevitably end with the real-life court awarding a substantial sum to the (now former) customer. 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 Apr 18 03:04:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:04:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48070387.9050108@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >And so a bid which is clearly not natural, yet understood by partner, >is not based on understanding? > >You've got to be kidding. Harald Skj?ran (9th April 2008): >>I, for one, would revoke your TD license in such a case on the spot >>(yeah, I know I can't). Richard Hills: Yes, it is Herman that has got to be kidding. If the facts are disputed between "lucky coincidence" versus "concealed partnership understanding", then only an incompetent TD would immediately rule "CPU" without gathering further facts. Indeed, Alain Gottcheiner posted a real-life case where a complete gathering of evidence meant that the balance of probabilities favoured "lucky coincidence". Herman De Wael: >Everytime from now on that I'll play with a new partner, I'll just >say "no agreement", while fully understanding everything he means. > >You want to play that way? I don't. Richard Hills: If by "fully understanding" Herman means "lucky guess", then there is no infraction. If, however, a player deliberately concealed an implicit partnership understanding, then as a disciplinary committee I would give that player a 12-month holiday from bridge. 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 Fri Apr 18 04:28:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:28:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying Brd: 32 Vul: East-West Dlr: West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 3NT Pass 4C(1) Pass ? (1) No agreement You, East, hold: AQ765 AK7 AK AQ4 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 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 05:14:12 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:14:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant Message-ID: <2b1e598b0804172014s5dc7adbfpb791a82d2fd2c1ea@mail.gmail.com> Would Richard like to mention the understanding about 3NT? Also, is there an understanding about 4C? I thought Richard preferred the word understanding to agreement---in the belief that they are not totally synonymous. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 18 05:26:45 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:26:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] 5hearts/6hearts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4807AC66.3090606@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: Laci: >Play with screen. After a long auction North bids 5H, East pass; N >pushes the tray; South: 6H, West pass and then both West and South take >their bidding cards to the bidding boxes and push the half-empty tray >back. East leads something against the 5H, the dummy lays down, and >East feels something strange and ask: "what's the contract?" After the >answer TD is called. How to judge now? Richard Hills: So we have 14 cards exposed during the auction. Under Law 24B West must pass for the rest of the auction. Under Law 24C North must pass for the rest of the auction. If East chooses to call 6S and East-West then declare that contract, South then has 13 penalty cards. 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 18 05:30:31 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:30:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080418132729.03de09e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 12:28 PM 18/04/2008, you wrote: >ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying > >Brd: 32 >Vul: East-West >Dlr: West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass Pass 3NT Pass >4C(1) Pass ? > >(1) No agreement > >You, East, hold: > >AQ765 >AK7 >AK >AQ4 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? I am bidding 4D. If partner thinks I have a long running diamond suit, I will enjoy playing the 4:2 fit. If partner is asking for a 4 card major I dont have one (5 doesnt count). If partner is asking for aces, I have 0 or 4. All bases covered I think. When partner is asked what my bid means, I am heading for the exit. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >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 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 18 05:41:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:41:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] 5hearts/6hearts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >So we have 14 cards exposed during the auction. Under Law 24B West >must pass for the rest of the auction. Under Law 24C North must pass >for the rest of the auction. If East chooses to call 6S and East-West >then declare that contract, South then has 13 penalty cards. > >What's the problem? The problem is that I committed the ultimate crime for a TD, ruling from memory. North and West need to pass for one round only, with their partner's exposed card(s) UI to them, but AI to the opponents. The penultimate crime for a TD is failing to keep a straight face when explaining to declarer the options for 13 penalty cards. 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 Apr 18 06:37:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:37:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <69DD1943-47C3-437D-AE9C-261003EC9AF9@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >Isn't the only difference who flips the coin? Richard Hills: It seems to me that Eric Landau is trying and failing to educate Herman De Wael in the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum physics, with Herman insisting on viewing reality through the orthodox "Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum physics. Trying to find the location value of an electron is analogous to trying to find the truth value of "undiscussed". The Copenhagen interpretation says that the act of observation causes the previously indeterminate location of an electron to collapse into one and only one location. The Many Worlds interpretation says that the act of observation does not affect the previous indeterminate location of the electron, since in all possible places the electron could be, the electron is, since there are many parallel universes recording different observations. Only four parallel universes are needed to delineate Eric's coin flip example of an undiscussed 4NT with two 50/50 "locations". Universe 1 (25% chance) = Eric guesses that his partner's Chameleon System bid corresponds with both minors, and is correct. Herman rules that Eric's explanation of "undiscussed" is a terminological inexactitude, and adjusts the score. Universe 2 (25% chance) = Eric guesses that his partner's Chameleon System bid corresponds with both minors, and is wrong. Herman is not summoned. Universe 3 (25% chance) = Eric guesses that his partner's Chameleon System bid corresponds with Blackwood, and is correct. Herman rules that Eric's explanation of "undiscussed" is a terminological inexactitude, and adjusts the score. Universe 4 (25% chance) = Eric guesses that his partner's Chameleon System bid corresponds with Blackwood, and is wrong. Herman is not summoned. So here there is overwhelming evidence backing Eric's assertion that his partner's undiscussed 4NT bid required a 50/50 guess, since Eric's guess was in fact correct only 50% of the time. 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 Fri Apr 18 06:56:20 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:56:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <69DD1943-47C3-437D-AE9C-261003EC9AF9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080418145009.03de09e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> >Richard Hills: > >It seems to me that Eric Landau is trying and >failing to educate Herman De Wael in the "Many >Worlds" interpretation of quantum physics, with >Herman insisting on viewing reality through the >orthodox "Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum >physics. > >Trying to find the location value of an electron >is analogous to trying to find the truth value >of "undiscussed". The Copenhagen interpretation >says that the act of observation causes the >previously indeterminate location of an electron >to collapse into one and only one location. The >Many Worlds interpretation says that the act of >observation does not affect the previous >indeterminate location of the electron, since >in all possible places the electron could be, >the electron is, since there are many parallel >universes recording different observations. How is it possible that people are leaving this list when all the knowlege in the universe is available here in small digestible chunks? Wit, humour, and back stabbing ..the whole human condition. While we're at it, could we invite David Stevenson back please? He used to be my guru until the great dummy spit of 1999. That was the first time I had heard of a thin skinned TD. At least he explained the previous L27 to me, and methinks he is needed now. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 09:30:44 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:30:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 18/04/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying > > Brd: 32 > Vul: East-West > Dlr: West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 3NT Pass > 4C(1) Pass ? > > (1) No agreement > > You, East, hold: > > AQ765 > AK7 > AK > AQ4 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? 4S. No other calls would be considered. Whoever I'd be playing with, 4C would either be simple Stayman, puppet Stayman or Baron (asking for 4c suits up the line). My correct response to either would be 4S. Gerber is on my SC only as 1NT-4C. I've never used the convention though, and should probably find a better meaning for the bid. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 18 11:11:09 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:11:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <480865AD.80504@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> So the appropriate action for the Director is to avoid an >>> automatic ruling in favour of Landon, but instead to "throw >>> away" the correct guess as evidence, substituting unbiased >>> evidence from the subsequent investigation. >> Leaving cheats with what? Automatic believing of their "no agreement" >> saying? >> OK Richard, you rule that way, I'll rule the other way. > > Leaving honest players with what? Automatic rejection of their of > their "no agreement" saying? > Yes of course - because honest players don't care if they have a firm agreement or not - they believe that when they are on the same wavelength, their opponents deserve to know which one that is. > I like Richard's way better. I understand perfectly well why those > who truly believe that in the world of competitive bridge the cheats > outnumber the honest players would see things the opposite way, but I > am not among them. > No, the cheats don't need to outnumber the honest players; but we have two methods here: the first one doesn't bother the honest players and doens't help the cheats; while the second one helps the cheats and therefore bothers the honest players, who believe they are being cheated not only by the cheats, but also by some honest players of whom you can no longer tell the difference. I prefer that first method, both as a non-cheating player and as a director. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 18 11:19:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:19:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48086787.20503@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > [snip] > >>> substituting unbiased evidence from the subsequent >>> investigation. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Leaving cheats with what? Automatic believing of their "no >> agreement" saying? > > Richard Hills: > > My esteemed interlocutor should again consult a dictionary. > In that case he might be able to realise that his straw > man argument of "automatic believing" is inconsistent with > my actual words of "substituting unbiased evidence from the > subsequent investigation". > My esteemed colleague should really try and use some logic here. There are three possibilities: either there is evidence for an agreement, or there is evidence for the non-agreement, or there is no evidence at all. When there is evidence for an agreement, of course we rule against the person who says "no agreement". We are not in discussion about that case. Also I will grant that if there is evidence for the non-agreement, that will be accepted. I doubt if that is a very common occurence, the example of the Zambian in Afghanistan (or was it the reverse?) comes to mind. Which leaves us with the case where there is no evidence whatsoever. Now if Richard wants to continue to say that I am wrong in ruling that "no agreement" is not correct in that case, then he may try so. But to continue to say that I need to weigh all the evidence before doing so is, frankly said, not listening to all the caveats I have given already. And "substituting unbiased evidence from the subsequent investigation" is using seven words to actually say nothing. I frankly don't understand it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 18 12:04:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:04:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4808724B.5030007@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> And so a bid which is clearly not natural, yet understood by partner, >> is not based on understanding? >> >> You've got to be kidding. > > Harald Skj?ran (9th April 2008): > >>> I, for one, would revoke your TD license in such a case on the spot >>> (yeah, I know I can't). > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, it is Herman that has got to be kidding. If the facts are > disputed between "lucky coincidence" versus "concealed partnership > understanding", then only an incompetent TD would immediately rule > "CPU" without gathering further facts. But who said I was not gathering facts? The problem with this discussion is that Richard does not realize that there are usually no more "facts". Specifically because all facts would point more and more to there being an understanding. What other facts can there be than "He's from Zambia, I'm from Afghanistan and we met 2 minutes before the start of this session". Anything more and CPU becomes more and more likely. So after we've gathered all the "facts", and we are no further than before, what shall we rule when an apparently artificial call is apparently understood. Both these apparences are facts, more believable than anything the players might say. > Indeed, Alain Gottcheiner > posted a real-life case where a complete gathering of evidence > meant that the balance of probabilities favoured "lucky coincidence". > We disagreed on that one as well. > Herman De Wael: > >> Everytime from now on that I'll play with a new partner, I'll just >> say "no agreement", while fully understanding everything he means. >> >> You want to play that way? I don't. > > Richard Hills: > > If by "fully understanding" Herman means "lucky guess", then there > is no infraction. If, however, a player deliberately concealed an > implicit partnership understanding, then as a disciplinary > committee I would give that player a 12-month holiday from bridge. > > What's the problem? > The problem is that you can't distinguish between the lucky guess and the deliberately concealed CPU. If your only punishment for CPU is going to be a 12-month ban, you'll need strong evidence for that. Meanwhile, many gray PU's will slip under the net of "no agreement". > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 18 12:14:30 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:14:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48087486.4000208@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > >> Isn't the only difference who flips the coin? > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that Eric Landau is trying and > failing to educate Herman De Wael in the "Many > Worlds" interpretation of quantum physics, with > Herman insisting on viewing reality through the > orthodox "Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum > physics. > > Trying to find the location value of an electron > is analogous to trying to find the truth value > of "undiscussed". The Copenhagen interpretation > says that the act of observation causes the > previously indeterminate location of an electron > to collapse into one and only one location. The > Many Worlds interpretation says that the act of > observation does not affect the previous > indeterminate location of the electron, since > in all possible places the electron could be, > the electron is, since there are many parallel > universes recording different observations. > > Only four parallel universes are needed to > delineate Eric's coin flip example of an > undiscussed 4NT with two 50/50 "locations". > > Universe 1 (25% chance) = Eric guesses that his > partner's Chameleon System bid corresponds with > both minors, and is correct. Herman rules that > Eric's explanation of "undiscussed" is a > terminological inexactitude, and adjusts the > score. > > Universe 2 (25% chance) = Eric guesses that his > partner's Chameleon System bid corresponds with > both minors, and is wrong. Herman is not > summoned. > > Universe 3 (25% chance) = Eric guesses that his > partner's Chameleon System bid corresponds with > Blackwood, and is correct. Herman rules that > Eric's explanation of "undiscussed" is a > terminological inexactitude, and adjusts the > score. > > Universe 4 (25% chance) = Eric guesses that his > partner's Chameleon System bid corresponds with > Blackwood, and is wrong. Herman is not > summoned. > > So here there is overwhelming evidence backing > Eric's assertion that his partner's undiscussed > 4NT bid required a 50/50 guess, since Eric's > guess was in fact correct only 50% of the time. > What are you trying to prove? That I'm only called when he guessed correctly? I know that. That I therefore have an overestimate of lucky guesses? I know that as well, and I am not using arguments like "every time I get called they guessed correctly, there must be more than coincidence there". But what you are not doing is proving that it must be a lucky guess that got me called at the table. I don't know, and neither do you, why he got it right - it may well have been a lucky guess. But there is no evidence in favour of this lucky guess, and there is evidence of some level of understanding. So I feel that by the "balance of probabilities" there was partnership understanding. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 18 12:19:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:19:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480875C2.8080708@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying > > Brd: 32 > Vul: East-West > Dlr: West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 3NT Pass > 4C(1) Pass ? > > (1) No agreement > Being of the firm belief that "no agreement" can never be fully complete, I shall assume that both pairs realize that the local standard applies. What is the ACBL standard in this auction - not being ACBL myself, I cannot answer further. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 18 13:07:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:07:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <480880F9.60405@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > The serious problem for BIM is the (potential) legality of "no agreement". > Consider this auction > > 2C(1) X(2) XX(3) 2D > 2H ? > > (1) Strong and artificial -- Standard American > (2) Showing clubs > (3) Meaning undiscussed. > > Whether or not you compete with your black two-suiter depends on the > meaning of the redouble. If the redouble shows a bust, maybe you want to; > if it shows stuff, then competing is not as good of idea. So you ask. > > The correct answer here was "no agreement". They hadn't agreed. From the > perspective of PUM, that answer achieves perfection. From the perspective > of BIM, that answer is hell. > > Okay, hell is an overstatement. But it's not the way I would prefer to > play bridge. > > In this case, at least, I don't think any player would risk redoubling without having an agreement, or thinking he hasn't any. So the presumtion of MI acts at its full strength. It still can be reversed, however ; if their system notes say "system on ofter a double", perhaps XX isn't agreed upon. BTA some meta-agreement might play some role. As for the question : does it have any influence on your decision to compete or not ? , I'd answer in the negative. Whether it's good to compete on a two-suiter is much more dependent on your ODR than on their total strength. And of course XX might well be something else than "strong" or "bust". "Transfer" comes to mind, as does "to play". Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 18 12:09:13 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:09:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] My Disclosure Dream In-Reply-To: <69DD1943-47C3-437D-AE9C-261003EC9AF9@starpower.net> References: <35675A37-BC2F-48E2-805F-3D497F6301C8@starpower.net> <4805BAAC.90506@skynet.be> <9C3C71E0-19A5-41E4-AE40-CA05CD0BC888@starpower.net> <4807043C.40906@skynet.be> <69DD1943-47C3-437D-AE9C-261003EC9AF9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48087349.7030308@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 17, 2008, at 4:03 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Hmmm... so, in my dream, I would do (C) by flipping a coin, and then >>> if I get a good score, it will or will not get taken away from me >>> depending on whether the outcome of my coin flip matches partner's >>> intention. OK, but... Doesn't that produce exactly the same >>> expected outcome as my telling them absolutely nothing, then if I get >>> a good score, having the TD flip a coin to decide whether to take it >>> away from me? Would that be a good idea? Isn't the only difference >>> who flips the coin? >> NO ERIC. >> >> It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you explain something to >> opponents! >> I don't care how you find out what partner's intention was, or even if >> you get it right. >> >> What I don't want to see happen is that you stubbornly refuse to say >> anything more than "no agreement", and subsequently appear to have an >> agreement after all. >> >> If you tell them the wrong thing, too bad, you've tried. But if you >> hide behind "no agreement" then you've been unhelpful. > > ANSWER THE QUESTIONS HERMAN. > > Doesn't that produce exactly the same expected outcome as my telling > them absolutely nothing, then if I get a good score, having the TD > flip a coin to decide whether to take it away from me? Would that be > a good idea? Isn't the only difference who flips the coin? > No Eric, it wouldn't. Because the TD will not flip a coin, you will have. You will have flipped the coin when deciding what to believe, and thus what to bid. If you have flipped correctly, the TD will arrive, and rule against you for concealing the apparent PU. if you flipped wrongly, you will have a bad score, and the TD won't arrive at all. If you truely have a 50/50 guess, then by explaining that guess to your opponents can you avoid a ruling of MI, and you keep your 50/50 chance of a good result. By saying "no agreement" you have a 50% chance of an adverse rulling and thus an almost certain 0/100 result. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 18 13:17:04 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:17:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48088330.2090801@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying > > Brd: 32 > Vul: East-West > Dlr: West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 3NT Pass > 4C(1) Pass ? > > (1) No agreement > > You, East, hold: > > AQ765 > AK7 > AK > AQ4 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > I'd bid 4S. Either there is some meta-agreement lurking that, in case of doubt, you look at the same sequence a level lower, which would most probably make you bid 4S, whether Stayman, Baron or Puppet is used (even Romex). Or there is some meta-agreement that "when not discussed, it is natural", obviously forcing, and in that case logic commands a 4S bid, because you got a club fit, and a very strong hand doesn't cue-bid ; it shows where help is needed. In a way, I'm lucky. Now if they tell me I guessed right and how could that be, I could argue that in fact I guessed the other way but still had to make this bid. I had such a case a year ago : I couldn't remember whether 1H (1S) 3C was a fit-jump or a transfer to diamonds (I play each of those with some partners). But I was lucky : I held a strong hand with spade strength, so I bid 3NT, to play facing diamonds but "serious" facing the raise. In the discussion on blml, even Herman agreed that I was allowed to make the right bid without knowing about the sequence, so I hope he'll agree here too. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 18 13:30:59 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:30:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law-breaking again Message-ID: <48088673.5060804@NTLworld.com> Cheating at Bridge is deliberately and knowingly breaking a Bridge rule with the intention of gaining an illegal advantage. I am lucky not to have encountered this phenomenon. Bizarrely, a BLMLer once wrote that I was paranoid, always suspecting players of cheating. That was a canard. I don't accuse players of cheating, Nevertheless, IMO, some players do break the rules. The laws encourage law-breaking. For example, - The rules are too sophisticated for players to understand. It is hard to comply with rules when legal experts are unsure what they mean. - The rules specify inadequate deterrents so that, increasingly, careless players can't be bothered to learn them or pay heed to them. - The rewards for law-breaking encourage rationalisation. - More and more rules depend on the personal judgement of the director. To understand the likely ruling, you have to get inside the director's mind. Fastidious players may balk at that prospect. - Many rules are unnecessary and unfair. Some rules are so daft that even BLMLers refuse to comply with them as players or enforce them as directors. If directors openly advocate breaking laws, that is a poor example for players. - If you consider a rule to be wrong, there is not much point in fighting for an amendment. The same people who formulated the current rules are the final arbiters on changes to them. Anyway (for no sensible reason) the law-makers insist on to delaying law-changes for a decade, by which time the game of bridge and many of its current players will be lucky to survive. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Apr 18 14:52:54 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:52:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$ 0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00 $@no><48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no> Message-ID: <480899A6.8020102@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : > I agree if West confirmed that he knew the real agreements on the 1C opening > bid at the time he made his 2C bid. > > Did he? I haven't seen any statement to that effect in the OP? Maybe I > overlooked something? in the description of facts, it read: "NS have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to examine it, so she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is natural." > > But if he did (at the request by opponents or the Director) then that > information was also authorized for East, being a consequence of the > irregularity committed by North. However the actions taken by East seem to > directly contradict any theory that such confirmation was made by West. > i am not satisfied with this: if i understand you, it's AI for east whether west knows or doesn't know the meaning of 1C. it follows that west may have 2 bites at the cherry: if she (according to the report, west is a lady) has been dealt a club suit, she looks at the CC and overcalls 2C; if she has been dealt a major 2-suiter, she doesn't investigate and overcalls 2C. in both cases, east is authorized to analyse accurately? jpr > Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sent: 17. april 2008 10:08 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> The statement that TD would not have allowed West to >>> change his call is unbelievable. >> You'd better believe it - one of the conditions for changing the call >> is not fulfilled - West must have had wrong information. If he says he >> read the SC - he no longer has wrong information, so he does not get >> two bites at the same cherry. >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 18 15:30:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:30:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Online -- at least when I played but I think everywhere -- the players > self-alert and tell opps the intended meaning of their bid. (BIM = the > opps learn the Bidder's Intended Meaning). > > This would work horribly in face-to-face-bridge, where partner would > (usually) be hearing the intended meaning. So face to face bridge has > developed and refined PUM -- the opps get to hear Partner's > explanation of > the partnership Understandings and agreements about the Meaning of the > bid. (PUM = Partner's Understood Meaning). The information to which the opponents are legally entitled is neither BIM nor PUM; it is the actual partnership understanding (APU). BIM and PUM are alternative disclosure mechanisms which may be used in an attempt to communicate the APU. Regardless of which is used, if the explanation fails to reflect the APU, that creates an MI infraction. It seems obvious that either member of a partnership is equally likely to forget or become confused about the APU, so either disclosure mechanism will produce about the same amount of MI. So we choose between BIM and PUM based on the likelikhood and difficulty of the problems that may arise from their "side effects". It makes sense that these considerations will be quite different in on-line and F2F bridge, and their respective authorities have made opposite choices. There is a very strong case to be made that the F2F game would be better off using "BIM disclosure" rather than "PUM disclosure" if a suitable mechanism could be found. > I like BIM, and I think it's good for bridge. If you want to fight > against > BIM, I think Herman De Wael is not the problem -- the corrosive > influence > is players experiencing BIM and liking it. Herman has made strong and compelling arguments that have convinced a serious and thoughtful minority of BLMLers of the far more radical notion that the BIM should replace the APU as the information to which the opponents are legally entitled. That would, of course, fundamentally change the way we play and rule the game worldwide today. Nevertheless, it is an interesting and intriguing proposition, and not without considerable merit. I would seem rather obvious that if we were to rewrite TFLB to replace "APU entitlement" with "BIM entitlement", we would want/need to replace PUM disclosure with some (as yet to be determined) form of BIM disclosure. The "corrosive heresy" that Herman stands accused of peddling is that it is legal and proper for an individual player or TD, in serious duplicate bridge competition sanctioned under the current laws, universal practice to the contrary notwithstanding, to act as if BIM entitlement were already the law. It is this which produces the "DWS", a horror-movie scenario of "BIM entitlement meets PUM disclosure". > The underlying premise of BIM is that the opps deserve to know the > bidder's intended meaning, even if partner does not. The reason for > any > miscommunication between partners is irrelevant. Put another way, the > partnership in a sense has an obligation to agree on the meaning of > their > bids. If they do not, they are the "offending side". If they can > recover, > fine. But the opps should not be punished by players not knowing the > meaning of all of their bids. > > So the BIM agenda would be (1) how can we make face-to-face bridge > capture > these principles, and (2) how can we interpret (or change) the laws > to fit > this plan? Easy peasy. Eliminate alerts, require a full review and explanantion (in its current form) at the end of every auction, allow opponents to ask questions at will, but require partner of the bidder to leave the table and the bidder to respond every time. This eliminates the problems caused by partner leaving selectively, which result from the possibility that he might unwittingly offer an incorrect explanation of BIM, and from the UI transmitted by his decision whether or not to leave to leave the table. It is the equivalent of the on-line BIM disclousre procedure. Its obvious drawbacks are the distractive nature of a playing area that resembles a jack-in-the-box convention, and the likelihood that 26 boards in under four hours will become a thing of the past. We will not be able to discuss these issues intelligently unless we maintain a clear distinction between "BIM disclosure" (a relatively modest change to current practice) and "BIM entitement" (a fundamental and radical one). > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 18 15:49:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:49:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5DD83B9A-1D4C-4A1C-B850-C9961F178CDE@starpower.net> On Apr 17, 2008, at 10:28 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying > > Brd: 32 > Vul: East-West > Dlr: West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 3NT Pass > 4C(1) Pass ? > > (1) No agreement > > You, East, hold: > > AQ765 > AK7 > AK > AQ4 > > What call do you make? 4D. Assuming I'm playing, say, 2NT-3C as Stayman and 2NT-4C as Gerber, this could be either. If I bid 4S and pard thinks I have only two aces that will be near-certain disaster. If I bid 4D and pard thinks I have denied the four spades he was looking for, we will probably play at the right level in NT when we belong in spades, and that might well turn out to be just as good or even better, or he might be looking for hearts, and it won't matter. > What other calls do you consider making? 6NT. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 18 16:03:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:03:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <48086787.20503@skynet.be> References: <48086787.20503@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > My esteemed colleague should really try and use some logic here. There > are three possibilities: either there is evidence for an agreement, or > there is evidence for the non-agreement, or there is no evidence at > all. In real-life criminal procedings, the first thing that goes into the evidence record is the accused's words, "Not guilty, Your Honor." It is then up to the prosecution to present contrary evidence, which the defense gets to rebut as well as presenting its own. If, however, the prosecution fails to present any evidence at all, the judge finds that the evidence provided by the original plea, weighed against nothing, is determinative. The case is dismissed and the accused goes free without the defense having to utter another word. Does it make any sense to apply harsher rules of evidence to bridge infractors than we do for real-life accused criminals? > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 18 16:05:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:05:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant In-Reply-To: <480875C2.8080708@skynet.be> References: <480875C2.8080708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <74E0E672-40D0-49A5-92AA-57704532F1E1@starpower.net> On Apr 18, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying >> >> Brd: 32 >> Vul: East-West >> Dlr: West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass Pass 3NT Pass >> 4C(1) Pass ? >> >> (1) No agreement >> > > Being of the firm belief that "no agreement" can never be fully > complete, I shall assume that both pairs realize that the local > standard applies. > What is the ACBL standard in this auction - not being ACBL myself, I > cannot answer further. Either Stayman or Gerber, by partnership agreement. They are roughly equally common. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 18 16:53:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:53:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4808B5CD.2040901@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > The information to which the opponents are legally entitled is > neither BIM nor PUM; it is the actual partnership understanding > (APU). BIM and PUM are alternative disclosure mechanisms which may > be used in an attempt to communicate the APU. Regardless of which is > used, if the explanation fails to reflect the APU, that creates an MI > infraction. > > It seems obvious that either member of a partnership is equally > likely to forget or become confused about the APU, so either > disclosure mechanism will produce about the same amount of MI. AG : while I agree wholeheartedly with the first paragraph, I beg to differ with the second one : it's quite possible that one member of the partnership have perfect memory. When I play with Gilles, I can be 100% certain that his explanation is right. That's why I'll stick with BIM in that partnership, in full certitude that it will be equal to APU. Yes, this is what dWS suggests. Surely it can't be wrong to suggest giving APU. Of course, I've got UI that my former bid perhaps was inaccurate, and I'm compelled to go on bidding within my wrong interpretation, but that's another story. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 18 16:55:24 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:55:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant In-Reply-To: <5DD83B9A-1D4C-4A1C-B850-C9961F178CDE@starpower.net> References: <5DD83B9A-1D4C-4A1C-B850-C9961F178CDE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4808B65C.3000500@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 17, 2008, at 10:28 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > >> ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying >> >> Brd: 32 >> Vul: East-West >> Dlr: West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass Pass 3NT Pass >> 4C(1) Pass ? >> >> (1) No agreement >> >> You, East, hold: >> >> AQ765 >> AK7 >> AK >> AQ4 >> >> What call do you make? >> > > 4D. Assuming I'm playing, say, 2NT-3C as Stayman and 2NT-4C as > Gerber, this could be either. If I bid 4S and pard thinks I have > only two aces that will be near-certain disaster. If I bid 4D and > pard thinks I have denied the four spades he was looking for, we will > probably play at the right level in NT when we belong in spades, and > that might well turn out to be just as good or even better, or he > might be looking for hearts, and it won't matter. > AG : so, if I'm playing 2NT-3C as Stayman or apparented, and 2NT-4C as natural (the most popular way to play it this side of the Atlantic), my idea of bidding 4S in any case is right ? (notice that natural 3NT openings are nearly unknown here) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 18 17:01:50 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:01:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: References: <48086787.20503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4808B7DE.9030307@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 18, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> My esteemed colleague should really try and use some logic here. There >> are three possibilities: either there is evidence for an agreement, or >> there is evidence for the non-agreement, or there is no evidence at >> all. >> > > In real-life criminal procedings, the first thing that goes into the > evidence record is the accused's words, "Not guilty, Your Honor." It > is then up to the prosecution to present contrary evidence, which the > defense gets to rebut as well as presenting its own. If, however, > the prosecution fails to present any evidence at all, the judge finds > that the evidence provided by the original plea, weighed against > nothing, is determinative. The case is dismissed and the accused > goes free without the defense having to utter another word. > > Does it make any sense to apply harsher rules of evidence to bridge > infractors than we do for real-life accused criminals? > AG : IRL there might be cases where the prosecuted has to issue the first item of evidence ; for example, to prove he has paid his debt. Also, a doctor whose patient died will be asked to prove he took necessary steps to avoid this issue. The bridge situation is a bit the same : opponents are victims of a problem that you'll have caused unless you've done what you had to, so it's your job to prove you did. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 18 17:20:22 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:20:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited and other random stuff References: <5u2h6q$9ahdu2@inbound.icp-qv1-irony-in7.iinet.net.au><47FF1569.4050100@ozemail.com.au><001d01c89be3$d2980a00$0901a8c0@JOHN><0ae001c89f00$4e641f60$70709951@stefanie><007e01c89f66$963a68b0$0901a8c0@JOHN><6.1.0.6.2.20080416142011.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <002901c8a16b$f16a3060$9ed2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisited and other random stuff On Apr 16, 2008, at 12:34 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: I have a different thought about L27 every day, > +=+ So do I. So do I. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 18 17:50:30 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:50:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au><4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au><00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred><004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <002a01c8a16b$f2563e10$9ed2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisited > On 16/04/2008, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> From: >> >> > <<+=+ I question whether it is right to say that >> > the infraction has provided any such assistance. >> > I do not see the mere creation of circumstances >> > (application of law) in which something can >> > happen as providing positive help to the player >> > to reach the contract in which he landed. >> >> >> This is a truly outrageous thing to say. >> >> 27C2. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score >> if >> he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the contract >> could well have been different*, and the non-offending side is damaged. >> >> >> >> An insufficient bid is never resolved without the director having arrived >> at >> the table and applied the relevant law. So an insufficient bid can >> provide >> assistance only after the "application of law" subsequent to the >> infraction >> itself. Thus if "application of law" cancels adjustments, then one will >> never be made. >> >> >> >> The sentence above could not be clearer, in my opinion. The NOS is >> damaged >> when 6S or 6NT or whatever is reached, and after it is played the OS >> receive >> a better score than they would have been likely to find if the IB and the >> RC >> had not been made. Therefore, one adjusts. > > I disagree. If you assisted by the IB/RC happened to be able to show a > hand you'd be unable to show in normal instances, and thus reach a > superior spot, you adjust. Not after you've put yourself in a position > where you just have to guess or are unable to show your hand - that's > "rub of the green", and should not be adjusted. It's ridiculous IMO > that you get the score after bidding to 6NT when that gives you a bad > score, but not if 6NT scores well. > +=+ Apparently Stefanie would have me believe that being cut off from a detailed exploration of the hand in a fluent auction unhampered by the constraints of law following an IB, and being thus in the necessity of guessing what to do, the player is 'assisted through the infraction' to gain his result. This calls for much credulity on my part and I am not persuaded. I think she is blinded by her distaste for the law as it is written. More than that, I think she is saying that if, in an unprejudiced auction the player were to explore in detail, find his fit in Spades, and judge successfully to play in NT instead, she would accept the result - but if he lands in NT as the consequence of a blind guess this is not acceptable. If that is true then my critics are right in their allegation that what I have played these seventy years is not 'bridge' and, what is more, a lot of past opponents are owing me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 19:40:07 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:40:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: References: <48086787.20503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0804181040w36d91973s1b142595698df74d@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 18, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > My esteemed colleague should really try and use some logic here. There > > are three possibilities: either there is evidence for an agreement, or > > there is evidence for the non-agreement, or there is no evidence at > > all. > > In real-life criminal procedings, the first thing that goes into the > evidence record is the accused's words, "Not guilty, Your Honor." It > is then up to the prosecution to present contrary evidence, which the > defense gets to rebut as well as presenting its own. If, however, > the prosecution fails to present any evidence at all, the judge finds > that the evidence provided by the original plea, weighed against > nothing, is determinative. The case is dismissed and the accused > goes free without the defense having to utter another word. > > Does it make any sense to apply harsher rules of evidence to bridge > infractors than we do for real-life accused criminals? Let us see how good this analogy is. In criminal law, we "presume innocence." In the case of possible bridge misexplanations, we have this: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Since the presumption is the opposite, the analogy to criminal law is not very good. I offer an analogy more in keeping with the presumption of Mistaken Explanation: When you go to the opera, you need a ticket to get it. If there is no evidence that you bought a ticket, you probably cannot get in. Your saying that you bought the ticket hardly counts as evidence. Now there are some steps that can be taken in the box office if you lost your ticket, but the fact remains there is generally going to have to be some evidence somewhere, beyond just your word. Most people would understand that they are not being called a liar or cheat when denied entry without a ticket, if those are the rules. Suppose you change the opera-entry rules and say that a person's word is good enough---we don't need to see tickets any more. Do you suppose that would lead to some people sneaking in? I think most people are fine with the requirement to show evidence of a ticket, as long as it is applied to everyone. Jerry Fusselman From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Apr 19 00:07:54 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:07:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0804181040w36d91973s1b142595698df74d@mail.gmail.com> References: <48086787.20503@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0804181040w36d91973s1b142595698df74d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48091BBA.5020004@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] In real-life criminal procedings, the first thing that goes into the evidence record is the accused's words, "Not guilty, Your Honor." It is then up to the prosecution to present contrary evidence, which the defense gets to rebut as well as presenting its own. If, however, the prosecution fails to present any evidence at all, the judge finds that the evidence provided by the original plea, weighed against nothing, is determinative. The case is dismissed and the accused goes free without the defense having to utter another word. Does it make any sense to apply harsher rules of evidence to bridge infractors than we do for real-life accused criminals? [Jerry Fusselman] Let us see how good this analogy is. In criminal law, we "presume innocence." In the case of possible bridge misexplanations, we have this: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Since the presumption is the opposite, the analogy to criminal law is not very good. I offer an analogy more in keeping with the presumption of Mistaken Explanation: When you go to the opera, you need a ticket to get it. If there is no evidence that you bought a ticket, you probably cannot get in. Your saying that you bought the ticket hardly counts as evidence. Now there are some steps that can be taken in the box office if you lost your ticket, but the fact remains there is generally going to have to be some evidence somewhere, beyond just your word. Most people would understand that they are not being called a liar or cheat when denied entry without a ticket, if those are the rules. Suppose you change the opera-entry rules and say that a person's word is good enough---we don't need to see tickets any more. Do you suppose that would lead to some people sneaking in? I think most people are fine with the requirement to show evidence of a ticket, as long as it is applied to everyone. [Nigel] Jerry's analogy seems more apt than Eric's. *Civil* law is more relevant than *Criminal* law to bridge legislation. If you rule *for* one pair you rule *against* their opponents. In general, in such a context, "the balance of probability" seems a more appropriate criterion than "beyond reasonable doubt". From geller at nifty.com Sat Apr 19 00:11:46 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:11:46 +0900 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <48091BBA.5020004@NTLworld.com> References: <48091BBA.5020004@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <200804182211.AA13372@geller204.nifty.com> Guthrie writes: >[Nigel] >Jerry's analogy seems more apt than Eric's. > >*Civil* law is more relevant than *Criminal* law to bridge legislation. >If you rule *for* one pair you rule *against* their opponents. In >general, in such a context, "the balance of probability" seems a more >appropriate criterion than "beyond reasonable doubt". Yes, exactly. An ordinary committee hearing is like a civil case. If, OTH, a player or pair is accused of a very serious offense like intentionally passing information using means not authorized by the Laws then procedures akin to a criminal trial (proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.) should apply. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Apr 19 02:29:55 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:29:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <200804182211.AA13372@geller204.nifty.com> References: <48091BBA.5020004@NTLworld.com> <200804182211.AA13372@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000001c8a1b4$7e364450$7aa2ccf0$@com> [NG] *Civil* law is more relevant than *Criminal* law to bridge legislation. [DALB] I am mildly surprised that contributors from France and other European countries where the system of justice is "inquisitorial" rather than "adversarial" have not protested strongly that analogies with the "presumption of innocence" are at best useless and at worst false. I have not followed too closely the various threads on the subject of what should be said at the table when a sequence occurs in which one player is not sure what his partner intends by a call. My own procedure may best be summed up by a dream I had the other night, in which Richard Hills and I were playing the Worst Method in the World and bid 1NT-2C-2H-2S. Asked what that meant, I said: "I have no idea. But if he'd bid 2NT, it would have meant that he wanted to boil this auction in sawdust, salt it in glue, condense it with locusts and tape, still keeping one principal object in view - to preserve its Symmetrical shape. If he'd bid anything else I would have no idea what it meant either, but if he actually had a weak hand with spades, he could..." At that point I woke to the knell of a furious bell, which the Bellman rang close at my ear. But the principle is: disclosure's a very odd concept that won't be expressed in a commonplace way. Tell them all that you know, tell them all that you don't, and if Herman's not there, you're OK. David Burn London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Apr 19 04:53:53 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 03:53:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> <00f001c8a012$2f66a250$2ec39851@stefanie> <000101c8a05e$c71744a0$5545cde0$@no> Message-ID: <052e01c8a1c8$9a958340$2ec39851@stefanie> SP: > The problem is that although East had the correct information at his own > turn to call he had the incorrect information when he saw/heard West's > call > and had no legal way to find out whether West's call was based on the same > incorrect information or was based on knowledge that (at the time) was > unknown to East. SR: I guess I have to accept that I have long held a misconception. I have always thought that it is not East's business what information West had; that one assumed that partner had the correct information and proceeded on that basis. Then the partnership may be damaged if one or both of the NOs were misinformed. Here each has received the correct information before his turn to call, so I had thought theat there was no possible damage. I did not realise that one was entitled not only to an explanation of the opponents' agreements, but also to what information partner had about them. This makes me uncomfortable, but I realise that I must accept it. This principle does present some problems when screens are in use. SP: > And BTW South's explanation of the 3C bid by North seems enigmatic. I > shall > not believe any fairly experienced partnership that this situation is > "undiscussed", it cannot be that exceptional? Did North ever claim that he > made a psychic bid? If he did he is even more vulnerable from failing to > properly alert 1C. SR: This is another matter altogether. This explanation, IMO, may well be grounds for adjustment. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Apr 19 05:03:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:03:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$ 0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00 $@no><48070575.9000502@skynet.be><000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no> <480899A6.8020102@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <055101c8a1c9$fe0d1db0$2ec39851@stefanie> From: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" i am not satisfied with this: if i understand you, it's AI for east whether west knows or doesn't know the meaning of 1C. SR: This seems to be the case, and I am as surprised as you are. JPR: it follows that west may have 2 bites at the cherry: if she (according to the report, west is a lady) has been dealt a club suit, she looks at the CC and overcalls 2C; if she has been dealt a major 2-suiter, she doesn't investigate and overcalls 2C. in both cases, east is authorized to analyse accurately? SR: I think that this would be too dangerous a game for West to play. If a short club is normally alerted, West should not ordinarily have any misinformation to take advantage of. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Apr 19 05:14:23 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:14:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no><48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no> Message-ID: <055301c8a1cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie> SP: >I agree if West confirmed that he knew the real agreements on the 1C >opening > bid at the time he made his 2C bid. How would West actually do this? "1 Club" wait wait wait... (to LHO) "Did you mean to alert that?" Ok, maybe just "what is 1C?", but I thought that Kaplan questions were thought generally to be improper. > > Did he? I haven't seen any statement to that effect in the OP? Maybe I > overlooked something? > > But if he did (at the request by opponents or the Director) then that > information was also authorized for East, being a consequence of the > irregularity committed by North. However the actions taken by East seem to > directly contradict any theory that such confirmation was made by West. > Well, West bid 2C holding a club suit. Asking about the unalerted 1C bid when he obviously knew what it was would have been inappropriate. My regular partner and I play different defenses to weak and strong NTs. This being the case, we KNOW that partner will find out what their range was before proceeding with the auction, even if they didn't announce, which they are now required to do. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Apr 19 05:26:29 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:26:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au><4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au><00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred><004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie> <002a01c8a16b$f2563e10$9ed2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <056101c8a1cd$282e4df0$2ec39851@stefanie> Grattan Endicott > +=+ Apparently Stefanie would have me believe that being > cut off from a detailed exploration of the hand in a fluent > auction unhampered by the constraints of law following an IB, > and being thus in the necessity of guessing what to do, the > player is 'assisted through the infraction' to gain his result. This > calls for much credulity on my part and I am not persuaded. > I think she is blinded by her distaste for the law as it is > written. More than that, I think she is saying that if, in an > unprejudiced auction the player were to explore in detail, find > his fit in Spades, and judge successfully to play in NT instead, > she would accept the result - but if he lands in NT as the > consequence of a blind guess this is not acceptable. If that > is true then my critics are right in their allegation that what I > have played these seventy years is not 'bridge' and, what is > more, a lot of past opponents are owing me. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ No, Grattan, you misunderstand. I am talking about this specific case, where a player has tried to bid 1C (presumably as an opening bid), and has been allowed a penalty-free correction to 3NT, which categorically denies a 4-card spade suit. I think that allowing anti-systemic calls with no penalty is just going to far in the desire to protect the OS. I do not mind a guess at the final contract, which is, I think, what you are referring to. Stefanie Rohan London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 19 05:49:59 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:49:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> Message-ID: Hi Eric. Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I will try to address your issue of practicality. As you note, it is not practical for the bidder to always explain the meaning of his bids in face to face bridge, with partner always leaving the table ("the distractive nature of a playing area that resembles a jack-in-the-box convention....."). What if the "rule" was this? If you know (are reasonably certain about) the meaning of your partner's bid, you tell the opps if they ask. If you are uncertain about the meaning of partner's bid, you leave the table and let partner explain. This doesn't happen very often, right? Today our partnership was formed a few minutes after game time and I didn't need to jump up once. (Of lesser importance, you mention the UI transmitted by the decision whether or not to leave to leave the table. This UI seems to be extremely minor compared to the UI of an incorrect explanation, or even the UI of a correct explanation, or even the UI of "no agreement".) Bob On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:30:34 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Online -- at least when I played but I think everywhere -- the players >> self-alert and tell opps the intended meaning of their bid. (BIM = the >> opps learn the Bidder's Intended Meaning). >> >> This would work horribly in face-to-face-bridge, where partner would >> (usually) be hearing the intended meaning. So face to face bridge has >> developed and refined PUM -- the opps get to hear Partner's >> explanation of >> the partnership Understandings and agreements about the Meaning of the >> bid. (PUM = Partner's Understood Meaning). > > The information to which the opponents are legally entitled is > neither BIM nor PUM; it is the actual partnership understanding > (APU). BIM and PUM are alternative disclosure mechanisms which may > be used in an attempt to communicate the APU. Regardless of which is > used, if the explanation fails to reflect the APU, that creates an MI > infraction. > > It seems obvious that either member of a partnership is equally > likely to forget or become confused about the APU, so either > disclosure mechanism will produce about the same amount of MI. So we > choose between BIM and PUM based on the likelikhood and difficulty of > the problems that may arise from their "side effects". It makes > sense that these considerations will be quite different in on-line > and F2F bridge, and their respective authorities have made opposite > choices. There is a very strong case to be made that the F2F game > would be better off using "BIM disclosure" rather than "PUM > disclosure" if a suitable mechanism could be found. > >> I like BIM, and I think it's good for bridge. If you want to fight >> against >> BIM, I think Herman De Wael is not the problem -- the corrosive >> influence >> is players experiencing BIM and liking it. > > Herman has made strong and compelling arguments that have convinced a > serious and thoughtful minority of BLMLers of the far more radical > notion that the BIM should replace the APU as the information to > which the opponents are legally entitled. That would, of course, > fundamentally change the way we play and rule the game worldwide > today. Nevertheless, it is an interesting and intriguing > proposition, and not without considerable merit. > > I would seem rather obvious that if we were to rewrite TFLB to > replace "APU entitlement" with "BIM entitlement", we would want/need > to replace PUM disclosure with some (as yet to be determined) form of > BIM disclosure. > > The "corrosive heresy" that Herman stands accused of peddling is that > it is legal and proper for an individual player or TD, in serious > duplicate bridge competition sanctioned under the current laws, > universal practice to the contrary notwithstanding, to act as if BIM > entitlement were already the law. It is this which produces the > "DWS", a horror-movie scenario of "BIM entitlement meets PUM > disclosure". > >> The underlying premise of BIM is that the opps deserve to know the >> bidder's intended meaning, even if partner does not. The reason for >> any >> miscommunication between partners is irrelevant. Put another way, the >> partnership in a sense has an obligation to agree on the meaning of >> their >> bids. If they do not, they are the "offending side". If they can >> recover, >> fine. But the opps should not be punished by players not knowing the >> meaning of all of their bids. >> >> So the BIM agenda would be (1) how can we make face-to-face bridge >> capture >> these principles, and (2) how can we interpret (or change) the laws >> to fit >> this plan? > > Easy peasy. Eliminate alerts, require a full review and explanantion > (in its current form) at the end of every auction, allow opponents to > ask questions at will, but require partner of the bidder to leave the > table and the bidder to respond every time. This eliminates the > problems caused by partner leaving selectively, which result from the > possibility that he might unwittingly offer an incorrect explanation > of BIM, and from the UI transmitted by his decision whether or not to > leave to leave the table. It is the equivalent of the on-line BIM > disclousre procedure. Its obvious drawbacks are the distractive > nature of a playing area that resembles a jack-in-the-box convention, > and the likelihood that 26 boards in under four hours will become a > thing of the past. > > We will not be able to discuss these issues intelligently unless we > maintain a clear distinction between "BIM disclosure" (a relatively > modest change to current practice) and "BIM entitement" (a > fundamental and radical one). > >> > > 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 svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 19 10:15:10 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:15:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <480899A6.8020102@meteo.fr> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$ 0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00 $@no><48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no> <480899A6.8020102@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000001c8a1f5$7ca581a0$75f084e0$@no> OP didn't actually state that West looked at the CC, only that the CC was in a position where West "could have" looked at it. And do _you_ always look at opponents' CC to verify that an unalerted call is indeed natural? I should accept West's statement (after the fact) to the effect that she had no invitation to look at the CC for a plain, unalerted 1C opening bid. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort > Sent: 18. april 2008 14:53 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required > > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > I agree if West confirmed that he knew the real agreements on the 1C opening > > bid at the time he made his 2C bid. > > > > Did he? I haven't seen any statement to that effect in the OP? Maybe I > > overlooked something? > > in the description of facts, it read: > "NS have only 1 system card, located where West has been able to examine > it, so she knows that 1C should have been alerted, and her club bid is > natural." > > > > But if he did (at the request by opponents or the Director) then that > > information was also authorized for East, being a consequence of the > > irregularity committed by North. However the actions taken by East seem to > > directly contradict any theory that such confirmation was made by West. > > > i am not satisfied with this: if i understand you, it's AI for east > whether west knows or doesn't know the meaning of 1C. it follows that > west may have 2 bites at the cherry: if she (according to the report, > west is a lady) has been dealt a club suit, she looks at the CC and > overcalls 2C; if she has been dealt a major 2-suiter, she doesn't > investigate and overcalls 2C. in both cases, east is authorized to > analyse accurately? > > jpr > > > Sven > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> Sent: 17. april 2008 10:08 > >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required > >> > >> Sven Pran wrote: > >>> The statement that TD would not have allowed West to > >>> change his call is unbelievable. > >> You'd better believe it - one of the conditions for changing the call > >> is not fulfilled - West must have had wrong information. If he says he > >> read the SC - he no longer has wrong information, so he does not get > >> two bites at the same cherry. > >> > >> -- > >> Herman DE WAEL > >> Antwerpen Belgium > >> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 19 12:33:05 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:33:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4809CA61.8050502@skynet.be> Eric misrepresents my position: Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> This would work horribly in face-to-face-bridge, where partner would >> (usually) be hearing the intended meaning. So face to face bridge has >> developed and refined PUM -- the opps get to hear Partner's >> explanation of >> the partnership Understandings and agreements about the Meaning of the >> bid. (PUM = Partner's Understood Meaning). > > The information to which the opponents are legally entitled is > neither BIM nor PUM; it is the actual partnership understanding > (APU). Eric is correct there. But! > BIM and PUM are alternative disclosure mechanisms which may > be used in an attempt to communicate the APU. Regardless of which is > used, if the explanation fails to reflect the APU, that creates an MI > infraction. > Indeed. > It seems obvious that either member of a partnership is equally > likely to forget or become confused about the APU, so either > disclosure mechanism will produce about the same amount of MI. So we > choose between BIM and PUM based on the likelikhood and difficulty of > the problems that may arise from their "side effects". It makes > sense that these considerations will be quite different in on-line > and F2F bridge, and their respective authorities have made opposite > choices. There is a very strong case to be made that the F2F game > would be better off using "BIM disclosure" rather than "PUM > disclosure" if a suitable mechanism could be found. > >> I like BIM, and I think it's good for bridge. If you want to fight >> against >> BIM, I think Herman De Wael is not the problem -- the corrosive >> influence >> is players experiencing BIM and liking it. > > Herman has made strong and compelling arguments that have convinced a > serious and thoughtful minority of BLMLers of the far more radical > notion that the BIM should replace the APU as the information to > which the opponents are legally entitled. That would, of course, > fundamentally change the way we play and rule the game worldwide > today. Nevertheless, it is an interesting and intriguing > proposition, and not without considerable merit. > Eric is wrong here. I do not believe that the opponents are entitled to the BIM. I believe that they are entitled to the APU, nothing more than that. HOWEVER, when it becomes impossible to decide upon the true nature of the APU, the BIM should be what the TD will decide the APU is. I propose no changes to the procedure that the players can try and prove misbid. What this whole thread is about is something close to this, but not completely. I believe that the reply "no agreement", when this means less than what the BIM would entail, is also MI. The players are allowed to try and prove that "no agreement" is true, but I suspect they shall almost always fail in that attempt. The TD should then rule that the BIM is the APU. > I would seem rather obvious that if we were to rewrite TFLB to > replace "APU entitlement" with "BIM entitlement", we would want/need > to replace PUM disclosure with some (as yet to be determined) form of > BIM disclosure. > And of course that will create even more problems. How shall you treat real misbids in that system? > The "corrosive heresy" that Herman stands accused of peddling is that > it is legal and proper for an individual player or TD, in serious > duplicate bridge competition sanctioned under the current laws, > universal practice to the contrary notwithstanding, to act as if BIM > entitlement were already the law. It is this which produces the > "DWS", a horror-movie scenario of "BIM entitlement meets PUM > disclosure". > And yet again this joining of this very sensible position with the DWS in an attempt to discredit. There is no BIM entitlement, I have never stated so in DWS threads - the explanation that I believe the partner should give (indeed BIM in stead of APU) is misinformation - I have never stated otherwise. These two threads are so terribly different that I shall write a five-page essay to anyone who still treats them the same. >> The underlying premise of BIM is that the opps deserve to know the >> bidder's intended meaning, even if partner does not. The reason for >> any >> miscommunication between partners is irrelevant. Put another way, the >> partnership in a sense has an obligation to agree on the meaning of >> their >> bids. If they do not, they are the "offending side". If they can >> recover, >> fine. But the opps should not be punished by players not knowing the >> meaning of all of their bids. >> >> So the BIM agenda would be (1) how can we make face-to-face bridge >> capture >> these principles, and (2) how can we interpret (or change) the laws >> to fit >> this plan? > > Easy peasy. Eliminate alerts, require a full review and explanantion > (in its current form) at the end of every auction, allow opponents to > ask questions at will, but require partner of the bidder to leave the > table and the bidder to respond every time. This eliminates the > problems caused by partner leaving selectively, which result from the > possibility that he might unwittingly offer an incorrect explanation > of BIM, and from the UI transmitted by his decision whether or not to > leave to leave the table. It is the equivalent of the on-line BIM > disclousre procedure. Its obvious drawbacks are the distractive > nature of a playing area that resembles a jack-in-the-box convention, > and the likelihood that 26 boards in under four hours will become a > thing of the past. > > We will not be able to discuss these issues intelligently unless we > maintain a clear distinction between "BIM disclosure" (a relatively > modest change to current practice) and "BIM entitement" (a > fundamental and radical one). > Considering every mistake Eric has made higher up - these conclusions are logically also false. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 19 12:35:22 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:35:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: References: <48086787.20503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4809CAEA.9080000@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 18, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> My esteemed colleague should really try and use some logic here. There >> are three possibilities: either there is evidence for an agreement, or >> there is evidence for the non-agreement, or there is no evidence at >> all. > > In real-life criminal procedings, the first thing that goes into the > evidence record is the accused's words, "Not guilty, Your Honor." It > is then up to the prosecution to present contrary evidence, which the > defense gets to rebut as well as presenting its own. Stop it. The MI versus MB issue in bridge laws has exactly the opposite burden of proof. All analogies with common law systems are therefore invalid. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 19 12:39:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:39:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant In-Reply-To: <74E0E672-40D0-49A5-92AA-57704532F1E1@starpower.net> References: <480875C2.8080708@skynet.be> <74E0E672-40D0-49A5-92AA-57704532F1E1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4809CBF6.6070906@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 18, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying >>> >>> Brd: 32 >>> Vul: East-West >>> Dlr: West >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> Pass Pass 3NT Pass >>> 4C(1) Pass ? >>> >>> (1) No agreement >>> >> Being of the firm belief that "no agreement" can never be fully >> complete, I shall assume that both pairs realize that the local >> standard applies. >> What is the ACBL standard in this auction - not being ACBL myself, I >> cannot answer further. > > Either Stayman or Gerber, by partnership agreement. They are roughly > equally common. > I am happy now to not have stuck my neck out and presume what I thought it was (run-off to one of the minors over a gambling 3NT). So, since presumably a 5-card is mentioned both in Stayman and Gerber, we bid 4Sp. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Apr 19 14:01:29 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:01:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant In-Reply-To: <4809CBF6.6070906@skynet.be> References: <480875C2.8080708@skynet.be> <74E0E672-40D0-49A5-92AA-57704532F1E1@starpower.net> <4809CBF6.6070906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c8a215$1aaa7210$4fff5630$@com> [RH] The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 3NT Pass 4C(1) Pass ? (1) No agreement [HdW] I am happy now to not have stuck my neck out and presume what I thought it was (run-off to one of the minors over a gambling 3NT). So, since presumably a 5-card is mentioned both in Stayman and Gerber, we bid 4Sp. [DALB] No, Herman. Gerber is a convention that asks for aces; one does not mention a five-card spade suit in reply to 4C unless one has two aces, just as one does not mention a five-card spade suit in response to Blackwood unless one has three aces. Did we have some agreement about the meaning of an opening bid of 3NT? David Burn London, England From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Sat Apr 19 17:37:46 2008 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (Koen) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:37:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> Can I agree with my partner?: We will never make an IB, but if it would happen be accident then 1 over 1 bid promises the same as what I meant initially. e.g: 1S-(p)-1D .... corrected to 1S means what I initially meant with 1D (partner doesn't know what. It can be 1D opening, or I thought partner opened 1C, Or I thought RHO opened 1S, or I simply wanted to bid 2D...) - Is it everywhere/nowhere allowed (I play in Belgium) - If it is allowed then further bidding continues without penalty our restrictions under the new law? Thanks, Koen From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 19 19:14:29 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:14:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <055301c8a1cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no><48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no> <055301c8a1cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <000801c8a240$d6f3aec0$84db0c40$@no> On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan ................ > Well, West bid 2C holding a club suit. Asking about the unalerted 1C bid > when he obviously knew what it was would have been inappropriate. And East knew that West knew that the 1C bid should have been alerted? Don't you see that a very important question here is what East knew about West's base for her bid? sven From john at asimere.com Sat Apr 19 20:00:24 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:00:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005c01c8a247$3e0fa6d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:28 AM Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying > > Brd: 32 > Vul: East-West > Dlr: West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 3NT Pass > 4C(1) Pass ? > > (1) No agreement > > You, East, hold: > > AQ765 > AK7 > AK > AQ4 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > I s'pose I'd better find out whether it was the man or the woman who opened 3NT :) John > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Graduates and Developmental Training Section > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 9067 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities > other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at > www.immi.gov.au > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Apr 19 22:12:27 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:12:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no><48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no><055301c8a1cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie> <000801c8a240$d6f3aec0$84db0c40$@no> Message-ID: <072001c8a259$b06865c0$2ec39851@stefanie> SR: >> Well, West bid 2C holding a club suit. Asking about the unalerted 1C bid >> when he obviously knew what it was would have been inappropriate. SP: > And East knew that West knew that the 1C bid should have been alerted? I do not think that this is a question that should ever be asked. SR: > Don't you see that a very important question here is what East knew about > West's base for her bid? > It had never occurred to me before that West's knowledge of the opponents' system was AI to East. This type of situation happens time and time again, and normally a player who receives information on the system assumes that partner had the same information. If East is entitled to West's understanding, I do not know how play with screens can ever proceed. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Apr 19 23:07:45 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:07:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <074501c8a261$6a0d8ee0$2ec39851@stefanie> Koen wrote: > > Can I agree with my partner?: > We will never make an IB, but if it would happen be accident then 1 over > 1 bid promises the same as what I meant initially. > e.g: 1S-(p)-1D .... corrected to 1S means what I initially meant with 1D > (partner doesn't know what. It can be 1D opening, or I thought partner > opened 1C, Or I thought RHO opened 1S, or I simply wanted to bid 2D...) > - Is it everywhere/nowhere allowed (I play in Belgium) > - If it is allowed then further bidding continues without penalty our > restrictions under the new law? I have been wondering about this myself. Since one is allowed to vary one's agreements following an irregularity, it seems fairly likely that an agreement like this is legal. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Apr 20 02:24:44 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:24:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080420101929.03b37ce8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 01:37 AM 20/04/2008, you wrote: >Can I agree with my partner?: >We will never make an IB, but if it would happen be accident then 1 over >1 bid promises the same as what I meant initially. >e.g: 1S-(p)-1D .... corrected to 1S means what I initially meant with 1D >(partner doesn't know what. It can be 1D opening, or I thought partner >opened 1C, Or I thought RHO opened 1S, or I simply wanted to bid 2D...) >- Is it everywhere/nowhere allowed (I play in Belgium) >- If it is allowed then further bidding continues without penalty our >restrictions under the new law? >Thanks, >Koen I don't think you mean a change to 1S, which is still insufficient. I think you might mean, can a change to 2D be pre arrranged as either of two meanings (which partner will have to work out at the table). That is the situation at present and permitted without penalty provided 2D and 1D are not conventional. I hope that that part of the new law is unchanged. What if you pre-arrange that a change to 2D is a simple response to an opening bid, while 3D means "I meant to open 1D and didn't see the previous bidding". Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Apr 20 02:28:29 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:28:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <072001c8a259$b06865c0$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> <48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no> <055301c8a1cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie> <000801c8a240$d6f3aec0$84db0c40$@no> <072001c8a259$b06865c0$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080420102640.03b3b280@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 06:12 AM 20/04/2008, you wrote: >SR: > > >> Well, West bid 2C holding a club suit. Asking about the unalerted 1C bid > >> when he obviously knew what it was would have been inappropriate. > >SP: > > > And East knew that West knew that the 1C bid should have been alerted? > >I do not think that this is a question that should ever be asked. > >SR: > > > Don't you see that a very important question here is what East knew about > > West's base for her bid? > > >It had never occurred to me before that West's knowledge of the opponents' >system was AI to East. This type of situation happens time and time again, >and normally a player who receives information on the system assumes that >partner had the same information. > >If East is entitled to West's understanding, I do not know how play with >screens can ever proceed. East is somewhat in the dark, but is waiting for his turn to bid so that he can clear the situation up for himself. Had he been asked about his partner's 2C bid (it is self-alerting) he would no doubt reply "It is natural over a natural club, but Michaels over a short club. Regards, Tony (Sydney) >Stefanie Rohan >London, England > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Apr 20 02:33:11 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:33:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005c01c8a247$3e0fa6d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <005c01c8a247$3e0fa6d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080420103032.03abba40@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 04:00 AM 20/04/2008, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:28 AM >Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying > > > > Brd: 32 > > Vul: East-West > > Dlr: West > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Pass Pass 3NT Pass > > 4C(1) Pass ? > > > > (1) No agreement > > > > You, East, hold: > > > > AQ765 > > AK7 > > AK > > AQ4 > > > > What call do you make? > > What other calls do you consider making? > > >I s'pose I'd better find out whether it was the man or the woman who opened >3NT :) John > > I am still going with 4D, even though I know that 4C is the last making contract. I will get a chance to bid my spades when partner bids 5C. (Herman's Gerber convention) Cheers Tony (Sydney) From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 20 02:34:43 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:34:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <072001c8a259$b06865c0$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no><48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no><055301c8a1cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie> <000801c8a240$d6f3aec0$84db0c40$@no> <072001c8a259$b06865c0$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <001101c8a27e$543fde70$fcbf9b50$@no> On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan Don't you see that East's understanding of West's call depends on the understanding East "knows" that West had when West made his bid? > If East is entitled to West's understanding, I do not know how play with > screens can ever proceed. Think of it for a moment and you will see that screens actually make the situation easier for the Director. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 20 02:36:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:36:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au><4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au><00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred><004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie><002a01c8a16b$f2563e10$9ed2403e@Mildred> <056101c8a1cd$282e4df0$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <000101c8a27e$c1a4a130$c6ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisited > Grattan Endicott > >> +=+ Apparently Stefanie would have me believe that being >> cut off from a detailed exploration of the hand in a fluent >> auction unhampered by the constraints of law following an IB, >> and being thus in the necessity of guessing what to do, the >> player is 'assisted through the infraction' to gain his result. This >> calls for much credulity on my part and I am not persuaded. >> I think she is blinded by her distaste for the law as it is >> written. More than that, I think she is saying that if, in an >> unprejudiced auction the player were to explore in detail, find >> his fit in Spades, and judge successfully to play in NT instead, >> she would accept the result - but if he lands in NT as the >> consequence of a blind guess this is not acceptable. If that >> is true then my critics are right in their allegation that what I >> have played these seventy years is not 'bridge' and, what is >> more, a lot of past opponents are owing me. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > No, Grattan, you misunderstand. I am talking about this specific > case, where a player has tried to bid 1C (presumably as an > opening bid), and has been allowed a penalty-free correction to > 3NT, which categorically denies a 4-card spade suit. I think that > allowing anti-systemic calls with no penalty is just going too far in > the desire to protect the OS. I do not mind a guess at the final > contract, which is, I think, what you are referring to. > +=+ Is partner unaware of the false description of the hand? If so does not the principle apply which is set down in Law 40A3? ~ G ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Apr 20 05:26:56 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:26:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> Message-ID: Summary: I will guess on the meaning of "actual partnership agreement" and argue that the bidder's actual partnership agreement can be different from the partner's actual partnership agreement, especially when they are miscommunicating. On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:30:34 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > The information to which the opponents are legally entitled is > neither BIM nor PUM; it is the actual partnership understanding > (APU). BIM and PUM are alternative disclosure mechanisms which may > be used in an attempt to communicate the APU. Regardless of which is > used, if the explanation fails to reflect the APU, that creates an MI > infraction. I am not sure what you mean by "understanding". Presumably this is more than our full literal agreement. For example, if we agree to play Cappelletti, surely I have to tell the opps the meaning of partner's bids. Or, if my partner and I have not agreed on the meaning of a 2D opening, and then my partner opens 2D, can I just say "undiscussed"? I can know that it is almost certainly a weak two diamonds or Flannery, because both are common here. Are my opps entitled to that knowledge? I am thinking that when my partner and I agree on Cappelletti, negative doubles, support doubles, 4-suited Jacoby transfer, that our partnership understandings go far beyond our literal agreement. For example, I will assume that with just the agreement "4-suited Jacoby transfer", the sequence 1NT - 2C - 2H - 2NT denies a four-card major by responder. The problem is, the partners will (unfortunately for them) have different understandings. So, it does not seem right that when I open 1NT, there is a 2H overcall, and my partner doubles, that I alert and say "We have agreed to play negative doubles but we have not talked about when they are on or off." In fact, my understanding is that they are off in that situation. However, once my partner's understanding was that they were on. Partners will also differ on their meta-understandings. Suppose my partner opens 2D and we have not discussed the meaning of this bid. Because 2D is commonly Flannery in my area, my actual partnership understanding is that a 2D opening is ambiguous -- 65% for a weak two (common, default understanding tends to be natural rather than conventional) and 35% for Flannery (for undiscussed conventions, the default is conventions common to the partner's skill level). However, my partner's actual partnership understanding is probably different, especially since he decided to open 2D. Or to return to the Cappelletti example, when my partner agrees to play Cappelletti, he has a good understanding of the meaning of the 2C bid. That's his understanding. When I agree to play Cappelletti, I am trying to save time and hoping it doesn't come up, because I have trouble remembering the meaning of the bids. Or, suppose my partner and I agree to play a convention, but we have both completely forgotten about it. Are our opponents entitled to our literal agreement? I think so, though it can only mislead them. I like the idea that our "actual partnership understanding" is that it does not include the forgotten convention. But then of course the two players have a different understanding when one remembers a convention and the other does not. So, unless I am missing something, it seems that you cannot talk about the "actual partnership understanding". Instead, you have to talk about the bidder's partnership understanding and the partner's partnership understanding. Or, put another way, the laws have a fect that they assume the two partners have the same "actual partnership understanding". When they are the same, no problem. When they are different, I think the game of bridge would be more enjoyable if the opps were entitled to the bidder's actual partnership agreement. As for laws, I suspect they will favor bidder's actual partnership understanding. Bob From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Apr 20 06:35:03 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:35:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no><48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no><055301c8a1cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie> <000801c8a240$d6f3aec0$84db0c40$@no><072001c8a259$b06865c0$2ec39851@stefanie> <001101c8a27e$543fde70$fcbf9b50$@no> Message-ID: <07c201c8a29f$e7499c80$2ec39851@stefanie> SP: > > Don't you see that East's understanding of West's call depends on the > understanding East "knows" that West had when West made his bid? > SR: >> If East is entitled to West's understanding, I do not know how play with >> screens can ever proceed. SP: > Think of it for a moment and you will see that screens actually make the > situation easier for the Director. Of course. With screens East does not know what information about the 2C bid West had received. Which is exactly the situation here. This is why I do not see a problem with North's late alert. Stefanie Rohan London, England. From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Sun Apr 20 06:54:08 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:54:08 +1200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080418132729.03de09e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <26D2B28003824BFE9F5DAE566DF065ED@BridgeNZL3> My p says she would bid 6S on that, and I would bid 6NT Maybe we are a little more aggressive than the 4D bidder :) But these seem logical options given that we haven't discussed and P may think I am gambling. Martin Oyston Director BridgeNZ (2004) Limited -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove Sent: Friday, 18 April 2008 3:31 p.m. To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] At 12:28 PM 18/04/2008, you wrote: >ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying > >Brd: 32 >Vul: East-West >Dlr: West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass Pass 3NT Pass >4C(1) Pass ? > >(1) No agreement > >You, East, hold: > >AQ765 >AK7 >AK >AQ4 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? I am bidding 4D. If partner thinks I have a long running diamond suit, I will enjoy playing the 4:2 fit. If partner is asking for a 4 card major I dont have one (5 doesnt count). If partner is asking for aces, I have 0 or 4. All bases covered I think. When partner is asked what my bid means, I am heading for the exit. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >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 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Apr 20 11:07:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:07:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <07c201c8a29f$e7499c80$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no><48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no><055301c8a1cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie> <000801c8a240$d6f3aec0$84db0c40$@no><072001c8a259$b06865c0$2ec39851@stefanie> <001101c8a27e$543fde70$fcbf9b50$@no> <07c201c8a29f$e7499c80$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <000001c8a2c6$02f27e90$08d77bb0$@no> East is in the dark whether West has shown a club suit or a Michael's, and he has no legal way to find out at his time to call. The fact that East at this time has more correct (but also still the incorrect explanation of the 3C bid) does not clear up the situation. When East bid 3S that is probably because he guessed West to have a Michael's hand rather than clubs, and this guess could very well be a natural consequence of the various explanations he has received. So TD should adjust the result on the board to a likely result if East instead passes (or doubles) the 3C bid. Whatever South then calls North/South cannot expect any better result than down one, for instance in 3NT, which was the actual ruling as far as I can remember OP. Ironically, with screens in use East receives all his information from North so he would not have had any indication that West could have been given incorrect information. Instead, once North alerts the 1C opening bid East would have known that West had clubs. Furthermore, as East would never see South's incorrect information on the 3C bid there shouldn't have been any problem to rectify at all. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > Sent: 20. april 2008 06:35 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation, help required > > SP: > > > > Don't you see that East's understanding of West's call depends on the > > understanding East "knows" that West had when West made his bid? > > > SR: > > >> If East is entitled to West's understanding, I do not know how play with > >> screens can ever proceed. > > SP: > > > Think of it for a moment and you will see that screens actually make the > > situation easier for the Director. > > Of course. With screens East does not know what information about the 2C bid > West had received. Which is exactly the situation here. This is why I do not > see a problem with North's late alert. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 20 12:27:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:27:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> Message-ID: <480B1A76.9000307@skynet.be> All these cases are easily solved however. When you decide to bid on after your partner's bid, and you appear to be on the same track, that will mean you have followed similar logic. Sometimes even "When undiscussed, he will surely not make a call which can be very badly misunderstood. If he has the hand for that meaning, he can bid it differently." If you both think the same thing, is that good fortune or an implicit meta-agreement. What is wrong with ruling that if you both have the same idea of what it means, that there is an agreement? What is wrong with telling your opponents what you believe it means? Robert Frick wrote: > Summary: I will guess on the meaning of "actual partnership agreement" and > argue that the bidder's actual partnership agreement can be different from > the partner's actual partnership agreement, especially when they are > miscommunicating. > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:30:34 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >> The information to which the opponents are legally entitled is >> neither BIM nor PUM; it is the actual partnership understanding >> (APU). BIM and PUM are alternative disclosure mechanisms which may >> be used in an attempt to communicate the APU. Regardless of which is >> used, if the explanation fails to reflect the APU, that creates an MI >> infraction. > > I am not sure what you mean by "understanding". Presumably this is more > than our full literal agreement. For example, if we agree to play > Cappelletti, surely I have to tell the opps the meaning of partner's bids. > > Or, if my partner and I have not agreed on the meaning of a 2D opening, > and then my partner opens 2D, can I just say "undiscussed"? I can know > that it is almost certainly a weak two diamonds or Flannery, because both > are common here. Are my opps entitled to that knowledge? > > I am thinking that when my partner and I agree on Cappelletti, negative > doubles, support doubles, 4-suited Jacoby transfer, that our partnership > understandings go far beyond our literal agreement. For example, I will > assume that with just the agreement "4-suited Jacoby transfer", the > sequence 1NT - 2C - 2H - 2NT denies a four-card major by responder. > > The problem is, the partners will (unfortunately for them) have different > understandings. > > So, it does not seem right that when I open 1NT, there is a 2H overcall, > and my partner doubles, that I alert and say "We have agreed to play > negative doubles but we have not talked about when they are on or off." In > fact, my understanding is that they are off in that situation. However, > once my partner's understanding was that they were on. > > Partners will also differ on their meta-understandings. Suppose my partner > opens 2D and we have not discussed the meaning of this bid. Because 2D is > commonly Flannery in my area, my actual partnership understanding is that > a 2D opening is ambiguous -- 65% for a weak two (common, default > understanding tends to be natural rather than conventional) and 35% for > Flannery (for undiscussed conventions, the default is conventions common > to the partner's skill level). > > However, my partner's actual partnership understanding is probably > different, especially since he decided to open 2D. > > Or to return to the Cappelletti example, when my partner agrees to play > Cappelletti, he has a good understanding of the meaning of the 2C bid. > That's his understanding. When I agree to play Cappelletti, I am trying to > save time and hoping it doesn't come up, because I have trouble > remembering the meaning of the bids. > > Or, suppose my partner and I agree to play a convention, but we have both > completely forgotten about it. Are our opponents entitled to our literal > agreement? I think so, though it can only mislead them. I like the idea > that our "actual partnership understanding" is that it does not include > the forgotten convention. > > But then of course the two players have a different understanding when one > remembers a convention and the other does not. > > So, unless I am missing something, it seems that you cannot talk about the > "actual partnership understanding". Instead, you have to talk about the > bidder's partnership understanding and the partner's partnership > understanding. > > Or, put another way, the laws have a fect that they assume the two > partners have the same "actual partnership understanding". When they are > the same, no problem. When they are different, I think the game of bridge > would be more enjoyable if the opps were entitled to the bidder's actual > partnership agreement. As for laws, I suspect they will favor bidder's > actual partnership understanding. > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 20 12:27:47 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:27:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant In-Reply-To: <000001c8a215$1aaa7210$4fff5630$@com> References: <480875C2.8080708@skynet.be> <74E0E672-40D0-49A5-92AA-57704532F1E1@starpower.net> <4809CBF6.6070906@skynet.be> <000001c8a215$1aaa7210$4fff5630$@com> Message-ID: <480B1AA3.1090206@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [RH] > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 3NT Pass > 4C(1) Pass ? > > (1) No agreement > > [HdW] > > I am happy now to not have stuck my neck out and presume what I thought it > was (run-off to one of the minors over a gambling 3NT). So, since presumably > a 5-card is mentioned both in Stayman and Gerber, we bid 4Sp. > > [DALB] > > No, Herman. Gerber is a convention that asks for aces; one does not mention > a five-card spade suit in reply to 4C unless one has two aces, just as one > does not mention a five-card spade suit in response to Blackwood unless one > has three aces. > Oops, sorry! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Sun Apr 20 18:39:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:39:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be><000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> <48070575.9000502@skynet.be><000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no><055301c8a1cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie><000801c8a240$d6f3aec0$84db0c40$@no><072001c8a259$b06865c0$2ec39851@stefanie> <6.1.0.6.2.20080420102640.03b3b280@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <001b01c8a305$16cb5f10$0901a8c0@JOHN> >>screens can ever proceed. > > East is somewhat in the dark, but is waiting for his turn to bid so that > he can clear the situation up for himself. Had he been asked about > his partner's 2C bid (it is self-alerting) he would no doubt reply "It > is natural over a natural club, but Michaels over a short club. probably you mean vice versa, but I agree with the principle. John > > Regards, > > Tony (Sydney) > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Apr 20 19:25:11 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:25:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant In-Reply-To: <480B1AA3.1090206@skynet.be> References: <480875C2.8080708@skynet.be> <74E0E672-40D0-49A5-92AA-57704532F1E1@starpower.net> <4809CBF6.6070906@skynet.be> <000001c8a215$1aaa7210$4fff5630$@com> <480B1AA3.1090206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c8a30b$7dabd4c0$79037e40$@com> [DALB] No, Herman. Gerber is a convention that asks for aces; one does not mention a five-card spade suit in reply to 4C unless one has two aces, just as one does not mention a five-card spade suit in response to Blackwood unless one has three aces. [HdW] Oops, sorry! [DALB] No need to apologise. But the case in point (which arose in actual play) may be a touchstone for various discussions that have recently arisen on BLML. You, who are from Zambia where a 3NT opening shows 25-27 balanced, open 3NT. Your partner, from Afghanistan, replies 4C. It now occurs to you that you and your partner have never discussed what an opening bid of 3NT shows (so that you have "no agreement" about what a 4C response might mean). But you know, because only yesterday you were watching the quarter-finals of the Afghanistan Gold Cup on BBO, that at least some Afghanis play a 3NT opening to show a solid minor. In Zambia, 4C would be natural, or Stayman, or Gerber, but it would at any rate be forcing. In Afghanistan, it is "pass or correct". What call do you make? What explanations do you give to your opponents? What UI do you consider has been transmitted to your partner in each case? David Burn London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Apr 20 22:42:10 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:42:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> <00f001c8a012$2f66a250$2ec39851@stefanie> <000101c8a05e$c71744a0$5545cde0$@no> Message-ID: <08aa01c8a327$01b636f0$2ec39851@stefanie> SP: > > And BTW South's explanation of the 3C bid by North seems enigmatic. I > shall > not believe any fairly experienced partnership that this situation is > "undiscussed", it cannot be that exceptional? Did North ever claim that he > made a psychic bid? If he did he is even more vulnerable from failing to > properly alert 1C. SR: While I cannot see how E/W can claim damage from North's late alert, I do think that South's explanation of 3C can have caused damage. I am not that surprised that the situation is undiscussed, though. I don't think that I have defenses to natural overcalls of our side's naturally bid suits, and it must be admitted that the method is rather unusual. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Apr 21 00:10:29 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:10:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au><4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au><00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred><004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie><002a01c8a16b$f2563e10$9ed2403e@Mildred><056101c8a1cd$282e4df0$2ec39851@stefanie> <000101c8a27e$c1a4a130$c6ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <08e301c8a333$586e91c0$2ec39851@stefanie> GE: > +=+ Is partner unaware of the false description of the hand? I doubt it. If a false description in order to be awarded a penalty-free correction is a permitted strategy, partner will think that there is a good chance a player has used such a strategy. Especially when the call is changed from 1C to something as different as 3NT. I don't imagine, however, that such a correction would ever be allowed without penalty anyway. But there will be realistic cases where the misdescription get-out will cause problems. I truly hope that misdescribing one's hand in any way does not end up being permitted. If it is legal and a pair prfits therefrom, their opponents will be outraged. And rightly so. GE: > If so > does not the principle apply which is set down in Law 40A3? N/A Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 21 03:50:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:50:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080418132729.03de09e8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: ACBL Reno Nationals, NABC Mixed Pairs, 1st Qualifying Brd: 32 Vul: East-West Dlr: West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 3NT Pass 4C(1) Pass ? (1) No agreement You, East, hold: AQ765 AK7 AK AQ4 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Tony Musgrove: >I am bidding 4D. If partner thinks I have a long >running diamond suit, I will enjoy playing the 4:2 >fit. If partner is asking for a 4 card major I don't >have one (5 doesn't count). If partner is asking for >aces, I have 0 or 4. All bases covered I think. >When partner is asked what my bid means, I am heading >for the exit. Vicki Laycock 92 T65 QT84 J763 Doris McGinley William Epperson KJ8 AQ765 J42 AK7 J975 AK T98 AQ4 Don Laycock T43 Q983 632 K52 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4C Pass 4NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted and explained as gambling The Facts: 3NT was alerted as gambling though the actual agreement was 25 - 27 HCPs with a balanced hand. This partnership had no assigned conventional agreement to the 4C call. The Director was called after the 4NT bid was made. East took twelve tricks in 3NT, plus 690 for EW. The Ruling: The alert and explanation were UI for East. The staff determined that 4NT was demonstrably suggested by this UI. The contract was changed to 4S making five for plus 650 EW. The Appeal: NS made the point that there were several continuations after 4C, and that 4NT was not the only option. East felt that 4NT was the only logical call over 4C. East was clear, and was supported by external evidence, that 4C was neither Stayman nor Gerber. EW play no conventional calls after 3NT openings or overcalls. The Decision: The committee considered, in the absence of any other agreement, that 4C would be clubs and forcing. East would treat his hand as superb for play in clubs, certainly not stopping short of slam. Since East had taken advantage of the UI and there were alternatives to a 4NT call the committee had to award an adjusted score. For EW, the adjusted score would be the most unfavorable score that was at all likely and for NS the most favorable score that was at all probable. The committee considered several assigned scores. After some discussion 6NT, minus 100 EW was assigned to both sides. Additionally the committee assessed a one-fourth board procedural penalty against East for having taken advantage of the UI and assessed an AWMW. Committee: Barry Rigal, Chairperson, Bill Passell, Jerry Gaer, Darwin Afdahl, and Jeff Goldsmith Marvin French (2004): [snip] >Or East might take 4C as either Stayman or >Gerber, despite the absence of an agreement. >With East's hand 4NT is out of the question in >view of the UI, so the score must be adjusted. >Imposing a Gerber meaning to 4C when a pair >has no such agreement is going too far. [snip] Richard Hills: I wonder about the "external evidence, that 4C was neither Stayman nor Gerber". If this external evidence was that East's system card lacked a tick against the Gerber checkbox, then that is insufficient. Although East refused to use Gerber himself, he may have taken the male chauvinist patronising view that his partner would use that inferior convention. John (MadDog) Probst: >I s'pose I'd better find out whether it was the >man or the woman who opened 3NT :) John 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 Apr 21 05:51:56 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:51:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >Leaving honest players with what? Automatic rejection of their of >their "no agreement" saying? > >I like Richard's way better. I understand perfectly well why those >who truly believe that in the world of competitive bridge the cheats >outnumber the honest players would see things the opposite way, but >I am not among them. Chess Grandmaster Ian Rogers, Canberra Times column April 20 2008: "Paranoia about cheating in chess has become endemic, even if actual cheating in chess is relatively rare. Yet this week two cases showed that vigilance is certainly necessary." [snip] "To their credit, the arbiters in Dubai noted that Sadatnajafi was acting unusually while his opponent was thinking and determined to keep an eye on him in future rounds." [snip] "Apparently, with Sadatnajafi's games being broadcast live on the internet, a friend in Iran had been able to feed Sadatnajafi's game into a computer and provide suggestions by SMS in real time." [snip] "Had Sadatnajafi been a little more discreet he might never have been suspected and caught, so it is hard to escape the conclusion that a time delay on game transmission to the internet is an idea whose time has come." 2007 Law 76A2: "Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers who grant facilities for electronic transmission of play as it occurs may establish by regulation the terms by which such transmissions are viewed and prescribe acceptable conduct for viewers. (A viewer must not communicate with a player in the course of a session in which the latter is playing.)" Richard Hills: In my opinion, the best way to prevent weak-willed bridge players from succumbing to the temptation to cheat is to make it impossible for them to cheat. The new 2007 Law 76A2 shows that the World Bridge Federation gave more thought to the moral hazard of internet spectators than the Federation Internationale des Echecs has done so far. Indeed, recent psychological research at Harvard University has suggested that the likelihood or unlikelihood of being caught does not affect the rate of cheating; a certain percentage will cheat merely if given the opportunity to do so. Of course it is possible that this research may later be invalidated, since the highly unrepresentative experimental animals were Harvard students. 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 09:32:36 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <000801c8a240$d6f3aec0$84db0c40$@no> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> <48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no> <055301c8a1cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie> <000801c8a240$d6f3aec0$84db0c40$@no> Message-ID: On 19/04/2008, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > ................ > > Well, West bid 2C holding a club suit. Asking about the unalerted 1C bid > > when he obviously knew what it was would have been inappropriate. > > And East knew that West knew that the 1C bid should have been alerted? > > Don't you see that a very important question here is what East knew about > West's base for her bid? Not a problem at all in my opinion. East has to assume that west knew the meaning of 1C, and thus continue bidding as if west did show a club suit. If west bid was based on MI (missing alert), the TD will make a score adjustment. (Incidentally, he might not just on this basis - since west easily could call for TD after north made the late alert and have a chance to change his call before east made a call. The nature of the 1C opening would be pre-alertable in many SOs - Norway included.) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 21 09:35:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:35:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8a1b4$7e364450$7aa2ccf0$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >At that point I woke to the knell of a furious bell, which >the Bellman rang close at my ear. > >But the principle is: disclosure's a very odd concept that >won't be expressed in a commonplace way. Tell them all that >you know, tell them all that you don't, and if Herman's not >there, you're OK. Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark: The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies-- Such a carriage, such ease and such grace! Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise, The moment one looked in his face! Herman De Wael: >>I prefer that first method, both as a non-cheating player >>and as a director. Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark: He had bought a large map representing the sea, Without the least vestige of land: And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be A map they could all understand. Herman De Wael: >>honest players don't care if they have a firm agreement >>or not - they believe that when they are on the same >>wavelength, their opponents deserve to know which one >>that is. Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark: "What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators, Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?" So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply "They are merely conventional signs! Richard Hills: What's the good of Law 40A3 and Law 85A1? Herman De Wael: >>the second one helps the cheats and therefore bothers >>the honest players, who believe they are being >>cheated not only by the cheats, but also by some >>honest players of whom you can no longer tell the >>difference. 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 kgrauwel at hotmail.com Sun Apr 20 12:08:26 2008 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (Koen) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:08:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080420101929.03b37ce8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080420101929.03b37ce8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <480B161A.2060706@hotmail.com> Tony Musgrove wrote: >At 01:37 AM 20/04/2008, you wrote: > > > >>Can I agree with my partner?: >>We will never make an IB, but if it would happen be accident then 1 over >>1 bid promises the same as what I meant initially. >>e.g: 1S-(p)-1D .... corrected to 1S means what I initially meant with 1D >>(partner doesn't know what. It can be 1D opening, or I thought partner >>opened 1C, Or I thought RHO opened 1S, or I simply wanted to bid 2D...) >>- Is it everywhere/nowhere allowed (I play in Belgium) >>- If it is allowed then further bidding continues without penalty our >>restrictions under the new law? >>Thanks, >>Koen >> >> > > >I don't think you mean a change to 1S, which is still insufficient. I >think you might mean, can a change to 2D be pre arrranged as >either of two meanings (which partner will have to work out at >the table). > > Sorry. I meant correcting to 1NT: Correcting to the lowest sufficient bid means: I don't give any other info then what I wanted to give with my insufficient 1D. So: If we make an IB then the first sufficient bid means: I give the same info as what I intended with my IB, so we can continue bidding without penalty. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080420/a9e79476/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 21 10:25:08 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:25:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant In-Reply-To: <000001c8a30b$7dabd4c0$79037e40$@com> References: <480875C2.8080708@skynet.be> <74E0E672-40D0-49A5-92AA-57704532F1E1@starpower.net> <4809CBF6.6070906@skynet.be> <000001c8a215$1aaa7210$4fff5630$@com> <480B1AA3.1090206@skynet.be> <000001c8a30b$7dabd4c0$79037e40$@com> Message-ID: <480C4F64.7070101@skynet.be> While I am quite happy for a real example to hit the list rather than the hypothetical ones we cannot seem to get out of, this one is a bit difficult. But I'll try anyway. David Burn wrote: > [DALB] > > No, Herman. Gerber is a convention that asks for aces; one does not mention > a five-card spade suit in reply to 4C unless one has two aces, just as one > does not mention a five-card spade suit in response to Blackwood unless one > has three aces. > > [HdW] > > Oops, sorry! > > [DALB] > > No need to apologise. But the case in point (which arose in actual play) may > be a touchstone for various discussions that have recently arisen on BLML. > > You, who are from Zambia where a 3NT opening shows 25-27 balanced, open 3NT. > Your partner, from Afghanistan, replies 4C. It now occurs to you that you > and your partner have never discussed what an opening bid of 3NT shows (so > that you have "no agreement" about what a 4C response might mean). > This is thus a very unlikely scenario, not? > But you know, because only yesterday you were watching the quarter-finals of > the Afghanistan Gold Cup on BBO, that at least some Afghanis play a 3NT > opening to show a solid minor. Well, considering that one partner is aware that there are two possibilities, while the other can only ever imagine one such meaning, I would suggest that the "agreeement" would be that 3NT shows a solid minor. I, the Zambian, now decide that I have misbid according to that system. I now know that we're in for a bad score - my partner's explanation "gambling" is true, but we can't prove it. > In Zambia, 4C would be natural, or Stayman, > or Gerber, but it would at any rate be forcing. In Afghanistan, it is "pass > or correct". > That is what the Zambian will expect the Afghani will see as the only possible explanation of the auction so far. So when the opponents ask, that is what he should tell them, in order not to tell the Afghani that his impression (that 3NT is gambling - which is so far only a Zambian guess at the Afghans impression) is wrong. So the Zambian should explain 4C as "pass or correct", but not before clearing up the other mess. I can hardly expect that question to be asked before "what is 3NT" and I presume the answer to be "gambling". > What call do you make? What explanations do you give to your opponents? What > UI do you consider has been transmitted to your partner in each case? > So far, no UI is transmitted. As the Zambian, I am quite willing to keep explaining and defending that we play the "gambling" system, while at the same time willing to accept that there will be a ruling of misinformation on my 3NT. Now we come to my bid. I have opened 3NT, presumably in the Zambian standard system. That system has one preferential treatment, and that is the 4C version I will choose to answer to. I give that answer. If there are two equally common variants in Zambia, one of which means replying 4Di, then I would like to choose the one that does not mean I have to bid 4Di, so I actually choose the other one and bid 4Di, which I know my partner will pass. I will then play 4Di, make it (on my stack of points), and score a top because every other pair is in 6NT going down because a suit divides 5-0. I will then accept a ruling based on an explanation of 3NT showing 25+, 4Cl asking for whatever is was we finally decided it was, 4Di being my correct answer, correctly explained, and partner passing it to general disbelief. I doubt if any director will rule opponents would double this, giving us another chance at what they must believe reaching a better contract. Result stands. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 21 11:15:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:15:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> Message-ID: <480C5B4D.9040608@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > What if the "rule" was this? If you know (are reasonably certain about) > the meaning of your partner's bid, you tell the opps if they ask. If you > are uncertain about the meaning of partner's bid, you leave the table and > let partner explain. This doesn't happen very often, right? *Today our > partnership was formed a few minutes after game time and I didn't need to > jump up once.* > AG : it's quite understandable. I think most players are more prone to throw a subtle bid at a regular partner, either because "he should understand" or because "well, we've discussed this, didn't we ?" as to issue a complex sequence facing a newcomer. Whence the "no agreement" problem will mainly come about in regular partnerships. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 21 11:20:20 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:20:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <000001c8a1f5$7ca581a0$75f084e0$@no> References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$ 0901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be> <000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00 $@no><48070575.9000502@skynet.be> <000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no> <480899A6.8020102@meteo.fr> <000001c8a1f5$7ca581a0$75f084e0$@no> Message-ID: <480C5C54.5030305@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > OP didn't actually state that West looked at the CC, only that the CC was in > a position where West "could have" looked at it. And do _you_ always look at > opponents' CC to verify that an unalerted call is indeed natural? I should > accept West's statement (after the fact) to the effect that she had no > invitation to look at the CC for a plain, unalerted 1C opening bid. > > AG : not very long ago, some members of blml fired me for not asking about the meaning of the 1C opening within precisely this set of overcalling agreements. They stated loud and clear that, if I'm playing different defenses against non-alerted 1C openings (such an opening isn't alertable in Belgium), I'm responsible for ensuring I understand the opponents' bid. Did anything change under the 2007 laws ? Regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 21 11:27:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:27:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> Koen a ?crit : > Can I agree with my partner?: > We will never make an IB, but if it would happen be accident then 1 over > 1 bid promises the same as what I meant initially. > e.g: 1S-(p)-1D .... corrected to 1S means what I initially meant with 1D > (partner doesn't know what. It can be 1D opening, or I thought partner > opened 1C, Or I thought RHO opened 1S, or I simply wanted to bid 2D...) > - Is it everywhere/nowhere allowed (I play in Belgium) > - If it is allowed then further bidding continues without penalty our > restrictions under the new law? > It is not allowed for at least two reasons : 1. You may not change system depending on an incorrection. 2. It may turn out to your advantage if your actual hand is difficult to bid after the overcall. Whence L72B1 applies at full strength and, if the TD realizes you*agreed* this, he will be doubly harsh in applying it. Example : 1C (1S), you hold a so-so hand with long diamonds, not long enough for a 3D preempt, not strong enough for a 2D bid, and your double promises hearts. You bid 1D and then correct to 1NT to show the ?impossible" hand. Do you really think you will be allowed to do this ? Best regards Alain From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Mon Apr 21 12:10:33 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:10:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: <08e301c8a333$586e91c0$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au><4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au><00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred><004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie><002a01c8a16b$f2563e10$9ed2403e@Mildred><056101c8a1cd$282e4df0$2ec39851@stefanie> <000101c8a27e$c1a4a130$c6ce403e@Mildred> <08e301c8a333$586e91c0$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <480C6819.8070606@ozemail.com.au> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >GE: > > > >>+=+ Is partner unaware of the false description of the hand? >> >> > >I doubt it. If a false description in order to be awarded a penalty-free >correction is a permitted strategy, partner will think that there is a good >chance a player has used such a strategy. Especially when the call is >changed from 1C to something as different as 3NT. > >I don't imagine, however, that such a correction would ever be allowed >without penalty anyway. But there will be realistic cases where the >misdescription get-out will cause problems. I truly hope that misdescribing >one's hand in any way does not end up being permitted. If it is legal and a >pair prfits therefrom, their opponents will be outraged. And rightly so. > >GE: > > > >>If so >>does not the principle apply which is set down in Law 40A3? >> >> > >N/A > >Stefanie Rohan >London, England > >Reg: > > A bridge call has no intrinsic meaning. The only meaning it has is in the context of the agreed system. Thus an opening Pass can mean 'I don't have an opening hand' or 'I do have an opening hand' according to the system in use. As I would like Law 27 to be applied (and that for all I know may have been the intention) is for me to say to the IBer 'If you have an alternative systemic call that describes the hand you hold, and conveys the same or a more precise meaning than the IB, then you may use that as a RC'.The 1C bid says 'I have at least 3 clubs'. Those who defend the right to a RC of 3NT which shows systemically four clubs see it as 'more precise'. I see it differently. The 1C says also that 'I may have as few as 3 clubs. The RC says I don't have as few as 3 clubs.' I see this as a different meaning, not a more precise one. I see Law 40A3 as something of a red herring. You have committed an infraction, and law 27 gives you some (limited) options to rescue your side from a difficult situation. Intentionally misbidding your hand is not one of your options. If you insist on your undoubted Law 40 right to misbid your hand, certainly you may, but Law 27 now says that this falls under 27B3, and the TD will bar partner. We need clarification on two crucial issues. Are you entitled to intentionally misbid your hand under 27B1(b)? And, if you are, are the opponents entitled to redress under 27D? To me, it is not at all clear that they are. They were damaged by the nisbid (not the IB), and 27D allows redress only for damage from the IB. Reg >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From henk at ripe.net Mon Apr 21 10:01:40 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:01:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] subscription In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480C49E4.3030402@ripe.net> Hi, > I have been unsubscribed (I don?t know why) and I want to be back. > My e-mail address is hans-olof.hallen at bolina.hsb.se > > Yours etc > Hans-Olof Hall?n To subscribe, go to http://www.rtflb.org and click on subscribe. It should be self-explanatory. One reason that the system can unsubscribe you, is that your mailbox was full and/or not accepting email. If there are too many failures, the system will stop trying. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Apr 21 14:33:09 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:33:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: References: <002001c89fb1$e4830a40$0 901a8c0@JOHN> <4805E245.7070702@skynet.be><000001c89fe5$11f90a00$35eb1e00$@no> <48070575.9000502@skynet.be><000501c8a0a9$589a6610$09cf3230$@no><055301c8a1 cb$779278a0$2ec39851@stefanie><000801c8a240$d6f3aec0$84db0c40$@no> Message-ID: <480C8985.5030302@meteo.fr> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > On 19/04/2008, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan >> ................ >>> Well, West bid 2C holding a club suit. Asking about the unalerted 1C bid >>> when he obviously knew what it was would have been inappropriate. >> And East knew that West knew that the 1C bid should have been alerted? >> >> Don't you see that a very important question here is what East knew about >> West's base for her bid? > > Not a problem at all in my opinion. > East has to assume that west knew the meaning of 1C, and thus continue > bidding as if west did show a club suit. quite so. questions asked or not asked are inappropriate communication between partners (73B1). EW have agreements about 2C which depend on the meaning of 1C but can't depend on partner's awareness of the meaning of 1C. if they have a misunderstanding as a result of MI, their damage will be appropriately compensated. jpr > > If west bid was based on MI (missing alert), the TD will make a score > adjustment. (Incidentally, he might not just on this basis - since > west easily could call for TD after north made the late alert and have > a chance to change his call before east made a call. The nature of the > 1C opening would be pre-alertable in many SOs - Norway included.) > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Apr 21 14:43:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:43:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> AG: 1. You may not change system depending on an incorrection. SR: It would be nice if this were true. However, the new Law 40B3 reads: The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity. I think that "any irregularity is clear enough; it seems that "our side's" irregularities are specifically included. AG: 2. It may turn out to your advantage if your actual hand is difficult to bid after the overcall. Whence L72B1 applies at full strength and, if the TD realizes you*agreed* this, he will be doubly harsh in applying it. Example : 1C (1S), you hold a so-so hand with long diamonds, not long enough for a 3D preempt, not strong enough for a 2D bid, and your double promises hearts. You bid 1D and then correct to 1NT to show the ?impossible" hand. Do you really think you will be allowed to do this ? SR: I do. I find it disgusting, but there you are. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 21 15:20:09 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:20:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: <4808B5CD.2040901@ulb.ac.be> References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> <4808B5CD.2040901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4E6E06C6-7EB7-4247-95D2-045A74363921@starpower.net> On Apr 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> The information to which the opponents are legally entitled is >> neither BIM nor PUM; it is the actual partnership understanding >> (APU). BIM and PUM are alternative disclosure mechanisms which may >> be used in an attempt to communicate the APU. Regardless of which is >> used, if the explanation fails to reflect the APU, that creates an MI >> infraction. >> >> It seems obvious that either member of a partnership is equally >> likely to forget or become confused about the APU, so either >> disclosure mechanism will produce about the same amount of MI. > > AG : while I agree wholeheartedly with the first paragraph, I beg to > differ with the second one : it's quite possible that one member of > the > partnership have perfect memory. > When I play with Gilles, I can be 100% certain that his explanation is > right. That's why I'll stick with BIM in that partnership, in full > certitude that it will be equal to APU. Whether you use BIM or PUM, Gilles will be the one responsible for giving the explanantion only half the time, so any advantage he might have is gained half the time and lost half the time. Therefore either disclosure mechanism will produce about the same amount of MI, even at Alain's table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 21 15:26:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:26:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <4808B7DE.9030307@ulb.ac.be> References: <48086787.20503@skynet.be> <4808B7DE.9030307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <10CFE1E2-0807-4A52-ACD7-AD9AFB7DFB27@starpower.net> On Apr 18, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> In real-life criminal procedings, the first thing that goes into the >> evidence record is the accused's words, "Not guilty, Your Honor." It >> is then up to the prosecution to present contrary evidence, which the >> defense gets to rebut as well as presenting its own. If, however, >> the prosecution fails to present any evidence at all, the judge finds >> that the evidence provided by the original plea, weighed against >> nothing, is determinative. The case is dismissed and the accused >> goes free without the defense having to utter another word. >> >> Does it make any sense to apply harsher rules of evidence to bridge >> infractors than we do for real-life accused criminals? > > AG : IRL there might be cases where the prosecuted has to issue the > first item of evidence ; for example, to prove he has paid his debt. Only after the prosecution has established, from evidence, that the debt was incurred in the first place. > Also, a doctor whose patient died will be asked to prove he took > necessary steps to avoid this issue. Only after the prosecution has established, from evidence, that the patient might have been saved. > The bridge situation is a bit the same : opponents are victims of a > problem that you'll have caused unless you've done what you had to, so > it's your job to prove you did. Not unless there is evidence that I didn't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 21 15:37:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:37:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Misinformation, help required In-Reply-To: <052e01c8a1c8$9a958340$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080416143934.03d39b48@mail.optusnet.com.au> <00f001c8a012$2f66a250$2ec39851@stefanie> <000101c8a05e$c71744a0$5545cde0$@no> <052e01c8a1c8$9a958340$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <689CCF51-70A7-4B59-8AF7-C1BE74953166@starpower.net> On Apr 18, 2008, at 10:53 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I guess I have to accept that I have long held a misconception. I have > always thought that it is not East's business what information West > had; > that one assumed that partner had the correct information and > proceeded on > that basis. Then the partnership may be damaged if one or both of > the NOs > were misinformed. Here each has received the correct information > before his > turn to call, so I had thought theat there was no possible damage. > I did not > realise that one was entitled not only to an explanation of the > opponents' > agreements, but also to what information partner had about them. > This makes > me uncomfortable, but I realise that I must accept it. These are not unrelated pieces of information to which you are separately entitled. You are, however, entitled to assume that whatever explanation you have been given (by whatever means) matches that given your partner. > This principle does present some problems when screens are in use. Indeed. But it can do the same without screens too, such as when the opponents' CCs differ, or when one member of the partnership (who may not ask questions for partner's benefit) knows a good deal more about the opponents' methods than his partner does. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 21 15:46:37 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:46:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0804181040w36d91973s1b142595698df74d@mail.gmail.com> References: <48086787.20503@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0804181040w36d91973s1b142595698df74d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4755F571-E9A3-46A2-84F4-04AF00F470A7@starpower.net> On Apr 18, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Apr 18, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> My esteemed colleague should really try and use some logic here. >>> There >>> are three possibilities: either there is evidence for an >>> agreement, or >>> there is evidence for the non-agreement, or there is no evidence at >>> all. >> >> In real-life criminal procedings, the first thing that goes into the >> evidence record is the accused's words, "Not guilty, Your Honor." It >> is then up to the prosecution to present contrary evidence, which the >> defense gets to rebut as well as presenting its own. If, however, >> the prosecution fails to present any evidence at all, the judge finds >> that the evidence provided by the original plea, weighed against >> nothing, is determinative. The case is dismissed and the accused >> goes free without the defense having to utter another word. >> >> Does it make any sense to apply harsher rules of evidence to bridge >> infractors than we do for real-life accused criminals? > > Let us see how good this analogy is. In criminal law, we "presume > innocence." In the case of possible bridge misexplanations, we have > this: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > > Since the presumption is the opposite, the analogy to criminal law is > not very good. I offer an analogy more in keeping with the > presumption of Mistaken Explanation: When you go to the opera, you > need a ticket to get it. If there is no evidence that you bought a > ticket, you probably cannot get in. Your saying that you bought the > ticket hardly counts as evidence. Now there are some steps that can > be taken in the box office if you lost your ticket, but the fact > remains there is generally going to have to be some evidence > somewhere, beyond just your word. Most people would understand that > they are not being called a liar or cheat when denied entry without a > ticket, if those are the rules. > > Suppose you change the opera-entry rules and say that a person's word > is good enough---we don't need to see tickets any more. Do you > suppose that would lead to some people sneaking in? I think most > people are fine with the requirement to show evidence of a ticket, as > long as it is applied to everyone. I hadn't intended to suggest a valid general analogy between bridge and criminal jurisprudence, but can see how that might have been misunderstood. I was merely trying to make the point that the testimony of the "accused", despite being obviously self-serving, *is* nevertheless evidence, and therefore precludes a ruling based on the finding that "there is no evidence at all". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 21 16:37:04 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:37:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: <4809CA61.8050502@skynet.be> References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> <4809CA61.8050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <620BF581-F841-4E05-9751-1A69D64DA7C4@starpower.net> On Apr 19, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> I would seem rather obvious that if we were to rewrite TFLB to >> replace "APU entitlement" with "BIM entitlement", we would want/need >> to replace PUM disclosure with some (as yet to be determined) form of >> BIM disclosure. > > And of course that will create even more problems. How shall you treat > real misbids in that system? I'm not sure what "real misbid" would mean in such a radically different game. If you are responsible only for describing what you intended your call to mean, how can you unintentionally get it wrong? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 21 17:25:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:25:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Apr 19, 2008, at 11:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Summary: I will guess on the meaning of "actual partnership > agreement" and > argue that the bidder's actual partnership agreement can be > different from > the partner's actual partnership agreement, especially when they are > miscommunicating. That's semantic nonsense. Two people cannot form an "actual agreement" about anything unless they "agree". If "they are miscommunicating" at the time, they may think they are "agreeing" to something, but they would be wrong. If Bob and I discuss his selling me a book but fail to explicitly set a price, and after the conversation is over I think we agreed he would sell it to me for $10 and he thinks we agreed he would sell it to me for $20, we have not agreed that he will sell it to me at all, even though we both think we have. The laws presume a single "objective" APU, while recognizing that its value may be null. You have to agree on something before it can be anything else. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 21 18:04:30 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:04:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: <08e301c8a333$586e91c0$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au><4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au><00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred><004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie><002a01c8a16b$f2563e10$9ed2403e@Mildred><056101c8a1cd$282e4df0$2ec39851@stefanie> <000101c8a27e$c1a4a130$c6ce403e@Mildred> <08e301c8a333$586e91c0$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: On Apr 20, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > GE: > >> +=+ Is partner unaware of the false description of the hand? > > I doubt it. If a false description in order to be awarded a penalty- > free > correction is a permitted strategy, partner will think that there > is a good > chance a player has used such a strategy. Especially when the call is > changed from 1C to something as different as 3NT. That depends. Obviously, it will only be the case when, and then only for those features of the hand for which, there was no penalty- free correction available which did not require the misdescription. Less obviously, ISTM that "bridge logic" dictates that it is unlikely to be a misdescription if the IBer had an alternative L27B1(a) correction available. Nevertheless, there will be cases where, while partner will not be "aware" of the misdecription, he may be said to benefit from a "heightened awareness" of its possibility. > I don't imagine, however, that such a correction would ever be allowed > without penalty anyway. There is nothing in L27 to suggest that. While there is something to suggest the opposite, viz. "Law 16D does not apply". > But there will be realistic cases where the > misdescription get-out will cause problems. Which suggests that the law "wants" us either to avoid them (as Stefanie believes) or to rectify them (as I do). > I truly hope that misdescribing > one's hand in any way does not end up being permitted. If it is > legal and a > pair prfits therefrom, their opponents will be outraged. And > rightly so. IMO, it is legal, and if a pair profits therefrom, their opponents will be protected by L27D. If we read the law as precluding damage in the first place, as Stefanie's interpretation does, "but see D following" would be superfluous in L27B1(b). > GE: > >> If so >> does not the principle apply which is set down in Law 40A3? Nothing in L27 suggests that it can ever override or nullify L40A3, whether "if so" or not. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 21 19:02:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:02:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: <4E6E06C6-7EB7-4247-95D2-045A74363921@starpower.net> References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> <4808B5CD.2040901@ulb.ac.be> <4E6E06C6-7EB7-4247-95D2-045A74363921@starpower.net> Message-ID: <480CC8C3.1080408@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 18, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> The information to which the opponents are legally entitled is >>> neither BIM nor PUM; it is the actual partnership understanding >>> (APU). BIM and PUM are alternative disclosure mechanisms which may >>> be used in an attempt to communicate the APU. Regardless of which is >>> used, if the explanation fails to reflect the APU, that creates an MI >>> infraction. >>> >>> It seems obvious that either member of a partnership is equally >>> likely to forget or become confused about the APU, so either >>> disclosure mechanism will produce about the same amount of MI. >>> >> AG : while I agree wholeheartedly with the first paragraph, I beg to >> differ with the second one : it's quite possible that one member of >> the >> partnership have perfect memory. >> When I play with Gilles, I can be 100% certain that his explanation is >> right. That's why I'll stick with BIM in that partnership, in full >> certitude that it will be equal to APU. >> > > Whether you use BIM or PUM, Gilles will be the one responsible for > giving the explanantion only half the time, so any advantage he might > have is gained half the time and lost half the time. Therefore > either disclosure mechanism will produce about the same amount of MI, > even at Alain's table. > AG : unless you're allowed to correct your MI based on partner's ensuing explanations. Partner isn't allowed to remind you of your system, but he is allowed to remind you of your duties. ?Partner will explain according to his system (which will be main school) and create UI, but this will minimize the amount of MI, as APU will be either correctly immedaitely defined, or quickly corrected. I don't know, however, whether this will hold in front of the AC. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 21 19:03:14 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:03:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0AD950FD-388D-4738-B68B-D9685820A26B@starpower.net> On Apr 20, 2008, at 11:51 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> Leaving honest players with what? Automatic rejection of their of >> their "no agreement" saying? >> >> I like Richard's way better. I understand perfectly well why those >> who truly believe that in the world of competitive bridge the cheats >> outnumber the honest players would see things the opposite way, but >> I am not among them. > > In my opinion, the best way to prevent weak-willed bridge players > from succumbing to the temptation to cheat is to make it impossible > for them to cheat. Obviously. And for every cheat you prevent, there is positive benefit. But for every time you prevent a legitimate action, there is a cost. Regardless of the magnitude of the cost or benefit in individual cases, the decision whether we should "make it impossible... to cheat" depends on the aggregate balance of costs vs. benefits for the total of the cases which arise, which in turn depends on how often you pay the costs (by preventing a legitimate action) or reap the benefits (by preventing a cheat). Unless you know -- or are prepared to assume -- what your mix of cheaters and honest players is, you cannot decide. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 21 19:10:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:10:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > > 2. It may turn out to your advantage if your actual hand is difficult to > bid after the overcall. Whence L72B1 applies at full strength and, if > the TD realizes you*agreed* this, he will be doubly harsh in applying > it. Example : 1C (1S), you hold a so-so hand with long diamonds, not > long enough for a 3D preempt, not strong enough for a 2D bid, and your > double promises hearts. You bid 1D and then correct to 1NT to show the > ?impossible" hand. Do you really think you will be allowed to do this ? > > SR: > > I do. I find it disgusting, but there you are. > > I don't. Whenever the first step is used to show something that couldn't be shown as economically due to the (unexpected ?) level of the bidding, there is enough ground to apply L72B1. "You bid 1D, then corrected it to 1NT in lieu of 2D ? Well, you could have known that it would help you to IB, by taking out fewer steps. L72B1." So, I doubt Koen will get any benefits of his "convention", even if it was allowed, at least when facing TDs who know what L72B1 implies. Stefanie, you're allowed to be disgusted, and as some would say, "I won't let them out". Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 21 19:10:21 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:10:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <480B161A.2060706@hotmail.com> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080420101929.03b37ce8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <480B161A.2060706@hotmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 20, 2008, at 6:08 AM, Koen wrote: > Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >> At 01:37 AM 20/04/2008, you wrote: >>> >>> Can I agree with my partner?: We will never make an IB, but if it >>> would happen be accident then 1 over 1 bid promises the same as >>> what I meant initially. e.g: 1S-(p)-1D .... corrected to 1S means >>> what I initially meant with 1D (partner doesn't know what. It can >>> be 1D opening, or I thought partner opened 1C, Or I thought RHO >>> opened 1S, or I simply wanted to bid 2D...) - Is it everywhere/ >>> nowhere allowed (I play in Belgium) - If it is allowed then >>> further bidding continues without penalty our restrictions under >>> the new law? Thanks, Koen >> I don't think you mean a change to 1S, which is still >> insufficient. I think you might mean, can a change to 2D be pre >> arrranged as either of two meanings (which partner will have to >> work out at the table). > > Sorry. I meant correcting to 1NT: Correcting to the lowest > sufficient bid means: I don't give any other info then what I > wanted to give with my insufficient 1D. > So: If we make an IB then the first sufficient bid means: I give > the same info as what I intended with my IB, so we can continue > bidding without penalty. Except that partner will be barred. This entire discussion seems to have overlooked that L27B1 doesn't apply to any sufficient bid whatsoever, and that there is a L27B2. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 22 00:47:35 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:47:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:10:09 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : >> >> 2. It may turn out to your advantage if your actual hand is difficult to >> bid after the overcall. Whence L72B1 applies at full strength and, if >> the TD realizes you*agreed* this, he will be doubly harsh in applying >> it. Example : 1C (1S), you hold a so-so hand with long diamonds, not >> long enough for a 3D preempt, not strong enough for a 2D bid, and your >> double promises hearts. You bid 1D and then correct to 1NT to show the >> ?impossible" hand. Do you really think you will be allowed to do this ? >> >> SR: >> >> I do. I find it disgusting, but there you are. >> >> > I don't. Whenever the first step is used to show something that couldn't > be shown as economically due to the (unexpected ?) level of the bidding, > there is enough ground to apply L72B1. > "You bid 1D, then corrected it to 1NT in lieu of 2D ? Well, you could > have known that it would help you to IB, by taking out fewer steps. > L72B1." > So, I doubt Koen will get any benefits of his "convention", even if it > was allowed, at least when facing TDs who know what L72B1 implies. > > Stefanie, you're allowed to be disgusted, and as some would say, "I > won't let them out". I am very puzzled that I cannot play (in the ACBL) the convention that 2C, following a 1C insufficient bid, shows an opening hand and 3 or more clubs. However, I am (apparently) allowed to bid 2C with only 3 clubs. Once I do, it creates a (presumably legal) implicit agreement that the 2C bid might be made with 3 clubs. This is a good implicit agreement, so I want to bid 2C with this hand even it confuses partner the first time it happens. But it probably won't confuse partner at all, because if I can tell you this situation, I can tell it to my partner too. Then we can use our general bridge knowledge to be on the same wavelength. The first time it happens, we will not be required to tell the opps that the 2C bidder might have 3 clubs, because we have no explicit or implicit agreement about this, compliant rule-bound players that we are. (I am with Stephanie -- I am not fond of being able to correct to a bid when the player doesn't have the hand for the bid.) (The goal is not to get to a better contract than we could have without the IB; the goal is to recover from the IB and get to the contract the rest of the field is in.) Bob From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 22 01:51:15 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:51:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au><4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au><00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred><004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie><002a01c8a16b$f2563e10$9ed2403e@Mildred><056101c8a1cd$282e4df0$2ec39851@stefanie><000101c8a27e$c1a4a130$c6ce403e@Mildred><08e301c8a333$586e91c0$2ec39851@stefanie> Message-ID: <008201c8a40a$9a0adad0$82d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisited > > > IMO, it is legal, and if a pair profits therefrom, their opponents > will be protected by L27D. If we read the law as precluding damage > in the first place, as Stefanie's interpretation does, "but see D > following" would be superfluous in L27B1(b). > >> GE: >> >>> If so >>> does not the principle apply which is set down in Law 40A3? > > Nothing in L27 suggests that it can ever override or nullify L40A3, > whether "if so" or not. > +=+ I am holding back from further comment on this until after the English Bridge Union Laws & Ethics meeting on Thursday at which there might be some relevant discussion. My particular concentration is on the words "without assistance gained through the infraction" in 27D. If the player is enabled to manoeuvre in a way he could not do absent the infraction, this meets the concept of assistance; but if the partnership stumbles its way to a fortunate result despite the impediments the law imposes how has it gained any help through the infraction? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 22 02:53:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:53:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World References: <48086787.20503@skynet.be><2b1e598b0804181040w36d91973s1b142595698df74d@mail.gmail.com> <4755F571-E9A3-46A2-84F4-04AF00F470A7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00a801c8a413$4a413360$82d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Worst Method in the World >>> > I was merely trying to make the point that the > testimony of the "accused", despite being obviously > self-serving, *is* nevertheless evidence, and therefore > precludes a ruling based on the finding that "there is no > evidence at all". > +=+ However it will be unusual if there is no evidence from the other side at the table, and further it remains with the Director to decide whether he is able "to determine the facts to his satisfaction" (see Law 85B). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 22 03:10:58 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:10:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited References: <4801757B.8020404@ozemail.com.au><6.1.0.6.2.20080413163058.02c03e78@mail.optusnet.com.au><4801BAC8.9020306@ozemail.com.au><00b501c89e12$4b4f5770$b0d5403e@Mildred><004501c89fee$089b2fc0$2ec39851@stefanie><002a01c8a16b$f2563e10$9ed2403e@Mildred><056101c8a1cd$282e4df0$2ec39851@stefanie> <000101c8a27e$c1a4a130$c6ce403e@Mildred><08e301c8a333$586e91c0$2ec39851@stefanie> <480C6819.8070606@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <00cb01c8a415$c3381480$82d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisited >>Reg: Those who defend the right to a RC of 3NT which shows systemically four clubs see it as 'more precise'. I see it differently. The 1C says also that 'I may have as few as 3 clubs. The RC says I don't have as few as 3 clubs.' I see this as a different meaning, not a more precise one. << +=+ "The meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes." (see the footnote to Law 27). '3 or more clubs' is less precise than 'exactly four clubs' because of the greater exclusion of possibilities by the latter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 03:11:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:11:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Official WBF Laws Committee minutes (with unofficial emphasis added by Richard Hills): 24 August 1998, item 6: The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present ***strange opinions***. The Secretary supported the Chairman in what he had said. The Committee was in part inclined to believe they should bring forward requests for decisions formally; the view was taken that subjects might be collected and brought to the Committee at each year's meetings. The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded intentions of the Committee represented the position of the Committee ***unless and until it changed them***. 1 September 1998, item 8: If a player knows that his partner's call is conventional but says he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may ***in his discretion*** send the player away from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director ***must*** be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is uncertain of the meaning. The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is completed. This procedure is only for the ***exact*** circumstances described; it does ***not*** apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement. 1 September 1998, item 14: The Committee's attention was drawn to an internet discussion as to whether it is legitimate for a player to address a question to the player who has made the call asked about. This abnormal procedure can ***only*** be followed with the ***consent of the Director***, who ***must*** be called, and at an appropriate time in the absence of the player's partner. Furthermore the Director ***must*** be persuaded that the circumstances require it: it is to be ***avoided absolutely*** that a player should be allowed to verify from player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation of his partner B was correct. Players ***must*** correct their partner's explanations voluntarily at the due time specified in the Laws. Best wishes Richard James Hills 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Apr 22 03:57:19 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:57:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:25:58 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 19, 2008, at 11:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Summary: I will guess on the meaning of "actual partnership >> agreement" and >> argue that the bidder's actual partnership agreement can be >> different from >> the partner's actual partnership agreement, especially when they are >> miscommunicating. > > That's semantic nonsense. Two people cannot form an "actual > agreement" about anything unless they "agree". If "they are > miscommunicating" at the time, they may think they are "agreeing" to > something, but they would be wrong. > > If Bob and I discuss his selling me a book but fail to explicitly set > a price, and after the conversation is over I think we agreed he > would sell it to me for $10 and he thinks we agreed he would sell it > to me for $20, we have not agreed that he will sell it to me at all, > even though we both think we have. > > The laws presume a single "objective" APU, while recognizing that its > value may be null. You have to agree on something before it can be > anything else. When my partner and I exchange "Negative Doubles through 3S" and "yes", that creates an understanding in my head of our agreement, and it creates an understanding in her head of our agreement. This understanding includes not only doubles we make, but bids we make instead of double, and probably even balancing action when a double has not occurred. It is natural that our understandings do not perfectly correspond. You are saying that "actual partnership understanding" is only the points on which we agree. I will infer that where we do not agree, our actual partnership understanding is "no common understanding". When asked the meaning of my partner's bid, I cannot report the APU. I know only my understanding. So presumably I report that, correct? If my partner and I have the same understanding, my explanation is correct. If my partner and I have a different understanding, the correct explanation was "no common understanding" and my explanation was wrong. Therefore the opps deserve protection. Can you give me that if I forget about an agreement, that forgetting changes my understanding and hence the common partnership understanding? Suppose I want to bet that I have one understanding and my partner has another. Is this even possible? If it is, can I answer "no common understanding" and hope I am right? Bob From jrhind at therock.bm Mon Apr 21 20:00:25 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:00:25 -0300 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <480B161A.2060706@hotmail.com> Message-ID: Koen raises a very good question, the answer to which I believe must be NO. Otherwise a partnership can arrange to have a two-way situation where they deliberately make an IB, then follow it with a correction to be able to play the bid two ways. Jack On 4/20/08 7:08 AM, "Koen" wrote: > Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >> At 01:37 AM 20/04/2008, you wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> Can I agree with my partner?: >>> We will never make an IB, but if it would happen be accident then 1 over >>> 1 bid promises the same as what I meant initially. >>> e.g: 1S-(p)-1D .... corrected to 1S means what I initially meant with 1D >>> (partner doesn't know what. It can be 1D opening, or I thought partner >>> opened 1C, Or I thought RHO opened 1S, or I simply wanted to bid 2D...) >>> - Is it everywhere/nowhere allowed (I play in Belgium) >>> - If it is allowed then further bidding continues without penalty our >>> restrictions under the new law? >>> Thanks, >>> Koen >>> >>> >> >> >> >> I don't think you mean a change to 1S, which is still insufficient. I >> think you might mean, can a change to 2D be pre arrranged as >> either of two meanings (which partner will have to work out at >> the table). >> > > Sorry. I meant correcting to 1NT: Correcting to the lowest sufficient bid > means: I don't give any other info then what I wanted to give with my > insufficient 1D. > So: If we make an IB then the first sufficient bid means: I give the same info > as what I intended with my IB, so we can continue bidding without penalty. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080421/0252ab73/attachment-0001.htm From kgrauwel at hotmail.com Mon Apr 21 23:47:57 2008 From: kgrauwel at hotmail.com (Koen) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:47:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <480D0B8D.40208@hotmail.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > > >>2. It may turn out to your advantage if your actual hand is difficult to >>bid after the overcall. Whence L72B1 applies at full strength and, if >>the TD realizes you*agreed* this, he will be doubly harsh in applying >>it. Example : 1C (1S), you hold a so-so hand with long diamonds, not >>long enough for a 3D preempt, not strong enough for a 2D bid, and your >>double promises hearts. You bid 1D and then correct to 1NT to show the >>?impossible" hand. Do you really think you will be allowed to do this ? >> >>SR: >> >>I do. I find it disgusting, but there you are. >> >> >> >> >I don't. Whenever the first step is used to show something that couldn't >be shown as economically due to the (unexpected ?) level of the bidding, >there is enough ground to apply L72B1. >"You bid 1D, then corrected it to 1NT in lieu of 2D ? Well, you could >have known that it would help you to IB, by taking out fewer steps. L72B1." >So, I doubt Koen will get any benefits of his "convention", even if it >was allowed, at least when facing TDs who know what L72B1 implies. > >Stefanie, you're allowed to be disgusted, and as some would say, "I >won't let them out". > >Best regards > > Alain > > > Alain, We will never make an IB by purpose, but maybe in 5 years we will accidently make an IB and then we will use this convention. L72B1 sounds like you have done something by purpose and in theory should not be applied here? We made the IB by mistake, but yes we have a tool to overcome our mistake. - Do you agree that L72B1 does in fact not apply? - In fact it does not apply, but you still apply it because you don't want to allow this situation (I wouldn't really mind this)? Thanks, Koen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080421/03301864/attachment-0001.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 09:00:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:00:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a801c8a413$4a413360$82d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>I was merely trying to make the point that the testimony >>of the "accused", despite being obviously self-serving, >>*is* nevertheless evidence, and therefore precludes a >>ruling based on the finding that "there is no evidence at >>all". Grattan Endicott: >+=+ However it will be unusual if there is no evidence >from the other side at the table, and further it remains >with the Director to decide whether he is able "to >determine the facts to his satisfaction" (see Law 85B). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Yes, in a famous case a few years ago, a Disciplinary Committee (which included Grattan Endicott amongst its members) listened to the accused drop a very large amount of evidence into the scales of justice, to be weighed under the balance of probabilities. But the DC was not "satisfied" with this evidence. Instead the DC ruled that it believed, beyond reasonable doubt, that the evidence provided by the accused was "self-incriminating". On the weight that should be attached to self-serving evidence, in the 2000 Cincinnati ACBL Appeals Casebook Rich Colker wrote (page 22): "Next, there are basically two different types of self- serving statements. One type I will call self-interested (SI) and the other I will call self-serving (SS). SI statements have an objective or verifiable component. Examples of these include: "We play partner's pass as forcing here, so his slow pass was irrelevant," "We play Flannery, so partner knew I had only three-card spade support for my raise whatever my tempo," "No competent player would pass 5D with this hand," and "I knew from my opponent's loud double that running was the right action, so partner's hesitation was immaterial." With SI statements, we can consult the players' system notes or convention cards, check whether their Alerts or other aspects of the auction are consistent with the claims, consult the bridge judgment of experts, or check the plausibility of the argument for bridge credibility. SI statements form the backbone of an appeal, since they present the arguments and evidence upon which each side's hopes for a decision rest. They are entirely proper and appropriate, whatever weight we ultimately decide to assign to them. "SS statements typically lack external verifiability. Examples include: "I didn't notice any hesitation," "I was always going to save, whatever level they bid to," "I knew I made the wrong bid as soon as I made it," and "Partner is always slow in these situations." SS statements require us to accept them on faith, since they cannot be verified objectively. In addition, they usually involve information that is legally inadmissible. For example, the laws refer to what a player _could_ have known, not what he _did_ know, and whether an action _could_ demonstrably have been suggested over another, not whether it _was_ suggested. The content of a player's mind or his intentions are usually irrelevant, often immaterial and sometimes inadmissible by law for adjudication purposes. Thus, SS statements will normally (but not always) be disregarded and a waste of time." 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 09:59:22 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:59:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <480D0B8D.40208@hotmail.com> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> <480D0B8D.40208@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <480D9ADA.9070402@ulb.ac.be> Koen a ?crit : > > We will _never _make an IB by purpose, but maybe in 5 years we will > accidently make an IB and then we will use this convention. > L72B1 sounds like you have done something by purpose Not quite. Please re-read the wording. Not "did it" but "could have done it". It doesn't say you did it on purpose ; it says that some crooks could have, and that because we can distinguish the voluntary act from the unvoluntary one, we treat both the same way. > > - Do you agree that L72B1 does in fact not apply? Nope. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 10:03:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:03:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <480D9BBA.9000906@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:10:09 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > >> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : >> >>> 2. It may turn out to your advantage if your actual hand is difficult to >>> bid after the overcall. Whence L72B1 applies at full strength and, if >>> the TD realizes you*agreed* this, he will be doubly harsh in applying >>> it. Example : 1C (1S), you hold a so-so hand with long diamonds, not >>> long enough for a 3D preempt, not strong enough for a 2D bid, and your >>> double promises hearts. You bid 1D and then correct to 1NT to show the >>> ?impossible" hand. Do you really think you will be allowed to do this ? >>> >>> SR: >>> >>> I do. I find it disgusting, but there you are. >>> >>> >>> >> I don't. Whenever the first step is used to show something that couldn't >> be shown as economically due to the (unexpected ?) level of the bidding, >> there is enough ground to apply L72B1. >> "You bid 1D, then corrected it to 1NT in lieu of 2D ? Well, you could >> have known that it would help you to IB, by taking out fewer steps. >> L72B1." >> So, I doubt Koen will get any benefits of his "convention", even if it >> was allowed, at least when facing TDs who know what L72B1 implies. >> >> Stefanie, you're allowed to be disgusted, and as some would say, "I >> won't let them out". >> > > I am very puzzled that I cannot play (in the ACBL) the convention that 2C, > following a 1C insufficient bid, shows an opening hand and 3 or more > clubs. However, I am (apparently) allowed to bid 2C with only 3 clubs. > Once I do, it creates a (presumably legal) implicit agreement that the 2C > bid might be made with 3 clubs. > This looks strange indeed. The fact that 2C over 1S might be only a 3-carder (mainly with 3433 or 4333 pattern) is considered standard, so the correction should be allowed because neither the intended opening nor the correction is artificial. Did you use this argument ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 09:51:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:51:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480D9901.4030909@ulb.ac.be> Jack Rhind a ?crit : > Koen raises a very good question, the answer to which I believe must > be NO. > Otherwise a partnership can arrange to have a two-way situation where > they deliberately make an IB, then follow it with a correction to be > able to play the bid two ways. Indeed. And that's why L72B1 will apply in 100% of the occurrences of that gadget. In fact, I see this as a very good example of why it had to be phrased "could have known that it could benefit him" and not "did it on purpose". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 22 13:09:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:09:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480DC74D.4070609@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > "SS statements typically lack external verifiability. > Examples include: "I didn't notice any hesitation," "I > was always going to save, whatever level they bid to," > "I knew I made the wrong bid as soon as I made it," and > "Partner is always slow in these situations." SS > statements require us to accept them on faith, since they > cannot be verified objectively. In addition, they > usually involve information that is legally inadmissible. > For example, the laws refer to what a player _could_ have > known, not what he _did_ know, and whether an action > _could_ demonstrably have been suggested over another, > not whether it _was_ suggested. The content of a > player's mind or his intentions are usually irrelevant, > often immaterial and sometimes inadmissible by law for > adjudication purposes. Thus, SS statements will normally > (but not always) be disregarded and a waste of time." > > Most of us would admit the fact that a player, while putting his bid on the tray, pass a paper to one's screenmate, reading : "I'm bidding again no matter how fast or slow it comes back". This is percieved as a way to avoid being told one used UI from the tempo, and there are cases where it was considered valid evidence. This shows that it isn't the content of the argument which counts (here, "I was always going to bid again", a typical SS statzment), but its verifiability. Whence no argument should be brushed aside before asking the player how it can ve checked. This is perhaps the essence of the words (but not always) hereabove. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 22 13:46:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:46:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: <620BF581-F841-4E05-9751-1A69D64DA7C4@starpower.net> References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> <4809CA61.8050502@skynet.be> <620BF581-F841-4E05-9751-1A69D64DA7C4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <480DD002.4060209@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 19, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> I would seem rather obvious that if we were to rewrite TFLB to >>> replace "APU entitlement" with "BIM entitlement", we would want/need >>> to replace PUM disclosure with some (as yet to be determined) form of >>> BIM disclosure. >> And of course that will create even more problems. How shall you treat >> real misbids in that system? > > I'm not sure what "real misbid" would mean in such a radically > different game. If you are responsible only for describing what you > intended your call to mean, how can you unintentionally get it wrong? > Yes, but that supposes the bidder explains. There can be no MI then. I believe Bob was talking about partner explaining, but BIM being the intention (of course sometimes getting it wrong). Under that system, a misbid will be correctly explained (APU), but judged to be incorrectly explained (because it does not conform to BIM). Then misbidding becomes an infraction. That is not the system that I am in favour of, no matter how often you hear me saying that the opponents should get BIM. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 22 13:51:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:51:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> Message-ID: <480DD12F.30807@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Apr 19, 2008, at 11:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Summary: I will guess on the meaning of "actual partnership >> agreement" and >> argue that the bidder's actual partnership agreement can be >> different from >> the partner's actual partnership agreement, especially when they are >> miscommunicating. > > That's semantic nonsense. Two people cannot form an "actual > agreement" about anything unless they "agree". If "they are > miscommunicating" at the time, they may think they are "agreeing" to > something, but they would be wrong. > > If Bob and I discuss his selling me a book but fail to explicitly set > a price, and after the conversation is over I think we agreed he > would sell it to me for $10 and he thinks we agreed he would sell it > to me for $20, we have not agreed that he will sell it to me at all, > even though we both think we have. > > The laws presume a single "objective" APU, while recognizing that its > value may be null. You have to agree on something before it can be > anything else. > And that is where you are wrong. The laws presume that BIM is the APU. Eric seems to believe that our beloved footnote (I don't know where in the new laws it has gotten to) does not extend to "no agreement". I beg to differ. If Eric's view is correct, then a partner who tries to be helpful, and tells his guess, but guesses incorrectly, will be judged having given MI; while a partner who is unhelpful, and says nothing, would not be judged against. That cannot be correct. If the director has to presume MI (APU = "A") when the hand does not suit the explanation "B", then he should also have to presume the same thing if the hand does not suit the explanation "A or B". > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Apr 22 14:12:15 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:12:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <480D0B8D.40208@hotmail.com> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> <480D0B8D.40208@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <480DD61F.5000303@NTLworld.com> [Koen] We will never make an IB by purpose, but maybe in 5 years we will accidently make an IB and then we will use this convention. L72B1 sounds like you have done something by purpose and in theory should not be applied here? We made the IB by mistake, but yes we have a tool to overcome our mistake. - Do you agree that L72B1 does in fact not apply? - In fact it does not apply, but you still apply it because you don't want to allow this situation (I wouldn't really mind this)? [Nigel] Again it is recommended that, in a futile attempt to make sense of a law, directors break (or in some cases just bend) other laws. IMO: the 1997 insufficient bid law was flawed. The new version is a farce. Rather than tinker with the rest of the law to make it work, the WBFLC should go back to the drawing board. In particular, now that the law specifically allows agreements that take advantage of infractions, all the player options should be removed. IMO, Law 40B3 is itself another aberration ... but sufficient unto the day. Do the WBFLC realise that most of the time, their rules must be enforced by amateur non-playing directors in ordinary bridge clubs? From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 22 15:16:13 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:16:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net> On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I am very puzzled that I cannot play (in the ACBL) the convention > that 2C, > following a 1C insufficient bid, shows an opening hand and 3 or more > clubs. However, I am (apparently) allowed to bid 2C with only 3 clubs. > Once I do, it creates a (presumably legal) implicit agreement that > the 2C > bid might be made with 3 clubs. > > This is a good implicit agreement, so I want to bid 2C with this > hand even > it confuses partner the first time it happens. But it probably won't > confuse partner at all, because if I can tell you this situation, I > can > tell it to my partner too. Then we can use our general bridge > knowledge to > be on the same wavelength. The first time it happens, we will not be > required to tell the opps that the 2C bidder might have 3 clubs, > because > we have no explicit or implicit agreement about this, compliant > rule-bound > players that we are. When you correct an insufficient 1C opening to 2C under 1997 L27B1 (a), the whole world knows that you are "showing" any hand with which you would have opened 1C. 2008 L27B1(a) is substantively identical to 1997 L27B1(a). L27B1(b) may have changed the subtle inferences, but the workings of the law remain AI always. If this winds up working to your advantage, your opponents are protected by L27D (as previously by 1997 L27B1(b)). > (I am with Stephanie -- I am not fond of being able to correct to a > bid > when the player doesn't have the hand for the bid.) > > (The goal is not to get to a better contract than we could have > without > the IB; the goal is to recover from the IB and get to the contract the > rest of the field is in.) The law appears to support making specific agreements about sequences after your own side's IB, but that might be a mirage. Could having such an agreement be found to be a prima facie presumptive intent to violate L72B1, sufficient to outweigh a player's unsupported word and shift the burden of proof? As an AC member, I'd be reluctant to overrule a TD who thought that to be the case. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Apr 22 15:38:26 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:38:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> <78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080422233058.0412a3f0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 11:16 PM 22/04/2008, you wrote: >On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > > I am very puzzled that I cannot play (in the ACBL) the convention > > that 2C, > > following a 1C insufficient bid, shows an opening hand and 3 or more > > clubs. However, I am (apparently) allowed to bid 2C with only 3 clubs. > > Once I do, it creates a (presumably legal) implicit agreement that > > the 2C > > bid might be made with 3 clubs. > > > > This is a good implicit agreement, so I want to bid 2C with this > > hand even > > it confuses partner the first time it happens. But it probably won't > > confuse partner at all, because if I can tell you this situation, I > > can > > tell it to my partner too. Then we can use our general bridge > > knowledge to > > be on the same wavelength. The first time it happens, we will not be > > required to tell the opps that the 2C bidder might have 3 clubs, > > because > > we have no explicit or implicit agreement about this, compliant > > rule-bound > > players that we are. > >When you correct an insufficient 1C opening to 2C under 1997 L27B1 >(a), the whole world knows that you are "showing" any hand with which >you would have opened 1C. 2008 L27B1(a) is substantively identical >to 1997 L27B1(a). L27B1(b) may have changed the subtle inferences, >but the workings of the law remain AI always. Under the 1997 Laws I would allow 1C change to 2C provided they played 1C as at least 3 clubs (not conventional under OZ law), but they were on their own if their 1C could have shown 2 (my revenge for 5 card major bidders), Now there is inexplicable possibility of finding IBs intention, finding another bid which contains the same info etc. I have allowed : 1C (1C) change to take-out double because I think that's what TPTB might have wanted to mean, not because I have worked out the Venn diagram. Of course, they can always change to 2C without penalty provided it is natural. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From john at asimere.com Tue Apr 22 17:27:24 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:27:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: Message-ID: <005901c8a48d$5d6e41b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Rhind To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay Koen raises a very good question, the answer to which I believe must be NO. Otherwise a partnership can arrange to have a two-way situation where they deliberately make an IB, then follow it with a correction to be able to play the bid two ways. The "Probst cheat" is beavering away at this. :) John Jack From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 22 19:06:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:06:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] The reall issue of "no agreement" In-Reply-To: References: <480702FA.9050404@skynet.be> <03837DC4-4F24-409B-8CEB-100EDB1EC030@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49C09846-E726-4F84-ACAC-64F745C55DC3@starpower.net> On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:25:58 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Apr 19, 2008, at 11:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Summary: I will guess on the meaning of "actual partnership >>> agreement" and >>> argue that the bidder's actual partnership agreement can be >>> different from >>> the partner's actual partnership agreement, especially when they are >>> miscommunicating. >> >> That's semantic nonsense. Two people cannot form an "actual >> agreement" about anything unless they "agree". If "they are >> miscommunicating" at the time, they may think they are "agreeing" to >> something, but they would be wrong. >> >> If Bob and I discuss his selling me a book but fail to explicitly set >> a price, and after the conversation is over I think we agreed he >> would sell it to me for $10 and he thinks we agreed he would sell it >> to me for $20, we have not agreed that he will sell it to me at all, >> even though we both think we have. >> >> The laws presume a single "objective" APU, while recognizing that its >> value may be null. You have to agree on something before it can be >> anything else. > > When my partner and I exchange "Negative Doubles through 3S" and > "yes", > that creates an understanding in my head of our agreement, and it > creates > an understanding in her head of our agreement. This understanding > includes > not only doubles we make, but bids we make instead of double, and > probably > even balancing action when a double has not occurred. > > It is natural that our understandings do not perfectly correspond. > You are > saying that "actual partnership understanding" is only the points > on which > we agree. I will infer that where we do not agree, our actual > partnership > understanding is "no common understanding". > > When asked the meaning of my partner's bid, I cannot report the APU. I > know only my understanding. So presumably I report that, correct? Yes. > If my partner and I have the same understanding, my explanation is > correct. If my partner and I have a different understanding, the > correct > explanation was "no common understanding" and my explanation was > wrong. > Therefore the opps deserve protection. Correct. > Can you give me that if I forget about an agreement, that forgetting > changes my understanding and hence the common partnership > understanding? No. Forgetting an agreement doesn't alter it unless/until your partner becomes aware that you have forgotten it. > Suppose I want to bet that I have one understanding and my partner has > another. Is this even possible? If it is, can I answer "no common > understanding" and hope I am right? You disclose your *partnership* understandings. You have them or you don't. You don't have partnership understandings that differ from one member to the other. If you have no reason to think you have an understanding of any kind, tell them. If you think you have an understanding but aren't entirely on the same wavelength about how it applies in the situation at hand, tell them. Tell them whatever you know about whatever agreements you do have that you think would be helpful to them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 22 23:46:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:46:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8a30b$7dabd4c0$79037e40$@com> Message-ID: The Bridge World, January 1993 Master Solvers' Club, Problem C Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C Pass 1S X Pass 2H 3H 3H(1) X Pass ? (1) Insufficient; accepted You, South, hold: [snip] Question 1: How many hearts do you, South, hold? Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Don't know", and if an opponent asks for an explanation of North's double, is the explanation that you, South, give dependent upon the number of hearts that you, South, hold? 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 Wed Apr 23 00:10:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:10:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001a01c8a4c5$a994e840$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > The Bridge World, January 1993 > Master Solvers' Club, Problem C > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1C Pass 1S > X Pass 2H 3H > 3H(1) X Pass ? > > (1) Insufficient; accepted > > You, South, hold: > > [snip] > > Question 1: How many hearts do you, South, hold? Do you belong to the lunatic school that thinks you can't open a wk 2 with a side 4 carder? If yes; you're 6-4, if no, you're 5-5. If you're insane you're 5-4. John > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Don't > know", and if an opponent asks for an explanation > of North's double, is the explanation that you, > South, give dependent upon the number of hearts > that you, South, hold? > No, unless you belong to the Belgian school. (Actually even the Belgian school answers this one NO, I think) John > > 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 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 23 00:43:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:43:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <480DD12F.30807@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >...a partner who tries to be helpful, and tells his guess... Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. Helpful to who? ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: [snip] >>Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer >>statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating >>it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives >>unauthorised information to partner. 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 Wed Apr 23 01:16:41 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:16:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01c8a4c5$a994e840$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <001a01c8a4c5$a994e840$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <000501c8a4ce$ecb43370$c61c9a50$@com> [RH] > The Bridge World, January 1993 > Master Solvers' Club, Problem C > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1C Pass 1S > X Pass 2H 3H > 3H(1) X Pass ? > > (1) Insufficient; accepted > > You, South, hold: > > [snip] > > Question 1: How many hearts do you, South, hold? [JP] Do you belong to the lunatic school that thinks you can't open a wk 2 with a side 4 carder? [DALB] I am at a loss to see the relevance of this. There is no evidence to support the notion that anyone might have considered opening a weak two bid. I do not know how many hearts South might hold for this auction. Come to that, I do not know how many hearts North might hold for this auction, nor indeed how many clubs North might hold for this auction. Before I can make much progress, I would need to know: What is North-South's basic method? What would a redouble by North at his second turn have meant? What would 2H by North at his second turn have meant? (would it have been natural, or some sort of cue bid in one of West's implied suits?) What did South intend by 3H? What would it have meant if instead he had: doubled? bid 3D? All I can contribute is that if I had this auction with the only partner with whom I have discussed this kind of thing, then: North's pass over the double would tend to deny three spades (else he would offer a support redouble, but he would not have to do so on a balanced minimum). South's 3H would be a try for 3NT that showed a heart guard but denied a diamond guard (so that South would be assumed to have at least two hearts and probably three, Kx being a questionable holding). North's double would be penalty, and I would so explain it. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 23 04:14:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:14:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rich Colker: >...One type I will call self-interested (SI) and the other I >will call self-serving (SS). SI statements have an >objective or verifiable component. >... >With SI statements, we can consult the players' system notes >or convention cards... Richard Hills: Which means that a competent Director could well rule that an SI statement that pard's call was "non-systemic" is verified by the system card. Since truth is stranger than fiction, just such a "non-systemic" instance occurred at the Canberra Bridge Club last night. Imps Dlr: North Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass Pass 2C(1) Pass Pass(2) ? (3) (1) Either balanced and 21-22 hcp, or unbalanced game force. (2) Non-systemic. (3) While you, South, are contemplating your call you gain some AI from East. She makes some self-critical remarks, which conclude with the statement, "Oh well, it's too late now." You, South, hold: J4 K98432 JT2 T8 What call do you make? 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 Wed Apr 23 05:05:41 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:05:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701c8a4ee$eab6f650$c024e2f0$@com> [RH] Imps Dlr: North Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass Pass 2C(1) Pass Pass(2) ? (3) (1) Either balanced and 21-22 hcp, or unbalanced game force. (2) Non-systemic. (3) While you, South, are contemplating your call you gain some AI from East. She makes some self-critical remarks, which conclude with the statement, "Oh well, it's too late now." You, South, hold: J4 K98432 JT2 T8 What call do you make? [DALB] "Director". That is, assuming 1997 Law 25B2(b)(2) still applies at the Canberra Bridge Club. I know that under this Law my opponents are entitled to a shot at average minus; the fact that they don't know this ought not to affect my actions or their rights. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. Of course I could just pass, hoping that 2C was not my opponents' optimum spot. But suppose it was... David Burn London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 23 06:06:51 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:06:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> I have posted a few cases where I have allowed an insufficient bid to change to either a take-out or negative double. Not one has met general agreement, so I am willing to believe that there are no hands (or maybe a few DOPI ones) where a change to double is allowed. This from today: North East South West 1C(1) pass 1D 1S 1H (1) could be as short as 2. I gave the option of 2H without penalty, and after some thought, negative double. All other calls barring partner. General amazement for EW who haven't heard that I am using the new Law book. I get the new Law book out, and read the relevant section (not from my brand new book since it is already out of date, I explain, but from this sheet of paper which I have downloaded). Further disbelief. "See how it says 'in the Director's opinion', so that is what goes here" Bidding continues North East South West X pass 4H all pass I am also playing at another table on this occasion so all this only takes about 10 minutes. So who says directing isn't fun..another two dissatisfied customers, and I know there will be several of you who will prove that there are hands which could have bid 1H and not X. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 09:06:55 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:06:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000001c8a30b$7dabd4c0$79037e40$@com> Message-ID: On 22/04/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The Bridge World, January 1993 > Master Solvers' Club, Problem C > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1C Pass 1S > X Pass 2H 3H > 3H(1) X Pass ? > > (1) Insufficient; accepted > > You, South, hold: > > [snip] > > Question 1: How many hearts do you, South, hold? Not less than a void! :-) 3H is either asking for a stopper for 3NT, in which case I'd normally hold 2-3 hearts. Or it might be an advanced cue, on the way to making a slam try in one of the black suits. If so, I might be void. > > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Don't > know", and if an opponent asks for an explanation > of North's double, is the explanation that you, > South, give dependent upon the number of hearts > that you, South, hold? North's double is ostensibly for penalties. It's showing a heart holding that would be a negative if I was going to make a slam try. Whatever my intention, I should be in a position to make a good decision now. I'd expect pass to be my next call on most occasions. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 09:15:20 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:15:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On 23/04/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > I have posted a few cases where I have allowed > an insufficient bid to change to either a take-out > or negative double. Not one has met general > agreement, so I am willing to believe that there > are no hands (or maybe a few DOPI ones) > where a change to double is allowed. > > This from today: > > North East South West > 1C(1) pass 1D 1S > 1H > (1) could be as short as 2. > > I gave the option of 2H without penalty, and after > some thought, negative double. I don't know why you use the word negative double here, since there's no such thing as a negative double in this position. If the pair in question apply t/o doubles here that promises 4cH, I presume it's OK to allow a double as a RC here. There might be hands that would bid 1H and not double, since you might elect to pass with 4cH and a balanced minimum. If a double 100% shows 4cH any hand that might double would bid 1H, and there's no problem. Some pairs apply support doubles in this position, for some a double only shows strength and others again use penalty doubles. If so, you can't allow a RC double. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran >All other calls > barring partner. General amazement for EW who > haven't heard that I am using the new Law book. > > I get the new Law book out, and read the relevant > section (not from my brand new book since it is already out > of date, I explain, but from this sheet of paper which > I have downloaded). Further disbelief. "See how it says > 'in the Director's opinion', so that is what goes here" > > Bidding continues > North East South West > X pass 4H all pass > > I am also playing at another table on this occasion so all > this only takes about 10 minutes. So who says directing > isn't fun..another two dissatisfied customers, and I know > there will be several of you who will prove that there are > hands which could have bid 1H and not X. > > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 23 09:50:47 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:50:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: North Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass Pass 2C(1) Pass Pass(2) ? (3) (1) Either balanced and 21-22 hcp, or unbalanced game force. (2) Non-systemic. (3) While you, South, are contemplating your call you gain some AI from East. She makes some self-critical remarks, which conclude with the statement, "Oh well, it's too late now." You, South, hold: J4 K98432 JT2 T8 What call do you make? David Burn: >"Director". > >That is, assuming 1997 Law 25B2(b)(2) still applies at >the Canberra Bridge Club. Richard Hills: One of the many problems with the almost defunct 1997 Law 25B is that East's rights do not expire when her partner has called, but when her LHO has called. Blmler Reg Busch once noted that this created an unfair race between East and South, as the outcome depended on whether East's summoning of the TD was quicker than South's call in rotation. David Burn: >I know that under this Law my opponents are entitled to >a shot at average minus; the fact that they don't know >this ought not to affect my actions or their rights. > >Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. Richard Hills: The maxim "fiat justitia ruat caelum" has been attributed to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesonius (d. 43 BCE). The English translation "let Justice be done, though the Heavens may fall" was famously used by the English judge William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield (1703-1793) when he ruled in Somersett's case (1772) that slavery was illegal in England. So yes, at the table my call was "Director!" After careful questioning of East, the TD ruled that the appropriate Law was not the 1997 Law 25B2 but rather the 1997 Law 25A. East-West subsequently bid and made their cold game in the par 3NT contract, so virtue had to be its own reward. 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 Wed Apr 23 10:03:55 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:03:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423175700.0418cf58@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 05:15 PM 23/04/2008, you wrote: >On 23/04/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > I have posted a few cases where I have allowed > > an insufficient bid to change to either a take-out > > or negative double. Not one has met general > > agreement, so I am willing to believe that there > > are no hands (or maybe a few DOPI ones) > > where a change to double is allowed. > > > > This from today: > > > > North East South West > > 1C(1) pass 1D 1S > > 1H > > (1) could be as short as 2. > > > > I gave the option of 2H without penalty, and after > > some thought, negative double. Harald: >I don't know why you use the word negative double here, since there's >no such thing as a negative double in this position. If the pair in >question apply t/o doubles here that promises 4cH, I presume it's OK >to allow a double as a RC here. There might be hands that would bid 1H >and not double, since you might elect to pass with 4cH and a balanced >minimum. If a double 100% shows 4cH any hand that might double would >bid 1H, and there's no problem. > >Some pairs apply support doubles in this position, for some a double >only shows strength and others again use penalty doubles. If so, you >can't allow a RC double. Thank you for this, my first qualified agreement. What if the player *did* play one of these other doubles which I don't know the names of, but still wished to make a take-out double (a bit out of system, say, but preferable to a 2H bid). You say they cannot replace with double, in which case they bid 2H and everybody at the table knows by this stage that this is a bare minimum?? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 23 10:06:55 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:06:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423180536.041b2db8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 05:50 PM 23/04/2008, you wrote: >Imps >Dlr: North >Vul: Both > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass Pass >2C(1) Pass Pass(2) ? (3) > >(1) Either balanced and 21-22 hcp, or unbalanced game force. >(2) Non-systemic. >(3) While you, South, are contemplating your call you gain >some AI from East. She makes some self-critical remarks, >which conclude with the statement, "Oh well, it's too late >now." > >You, South, hold: > >J4 >K98432 >JT2 >T8 > >What call do you make? > >David Burn: > > >"Director". > > > >That is, assuming 1997 Law 25B2(b)(2) still applies at > >the Canberra Bridge Club. > >Richard Hills: > >One of the many problems with the almost defunct 1997 Law >25B is that East's rights do not expire when her partner >has called, but when her LHO has called. Blmler Reg >Busch once noted that this created an unfair race between >East and South, as the outcome depended on whether East's >summoning of the TD was quicker than South's call in >rotation. > >David Burn: > > >I know that under this Law my opponents are entitled to > >a shot at average minus; the fact that they don't know > >this ought not to affect my actions or their rights. > > > >Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. > >Richard Hills: > >The maxim "fiat justitia ruat caelum" has been attributed >to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesonius (d. 43 BCE). The >English translation "let Justice be done, though the >Heavens may fall" was famously used by the English judge >William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield (1703-1793) when >he ruled in Somersett's case (1772) that slavery was >illegal in England. > >So yes, at the table my call was "Director!" After >careful questioning of East, the TD ruled that the >appropriate Law was not the 1997 Law 25B2 but rather the >1997 Law 25A. East-West subsequently bid and made their >cold game in the par 3NT contract, so virtue had to be >its own reward. I will stick my neck out here. No director would rule L25A here, not with bidding boxes, not with written bidding, never Am I right? Tony (Sydney) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 10:50:47 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:50:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480EF867.3020602@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > The Bridge World, January 1993 > Master Solvers' Club, Problem C > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1C Pass 1S > X Pass 2H 3H > 3H(1) X Pass ? > > (1) Insufficient; accepted > > You, South, hold: > > [snip] > > Question 1: How many hearts do you, South, hold? > > I would hold a singleton and some club fit , but I guess some could have a nondescript holding and merely be making a strong bid. > Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Don't > know", and if an opponent asks for an explanation > of North's double, is the explanation that you, > South, give dependent upon the number of hearts > that you, South, hold? > > No, of course. This would create UI. But what he is trying to show might be dependent on what I promised. In my wiew, a double woud be : a) penalty if I showed a singleton (partner knows all, and may hold 4 hearts), b) a "return cue-bid" if I my heart holding is ambiguous (we play double as a return cue-bid over sufficient 3-level bids in such a case). Notice that if the answer to question 1 is "I don't know", wer're in case b), so I know what to answer. (and if partner answered "I don't know", explaining b) would abide by both MS and dWS, so it must be right) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 10:53:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:53:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c8a4ce$ecb43370$c61c9a50$@com> References: <001a01c8a4c5$a994e840$0901a8c0@JOHN> <000501c8a4ce$ecb43370$c61c9a50$@com> Message-ID: <480EF8ED.5030007@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [RH] > > >> The Bridge World, January 1993 >> Master Solvers' Club, Problem C >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: West >> Vul: None >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass 1C Pass 1S >> X Pass 2H 3H >> 3H(1) X Pass ? >> >> (1) Insufficient; accepted >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> [snip] >> >> Question 1: How many hearts do you, South, hold? >> > > [JP] > > Do you belong to the lunatic school that thinks you can't open a wk 2 with a > side 4 carder? > > [DALB] > > I am at a loss to see the relevance of this. AG : I guess John misread whose holding was under scrutiny. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 11:04:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:04:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480EFB83.7050304@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Rich Colker: > > >> ...One type I will call self-interested (SI) and the other I >> will call self-serving (SS). SI statements have an >> objective or verifiable component. >> ... >> With SI statements, we can consult the players' system notes >> or convention cards... >> > > Richard Hills: > > Which means that a competent Director could well rule that an > SI statement that pard's call was "non-systemic" is verified > by the system card. Since truth is stranger than fiction, > AG ... because she isn't restricted by considerations about verisimilitude. > just such a "non-systemic" instance occurred at the Canberra > Bridge Club last night. > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass Pass > 2C(1) Pass Pass(2) ? (3) > > (1) Either balanced and 21-22 hcp, or unbalanced game force. > (2) Non-systemic. > (3) While you, South, are contemplating your call you gain > some AI from East. She makes some self-critical remarks, > which conclude with the statement, "Oh well, it's too late > now." > If East explained the 2C bid, before bidding, as having the abovementioned meaning, then she had a slip of the tongue, and it isn't too late. Or perhaps she saw a non-pass by North ? Yes, she gives out some AI that she wouldn't want to pass, but I wouldn't qualify this as UI to her partner, because no sane human being would want to. > You, South, hold: > > J4 > K98432 > JT2 > T8 > > What call do you make? > > I pass. WTP ? It may happen that a player act in this way to deter you from reopening, and L73D2 would apply, but I don't think this could happen over a potentially GF bid. If opener happens to hold a weaker hand and responder passed, I rule red psyche. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 11:07:26 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:07:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <480EFC4E.10306@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > I have posted a few cases where I have allowed > an insufficient bid to change to either a take-out > or negative double. Not one has met general > agreement, so I am willing to believe that there > are no hands (or maybe a few DOPI ones) > where a change to double is allowed. > > This from today: > > North East South West > 1C(1) pass 1D 1S > 1H > (1) could be as short as 2. > > I gave the option of 2H without penalty, and after > some thought, negative double. All other calls > barring partner. General amazement for EW who > haven't heard that I am using the new Law book. > > I get the new Law book out, and read the relevant > section (not from my brand new book since it is already out > of date, I explain, but from this sheet of paper which > I have downloaded). Further disbelief. "See how it says > 'in the Director's opinion', so that is what goes here" > > Bidding continues > North East South West > X pass 4H all pass > > I am also playing at another table on this occasion so all > this only takes about 10 minutes. So who says directing > isn't fun..another two dissatisfied customers, and I know > there will be several of you who will prove that there are > hands which could have bid 1H and not X. > The problem isn't there. The problem is that there are hands that would double, but not bid 1H, so that the 1H bit cerates UI. This once again proves that the new law 27 is often misinterpreted. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 11:07:26 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:07:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <480EFC4E.10306@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > I have posted a few cases where I have allowed > an insufficient bid to change to either a take-out > or negative double. Not one has met general > agreement, so I am willing to believe that there > are no hands (or maybe a few DOPI ones) > where a change to double is allowed. > > This from today: > > North East South West > 1C(1) pass 1D 1S > 1H > (1) could be as short as 2. > > I gave the option of 2H without penalty, and after > some thought, negative double. All other calls > barring partner. General amazement for EW who > haven't heard that I am using the new Law book. > > I get the new Law book out, and read the relevant > section (not from my brand new book since it is already out > of date, I explain, but from this sheet of paper which > I have downloaded). Further disbelief. "See how it says > 'in the Director's opinion', so that is what goes here" > > Bidding continues > North East South West > X pass 4H all pass > > I am also playing at another table on this occasion so all > this only takes about 10 minutes. So who says directing > isn't fun..another two dissatisfied customers, and I know > there will be several of you who will prove that there are > hands which could have bid 1H and not X. > The problem isn't there. The problem is that there are hands that would double, but not bid 1H, so that the 1H bit cerates UI. This once again proves that the new law 27 is often misinterpreted. Best regards Alain From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 23 11:48:47 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:48:47 EDT Subject: [blml] Another L27 case Message-ID: [agot at ulb.ac.be] writes: (regarding the auction 1C-(Pass)-1D-1S-1H) The problem is that there are hands that would double, but not bid 1H, so that the 1H bit cerates UI. [lamford] It is thinking like this that underlines the fundamental fault of the new Law 27. It attempts to compare apples with oranges. After the auction 1C - (Pass) - 1D - 1S how can we have hands that would bid One Heart, and how can they be compared with hands that would double? The laws of bridge define what constitute bids and insufficient bids. The latter can convey information but there is no understanding between partnerships of their meaning. Of course, an auction such as 1C - (4S) - 4H conveys information in that is shows a lot of hearts. But no partnership has a systemic understanding for the bid. Maybe the director has to decide how he would interpret the insufficient bid if a systemic interpretation were allowed. Perhaps what the new law means is that it is assumed that the opponent's previous bid is removed and the new bid has to incorporate the meaning of the old one. But this only addresses one subset of insufficient bids, those that would be sufficient without the last call by the opponent. There are other subsets; those that are just a level too low, or those that mistake the auction entirely. Let us say that the auction goes, uncontested, 1C - 1H - 1NT - 2C (checkback) - 2S - 2C. Now this bid could be one of several things. Someone with very poor short term memory might be bidding 2C checkback again, having forgotten a round of bidding. Someone else might be bidding 3C forcing. Someone else might be attempting to make a forcing 3H bid, but just got confused and made the bid he had previously made. Someone else might have no explanation at all for his idiocy. What does the director do then? One interpretation is to ask him what he intended. If he says: "I meant to bid checkback again", then is he allowed to bid anything on the basis that repeating checkback would have given no information? If he intended to bid 3H is he not allowed to, as one of the possible meanings of 2C is forcing with clubs? Law 27 is an abomination, and already around the shires of England the WBFLC has become a laughing stock. The sooner it is repealed the better, as it will put a strain on TDs worldwide, and will not be understood at all by the weaker, possibly less careful, players it is designed to help. In addition, it needs all TDs to be familiar with, or ask sufficient questions to become familiar with, the system of the pair making the IB. A nightmare. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 23 15:36:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:36:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <004F20F4-EF8B-4CF8-A3D3-65B9FA40847A@starpower.net> On Apr 23, 2008, at 3:15 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 23/04/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> I have posted a few cases where I have allowed >> an insufficient bid to change to either a take-out >> or negative double. Not one has met general >> agreement, so I am willing to believe that there >> are no hands (or maybe a few DOPI ones) >> where a change to double is allowed. >> >> This from today: >> >> North East South West >> 1C(1) pass 1D 1S >> 1H >> (1) could be as short as 2. >> >> I gave the option of 2H without penalty, and after >> some thought, negative double. > > I don't know why you use the word negative double here, since there's > no such thing as a negative double in this position. If the pair in > question apply t/o doubles here that promises 4cH, I presume it's OK > to allow a double as a RC here. There might be hands that would bid 1H > and not double, since you might elect to pass with 4cH and a balanced > minimum. If a double 100% shows 4cH any hand that might double would > bid 1H, and there's no problem. North wasn't aware that West had bid 1S, so unless N-S are playing a very odd system, North, presumably "hearing" 1C-P-1D-P-, would never pass. But if he systemically could, it wouldn't matter. The criterion of L27B1(b) would require no hand that would double but would not bid 1H (so that the IB provides no information not available from the double), not the other way around. > Some pairs apply support doubles in this position, for some a double > only shows strength and others again use penalty doubles. If so, you > can't allow a RC double. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 23 16:05:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:05:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2008, at 5:48 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > [agot at ulb.ac.be] writes: > (regarding the auction 1C-(Pass)-1D-1S-1H) > > The problem is that there are hands that would > double, but not bid 1H, so that the 1H bit cerates UI. > > [lamford] > It is thinking like this that underlines the fundamental fault of > the new > Law 27. It attempts to compare apples with oranges. After the > auction 1C - > (Pass) - 1D - 1S how can we have hands that would bid One Heart, > and how can they > be compared with hands that would double? The laws of bridge > define what > constitute bids and insufficient bids. The latter can convey > information but > there is no understanding between partnerships of their meaning. Of > course, an > auction such as 1C - (4S) - 4H conveys information in that is shows > a lot of > hearts. But no partnership has a systemic understanding for the > bid. Maybe the > director has to decide how he would interpret the insufficient bid > if a > systemic interpretation were allowed. > > Perhaps what the new law means is that it is assumed that the > opponent's > previous bid is removed and the new bid has to incorporate the > meaning of the > old one. But this only addresses one subset of insufficient bids, > those that > would be sufficient without the last call by the opponent. There > are other > subsets; those that are just a level too low, or those that > mistake the auction > entirely. Let us say that the auction goes, uncontested, 1C - 1H - > 1NT - 2C > (checkback) - 2S - 2C. Now this bid could be one of several > things. Someone > with very poor short term memory might be bidding 2C checkback > again, having > forgotten a round of bidding. Someone else might be bidding 3C > forcing. Someone > else might be attempting to make a forcing 3H bid, but just got > confused and > made the bid he had previously made. Someone else might have no > explanation > at all for his idiocy. What does the director do then? One > interpretation is > to ask him what he intended. If he says: "I meant to bid checkback > again", > then is he allowed to bid anything on the basis that repeating > checkback would > have given no information? If he intended to bid 3H is he not > allowed to, as > one of the possible meanings of 2C is forcing with clubs? > > Law 27 is an abomination, and already around the shires of England > the WBFLC > has become a laughing stock. The sooner it is repealed the better, > as it > will put a strain on TDs worldwide, and will not be understood at > all by the > weaker, possibly less careful, players it is designed to help. In > addition, it > needs all TDs to be familiar with, or ask sufficient questions to > become > familiar with, the system of the pair making the IB. A nightmare. I disagree that L27 is an abomination, but it will rapidly become so if we force directors to take into account all of "the possible meanings" of the IB, as Paul's 2C example above demonstrates. If, however, we accept an intpretation by which the director must determine what the IBer believed the auction to be at the time of the IB (any reasonable protocol for dealing with IBs must assume they were not made intentionally) before applying L27B1, and by which this finding of fact is AI to the table, the nightmare scenarios disappear. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 16:30:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:30:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: <004F20F4-EF8B-4CF8-A3D3-65B9FA40847A@starpower.net> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> <004F20F4-EF8B-4CF8-A3D3-65B9FA40847A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <480F480C.6030600@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 23, 2008, at 3:15 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > >> On 23/04/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >>> I have posted a few cases where I have allowed >>> an insufficient bid to change to either a take-out >>> or negative double. Not one has met general >>> agreement, so I am willing to believe that there >>> are no hands (or maybe a few DOPI ones) >>> where a change to double is allowed. >>> >>> This from today: >>> >>> North East South West >>> 1C(1) pass 1D 1S >>> 1H >>> (1) could be as short as 2. >>> >>> I gave the option of 2H without penalty, and after >>> some thought, negative double. >>> >> I don't know why you use the word negative double here, since there's >> no such thing as a negative double in this position. If the pair in >> question apply t/o doubles here that promises 4cH, I presume it's OK >> to allow a double as a RC here. There might be hands that would bid 1H >> and not double, since you might elect to pass with 4cH and a balanced >> minimum. If a double 100% shows 4cH any hand that might double would >> bid 1H, and there's no problem. >> > > North wasn't aware that West had bid 1S, so unless N-S are playing a > very odd system, North, presumably "hearing" 1C-P-1D-P-, would never > pass. > > But if he systemically could, it wouldn't matter. The criterion of > L27B1(b) would require no hand that would double but would not bid 1H > (so that the IB provides no information not available from the > double), not the other way around. > Indeed. And if they're playing TO doubles in this case (which many do), I doubt 4 hearts are guaranteed. Surely one could hold xx - AQx - AJx - AKxxx.. Whence a double would most probably be disallowed. Contrast with plain Sputnik, which some play as categorically showing 4+ hearts, or with snapdragon doubles : after 1C 1H 2D 1S, you'll be allowed to replace 1S by double, showing at least 4 good spades and 2 hearts, which is more precise than the attempted 1S (which shows only the former). One interesting application of the new rule is in systems where points (or controls) are given by step responses. If 1C (2C) 2D shows 9-10 HCP, as does 1C (p) 1S, allow the substitution of 1S by 2D. Best regards Alain . From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 23 16:35:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:35:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480F493F.2020300@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > If, however, we accept an intpretation by which the director must > determine what the IBer believed the auction to be at the time of the > IB (any reasonable protocol for dealing with IBs must assume they > were not made intentionally) before applying L27B1, and by which this > finding of fact is AI to the table, the nightmare scenarios disappear. > > The protocol seems fine, but surely UI will be created, that IBer has such-and-such. L27 new may then be rephrased as "when all UI given by the attempted bid becomes AI through the replacement bid, the substitution won't create any supplementary duties on partner" with emphasis on ALL. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 23 16:49:35 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:49:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480F4C7F.1040000@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> ...a partner who tries to be helpful, and tells his guess... > > Richard Hills: > > Begging the question, petitio principii. Helpful to who? > > ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: > > [snip] > >>> Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer >>> statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating >>> it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives >>> unauthorised information to partner. > I am not in the ABF, nor do I want to be if they issue such silly regulations as that. How can you wish people to play the game if they are not even allowed to express what they believe their partner's bids mean. Notice that we are in exactly the opposite camps here as the one concerning DWS: I don't care giving UI to partner if he tries me with a bid that we have not discussed - it's up to him to stay within system. OTOH, when I know what he means with his bid (even by means of UI), I will not give him UI to tell him my previous bid was wrongly interpreted. In the DWS case, I refuse to give UI, and you lambast me for it. Yet in this case you have an NBO who expressely tells you to hide valuable information to opponents, in order not to giev UI. Do you see that the issue of UI vs MI is not as settled as you seem to be completely sure about, in that other thread? > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 23 17:21:31 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:21:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> <78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay > > > The law appears to support making specific agreements about sequences > after your own side's IB, but that might be a mirage. Could having > such an agreement be found to be a prima facie presumptive intent to > violate L72B1, sufficient to outweigh a player's unsupported word and > shift the burden of proof? As an AC member, I'd be reluctant to > overrule a TD who thought that to be the case. > +=+ Re law 72B1, could you help me please, Eric, to understand in what way it is suggested the player is infringing the law intentionally? I am far from arguing that it is desirable for partnerships to develop hidden understandings about their actions following their own IB. However, if there is no collusion apparent and a player replaces his IB with a call that misdescribes the hand he holds would we not need to find a breach of 40A3 if we are to rule against his side? In particular, if his partner treats his call as having the meaning ascribed to it in the partnership's disclosures is the partnership in identifiable breach of any law if it chances to arrive in a fortunate contract? I am thinking about regulatory options and whether any such are desirable (and available under the law), given that the 2007 law is what it is - and its further alteration is no longer open to discussion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 23 18:29:47 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:29:47 EDT Subject: [blml] Another L27 case Message-ID: [Eric Landau] I disagree that L27 is an abomination, but it will rapidly become so if we force directors to take into account all of "the possible meanings" of the IB, as Paul's 2C example above demonstrates. If, however, we accept an interpretation by which the director must determine what the IBer believed the auction to be at the time of the IB (any reasonable protocol for dealing with IBs must assume they were not made intentionally) before applying L27B1, and by which this finding of fact is AI to the table, the nightmare scenarios disappear. [paul lamford] Really? You assume that the IBer thought the auction was different to the actual one and therefore the IB would have some meaning in the imaginary auction. But this only covers a subset of IBs. In addition Law 27 makes no reference to the player's intention when making the IB, only to the meaning of the IB, or to be more precise what the TD thinks it might have meant. So, we ask the IBer what he thought the auction was. He admits sheepishly that he did not mistake the auction, but his brain stopped working for a moment. Your method might work when the auction has been mistaken, but I do not see how the TD can decide what the IB means when it wasn't. In fact I cannot see how he can rule at all. "When I make an insufficient bid", said Humpty Dumpty, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 23 19:45:13 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:45:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case References: Message-ID: <039e01c8a569$c90cfd80$8cad9b51@stefanie> [Eric Landau] > I disagree that L27 is an abomination, but it will rapidly become so > if we force directors to take into account all of "the possible > meanings" of the IB, as Paul's 2C example above demonstrates. Not all. Remember that we have only to find the first "possible meaning" that will allow an error-free correction. This process will be even more efficient if it is required (as I believe it will be) that the RC fit the IBer's hand perfectly, ie with no deviation from system. > > If, however, we accept an interpretation by which the director must > determine what the IBer believed the auction to be at the time of the > IB (any reasonable protocol for dealing with IBs must assume they > were not made intentionally) before applying L27B1, and by which this > finding of fact is AI to the table, the nightmare scenarios disappear. I think that "interpretation" is rather a weak word for the idea of making the IBer's intention AI to his partner. "Fantastical notion" would be more apt. In fact, I think that it will be deemed illegal for the director to force the IBer to choose an "intention" and stand by it, thereby possibly giving up the chance of an error-free correction. The new law says nothing about the IBer's intention, or what he thought the auction was, and I think that this information will be "disallowed". Anyway, maybe we are all spending too long discussing a law which will not last! Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 23 19:47:53 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:47:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><6.1.0.6.2.20080420101929.03b37ce8@mail.optusnet.com.au><480B161A.2060706@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <03a401c8a56a$27ea44c0$8cad9b51@stefanie> > >> Tony Musgrove wrote: >> Sorry. I meant correcting to 1NT: Correcting to the lowest >> sufficient bid means: I don't give any other info then what I >> wanted to give with my insufficient 1D. >> So: If we make an IB then the first sufficient bid means: I give >> the same info as what I intended with my IB, so we can continue >> bidding without penalty. > Eric Landau: > Except that partner will be barred. This entire discussion seems to > have overlooked that L27B1 doesn't apply to any sufficient bid > whatsoever, and that there is a L27B2. But we are talking about a RC that, *by definition*, means whatever 1D was supposed to mean. How can partner be barred? Remember that we are allowed to "vary our agreements" after ANY irregularity. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 23 19:53:06 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:53:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423135112.01da0920@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <03b201c8a56a$e2e8e790$8cad9b51@stefanie> From: "Tony Musgrove" >I have posted a few cases where I have allowed > an insufficient bid to change to either a take-out > or negative double. Not one has met general > agreement, so I am willing to believe that there > are no hands (or maybe a few DOPI ones) > where a change to double is allowed. Tony, I think you may be over-interpreting the new law. My feeling is that it is meant to apply to the really clear-cut cases, those where everyone knew what the IBer "meant", where everyone including the NOS feel they should be allowed to "get away with it". Such as: 2NT-(p)-2C, Stayman, or 2D, transfer to hearts. I do not think that attempting any further application will accomplish anything except create: > dissatisfied customers Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 23 19:59:15 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:59:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><480D0B8D.40208@hotmail.com> <480DD61F.5000303@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <03ca01c8a56b$be5b7e50$8cad9b51@stefanie> Nigel: > Do the WBFLC realise that most of the time, their rules must be enforced > by amateur non-playing directors in ordinary bridge clubs? Or that these poor individuals will have no training or communication about the laws apart from their text? The answer seems to be "no". Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 23 20:23:38 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:23:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net> <003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <03cc01c8a56f$269ff830$8cad9b51@stefanie> GE: > I am far from arguing that it is desirable for partnerships to > develop hidden understandings about their actions following their > own IB. What about overt, fully disclosed understandings? > However, if there is no collusion apparent and a player > replaces his IB with a call that misdescribes the hand he holds > would we not need to find a breach of 40A3 if we are to rule > against his side? I shouldn't have thought so. > In particular, if his partner treats his call as > having the meaning ascribed to it in the partnership's disclosures > is the partnership in identifiable breach of any law if it chances to > arrive in a fortunate contract? Perhaps it is not a breach of law, but it is subject to L27B2: 2. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the contract could well have been different*, and the non-offending side is damaged. "At the end of play" seems clear enough; it is not good enough that the contract may have been more against the odds than the "normal" contract. Once the cards are played out, a making contract has odds of 1. Thus "damage" is intended to be what is written on the scoresheet. If a pair make an IB, then make a penalty-deterring RC that is misdescriptive, and arrive in a contract they would not have got to without the misdescription, then they have benefited and the NOS are damaged. How can this be otherwise? Else what is the point of L27B2? What else could "assistance from the IB" mean, since it is not permitted for it to give information not available in the RC? Maybe once in a while the RC will be slightly cheaper than an original sufficient bid, but those cases would be extremely rare. Anyway, once misdecriptive and anti-systemic RCs are disallowed, these problems will be minimised. Stefanie Rohan London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Apr 23 21:52:31 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:52:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:43:04 -0400, wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> ...a partner who tries to be helpful, and tells his guess... > > Richard Hills: > > Begging the question, petitio principii. Helpful to who? > > ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: > > [snip] > >>> Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer >>> statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating >>> it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives >>> unauthorised information to partner. The response of "undiscussed" would also be UI, because all answers are UI. If partner thought the bid was discussed, that could be useful UI. So, all you can do is try to minimize useful UI or or minimize the damage done to the opponents. Or I guess you could have a third goal. But the justification for this policy does not seem to be logical. Is it true that players can say "undiscussed" even when they can use their general bridge knowledge to know the meaning of a bid? It would be very interesting to know the meaning of "undiscussed". When I agree to play Negative Doubles, I am forming an understanding about doubles in that situation, calls other than double, and probably subsequent bids. Are all of those bids discussed? Then when I agree "Standard American", I have probably discussed most or all possible bids. If not, than I just had a 62% game last with my partner last night with only 4 discussed calls (one of which I forgot and got wrong). Bob > > > 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 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 23 22:30:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:30:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: <480F493F.2020300@ulb.ac.be> References: <480F493F.2020300@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> If, however, we accept an intpretation by which the director must >> determine what the IBer believed the auction to be at the time of the >> IB (any reasonable protocol for dealing with IBs must assume they >> were not made intentionally) before applying L27B1, and by which this >> finding of fact is AI to the table, the nightmare scenarios >> disappear. > > The protocol seems fine, but surely UI will be created, that IBer has > such-and-such. > L27 new may then be rephrased as "when all UI given by the > attempted bid > becomes AI through the replacement bid, the substitution won't create > any supplementary duties on partner" > with emphasis on ALL. Lest we get confused, it is L27B1(b) that may be rephrased as Alain suggests. L27B1(a) is an entirely different kettle of fish. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 23 23:30:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be> <78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net> <003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <162C2872-3FC1-4C83-914F-BCD167A9FC90@starpower.net> On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:21 AM, wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> The law appears to support making specific agreements about sequences >> after your own side's IB, but that might be a mirage. Could having >> such an agreement be found to be a prima facie presumptive intent to >> violate L72B1, sufficient to outweigh a player's unsupported word and >> shift the burden of proof? As an AC member, I'd be reluctant to >> overrule a TD who thought that to be the case. > > +=+ Re law 72B1, could you help me please, Eric, to understand > in what way it is suggested the player is infringing the law > intentionally? There is something suspect about someone's making an advance plan to take advantage of a situation in which he might only find himself in the event of his inadvertantly taking some action he claims to have no intention of taking. You catch a trespasser on your property. You're entitled to press charges, but he apologizes and tells you that he was wandering lost in the forest and must have accidentally wandered onto your land. But you discover that he is carrying a detailed map of the area, with your property line shown, and his actual path across your land marked in ink. Would you not be somewhat less inclined to accept his story? > I am far from arguing that it is desirable for partnerships to > develop hidden understandings about their actions following their > own IB. However, if there is no collusion apparent and a player > replaces his IB with a call that misdescribes the hand he holds > would we not need to find a breach of 40A3 if we are to rule > against his side? In particular, if his partner treats his call as > having the meaning ascribed to it in the partnership's disclosures > is the partnership in identifiable breach of any law if it chances to > arrive in a fortunate contract? The legal argument is complicated by the legal fiction that requires us to treat explicit and implicit agreements as indistinguishable. There is no objection to this scenario when "the meaning ascribed to it in the partnership's disclosures" comes from prior experience or just common sense. Advance explicit agreements, though, feel in some sense ethically suspect, and a number of BLMLers obviously find them troublesome. > I am thinking about regulatory options and whether any > such are desirable (and available under the law), given that the > 2007 law is what it is - and its further alteration is no longer open > to discussion. I take a very laissez-faire attitude when it comes to restricting bidding methods, and am adamantly opposed to restricting methods designed to take advantage of one's opponents' insufficient bids, but would nevertheless favor a prohibition on methods designed to take advantage of one's own side's (infraction of any kind, for that matter). I worry, though, that such a prohibition precludes the legitmate scenario Grattan is concerned about. The virtually unlimited powers to designate and regulate special partnership understandings (SPUs) granted to RAs by L40, though, would surely tolerate a regulation that treated a particular bidding agreement as one of two different PUs depending on whether it were arrived at explicitly or implicitly, notwithstanding that doing so would stretch the langauge of L40A-B just a bit. ISTM existing regulations (on this matter, but perhaps in other areas as well) could be significantly improved by taking advantage of this loophole... oops, er... opportunity. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 23 23:32:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:32:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dialogue from "The Princess Bride" -> Herman De Wael: "Inconceivable!" Inigo Montoya: "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." South Canberra Bridge Club, Wednesday 23rd April 2008 Written bidding, not bidding boxes Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) X 2D (2) Pass 3H (3) Pass ? (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major (2) Weak with diamonds and spades (SW1NE convention) (3) Non systemic You, South, hold: 9842 A64 Q7652 3 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 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 Apr 24 00:07:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:07:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>The Bridge World, January 1993 >>Master Solvers' Club, Problem C >> >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: West >>Vul: None >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>Pass 1C Pass 1S >>X Pass 2H 3H >>3H(1) X Pass ? >> >>(1) Insufficient; accepted >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>[snip] >> >>Question 1: How many hearts do you, South, hold? Harald Skj?ran: >Not less than a void! :-) > >3H is either asking for a stopper for 3NT, in which >case I'd normally hold 2-3 hearts. Or it might be an >advanced cue, on the way to making a slam try in one >of the black suits. If so, I might be void. Richard Hills: The Bridge World reported South's hand as: AKQ9 --- Q752 QT862 >>Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "Don't >>know", and if an opponent asks for an explanation >>of North's double, is the explanation that you, >>South, give dependent upon the number of hearts >>that you, South, hold? John (MadDog) Probst: >No, unless you belong to the Belgian school. >(Actually even the Belgian school answers this >one NO, I think) Harald Skj?ran: >North's double is ostensibly for penalties. It's >showing a heart holding that would be a negative >if I was going to make a slam try. > >Whatever my intention, I should be in a position >to make a good decision now. I'd expect pass to >be my next call on most occasions. MSC expert panellist Mike Dorn Wiss (1993): "Six clubs. Partner has found an imaginative double of my cue-bid! Since he could have allowed West to make his bid sufficient, his double cannot be for penalties." Richard Hills: Should an ostensible expert be deemed to be a non-expert if unaware of a basic Law? (In this case West's Law 27 options include substituting a Pass for a non-accepted 3H bid.) If so, multiple World Champion Eddie Kantar should be deemed to be a non-expert. In one of his memoirs, Eddie revealed that for many decades he was unaware of the existence of Law 25A (although Eddie's unawareness did have the advantage of him declaring an idiosyncratic contract which challenged his creativity - so boring playing mamma-pappa contracts where you claim at trick one). 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 Apr 24 01:28:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:28:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <03ca01c8a56b$be5b7e50$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan asserted: >Or that these poor individuals will have no training or communication >about the laws apart from their text? The answer seems to be "no". Richard Hills quibbles: The answer seems to be Yes. A few counter-examples -> The monthly ACBL Bulletin, a free perk for all ACBL members, includes a regular column "Ruling the Game". And the ACBL publication "Duplicate Decisions" is freely downloadable from the ACBL website, as are ACBL Appeals Casebooks. Likewise the EBU guide for Directors, the "White Book", is freely downloadable from the EBU website, as are EBU Appeals Casebooks. The bi-monthly ABF Newsletter, a free perk for all ABF clubs, includes a regular column "The Director's Chair". Also, a wide variety of resources are available at: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/resources.html including the very useful option of emailing a question to an ABF National Director, Matthew McManus. 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 swillner at nhcc.net Thu Apr 24 02:15:42 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:15:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <200803242136.m2OLaFYH005839@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803242136.m2OLaFYH005839@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <480FD12E.9010705@nhcc.net> [There's lots I've wanted to comment on, but time to post has been hard to come by. I'll get as far as I can tonight, but that may not be very far. Some of these messages are several weeks old.] > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > 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. Make that "zero useful information." The law isn't clear whether the information is authorized or not -- probably not -- but it won't suggest any action over another. > Law > 27D in this case is relevant only if the Director later determines that > their initial Law 27B1(b) ruling of validity was erroneous. As we've seen subsequently, there are other reasons L27D can apply. One would be where the IB auction conceals something that the normal auction would reveal, and the NOS go wrong on that account. > From: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" > 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. This seems odd. Under L27B1a, there is no UI by definition. Under 27B1b, there is no I (at least none that's useful). But either way, L27D requires comparing the result achieved at the table with what would have happened absent the IB. > Per se the substitution is not subject to 16, but "withdrawn calls" > contain UI however we look at it. That's not what L27B1a says. > 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. Indeed. The TD will have some work to do after play is over. If the OS reach a "magic" contract, they will probably have the result taken away. As Grattan mentions in a much later message, the question will be how to interpret "assistance gained through the infraction." > From: Reg Busch > Those who > defend the right to a RC of 3NT which shows systemically four clubs see > it as 'more precise'. I see it differently. The 1C says also that 'I may > have as few as 3 clubs. The RC says I don't have as few as 3 clubs.' I > see this as a different meaning, not a more precise one. I don't understand this view. "Four or more" is a more precise meaning than "three or more." If that isn't obvious on its face, the footnote makes it clear. > I see Law 40A3 as something of a red herring. You have committed an > infraction, and law 27 gives you some (limited) options to rescue your > side from a difficult situation. Intentionally misbidding your hand is > not one of your options. Pardon me, but which Law is that? > If you insist on your undoubted Law 40 right to > misbid your hand, certainly you may, but Law 27 now says that this falls > under 27B3, and the TD will bar partner. This goes to the question of "What is the true agreement?" Also, "How will the TD decide?" I've been meaning for quite some while to write a little essay on these subjects but haven't had time. The answers are not simple, though, or at least they don't seem so to me. In real life, I suspect the only people who have a problem will be those who frequently make IBs. I think the real "safety valve" is L27D, not saying that 27B1b doesn't apply. > We need clarification on two crucial issues. Are you entitled to > intentionally misbid your hand under 27B1(b)? Why in the world not? > And, if you are, are the opponents entitled to redress under 27D? Certainly not if the auction merely reproduces the result the IBer would have achieved anyway; the last sentence of 27D is clear. And no problem if it produces a worse result. If a better result is achieved, we're back to the meaning of "assistance gained through the infraction." > They were damaged by the nisbid (not the IB), and 27D > allows redress only for damage from the IB. As you say, this will need some interpretation. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 02:16:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:16:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another Law 25A case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >>If, however, we accept an interpretation by which the director >>must determine what the IBer believed the auction to be at the >>time of the IB (any reasonable protocol for dealing with IBs >>must assume they were not made intentionally) before applying >>L27B1, and by which this finding of fact is AI to the table, >>the nightmare scenarios disappear. Paul Lamford: [snip] >So, we ask the IBer what he thought the auction was. He admits >sheepishly that he did not mistake the auction, but his brain >stopped working for a moment. [snip] 2007 Law 25A1: "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law." Richard Hills: I was reading Stanislaw Lem's science-fiction novel "The Probe" when suddenly the lights went out. Watts The Probe Lem? If the bidder mistook the auction, we can follow Eric's non- nightmare Law 27 protocol. If the bidder's "brain stopped working", then that has a one- to-one correspondence with the Law 25A adjective "unintended". 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 Apr 24 02:20:43 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:20:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Good news In-Reply-To: <200804021829.m32ITvt1011332@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200804021829.m32ITvt1011332@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <480FD25B.8090506@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > If a regulation mandates _zero_ disclosure, is > that a legal "disclosed in accordance with the > regulations"? I would say so. Why not? Of course there may be other rules that apply, and there may be problems of a "zero disclosure" regulation conflicting with, for example, L40A1b. In practice, of course, any interpretation is meaningless: any RA can do whatever it wants. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 23 20:45:49 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:45:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. Message-ID: <005901c8a5a8$b3805540$c8d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott References: <200804041536.m34Fax9n019377@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <480FE0FB.7060908@nhcc.net> >>>I think then the director will have to ask the player (away from the >>>table) what he thought his insufficient bid meant, or look at his >>>hand (if you are willing to do that) > From: Eric Landau > IMO, there is no reason to do this away from the table. It will > often, but not always, be the case that the TD's ruling will provide > sufficient information for the answer to be inferred. If the ruling allows the answer to be inferred, what's the problem? And if not, why announce it? Of course Eric and I continue to disagree on whether it's wise to make the IBer's intent relevant at all. > In real life, as Robert suggests, that's what usually happens > anyhow (everybody knows what went wrong before the TD gets there). In that case -- which I agree is common -- Eric's and my suggested rulings will be the same. > Far easier to accept it as proper than the force the TD either to > cope with a UI determination and possible consequent ruling or to > give drastically different rulings depending on whether or not the > answer has been improperly offered. If the conditions are different, I don't see why the rulings have to be the same. In particular, players who blurt out what they were thinking seem to me to deserve harsher rulings than those who don't. SW>In the approach I favor, the IBer (and for thet matter, other players SW>but especially IBer's partner) have to be asked for _all_ the SW>reasonable meanings of the IB. > If you base your ruling on "all the reasonable > meanings of the IB", it is inherently subjective, and a different TD > is likely to make a quite different ruling in the same > circumstances. I really doubt that. The OS have an incentive to suggest as many meanings as possible, and I expect there will be RA guidelines. I don't see this as worse than any other judgment ruling. Nor do I see it taking much time (Eric's argument in another message). It will probably less time than it will take to determine and verify IBer's intent, once TDs are used to the procedure. > And, except in relatively trivial cases, you may well > wind up allowing the IBer to make pretty much any call he wants > without penalty. I don't think this is realistic -- so far, we haven't seen very many examples here on BLML. But if it happens, what's wrong with that? Allowing "pretty much any call" should certainly minimize the time required to rule. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Apr 24 03:51:47 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:51:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World In-Reply-To: <200804221922.m3MJMLcq010409@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200804221922.m3MJMLcq010409@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <480FE7B3.7070605@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > In real-life criminal procedings, ... As others have mentioned, the proper analogy for score adjustment matters is civil law. In "real life" that entails procedures to ensure that there is a real dispute before a matter comes to court. Bridge law is not quite like that -- any player can summon the TD and make a complaint. Once that happens, the TD has to rule on "balance of probabilities," as specified by L85A1. > Does it make any sense to apply harsher rules of evidence to bridge > infractors than we do for real-life accused criminals? You may be interested to know that the ACBL has just adopted "preponderance of the evidence" as its standard for disciplinary matters. (The previous standard was "clear and convincing evidence.") For score adjustment matters, I don't see how any standard other than "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities" can work. Richard Hills wrote: > On the weight that should be attached to self-serving > evidence, in the 2000 Cincinnati ACBL Appeals Casebook > Rich Colker wrote (page 22): > > "Next, there are basically two different types of self- > serving statements. One type I will call self-interested > (SI) and the other I will call self-serving (SS). Mr. Colker's comments seem more confusing than helpful. Let's see if we can do better. There are, as he says, some matters that are legally irrelevant. "I was always going to...." (in a UI case) comes to mind. Or "I was looking at Wendy," in a L73F case. Or "I didn't see the card partner accidentally exposed." No need to worry about any statements of this type, and "irrelevant" will do fine for terminology. The real issue for statements that are legally relevant is the matter of verification. Some statements can be more easily verified than others, but this is (for the most part) a matter of degree, not "can" or "can't." Some system questions will be on the SC, others in notes, and others unwritten. Even answers on the SC aren't guaranteed to be correct, and statements about unwritten agreements aren't guaranteed to be wrong. The requirement is to "weigh" the (relevant) evidence. Verifiability gives evidence more weight. Also given more weight is evidence a player gives against his own interest. Unverifiable evidence that serves a player's own interst will normally be given little weight but perhaps not zero. All this is completely normal, and there is no need to invent special categories. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Most of us would admit the fact that a player, while putting his bid on > the tray, pass a paper to one's screenmate, reading : "I'm bidding again > no matter how fast or slow it comes back". Wasn't there a thread here some years ago that came to exactly the opposite conclusion? I believe the Subject was "UI Insurance" or something of that sort. No doubt an RA could adopt screen regulations allowing this sort of thing, but without them, I don't think "most of us" would allow it. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Apr 24 03:56:21 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:56:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <200804232139.m3NLdew0006070@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200804232139.m3NLdew0006070@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <480FE8C5.4050602@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > There is something suspect about someone's making an advance plan to > take advantage of a situation in which he might only find himself in > the event of his inadvertantly taking some action he claims to have > no intention of taking. > I would ... favor a prohibition on methods designed to take > advantage of one's own side's (infraction of any kind, for that > matter). I share Eric's worry expressed in his first paragraph, but I find it hard to imagine such a method in the case of IBs. If a proposed method passes L23 and L27D, what's the problem? Can anyone think of a method that would pass these and still be worthwhile? From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 24 04:13:57 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:13:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <480F4C7F.1040000@skynet.be> References: <480F4C7F.1040000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c8a5b0$da97d5b0$8fc78110$@com> [HdW] In the DWS case, I refuse to give UI, and you lambast me for it. Yet in this case you have an NBO who expressely tells you to hide valuable information to opponents, in order not to give UI. [DALB] It seems to me that many, if not all, of the problems we have been discussing here would vanish if it were recognised that the creation of UI is never a crime, whereas allowing oneself to be influenced by UI into taking an action one would not otherwise have taken is always a crime. Come to think of it, if this principle were universally adopted, BLML would soon cease to exist. Unless, of course, the WBFLC created other stupid Laws. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 05:28:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:28:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423175700.0418cf58@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran asserted: >Some pairs apply support doubles in this position, for some a double >only shows strength and others again use penalty doubles. If so, you >can't allow a RC double. Richard Hills nitpickingly pedantically (and erroneously?) quibbles: Actually, as part of your TD's duty under Law 10C1, you explain the difference between a Law 27B1(b) double and a Law 27B3 attempted double. It seems to me that it is "allowable" for the insufficient bidder to attempt a Law 27B3 double. The fact that the TD is then required to cancel the double does not imply (in my opinion) that the attempted double is a second infraction (unless Law 23 applies). 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 Apr 24 06:18:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:18:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <480F4C7F.1040000@skynet.be> Message-ID: ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: [snip] >>Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer >>statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating >>it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives >>unauthorised information to partner. Herman De Wael: >I am not in the ABF, nor do I want to be if they issue such >silly regulations as that. How can you wish people to play >the game if they are not even allowed to express what they >believe their partner's bids mean? Richard Hills: No, the impractical silliness is with the De Wael protocol. A typical example: North: "4C" East: "What does that mean?" South(A): "Undiscussed, but I am taking it as Gerber." South(B): "Undiscussed, but I am taking it as natural." Before South's response, North did not know whether she was partnering South(A) or South(B). After South's response, North-South have created a mutual partnership understanding _during the auction_, contrary to the 2007 Law 16A1(d): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." Herman De Wael: [snip] >In the DWS case, I refuse to give UI, and you lambast me >for it. Richard Hills: If obeying the 2007 Law 20F1 and/or the 2007 Law 20F4 necessarily requires consequential creation of UI, then the creation of that UI is necessarily legal. Herman De Wael: >Yet in this case you have an NBO who expressly tells you >to hide valuable information to opponents, in order not >to give UI. [snip] Richard Hills: Displaying my 13 cards to my LHO during the auction would be valuable information for her. Yet my LHO is _not entitled_ by Law to that valuable information, unless my partner is captain in a game-force relay auction. So, if transmission of particular information is _not required_ by Law, a regulation prohibiting that UI is entirely within a Regulating Authority's powers. 2007 Law 80B2(f): "to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 24 06:45:15 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:45:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8a5b0$da97d5b0$8fc78110$@com> References: <480F4C7F.1040000@skynet.be> <000001c8a5b0$da97d5b0$8fc78110$@com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080424143705.01da2148@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 12:13 PM 24/04/2008, you wrote: >[HdW] > >In the DWS case, I refuse to give UI, and you lambast me for it. Yet in this >case you have an NBO who expressely tells you to hide valuable information >to opponents, in order not to give UI. > >[DALB] > >It seems to me that many, if not all, of the problems we have been >discussing here would vanish if it were recognised that the creation of UI >is never a crime, whereas allowing oneself to be influenced by UI into >taking an action one would not otherwise have taken is always a crime. > >Come to think of it, if this principle were universally adopted, BLML would >soon cease to exist. Unless, of course, the WBFLC created other stupid Laws. > >David Burn >London, England I am sure Herman would enjoy directing in Australia, provided he passed the required exam "Do you want to Direct?" This comes from Kate McCallum in the latest Australian Bridge: "I've played quite a lot of bridge in Australia, and all around the world, but the Gold Coast Teams was a first for me in at least one respect: Paul and I played for 4 1/2 days with virtually no agreements - not even a convention card until we reached the semi finals, when Kieran Dyke requested one from us. I coudn't help but think that in America we wouldn't have survived the first deal without a card. There would dprobably have been a testy director call and lots of ill will. What could have been an issue in my country was a non-event in Australia" Come on down, where we still try to play bridge Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 07:31:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:31:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alma Mahler Gropius Werfel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8a5b0$da97d5b0$8fc78110$@com> Message-ID: David Burn asserted: >It seems to me that many, if not all, of the problems we have been >discussing here would vanish if it were recognised that the creation >of UI is never a crime, Richard Hills quibbles: What never? No never! What never? Hardly ever. 2007 Law 73B2: "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws." David Burn asserted: >whereas allowing oneself to be influenced by UI Richard Hills quibbles: Law does not deal with the subjective issue of "being influenced", but rather the objective issue of "carefully avoid taking any advantage" (Law 73C) when an action is "demonstrably suggested" (Law 16). David Burn asserted: >into taking an action one would not otherwise have taken is >always a crime. Richard Hills quibbles: An incomplete statement. Taking an action that one would always have taken is also a Law 73C crime if one's normal action has been demonstrably suggested by the UI, and if there is a logical alternative less suggested by the UI. David Burn asserted: >Come to think of it, if this principle were universally adopted, >BLML would soon cease to exist. Richard Hills quibbles: I wonder if BLML's obituary would be as interesting as this one -> Tom Lehrer: "Last December 13th, there appeared in the newspapers the juiciest, spiciest, raciest obituary it has ever been my pleasure to read. "It was that of a lady named Alma Mahler Gropius Werfel, who had, in her lifetime, managed to acquire as lovers practically all of the top creative men in central Europe. And, among these lovers, who were listed in the obituary, by the way, which is what made it so interesting, there were three whom she went so far as to marry: One of the leading composers of the day, Gustav Mahler, composer of "Das Lied von der Erde" and other light classics, one of the leading architects, Walter Gropius, of the "Bauhaus" school of design, and one of the leading writers, Franz Werfel, author of the "Song of Bernadette" and other masterpieces. "It's people like that who make you realize how little you've accomplished. It is a sobering thought, for example, that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years." 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 08:39:22 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:39:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423180536.041b2db8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423180536.041b2db8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On 23/04/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 05:50 PM 23/04/2008, you wrote: > >Imps > >Dlr: North > >Vul: Both > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >--- Pass Pass Pass > >2C(1) Pass Pass(2) ? (3) > > > >(1) Either balanced and 21-22 hcp, or unbalanced game force. > >(2) Non-systemic. > >(3) While you, South, are contemplating your call you gain > >some AI from East. She makes some self-critical remarks, > >which conclude with the statement, "Oh well, it's too late > >now." > > > >You, South, hold: > > > >J4 > >K98432 > >JT2 > >T8 > > > >What call do you make? > > > >David Burn: > > > > >"Director". > > > > > >That is, assuming 1997 Law 25B2(b)(2) still applies at > > >the Canberra Bridge Club. > > > >Richard Hills: > > > >One of the many problems with the almost defunct 1997 Law > >25B is that East's rights do not expire when her partner > >has called, but when her LHO has called. Blmler Reg > >Busch once noted that this created an unfair race between > >East and South, as the outcome depended on whether East's > >summoning of the TD was quicker than South's call in > >rotation. > > > >David Burn: > > > > >I know that under this Law my opponents are entitled to > > >a shot at average minus; the fact that they don't know > > >this ought not to affect my actions or their rights. > > > > > >Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. > > > >Richard Hills: > > > >The maxim "fiat justitia ruat caelum" has been attributed > >to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesonius (d. 43 BCE). The > >English translation "let Justice be done, though the > >Heavens may fall" was famously used by the English judge > >William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield (1703-1793) when > >he ruled in Somersett's case (1772) that slavery was > >illegal in England. > > > >So yes, at the table my call was "Director!" After > >careful questioning of East, the TD ruled that the > >appropriate Law was not the 1997 Law 25B2 but rather the > >1997 Law 25A. East-West subsequently bid and made their > >cold game in the par 3NT contract, so virtue had to be > >its own reward. > > I will stick my neck out here. No director would rule L25A > here, not with bidding boxes, not with written bidding, never > > Am I right? > > Tony (Sydney) You'd have to question the players on this one. If you're satisfied pass was a mispull, then a change should be allowed. You don't disallow the change just because the player doesn't know the law on this. As an opponent, I'm pretty sure I'd recognize what took place. If I were sure it was a mispull I'd tell the TD so and ask him to allow east a L25A correction. I expect to get this one right as a TD also. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 24 09:45:48 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:45:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8a5b0$da97d5b0$8fc78110$@com> References: <480F4C7F.1040000@skynet.be> <000001c8a5b0$da97d5b0$8fc78110$@com> Message-ID: <48103AAC.8060007@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > In the DWS case, I refuse to give UI, and you lambast me for it. Yet in this > case you have an NBO who expressely tells you to hide valuable information > to opponents, in order not to give UI. > > [DALB] > > It seems to me that many, if not all, of the problems we have been > discussing here would vanish if it were recognised that the creation of UI > is never a crime, whereas allowing oneself to be influenced by UI into > taking an action one would not otherwise have taken is always a crime. > The problem with that view is that it does not solve my problem. I know the creation of UI is not a crime, yet I also know that the creation of UI is not beneficial to my cause. However ethical you may think your partner is, by giving him UI you are restricting his choices. So while the creation of UI is not a crime, I still don't want to do it. So stating again that it is not a crime will not change my actions. > Come to think of it, if this principle were universally adopted, BLML would > soon cease to exist. Unless, of course, the WBFLC created other stupid Laws. > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 24 09:24:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:24:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c8a4ee$eab6f650$c024e2f0$@com> Message-ID: Richard Hills (Canberra): >>>So yes, at the table my call was "Director!" After >>>careful questioning of East, the TD ruled that the >>>appropriate Law was not the 1997 Law 25B2 but rather the >>>1997 Law 25A. East-West subsequently bid and made their >>>cold game in the par 3NT contract, so virtue had to be >>>its own reward. Tony Musgrove (Sydney): >>I will stick my neck out here. No director would rule >>L25A here, not with bidding boxes, not with written >>bidding, never >> >>Am I right? Harald Skj?ran (Scandinavia): >You'd have to question the players on this one. If you're >satisfied pass was a mispull, then a change should be >allowed. You don't disallow the change just because the >player doesn't know the law on this. As an opponent, I'm >pretty sure I'd recognize what took place. > >If I were sure it was a mispull I'd tell the TD so and >ask him to allow East a L25A correction. I expect to get >this one right as a TD also. Richard Hills (Canberra): In another recent post, I referred to the fact that Eddie Kantar was unaware of Law 25A for decades. I suspect the reason is that Eddie spent his early career using spoken bidding, in which a Law 25A accident is rare. Once the ACBL introduced bidding boxes, the chances of Eddie tangling with Law 25A via a bidding box mispull improved. The Canberra Bridge Club is one of the few Aussie venues which uses bidding boxes instead of the traditional written bidding. East, although a competent player, rarely plays at the Canberra Bridge Club, so the mechanics of using bidding boxes are not yet ingrained reflexes in her. Ergo, if Tony Musgrove is right, then the at-the-table decision of the Chief Director of Australia was wrong. Is Tony going to tell the Chief Director that he is an idiot, or shall I? :-) 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 10:03:56 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:03:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48103EEC.7060002@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > The response of "undiscussed" would also be UI, because all answers are > UI. If partner thought the bid was discussed, that could be useful UI. > > So, all you can do is try to minimize useful UI or or minimize the damage > done to the opponents. Or I guess you could have a third goal. But the > justification for this policy does not seem to be logical. > > > Is it true that players can say "undiscussed" even when they can use their > general bridge knowledge to know the meaning of a bid? > > > It would be very interesting to know the meaning of "undiscussed". When I > agree to play Negative Doubles, I am forming an understanding about > doubles in that situation, calls other than double, and probably > subsequent bids. Are all of those bids discussed? Then when I agree > "Standard American", I have probably discussed most or all possible bids. > I'd say it's a bit in-between. If some bid is discussed, then all inferences that every player of the same level would draw in the same way (including information from the context, like where you're playing or what your mutual partners do play) are agreed upon. For example, agreeing to play 1NT as 15-17, or 16-18, means 1 plum followed by 1NT will show about 12-14 or 12-15. And vice-versa. But, since some pairs play plain sputnik and deny holding 4H when they bid another suit, and others do not deny it if holding sufficient strength, this issue will not be agreed upon. Best regards Alain From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 24 10:46:13 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:46:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000701c8a4ee$eab6f650$c024e2f0$@com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080424184302.04101d18@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 05:24 PM 24/04/2008, you wrote: >Richard Hills (Canberra): > > >>>So yes, at the table my call was "Director!" After > >>>careful questioning of East, the TD ruled that the > >>>appropriate Law was not the 1997 Law 25B2 but rather the > >>>1997 Law 25A. East-West subsequently bid and made their > >>>cold game in the par 3NT contract, so virtue had to be > >>>its own reward. > >Tony Musgrove (Sydney): > > >>I will stick my neck out here. No director would rule > >>L25A here, not with bidding boxes, not with written > >>bidding, never > >> > >>Am I right? > >Harald Skj?ran (Scandinavia): > > >You'd have to question the players on this one. If you're > >satisfied pass was a mispull, then a change should be > >allowed. You don't disallow the change just because the > >player doesn't know the law on this. As an opponent, I'm > >pretty sure I'd recognize what took place. > > > >If I were sure it was a mispull I'd tell the TD so and > >ask him to allow East a L25A correction. I expect to get > >this one right as a TD also. > >Richard Hills (Canberra): > >In another recent post, I referred to the fact that Eddie >Kantar was unaware of Law 25A for decades. I suspect the >reason is that Eddie spent his early career using spoken >bidding, in which a Law 25A accident is rare. Once the >ACBL introduced bidding boxes, the chances of Eddie >tangling with Law 25A via a bidding box mispull improved. > >The Canberra Bridge Club is one of the few Aussie venues >which uses bidding boxes instead of the traditional >written bidding. East, although a competent player, >rarely plays at the Canberra Bridge Club, so the >mechanics of using bidding boxes are not yet ingrained >reflexes in her. > >Ergo, if Tony Musgrove is right, then the at-the-table >decision of the Chief Director of Australia was wrong. > >Is Tony going to tell the Chief Director that he is an >idiot, or shall I? :-) Please be my guest. The scenario as presented is a one to one correspondence with Kaplan's L25B. This is what it was for, this is what it should be used for, and I for one, lament its passing. It was one of the great fun laws of all time, unlike present L27, Tony (Sydney) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 24 12:28:40 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:28:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <03ca01c8a56b$be5b7e50$8cad9b51@stefanie> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><480D0B8D.40208@hotmail.com> <480DD61F.5000303@NTLworld.com> <03ca01c8a56b$be5b7e50$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <481060D8.7010200@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] Do the WBFLC realise that most of the time, their rules must be enforced by amateur non-playing directors in ordinary bridge clubs? [Stefanie Rowan] Or that these poor individuals will have no training or communication about the laws apart from their text? The answer seems to be "no". [Nige2] Quite so. Btw I meant to write *playing* directors :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 12:42:46 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:42:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48106426.4080602@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Dialogue from "The Princess Bride" -> > > Herman De Wael: "Inconceivable!" > > Inigo Montoya: "You keep saying that word. I do not > think it means what you think it means." > > > South Canberra Bridge Club, Wednesday 23rd April 2008 > Written bidding, not bidding boxes > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) X 2D (2) > Pass 3H (3) Pass ? > > (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major > (2) Weak with diamonds and spades (SW1NE convention) > (3) Non systemic > > You, South, hold: > > 9842 > A64 > Q7652 > 3 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > While the bid is non-systemic, logic (and my meta-agreements) tells that it must show an exceptionally well-fitting hand. Now whether it shows a ruffing value in hearts (KQxx - xx - AJ10x - Axx) or heart strength (KQxx - KQx - A109x - xx) is an open problem, petrhaps depending on what we'd do in other signoff situations (what does a new suit superacceptance of transfer mean ?). Now 3S by me would show a disgust for this news, which isn't the case whichever meaning he gave to his bid. I'm tempted to bid a "nonsystemic" 4C Bluhmer. If it's too complicated, well, who created the mess ? 4D is another possibility, as is 4H if your style is to pattern out. Notice that none of these is a bad bid facing either type, so that I can't be suspected of miraculous guessing ; in fact, I don't want to know. Of course, it's barely possible that partner didn't see the double and assumes I'm transferring. Too bad, I can't take this unknown into my equations. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 12:44:47 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:44:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Good news In-Reply-To: <480FD25B.8090506@nhcc.net> References: <200804021829.m32ITvt1011332@cfa.harvard.edu> <480FD25B.8090506@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4810649F.6030507@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> If a regulation mandates _zero_ disclosure, is >> that a legal "disclosed in accordance with the >> regulations"? >> > > I would say so. Why not? Of course there may be other rules that > apply, and there may be problems of a "zero disclosure" regulation > conflicting with, for example, L40A1b. In practice, of course, any > interpretation is meaningless: any RA can do whatever it wants. > AG : I would, too. I've done all that was mandated, in this case the empty set of actions. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 12:44:47 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:44:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Good news In-Reply-To: <480FD25B.8090506@nhcc.net> References: <200804021829.m32ITvt1011332@cfa.harvard.edu> <480FD25B.8090506@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4810649F.6030507@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> If a regulation mandates _zero_ disclosure, is >> that a legal "disclosed in accordance with the >> regulations"? >> > > I would say so. Why not? Of course there may be other rules that > apply, and there may be problems of a "zero disclosure" regulation > conflicting with, for example, L40A1b. In practice, of course, any > interpretation is meaningless: any RA can do whatever it wants. > AG : I would, too. I've done all that was mandated, in this case the empty set of actions. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 15:28:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:28:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80513609-4C0C-43AE-AA6B-8617BEADD422@starpower.net> On Apr 23, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Eric Landau] > I disagree that L27 is an abomination, but it will rapidly become so > if we force directors to take into account all of "the possible > meanings" of the IB, as Paul's 2C example above demonstrates. > > If, however, we accept an interpretation by which the director must > determine what the IBer believed the auction to be at the time of the > IB (any reasonable protocol for dealing with IBs must assume they > were not made intentionally) before applying L27B1, and by which this > finding of fact is AI to the table, the nightmare scenarios disappear. > > [paul lamford] > Really? You assume that the IBer thought the auction was different > to the > actual one and therefore the IB would have some meaning in the > imaginary > auction. IM admittedly low-level TDing E, nine times out of ten not only is this the case, but the IBer has revealed it before I reached the table. Typically, "That's insufficient," elicits an instinctive response along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I thought I was the dealer," or, "I'm sorry, I thought you passed," or whatever. A strong argument for making this information AI is that it allows you to make essentially identical rulings when this doesn't happen. > But this only covers a subset of IBs. In addition Law 27 makes no > reference to the player's intention when making the IB, only to the > meaning of the > IB, or to be more precise what the TD thinks it might have meant. > > So, we ask the IBer what he thought the auction was. He admits > sheepishly > that he did not mistake the auction, but his brain stopped working > for a moment. > Your method might work when the auction has been mistaken, but I > do not see > how the TD can decide what the IB means when it wasn't. In fact I > cannot see > how he can rule at all. I've never heard anyone say, "I just blanked out for a minute there and have no idea why I bid that." I can think of four possible explanations for an IB: (1) It was not the call the player intended to make (L25A applies); (2) It was deliberate (L72B1 applies); (3) The player misread the auction and thought the IB was a legal call (L27 applies), or (4) The player was confused about the rank order of the suits (extra-legal measures are called for). > "When I make an insufficient bid", said Humpty Dumpty, in rather a > scornful > tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor > less." Well, yeah, but Mr. Dumpty could say the same about lots of perfectly legal bids, not just insufficient ones. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 15:36:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:36:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: <039e01c8a569$c90cfd80$8cad9b51@stefanie> References: <039e01c8a569$c90cfd80$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <515F170B-A96E-4EED-8E1A-E44D55AB825B@starpower.net> On Apr 23, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > [Eric Landau] > >> I disagree that L27 is an abomination, but it will rapidly become so >> if we force directors to take into account all of "the possible >> meanings" of the IB, as Paul's 2C example above demonstrates. > > Not all. Remember that we have only to find the first "possible > meaning" > that will allow an error-free correction. This process will be even > more > efficient if it is required (as I believe it will be) that the RC > fit the > IBer's hand perfectly, ie with no deviation from system. I couldn't disagree more strongly. If a player has more than one penalty-free correction option available under L27B1 he absolutely must be permitted to choose among them for himself. L10C1 requires the director to "explain all the options available". It does not permit him to impose the first one he thinks of. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Thu Apr 24 15:37:56 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:37:56 EDT Subject: [blml] Another Law 27 case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 24/04/2008 01:18:35 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: If the bidder's "brain stopped working", then that has a one- to-one correspondence with the Law 25A adjective "unintended". [paul lamford] Those who believe there is no such thing as free will would classify all bids as unintended. More seriously, I don't think we are talking about "mechanical errors" here. I think there are basically three types of insufficient bid: a) those where a bid was not seen and the bid would be sufficient without the unseen bid. If the TD decides that the bid falls into that category, then the meaning of the bid is clear; it is what the bid would mean without the unseen bid. And it is relatively easy to decide whether a substituted bid would give any extra information, in which case it is disallowed. b) those where there is a mistake as to level, such as a Blackwood response at the 4 level. Now the bid has no conventional meaning, but I am happy if the TD decides that the meaning is that which would have applied had the bid been made one level higher, even though this is not at all what the Law says. In which case, I have no problem with subsitution of the correct bid at the 5-level. c) those where the auction is not mistaken, but the player forgets, for example, Law 18E: Rank of the Denominations: The rank of the denominations in descending order is: no trump, spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs - or he forgets that a bid has to be made at either a higher level or in a different suit to the previous bid. If you think that any such bid is unintended, it would still have to be corrected without pause for thought for Law 25 to apply. The rest of the time, any bid that can have no systemic meaning can be replaced, as I see it, by any call that has any meaning, as the insufficient bid has not denied holding any specified hand, therefore the new bid is more precise. The argument that the bid without meaning is the empty set is nonsense. By the way, someone doubling instead of redoubling after 4NT is doubled, getting DOPI and ROPI mixed up, will still silence his partner under Law 36, as Law 27 only applies to bids? I presume this was intended, but the reasoning escapes me at the moment! From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 15:52:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:52:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <03a401c8a56a$27ea44c0$8cad9b51@stefanie> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><6.1.0.6.2.20080420101929.03b37ce8@mail.optusnet.com.au><480B161A.2060706@hotmail.com> <03a401c8a56a$27ea44c0$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <0EBCC131-93A6-4283-AD2B-0016FA48D836@starpower.net> On Apr 23, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Tony Musgrove wrote: >>> >> >>> Sorry. I meant correcting to 1NT: Correcting to the lowest >>> sufficient bid means: I don't give any other info then what I >>> wanted to give with my insufficient 1D. >>> So: If we make an IB then the first sufficient bid means: I give >>> the same info as what I intended with my IB, so we can continue >>> bidding without penalty. > > Eric Landau: > >> Except that partner will be barred. This entire discussion seems to >> have overlooked that L27B1 doesn't apply to any sufficient bid >> whatsoever, and that there is a L27B2. > > But we are talking about a RC that, *by definition*, means whatever > 1D was > supposed to mean. How can partner be barred? Remember that we are > allowed to > "vary our agreements" after ANY irregularity. You are indeed. But L27 is not. L27B1(b) permits only RCs that are "legal call[s] that in the Director?s opinion ha[ve] the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the insufficient bid". It is quite clear, both from the words of the law and the fact that to interpret it otherwise, as Tony and Stefanie clearly demonstrate, would reduce it to totally meaningless nonsense, that the "meaning" referred to is that of the "legal call", which is the meaning it would have absent the IB, as well as the meaning ascribed to it by the partnership's disclosed methods. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 16:09:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:09:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <03cc01c8a56f$269ff830$8cad9b51@stefanie> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net> <003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred> <03cc01c8a56f$269ff830$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Anyway, once misdecriptive and anti-systemic RCs are disallowed, these > problems will be minimised. What Stefanie calls "misdecriptive and anti-systemic RCs" as penalty- free replacements for IBs have been routinely allowed at least since I began directing (with TF 1963 LB). I can't imagine that we're about to -- or would want to -- disallow them now. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 16:24:40 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:24:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <480FD12E.9010705@nhcc.net> References: <200803242136.m2OLaFYH005839@cfa.harvard.edu> <480FD12E.9010705@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2008, at 8:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > [There's lots I've wanted to comment on, but time to post has been > hard > to come by. I'll get as far as I can tonight, but that may not be > very > far. Some of these messages are several weeks old.] This should happen more often, if its effect is as salutary as it is here. Perhaps sitting by and listening for a while helps us hear more clearly. >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> 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. > > Make that "zero useful information." The law isn't clear whether the > information is authorized or not -- probably not -- but it won't > suggest > any action over another. > >> Law >> 27D in this case is relevant only if the Director later determines >> that >> their initial Law 27B1(b) ruling of validity was erroneous. > > As we've seen subsequently, there are other reasons L27D can > apply. One > would be where the IB auction conceals something that the normal > auction > would reveal, and the NOS go wrong on that account. > >> From: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" >> 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. > > This seems odd. Under L27B1a, there is no UI by definition. Under > 27B1b, there is no I (at least none that's useful). But either way, > L27D requires comparing the result achieved at the table with what > would > have happened absent the IB. > >> Per se the substitution is not subject to 16, but "withdrawn calls" >> contain UI however we look at it. > > That's not what L27B1a says. > >> 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. > > Indeed. The TD will have some work to do after play is over. If > the OS > reach a "magic" contract, they will probably have the result taken > away. > As Grattan mentions in a much later message, the question will be > how > to interpret "assistance gained through the infraction." > > >> From: Reg Busch >> Those who >> defend the right to a RC of 3NT which shows systemically four >> clubs see >> it as 'more precise'. I see it differently. The 1C says also that >> 'I may >> have as few as 3 clubs. The RC says I don't have as few as 3 >> clubs.' I >> see this as a different meaning, not a more precise one. > > I don't understand this view. "Four or more" is a more precise > meaning > than "three or more." If that isn't obvious on its face, the footnote > makes it clear. > >> I see Law 40A3 as something of a red herring. You have committed an >> infraction, and law 27 gives you some (limited) options to rescue >> your >> side from a difficult situation. Intentionally misbidding your >> hand is >> not one of your options. > > Pardon me, but which Law is that? > >> If you insist on your undoubted Law 40 right to >> misbid your hand, certainly you may, but Law 27 now says that this >> falls >> under 27B3, and the TD will bar partner. > > This goes to the question of "What is the true agreement?" Also, "How > will the TD decide?" I've been meaning for quite some while to > write a > little essay on these subjects but haven't had time. The answers are > not simple, though, or at least they don't seem so to me. In real > life, > I suspect the only people who have a problem will be those who > frequently make IBs. > > I think the real "safety valve" is L27D, not saying that 27B1b doesn't > apply. > >> We need clarification on two crucial issues. Are you entitled to >> intentionally misbid your hand under 27B1(b)? > > Why in the world not? > >> And, if you are, are the opponents entitled to redress under 27D? > > Certainly not if the auction merely reproduces the result the IBer > would > have achieved anyway; the last sentence of 27D is clear. And no > problem > if it produces a worse result. If a better result is achieved, we're > back to the meaning of "assistance gained through the infraction." > >> They were damaged by the nisbid (not the IB), and 27D >> allows redress only for damage from the IB. > > As you say, this will need some interpretation. Steve has done a superb job of summarizing the discussion to date. I fully agree with his understanding of the emerging consensus. I couldn't have done better myself, and I'm arrogant enough to think that means something. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 16:39:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:39:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <005901c8a5a8$b3805540$c8d0403e@Mildred> References: <005901c8a5a8$b3805540$c8d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:45 PM, wrote: > +=+ Somewhere I noticed this remark and response: > < > " I don't imagine, however, that such a correction would ever be > allowed > without penalty anyway." > > "There is nothing in L27 to suggest that. While there is something to > suggest the opposite, viz. "Law 16D does not apply"." > < > This prompts me to observe, as may not have been established > previously in this thread, that the exclusion applies specifically to > information conveyed by the withdrawn bid. UI obtained from > other sources is still UI. This could be relevant when questioning > whether a partner's recognition of a player's misbid replacement > call is lawful since the recognition will not be triggered by any info > the IB conveys But if there is additional information other than from the withdrawn call, it must have been "conveyed" by some means, and it is that which determines whether it is "authorized". ISTM that the potential "heightened awareness" we're talking about (of the likelihood of a deviation from the systemic meaning of the RC) derives directly from the knowledge of how L27B works, and the law itself cannot be UI. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 17:21:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:21:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <480FE0FB.7060908@nhcc.net> References: <200804041536.m34Fax9n019377@cfa.harvard.edu> <480FE0FB.7060908@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8535AECA-0CE1-4047-B8C6-39FFF271AAB5@starpower.net> On Apr 23, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>>> I think then the director will have to ask the player (away from >>>> the >>>> table) what he thought his insufficient bid meant, or look at his >>>> hand (if you are willing to do that) > >> From: Eric Landau >> IMO, there is no reason to do this away from the table. It will >> often, but not always, be the case that the TD's ruling will provide >> sufficient information for the answer to be inferred. > > If the ruling allows the answer to be inferred, what's the > problem? And > if not, why announce it? So as not to give an advantage to pairs who happen to be playing a system that allows them to infer the answer from the ruling, when others, playing a different system, might not be able to. > Of course Eric and I continue to disagree on whether it's wise to make > the IBer's intent relevant at all. Thanks to Steve's thoughtful arguments, I have concluded that our disagreement here is a bit more general than that.... >> In real life, as Robert suggests, that's what usually happens >> anyhow (everybody knows what went wrong before the TD gets there). > > In that case -- which I agree is common -- Eric's and my suggested > rulings will be the same. > >> Far easier to accept it as proper than the force the TD either to >> cope with a UI determination and possible consequent ruling or to >> give drastically different rulings depending on whether or not the >> answer has been improperly offered. > > If the conditions are different, I don't see why the rulings have > to be > the same. In particular, players who blurt out what they were > thinking > seem to me to deserve harsher rulings than those who don't. > > SW>In the approach I favor, the IBer (and for thet matter, other > players > SW>but especially IBer's partner) have to be asked for _all_ the > SW>reasonable meanings of the IB. > >> If you base your ruling on "all the reasonable >> meanings of the IB", it is inherently subjective, and a different TD >> is likely to make a quite different ruling in the same >> circumstances. > > I really doubt that. The OS have an incentive to suggest as many > meanings as possible, and I expect there will be RA guidelines. ...and is revealed here. > I don't > see this as worse than any other judgment ruling. Nor do I see it > taking much time (Eric's argument in another message). It will > probably > less time than it will take to determine and verify IBer's intent, > once > TDs are used to the procedure. > >> And, except in relatively trivial cases, you may well >> wind up allowing the IBer to make pretty much any call he wants >> without penalty. > > I don't think this is realistic -- so far, we haven't seen very many > examples here on BLML. But if it happens, what's wrong with that? > Allowing "pretty much any call" should certainly minimize the time > required to rule. We seem to have different paradigms as to how L27B rulings are made (at least in theory; in real life, any legal protocol will be subject to practical shortcuts at the table, which will obviate the difference). In my vision, the director applies the criteria of L27B1 to determine the available penalty-free options and makes those options available to the IBer, who then may either choose among them or choose some other call which will bar his partner, at his discretion. In Steve's, if I'm reading him correctly, it is the IBer who attempts to apply the criteria of L27B1, then must leave it to the TD to decide if he has done so correctly and can make his chosen RC without penalty. L27B1 unambiguously provides us with a test of whether a particular RC can be made without penalty, but is less clear on whether it is up to the TD or the IBer to actually "run the test". I favor the former interpretation, but concede that if we were to adopt the latter, then, as Steve argues, there would be no need for the TD to determine the "intended meaning" of the IB, no advantage gained by the IBer in revealing it, and no compelling argument for making it AI to everyone. I just don't see how you sneak that interpretation past L10C1. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 17:23:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:23:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4810A60D.6080103@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 24/04/2008 01:18:35 GMT Standard Time, > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > If the bidder's "brain stopped working", then that has a one- > to-one correspondence with the Law 25A adjective "unintended". > > [paul lamford] > Those who believe there is no such thing as free will would classify all > bids as unintended. More seriously, I don't think we are talking about > "mechanical errors" here. I think there are basically three types of insufficient bid: > > a) those where a bid was not seen and the bid would be sufficient without > the unseen bid. If the TD decides that the bid falls into that category, then > the meaning of the bid is clear; it is what the bid would mean without the > unseen bid. And it is relatively easy to decide whether a substituted bid would > give any extra information, in which case it is disallowed. > > AG : this case, the most frequent one I guess, isn't as plain as you present it. When the bidding goes : 2D 3S 3D, for example, you have to decide, by some means, whether the player, among other possibilities : : a1) didn't see the overcall a2) saw 2S a3) saw 3C a4) saw 1S ! and decided to condone it, jumping to 3D a5) in a country where stop cards are to be used, was distracted by the fact that RHO forgot to use it Automatically deciding that a1) applies could lead to inequities. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 24 17:37:52 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:37:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: <200803242136.m2OLaFYH005839@cfa.harvard.edu> <480FD12E.9010705@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4810A950.4010608@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 23, 2008, at 8:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > >> [There's lots I've wanted to comment on, but time to post has been >> hard >> to come by. I'll get as far as I can tonight, but that may not be >> very >> far. Some of these messages are several weeks old.] >> > > This should happen more often, if its effect is as salutary as it is > here. Perhaps sitting by and listening for a while helps us hear > more clearly. > > >>> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >>> 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. >>> >> Make that "zero useful information." The law isn't clear whether the >> information is authorized or not -- probably not -- but it won't >> suggest >> any action over another. >> >> >>> Law >>> 27D in this case is relevant only if the Director later determines >>> that >>> their initial Law 27B1(b) ruling of validity was erroneous. >>> >> As we've seen subsequently, there are other reasons L27D can >> apply. One >> would be where the IB auction conceals something that the normal >> auction >> would reveal, and the NOS go wrong on that account. >> >> >>> From: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" >>> 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. >>> >> This seems odd. Under L27B1a, there is no UI by definition. Under >> 27B1b, there is no I (at least none that's useful). But either way, >> L27D requires comparing the result achieved at the table with what >> would >> have happened absent the IB. >> >> >>> Per se the substitution is not subject to 16, but "withdrawn calls" >>> contain UI however we look at it. >>> >> That's not what L27B1a says. >> >> >>> 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. >>> >> Indeed. The TD will have some work to do after play is over. If >> the OS >> reach a "magic" contract, they will probably have the result taken >> away. >> As Grattan mentions in a much later message, the question will be >> how >> to interpret "assistance gained through the infraction." >> >> >> >>> From: Reg Busch >>> Those who >>> defend the right to a RC of 3NT which shows systemically four >>> clubs see >>> it as 'more precise'. I see it differently. The 1C says also that >>> 'I may >>> have as few as 3 clubs. The RC says I don't have as few as 3 >>> clubs.' I >>> see this as a different meaning, not a more precise one. >>> >> I don't understand this view. "Four or more" is a more precise >> meaning >> than "three or more." If that isn't obvious on its face, the footnote >> makes it clear. >> >> >>> I see Law 40A3 as something of a red herring. You have committed an >>> infraction, and law 27 gives you some (limited) options to rescue >>> your >>> side from a difficult situation. Intentionally misbidding your >>> hand is >>> not one of your options. >>> >> Pardon me, but which Law is that? >> >> >>> If you insist on your undoubted Law 40 right to >>> misbid your hand, certainly you may, but Law 27 now says that this >>> falls >>> under 27B3, and the TD will bar partner. >>> >> This goes to the question of "What is the true agreement?" Also, "How >> will the TD decide?" I've been meaning for quite some while to >> write a >> little essay on these subjects but haven't had time. The answers are >> not simple, though, or at least they don't seem so to me. In real >> life, >> I suspect the only people who have a problem will be those who >> frequently make IBs. >> >> I think the real "safety valve" is L27D, not saying that 27B1b doesn't >> apply. >> >> >>> We need clarification on two crucial issues. Are you entitled to >>> intentionally misbid your hand under 27B1(b)? >>> >> Why in the world not? >> >> >>> And, if you are, are the opponents entitled to redress under 27D? >>> >> Certainly not if the auction merely reproduces the result the IBer >> would >> have achieved anyway; the last sentence of 27D is clear. And no >> problem >> if it produces a worse result. If a better result is achieved, we're >> back to the meaning of "assistance gained through the infraction." >> >> >>> They were damaged by the nisbid (not the IB), and 27D >>> allows redress only for damage from the IB. >>> >> As you say, this will need some interpretation. >> > > Steve has done a superb job of summarizing the discussion to date. I > fully agree with his understanding of the emerging consensus. I > couldn't have done better myself, and I'm arrogant enough to think > that means something. > One more point please : do we agree that, when the TD tells you which bids you have at your disposal, we may pick one of them because there will be no penalty, rather than because it describes your actual hand ? Exapmle : Over1H, I answer 2NT (limit+ raise, 3+ trumps) with my 3352 10-count but they tell me there has been a 3C overcall. My system calls for a double now, but they won't let me do that because it might be something else than a raise (extraneous information from the 2NT bid, right ?). So I decide to bid 4C, a GF raise, deciding that, between evils, overbidding a little is the least. May I ? Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 24 18:05:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:05:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <062f01c8a625$16ff73e0$8cad9b51@stefanie> Richard Hills quibbles: > > Re: EBU > Likewise the EBU guide for Directors, the "White Book", is freely > downloadable from the EBU website, as are EBU Appeals Casebooks. [snip] > What's the problem? The problem is that most volunteer playing directors have not even taken up Club TD training; if they are aware of the resources above, they will not be very likely to take advantage of them. What they will do is rely on the Lawbook to guide them, and in its present form it does a piss-poor job of this. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Gampas at aol.com Thu Apr 24 18:11:30 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:11:30 EDT Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 Message-ID: In a message dated 24/04/2008 16:39:17 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: Over1H, I answer 2NT (limit+ raise, 3+ trumps) with my 3352 10-count but they tell me there has been a 3C overcall. My system calls for a double now, but they won't let me do that because it might be something else than a raise (extraneous information from the 2NT bid, right ?). So I decide to bid 4C, a GF raise, deciding that, between evils, overbidding a little is the least. May I ? [paul lamford] It would seem so, as the 4C bid is more precise than the 2NT bid. However, your partner knows that you were not allowed to select double without penalty, and therefore knows that part of the reason that you have selected 4C might have been not to silence him; he also knows that you could not choose 3H as that would presumably have been pre-emptive without the 3C bid. He will therefore bid 4D (as last train) even if he would have driven slam opposite a 4C game force, and now he can accept the sign-off in 4H. All perfectly legal as the combination of 2NT and the permitted 4C is AI to him, and he cocks a snook at the ridiculous Law 27 by his machinations. It seems clear as well that 27D does not apply, as without the infraction you would still have reached 4H as pard would have driven game after you doubled. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Apr 24 19:04:53 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:04:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423180536.041b2db8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080423180536.041b2db8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4810BDB5.60008@meteo.fr> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > At 05:50 PM 23/04/2008, you wrote: >> Imps >> Dlr: North >> Vul: Both >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- Pass Pass Pass >> 2C(1) Pass Pass(2) ? (3) >> >> (1) Either balanced and 21-22 hcp, or unbalanced game force. >> (2) Non-systemic. >> (3) While you, South, are contemplating your call you gain >> some AI from East. She makes some self-critical remarks, >> which conclude with the statement, "Oh well, it's too late >> now." >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J4 >> K98432 >> JT2 >> T8 >> >> What call do you make? >> >> David Burn: >> >>> "Director". >>> >>> That is, assuming 1997 Law 25B2(b)(2) still applies at >>> the Canberra Bridge Club. >> Richard Hills: >> >> One of the many problems with the almost defunct 1997 Law >> 25B is that East's rights do not expire when her partner >> has called, but when her LHO has called. Blmler Reg >> Busch once noted that this created an unfair race between >> East and South, as the outcome depended on whether East's >> summoning of the TD was quicker than South's call in >> rotation. >> >> David Burn: >> >>> I know that under this Law my opponents are entitled to >>> a shot at average minus; the fact that they don't know >>> this ought not to affect my actions or their rights. >>> >>> Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. >> Richard Hills: >> >> The maxim "fiat justitia ruat caelum" has been attributed >> to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesonius (d. 43 BCE). The >> English translation "let Justice be done, though the >> Heavens may fall" was famously used by the English judge >> William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield (1703-1793) when >> he ruled in Somersett's case (1772) that slavery was >> illegal in England. >> >> So yes, at the table my call was "Director!" After >> careful questioning of East, the TD ruled that the >> appropriate Law was not the 1997 Law 25B2 but rather the >> 1997 Law 25A. East-West subsequently bid and made their >> cold game in the par 3NT contract, so virtue had to be >> its own reward. > > I will stick my neck out here. No director would rule L25A > here, not with bidding boxes, not with written bidding, never > > Am I right? i think so. if my memory is right, L25B was actually created because L25A could not be used when an identical accident happened to kaplan's partner. jpr > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 19:32:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:32:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: <4810A60D.6080103@ulb.ac.be> References: <4810A60D.6080103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <544074DA-7867-4941-B9DA-2BABACB4F639@starpower.net> On Apr 24, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > >> In a message dated 24/04/2008 01:18:35 GMT Standard Time, >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >> >> If the bidder's "brain stopped working", then that has a one- >> to-one correspondence with the Law 25A adjective "unintended". >> >> [paul lamford] >> Those who believe there is no such thing as free will would >> classify all >> bids as unintended. More seriously, I don't think we are talking >> about >> "mechanical errors" here. I think there are basically three types >> of insufficient bid: >> >> a) those where a bid was not seen and the bid would be sufficient >> without >> the unseen bid. If the TD decides that the bid falls into that >> category, then >> the meaning of the bid is clear; it is what the bid would mean >> without the >> unseen bid. And it is relatively easy to decide whether a >> substituted bid would >> give any extra information, in which case it is disallowed. > > AG : this case, the most frequent one I guess, isn't as plain as you > present it. > When the bidding goes : 2D 3S 3D, for example, you have to > decide, by > some means, whether the player, among other possibilities : : > a1) didn't see the overcall > a2) saw 2S > a3) saw 3C > a4) saw 1S ! and decided to condone it, jumping to 3D > a5) in a country where stop cards are to be used, was distracted by > the > fact that RHO forgot to use it ...and so on, until we get to "a107342)" (or so). > Automatically deciding that a1) applies could lead to inequities. ...and is totally arbitrary besides, with absolutely nothing in the law that could be interpreted to justify it. I see only two possible interpretations here: either the TD makes his ruling on the basis of what he determines (from the IBer) to have been the actual fact, or he makes a ruling that takes into account all of the 107342 (or so) possibilities. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 19:49:16 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:49:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <4810A950.4010608@ulb.ac.be> References: <200803242136.m2OLaFYH005839@cfa.harvard.edu> <480FD12E.9010705@nhcc.net> <4810A950.4010608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1F00CE9D-F032-4289-8757-38F1FF6EBFDD@starpower.net> On Apr 24, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> On Apr 23, 2008, at 8:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> >>>> I see Law 40A3 as something of a red herring. You have committed an >>>> infraction, and law 27 gives you some (limited) options to rescue >>>> your >>>> side from a difficult situation. Intentionally misbidding your >>>> hand is >>>> not one of your options. >>> >>> Pardon me, but which Law is that? >>> >>>> If you insist on your undoubted Law 40 right to >>>> misbid your hand, certainly you may, but Law 27 now says that this >>>> falls >>>> under 27B3, and the TD will bar partner. >>> >>> This goes to the question of "What is the true agreement?" Also, >>> "How >>> will the TD decide?" I've been meaning for quite some while to >>> write a >>> little essay on these subjects but haven't had time. The answers >>> are >>> not simple, though, or at least they don't seem so to me. In real >>> life, >>> I suspect the only people who have a problem will be those who >>> frequently make IBs. >>> >>> I think the real "safety valve" is L27D, not saying that 27B1b >>> doesn't >>> apply. >>> >>>> We need clarification on two crucial issues. Are you entitled to >>>> intentionally misbid your hand under 27B1(b)? >>> >>> Why in the world not? >>> >>>> And, if you are, are the opponents entitled to redress under 27D? >>> >>> Certainly not if the auction merely reproduces the result the IBer >>> would >>> have achieved anyway; the last sentence of 27D is clear. And no >>> problem >>> if it produces a worse result. If a better result is achieved, >>> we're >>> back to the meaning of "assistance gained through the infraction." >>> >>>> They were damaged by the nisbid (not the IB), and 27D >>>> allows redress only for damage from the IB. >>> >>> As you say, this will need some interpretation. > > One more point please : do we agree that, when the TD tells you which > bids you have at your disposal, we may pick one of them because there > will be no penalty, rather than because it describes your actual > hand ? Yes. L27B1 places no restrictions on (indeed, makes no mention whatsoever of) the IBer's actual holding. Indeed, it has been legal -- and entirely routine -- to do this under every version of L27 since at least 1963. The only difference now is that you may have a choice among more than one such call. > Exapmle : Over1H, I answer 2NT (limit+ raise, 3+ trumps) with my 3352 > 10-count but they tell me there has been a 3C overcall. My system > calls > for a double now, but they won't let me do that because it might be > something else than a raise (extraneous information from the 2NT bid, > right ?). So I decide to bid 4C, a GF raise, deciding that, between > evils, overbidding a little is the least. May I ? To quote Steve, "Why in the world not?" Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 24 20:04:45 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:04:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Law 27 case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4810CBBD.9070708@NTLworld.com> [Gampas] By the way, someone doubling instead of redoubling after 4NT is doubled, getting DOPI and ROPI mixed up, will still silence his partner under Law 36, as Law 27 only applies to bids? I presume this was intended, but the reasoning escapes me at the moment! [Nige1] IMO, the amended new law applies to passes, doubles, and redoubles (as well as bids). From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 20:15:01 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:15:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net> On Apr 24, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 24/04/2008 16:39:17 GMT Standard Time, > agot at ulb.ac.be > writes: > > Over1H, I answer 2NT (limit+ raise, 3+ trumps) with my 3352 > 10-count but they tell me there has been a 3C overcall. My system > calls > for a double now, but they won't let me do that because it might be > something else than a raise (extraneous information from the 2NT bid, > right ?). So I decide to bid 4C, a GF raise, deciding that, between > evils, overbidding a little is the least. May I ? > > [paul lamford] It would seem so, as the 4C bid is more precise than > the 2NT > bid. However, your partner knows that you were not allowed to > select double > without penalty, and therefore knows that part of the reason that > you have > selected 4C might have been not to silence him; he also knows that > you could not > choose 3H as that would presumably have been pre-emptive without > the 3C bid. > He will therefore bid 4D (as last train) even if he would have > driven slam > opposite a 4C game force, and now he can accept the sign-off in > 4H. All > perfectly legal as the combination of 2NT and the permitted 4C is > AI to him, and he > cocks a snook at the ridiculous Law 27 by his machinations. It > seems clear as > well that 27D does not apply, as without the infraction you would > still have > reached 4H as pard would have driven game after you doubled. OK. Let's recap. If we allow Alain to bid 4C, as we presumably must unless we are to look at his hand and base our ruling on what we find there, he will bid 4C, game forcing, with a bit less than he might have had he not made an IB and been subject to the possibility of penalty under L27. His partner -- along with his opponents, the TD, and any kibitzers -- will understand that he *may* be stretching (in a L27B1(b) case he cannot know for sure), because 4C may be the closest he can come to his actual holding without barring his partner. And because this is all AI, Alain's partner will allow for the possibility, and in so doing will reach 4H, which is the same contract as everyone else has (or would have) reached, and the same contract the TD determines (giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS) that Alain and his partner would have reached absent the infraction. Both sides will get the same result they would have gotten had Alain not bid insufficiently in the first place, and the TD will not change it, not because "27D does not apply", but because L27D, properly applied, will tell him that no change is called for. And what is wrong with this scenario is... well, what? It makes L27 "ridiculous"... well, why? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Thu Apr 24 20:27:02 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:27:02 EDT Subject: [blml] Another Law 27 case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 24/04/2008 19:06:23 GMT Standard Time, Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes: [Gampas] By the way, someone doubling instead of redoubling after 4NT is doubled, getting DOPI and ROPI mixed up, will still silence his partner under Law 36, as Law 27 only applies to bids? I presume this was intended, but the reasoning escapes me at the moment! [Nige1] IMO, the amended new law applies to passes, doubles, and redoubles (as well as bids). [Gampas] No it doesn't. 27B1b states: if, except as in (a), the insufficient *bid* is corrected with a legal call. If it intended to refer to an insufficient call, which includes double and redouble it would have said so. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 24 20:34:39 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:34:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <062f01c8a625$16ff73e0$8cad9b51@stefanie> References: <062f01c8a625$16ff73e0$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <4810D2BF.7010603@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Likewise the EBU guide for Directors, the "White Book", is freely downloadable from the EBU website, as are EBU Appeals Casebooks. What's the problem? [Stefanie Rowan] The problem is that most volunteer playing directors have not even taken up Club TD training; if they are aware of the resources above, they will not be very likely to take advantage of them. What they will do is rely on the Lawbook to guide them, and in its present form it does a piss-poor job of this. [Nigel] IMO, Stefanie's experience is typical. At my local bridge club, a few directors have attended EBU TD courses. Other directors, whom I've asked, are unaware that a new edition of the laws will soon come into effect. The club boasts copies of - - The 1997 law book (but no WBF minutes or interpretations, and no EBU white-books or case-books) - The EBU orange book (but as far as I know, this has been consulted only once). Some club directors can't grasp why other directors want the rules of a game to be so sophisticated; most don't have the time to study what seem to be unnecessary complexities. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 20:41:21 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:41:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another Law 27 case In-Reply-To: <4810CBBD.9070708@NTLworld.com> References: <4810CBBD.9070708@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [Gampas] > By the way, someone doubling instead of redoubling after 4NT is > doubled, > getting DOPI and ROPI mixed up, will still silence his partner > under Law > 36, as Law 27 only applies to bids? I presume this was intended, > but the > reasoning escapes me at the moment! > > [Nige1] > IMO, the amended new law applies to passes, doubles, and redoubles (as > well as bids). L27 applies when someone makes an "insufficient bid". There is no such thing in TFLB as an "insufficient double" or "insufficient redouble"; they may be "inadmissible", but that's not the same thing at all. L27 speaks of "insufficient *bids*" being replaced by "replacement *calls*". The latter includes passes, doubles and redoubles; the former does not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Apr 24 20:42:51 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:42:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Law 27 case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4810D4AB.6020802@NTLworld.com> [nige1] IMO, the amended new law applies to passes, doubles, and redoubles (as well as bids). [Gampas] No it doesn't. 27B1b states: if, except as in (a), the insufficient *bid* is corrected with a legal call. If it intended to refer to an insufficient call, which includes double and redouble it would have said so. [nige2] I think I know how a pass, double, or redouble may be *illegal* in other ways; but don't understand how such a call can be *insufficient*? From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 24 20:56:42 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:56:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net> Message-ID: <06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie> Eric Landau: > OK. Let's recap. If we allow Alain to bid 4C, as we presumably must > unless we are to look at his hand and base our ruling on what we find > there, he will bid 4C, game forcing, with a bit less than he might > have had he not made an IB and been subject to the possibility of > penalty under L27. His partner -- along with his opponents, the TD, > and any kibitzers -- will understand that he *may* be stretching (in > a L27B1(b) case he cannot know for sure), because 4C may be the > closest he can come to his actual holding without barring his > partner. And because this is all AI, Alain's partner will allow for > the possibility, Well... if partner deviates from the system being played, it is supposed to be unexpected by partner. Even Grattan, who sees nothing much wrong with Law 27, believes that Law 40C1 applies here. > and in so doing will reach 4H, which is the same > contract as everyone else has (or would have) reached, and the same > contract the TD determines (giving the benefit of the doubt to the > NOS) that Alain and his partner would have reached absent the > infraction. But there was an infraction, and partner shows a game-forcing hand. If his hand actually had invitational values, and everyone else got to game, then Alain must have extra values. Thus his signing off in 4H may be a violation of Law 40C1. > Both sides will get the same result they would have > gotten had Alain not bid insufficiently in the first place, and the > TD will not change it, not because "27D does not apply", but because > L27D, properly applied, will tell him that no change is called for. I don't have the rewritten Law 27 available, but in the UK a red psyche is always adjusted. > > And what is wrong with this scenario is... well, what? It makes L27 > "ridiculous"... well, why? > Because a psyche has been fielded, and it is deemed to be legal. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Gampas at aol.com Thu Apr 24 21:18:07 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:18:07 EDT Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 Message-ID: In a message dated 24/04/2008 19:16:21 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: And what is wrong with this scenario is... well, what? It makes L27 "ridiculous"... well, why? [Paul Lamford] OK. Let us say that we have the (now legal after our own infraction) agreement that if we make an insufficient bid, we will never select a bid which silences partner, if there is an alternative, and we will make the lowest permitted bid only if we are forced to reject a disallowed bid. Now, after the auction 1H - (3C) - 2NT followed by the substitution of 4C, partner knows that we have an invitational hand only and this is AI. In a strange way, the infraction has given more options to the responder, and this could be of assistance if the opponents compete in clubs. Perhaps not what the lawmakers intended. From Gampas at aol.com Thu Apr 24 21:32:41 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:32:41 EDT Subject: [blml] Another Law 27 case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 24/04/2008 19:43:57 GMT Standard Time, Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes: [nige1] IMO, the amended new law applies to passes, doubles, and redoubles (as well as bids). [Gampas] No it doesn't. 27B1b states: if, except as in (a), the insufficient *bid* is corrected with a legal call. If it intended to refer to an insufficient call, which includes double and redouble it would have said so. [nige2] I think I know how a pass, double, or redouble may be *illegal* in other ways; but don't understand how such a call can be *insufficient*? [Gampas] I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I agree that a double or redouble may be substituted for an insufficient bid, but the example I gave was someone doubling instead of redoubling when intending to use ROPI. I agree that this is is neither a bid, nor insufficient, and therefore cannot be corrected on two grounds. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 22:32:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:32:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie> References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net> <06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <84E055E6-B1EA-43DC-87C9-9C9690B5EB38@starpower.net> On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> OK. Let's recap. If we allow Alain to bid 4C, as we presumably must >> unless we are to look at his hand and base our ruling on what we find >> there, he will bid 4C, game forcing, with a bit less than he might >> have had he not made an IB and been subject to the possibility of >> penalty under L27. His partner -- along with his opponents, the TD, >> and any kibitzers -- will understand that he *may* be stretching (in >> a L27B1(b) case he cannot know for sure), because 4C may be the >> closest he can come to his actual holding without barring his >> partner. And because this is all AI, Alain's partner will allow for >> the possibility, > > Well... if partner deviates from the system being played, it is > supposed to > be unexpected by partner. Even Grattan, who sees nothing much wrong > with Law > 27, believes that Law 40C1 applies here. L40C1 does not require a call to be "unexpected by partner"; it requires that it be no less unexpected by partner than by the opponents. Ordinary common sense dictates that if a bridge player is given a choice between an action that will bar partner from the auction and one that will not, he will go out of his way to choose the latter. If he is permitted to make an RC without penalty holding a hand that would not have made the same call absent the infraction, he will most likely do so. I will expect him to, you will expect him to, partner will expect him to, the opponents will expect him to, and the man behind the tree will expect him to. So there is no potential L40C1 issue here. >> and in so doing will reach 4H, which is the same >> contract as everyone else has (or would have) reached, and the same >> contract the TD determines (giving the benefit of the doubt to the >> NOS) that Alain and his partner would have reached absent the >> infraction. > > But there was an infraction, and partner shows a game-forcing hand. > If his > hand actually had invitational values, and everyone else got to > game, then > Alain must have extra values. Thus his signing off in 4H may be a > violation > of Law 40C1. L40C1 applies to deviations from system. Passing out 4H cannot be a deviation from system -- unless 4H carries the specific systemic message "I know we're not high enough but I'm passing anyhow"! This is not in any way analogous to passing when constrained by UI. >> Both sides will get the same result they would have >> gotten had Alain not bid insufficiently in the first place, and the >> TD will not change it, not because "27D does not apply", but because >> L27D, properly applied, will tell him that no change is called for. > > I don't have the rewritten Law 27 available, but in the UK a red > psyche is > always adjusted. Well, of course, if you call the action in question a "psyche" then you are assuming your conclusion. If we all agreed it was a psych, we would all agree to treat it as one. Which is entirely separate from, and nothing to do with, L27. But I see no justification for so labeling it, nor any reason why we might want to do so. >> And what is wrong with this scenario is... well, what? It makes L27 >> "ridiculous"... well, why? > > Because a psyche has been fielded, and it is deemed to be legal. What psych? 99.99% of perfectly ordinary non-psychic calls are routinely "fielded"; that doesn't make them all psychs. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 24 22:50:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:50:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <675433F5-CD2C-441E-B779-69F0DBB74D71@starpower.net> On Apr 24, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 24/04/2008 19:16:21 GMT Standard Time, > ehaa at starpower.net > writes: > > And what is wrong with this scenario is... well, what? It makes L27 > "ridiculous"... well, why? > > [Paul Lamford] > OK. Let us say that we have the (now legal after our own infraction) > agreement that if we make an insufficient bid, we will never select > a bid which > silences partner, if there is an alternative, and we will make the > lowest > permitted bid only if we are forced to reject a disallowed bid. > Now, after the > auction 1H - (3C) - 2NT followed by the substitution of 4C, partner > knows that we > have an invitational hand only and this is AI. I don't understand. What is this agreement? If "partner knows that we have an invitational hand only", then what would partner expect us to do with a normal (absent the IB) game-forcing 4C call? If we have agreed to make some call other than 4C with that hand, won't partner expect that hand for that call, requiring us to find another (non- penalty-liable) call with the hand that would have normally made that bid, and so on ad infinitum or until we run out of options and have to leave something out? If a call is permitted under the conditions of L27B1(b), it would seem impossible, given any coherent set of agreements, or none at all, for the IBer's partner ever to know that the IBer doesn't have the values it would normally show. > In a strange way, the > infraction has given more options to the responder, and this could > be of assistance > if the opponents compete in clubs. Perhaps not what the lawmakers > intended. And why not? They wrote L27D to deal with it if it occurs. The lawmakers intended that infractions go unadjusted unless they may have caused damage everywhere else in TFLB, so why not here? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 24 23:07:04 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:07:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net><06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie> <84E055E6-B1EA-43DC-87C9-9C9690B5EB38@starpower.net> Message-ID: <073601c8a64f$25fb1be0$8cad9b51@stefanie> Stefanie Rohan: >> >> Even Grattan, who sees nothing much wrong >> with Law >> 27, believes that Law 40C1 applies here. >> Eric Landau: > L40C1 does not require a call to be "unexpected by partner"; it > requires that it be no less unexpected by partner than by the > opponents. Ordinary common sense dictates that if a bridge player is > given a choice between an action that will bar partner from the > auction and one that will not, he will go out of his way to choose > the latter. If he is permitted to make an RC without penalty holding > a hand that would not have made the same call absent the infraction, > he will most likely do so. I will expect him to, you will expect him > to, partner will expect him to, the opponents will expect him to, and > the man behind the tree will expect him to. So there is no potential > L40C1 issue here. This is a very backwards way of looking at things. One is allowed to field partner's psyche because the opponents know that there is a good reason for partner to psyche in this situation? > > > L40C1 applies to deviations from system. Passing out 4H cannot be a > deviation from system -- unless 4H carries the specific systemic > message "I know we're not high enough but I'm passing anyhow"! This > is not in any way analogous to passing when constrained by UI. OK, change Lamford's scenario a bit -- you do not have 4D as some kind of "last train" bid available, but with, say, a decent 18-count you decide not to cuebid beyond game, since partner's game-forcing bid might not be genuine? Do you think that bidding 4H here should be permitted? > Well, of course, if you call the action in question a "psyche" then > you are assuming your conclusion. If we all agreed it was a psych, > we would all agree to treat it as one. Which is entirely separate > from, and nothing to do with, L27. But I see no justification for so > labeling it, nor any reason why we might want to do so. Well, it is a deliberate deviation from system. I suppose that usually the deviation will not be "gross", but presumably if deviations are to be permitted that includes "gross" ones. I think that directors will have to be extra vigilant if there are even small deviations from system, because we have seen an example where the NOS clearly profit from the infraction. > > What psych? 99.99% of perfectly ordinary non-psychic calls are > routinely "fielded"; that doesn't make them all psychs. Are 99.99% of calls potentially anti-systemic bids expected to be such by partner? Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 24 23:21:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:21:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net><003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred> <03cc01c8a56f$269ff830$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <000201c8a651$64743bc0$6ecd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay > > Anyway, once misdecriptive and anti-systemic RCs are > disallowed, these problems will be minimised. > +=+ On December 17th the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee agreed the following regulations: (a) A pair is not allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction or play consequent on a question asked by either side. (b) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement its understandings during the auction or play consequent on a response by the opponents to a question by this pair. (c) A pair is not allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understanding during the auction or play consequent on a response by this pair to a question by opponents. The above remain in place. A fourth regulation read "(d) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction or play consequent on an irregularity by either side." However, today this was reviewed and altered to read: "(d) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law27B1(b)." I am in dialogue with the CTD on the treatment of some other situations that may arise. When there is something to report I will put something here. For the moment it would not be useful to mingle speculation about them with the firm decision above. ~ Grttan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 24 23:59:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:59:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 relay + intention Message-ID: <075401c8a656$747c7190$8cad9b51@stefanie> I have been thinking about the idea of the insufficient bidder's intention becoming known to the table, either inadvertently or because the director feels that it is appropriate for the whole table to know, and for it to be AI. So the "meaning" of the IB is known to all (if the IBer does not know what was thinking, he can choose whatever meaning is closest to his hand). I see no way, then, that Tony's suggested relay can be considered illegal. The revelation of the intention raises some other interesting points. If the intended meaning of, say, an insufficient 1D bid is AI, then every possible RC will be a refinement of the IB -- "meaning" + whatever other information RC conveys -- and should be permitted. Suppose it was meant as an opening bid. One can then show an opening bid with a second suit, a balanced hand-type, extra values, etc, all with one cheap bid. The "opening 1D" part is, after all, already known and AI. Also... there could be hands that fit the systemic meaning of an opening 1D bid, a 1D response, a 2D response, a 1D overcall, a 2D overcall, a 2D opening bid... by choosing among these and perhaps more options, an IBer could define his hand much more accurately than he could by simply making a RC. This is an important reason that I think that the IBer's intention must be UI, even if it is revealed before the director arrives at the table. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Gampas at aol.com Fri Apr 25 00:14:13 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:14:13 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: In a message dated 24/04/2008 22:23:29 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: "(d) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law27B1(b)." An excellent addition. I was just about to add with my partner the following system change: After 1major - (overcall) - 2NT (accidentally insufficient, showing a game-forcing major raise): Lowest correction = minimum game-forcing raise Next lowest correction = serious slam-try Next lowest correction = any game-forcing splinter (partner asks with the next suit up) As all these are more precise than the game-forcing major raise, they would be allowed without penalty; and as we could clearly reach the same contract without the infraction (by playing the identical methods), there is no adjustment under 27D. Without the infraction, we would bid normally, and these bids do not need to be the same. The change in (d) above has prevented these extra agreements however, which will have the TD trying to work out whether we have gained from the infraction, and could have known that we would do so, as it is Law 23 that I would punish the miscreants under, not Law 27D, as it is very tough to judge how the auction would go without the infraction. I can accept Eric Landau's belief that one should be able to try to benefit, and then the TD would just apply 27D if you succeed, but I think that is not the ideal solution. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Apr 25 01:37:26 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:37:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net><003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred><03cc01c8a56f$269ff830$8cad9b51@stefanie> <000201c8a651$64743bc0$6ecd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <078c01c8a664$279621b0$8cad9b51@stefanie> L&E > However, today this was reviewed and altered to read: > "(d) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its > understandings during the auction and play consequent > on an irregularity by either side, except that following its > own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by > prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so > that it is brought within the criteria of Law27B1(b)." This is an improvement, but I am wondering if Grattan or DALB could explain why agreeing to vary "understandings" after an infraction by our side would be desirable. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 25 02:41:02 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:41:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <84E055E6-B1EA-43DC-87C9-9C9690B5EB38@starpower.net> References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net> <06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie> <84E055E6-B1EA-43DC-87C9-9C9690B5EB38@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080425103600.04104aa8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 06:32 AM 25/04/2008, you wrote: >On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > > Eric Landau: > > > >> OK. Let's recap. If we allow Alain to bid 4C, as we presumably must > >> unless we are to look at his hand and base our ruling on what we find > >> there, he will bid 4C, game forcing, with a bit less than he might > >> have had he not made an IB and been subject to the possibility of > >> penalty under L27. His partner -- along with his opponents, the TD, > >> and any kibitzers -- will understand that he *may* be stretching (in > >> a L27B1(b) case he cannot know for sure), because 4C may be the > >> closest he can come to his actual holding without barring his > >> partner. And because this is all AI, Alain's partner will allow for > >> the possibility, > > > > Well... if partner deviates from the system being played, it is > > supposed to > > be unexpected by partner. Even Grattan, who sees nothing much wrong > > with Law > > 27, believes that Law 40C1 applies here. > >L40C1 does not require a call to be "unexpected by partner"; it >requires that it be no less unexpected by partner than by the >opponents. Ordinary common sense dictates that if a bridge player is >given a choice between an action that will bar partner from the >auction and one that will not, he will go out of his way to choose >the latter. If he is permitted to make an RC without penalty holding >a hand that would not have made the same call absent the infraction, >he will most likely do so. I will expect him to, you will expect him >to, partner will expect him to, the opponents will expect him to, and >the man behind the tree will expect him to. So there is no potential >L40C1 issue here. > > >> and in so doing will reach 4H, which is the same > >> contract as everyone else has (or would have) reached, and the same > >> contract the TD determines (giving the benefit of the doubt to the > >> NOS) that Alain and his partner would have reached absent the > >> infraction. > > > > But there was an infraction, and partner shows a game-forcing hand. > > If his > > hand actually had invitational values, and everyone else got to > > game, then > > Alain must have extra values. Thus his signing off in 4H may be a > > violation > > of Law 40C1. > >L40C1 applies to deviations from system. Passing out 4H cannot be a >deviation from system -- unless 4H carries the specific systemic >message "I know we're not high enough but I'm passing anyhow"! This >is not in any way analogous to passing when constrained by UI. > > >> Both sides will get the same result they would have > >> gotten had Alain not bid insufficiently in the first place, and the > >> TD will not change it, not because "27D does not apply", but because > >> L27D, properly applied, will tell him that no change is called for. > > > > I don't have the rewritten Law 27 available, but in the UK a red > > psyche is > > always adjusted. > >Well, of course, if you call the action in question a "psyche" then >you are assuming your conclusion. If we all agreed it was a psych, >we would all agree to treat it as one. Which is entirely separate >from, and nothing to do with, L27. But I see no justification for so >labeling it, nor any reason why we might want to do so. > > >> And what is wrong with this scenario is... well, what? It makes L27 > >> "ridiculous"... well, why? > > > > Because a psyche has been fielded, and it is deemed to be legal. > >What psych? 99.99% of perfectly ordinary non-psychic calls are >routinely "fielded"; that doesn't make them all psychs. Alain's partner has heard the director offering 3H and 4H to the IBer while barring partner, as well as the penalty free 4C bid. Alain has chosen 4C to keep partner in the auction. For what purpose you think? Perhaps there is a slam in the offing, so I bid 6H which makes when they misdefend. Will our top be taken away? Cheers Tony (Sydney) From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Apr 25 03:08:21 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:08:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200804241616.m3OGGBbL008286@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200804241616.m3OGGBbL008286@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48112F05.8080001@nhcc.net> > From: "David Burn" > It seems to me that many, if not all, of the problems we have been > discussing here would vanish if it were recognised that the creation of UI > is never a crime, whereas allowing oneself to be influenced by UI into > taking an action one would not otherwise have taken is always a crime. Many legal problems would vanish. However, this would not be a game I'd wish to play. The idea of bridge, as I understand it, is to pick the calls and plays that will work best, not the ones that are "least suggested" by UI. From geller at nifty.com Fri Apr 25 03:20:05 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:20:05 +0900 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48112F05.8080001@nhcc.net> References: <48112F05.8080001@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <200804250120.AA13455@geller204.nifty.com> The inadvertent creation of UI in the course of complying with the Laws (such as answering in correctly answering questions about one's agreements) is neither a "crime" nor an irregularity. The inadvertent creation of UI through uncontrollable human reactions (variations in tempo, grimaces, gestures, etc.) is an irregularity (to be avoided as much as possible) but not a "crime." But deliberately providing UI to partner though any means of communication other than those authorized by law is a grave "crime" indeed. -Bob Steve Willner ????????: >> From: "David Burn" >> It seems to me that many, if not all, of the problems we have been >> discussing here would vanish if it were recognised that the creation of UI >> is never a crime, whereas allowing oneself to be influenced by UI into >> taking an action one would not otherwise have taken is always a crime. > >Many legal problems would vanish. However, this would not be a game I'd >wish to play. The idea of bridge, as I understand it, is to pick the >calls and plays that will work best, not the ones that are "least >suggested" by UI. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Apr 25 04:09:52 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:09:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <078c01c8a664$279621b0$8cad9b51@stefanie> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net><003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred><03cc01c8a56f$269ff830$8cad9b51@stefanie><000201c8a651$64743bc0$6ecd403e@Mildred> <078c01c8a664$279621b0$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: "Stefanie Rohan" writes: Grattan writes: > L&E > >> However, today this was reviewed and altered to read: >> "(d) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its >> understandings during the auction and play consequent >> on an irregularity by either side, except that following its >> own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by >> prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so >> that it is brought within the criteria of Law27B1(b)." > > This is an improvement, but I am wondering if Grattan or DALB could explain > why agreeing to vary "understandings" after an infraction by our side would > be desirable. We play gambling 3NT. Partner is the dealer but I open 1NT out of turn, barring him. I bid 3NT in turn, and LHO bids 4H. Partner is not required to assume in the play that I have a solid minor suit. From emu at fwi.net.au Fri Apr 25 04:21:18 2008 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:21:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: <80513609-4C0C-43AE-AA6B-8617BEADD422@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301c8a67b$0b89fd40$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> "I've never heard anyone say, "I just blanked out for a minute there and have no idea why I bid that." " Well, actually, I have heard this, several times. People do it - more often than you think perhaps. [And I have even done it myself - It turned out that I had incipient influenza at the time and should have been home in bed. I soon was - I could not continue the session, with humblest apologies to the Director whose movement I had just stuffed up.] regards, Noel -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:29 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Another L27 case On Apr 23, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Eric Landau] > I disagree that L27 is an abomination, but it will rapidly become so > if we force directors to take into account all of "the possible > meanings" of the IB, as Paul's 2C example above demonstrates. > > If, however, we accept an interpretation by which the director must > determine what the IBer believed the auction to be at the time of the > IB (any reasonable protocol for dealing with IBs must assume they were > not made intentionally) before applying L27B1, and by which this > finding of fact is AI to the table, the nightmare scenarios disappear. > > [paul lamford] > Really? You assume that the IBer thought the auction was different > to the > actual one and therefore the IB would have some meaning in the > imaginary > auction. IM admittedly low-level TDing E, nine times out of ten not only is this the case, but the IBer has revealed it before I reached the table. Typically, "That's insufficient," elicits an instinctive response along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I thought I was the dealer," or, "I'm sorry, I thought you passed," or whatever. A strong argument for making this information AI is that it allows you to make essentially identical rulings when this doesn't happen. > But this only covers a subset of IBs. In addition Law 27 makes no > reference to the player's intention when making the IB, only to the > meaning of the > IB, or to be more precise what the TD thinks it might have meant. > > So, we ask the IBer what he thought the auction was. He admits > sheepishly > that he did not mistake the auction, but his brain stopped working > for a moment. > Your method might work when the auction has been mistaken, but I > do not see > how the TD can decide what the IB means when it wasn't. In fact I > cannot see > how he can rule at all. I've never heard anyone say, "I just blanked out for a minute there and have no idea why I bid that." I can think of four possible explanations for an IB: (1) It was not the call the player intended to make (L25A applies); (2) It was deliberate (L72B1 applies); (3) The player misread the auction and thought the IB was a legal call (L27 applies), or (4) The player was confused about the rank order of the suits (extra-legal measures are called for). > "When I make an insufficient bid", said Humpty Dumpty, in rather a > scornful > tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor > less." Well, yeah, but Mr. Dumpty could say the same about lots of perfectly legal bids, not just insufficient ones. 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 Fri Apr 25 10:06:16 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:06:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <481190F8.8080001@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 24/04/2008 16:39:17 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be > writes: > > Over1H, I answer 2NT (limit+ raise, 3+ trumps) with my 3352 > 10-count but they tell me there has been a 3C overcall. My system calls > for a double now, but they won't let me do that because it might be > something else than a raise (extraneous information from the 2NT bid, > right ?). So I decide to bid 4C, a GF raise, deciding that, between > evils, overbidding a little is the least. May I ? > > [paul lamford] It would seem so, as the 4C bid is more precise than the 2NT > bid. However, your partner knows that you were not allowed to select double > without penalty, and therefore knows that part of the reason that you have > selected 4C might have been not to silence him; he also knows that you could not > choose 3H as that would presumably have been pre-emptive without the 3C bid. > He will therefore bid 4D (as last train) even if he would have driven slam > opposite a 4C game force, and now he can accept the sign-off in 4H. All > perfectly legal as the combination of 2NT and the permitted 4C is AI to him, and he > cocks a snook at the ridiculous Law 27 by his machinations. AG : of course, if you consider that laws are there to preserve equity, letting us reach a perfectly standard contract seems less ridiculous. That's one of the reasons why I've chosen this example : ISTM that L27 replaces the old principle of "when he errs, shoot him" with a partially successful attempt at minimizing the perturbations caused by the IB. At least, this is fair to other competitors, even if it won't always work. Avoiding some strange results is better than not avoiding any. This is from a player who once lost a place in the final phase of Belgian Pair Championship because of an irregularity that happened at another table. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 25 10:23:52 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:23:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48119518.2030901@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: > > [snip] > >>> Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer >>> statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating >>> it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives >>> unauthorised information to partner. > > Herman De Wael: > >> I am not in the ABF, nor do I want to be if they issue such >> silly regulations as that. How can you wish people to play >> the game if they are not even allowed to express what they >> believe their partner's bids mean? > > Richard Hills: > > No, the impractical silliness is with the De Wael protocol. > A typical example: > > North: "4C" > East: "What does that mean?" > South(A): "Undiscussed, but I am taking it as Gerber." > South(B): "Undiscussed, but I am taking it as natural." > > Before South's response, North did not know whether she was > partnering South(A) or South(B). After South's response, > North-South have created a mutual partnership understanding > _during the auction_, contrary to the 2007 Law 16A1(d): > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information that the player possessed before he took > his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not > preclude his use of this information." > And indeed both South(A) and South(B) have given UI to North. However, one of them has given the explanation that conforms to North's intentions (and I assume North's hand will be an indication of those intentions). So that particular piece of UI is disregarded. I refuse to believe that when North makes a call that could be Gerber or Stayman, he does so without first "guessing" himself which of the two his partner is going to answer on. If North waits for Souths answer before deciding what his 4C means, he is of course cheating. > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > >> In the DWS case, I refuse to give UI, and you lambast me >> for it. > > Richard Hills: > > If obeying the 2007 Law 20F1 and/or the 2007 Law 20F4 > necessarily requires consequential creation of UI, then > the creation of that UI is necessarily legal. > If obeying Law ... (you know the drill) > Herman De Wael: > >> Yet in this case you have an NBO who expressly tells you >> to hide valuable information to opponents, in order not >> to give UI. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Displaying my 13 cards to my LHO during the auction would > be valuable information for her. Yet my LHO is _not > entitled_ by Law to that valuable information, unless my > partner is captain in a game-force relay auction. > > So, if transmission of particular information is _not > required_ by Law, a regulation prohibiting that UI is > entirely within a Regulating Authority's powers. > ?????????? I refuse to see the consequential nature of that statement. Or what it means in our discussion. Your ABF regulation forbids the creation of certain UI. OK they have that right. But it's at the cost of MI. What I was trying to point out to you was that in some other situation I refuse to give UI, and in doing so hand out some MI. You (Richard, not the ABF) are higly critical of my choices in this matter, saying that MI is som much worse than UI. Yet you defend, against me, a regulation that does precisely the same thing. I only want to point out that your position is not consistent. > 2007 Law 80B2(f): > > "to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in > conflict with, these Laws." > I was not waying it was in conflict - I was saying that it was a silly regulation and that it was totally in line with the DWS practices that you detest so much. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 25 10:29:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:29:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <200804232139.m3NLdew0006070@cfa.harvard.edu> <480FE8C5.4050602@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002301c8a6ae$6dfc7100$dbd6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay >> From: Eric Landau >> There is something suspect about someone's making an advance plan to >> take advantage of a situation in which he might only find himself in >> the event of his inadvertantly taking some action he claims to have >> no intention of taking. > >> I would ... favor a prohibition on methods designed to take >> advantage of one's own side's (infraction of any kind, for that >> matter). > > I share Eric's worry expressed in his first paragraph, but I find it > hard to imagine such a method in the case of IBs. If a proposed method > passes L23 and L27D, what's the problem? Can anyone think of a method > that would pass these and still be worthwhile? > +=+ This message is somewhere 'out there'. > <<< On December 17th the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee > agreed the following regulations: > (a) A pair is not allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its > understandings during the auction or play consequent on a > question asked by either side. > (b) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement its > understandings during the auction or play consequent on a > response by the opponents to a question by this pair. > (c) A pair is not allowed to vary, by prior agreement, > its understanding during the auction or play consequent on a > response by this pair to a question by opponents. > > The above remain in place. A fourth regulation read "(d) A pair > is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during > the auction or play consequent on an irregularity by either side." > However, today this was reviewed and altered to read: > "(d) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its > understandings during the auction and play consequent > on an irregularity by either side, except that following its > own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by > prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so > that it is brought within the criteria of Law27B1(b)." > > I am in dialogue with the CTD on the treatment* of some > other situations that may arise. When there is something to > report I will put something here. For the moment it would > not be useful to mingle speculation about them with the > firm decision above. >>> ....................................................................................... {* Max remarked correctly that there is no exclusion of Law 16 in Law 27B1(b). I observed, however, that 16D does not apply when the information it conveys is not in conflict with the IB. 16D relates to information from the withdrawn action, not to information from the withdrawal of the action. But this leaves for consideration some adjacent situations and our ongoing dialogue relates to these. Eventually our developed opinions will be put for consideration at international level. Max has these subjects to cover at the May 30/31 seminar for EBL TDs.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 25 10:29:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:29:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <200804232139.m3NLdew0006070@cfa.harvard.edu> <480FE8C5.4050602@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002301c8a6ae$6dfc7100$dbd6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay >> From: Eric Landau >> There is something suspect about someone's making an advance plan to >> take advantage of a situation in which he might only find himself in >> the event of his inadvertantly taking some action he claims to have >> no intention of taking. > >> I would ... favor a prohibition on methods designed to take >> advantage of one's own side's (infraction of any kind, for that >> matter). > > I share Eric's worry expressed in his first paragraph, but I find it > hard to imagine such a method in the case of IBs. If a proposed method > passes L23 and L27D, what's the problem? Can anyone think of a method > that would pass these and still be worthwhile? > +=+ This message is somewhere 'out there'. > <<< On December 17th the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee > agreed the following regulations: > (a) A pair is not allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its > understandings during the auction or play consequent on a > question asked by either side. > (b) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement its > understandings during the auction or play consequent on a > response by the opponents to a question by this pair. > (c) A pair is not allowed to vary, by prior agreement, > its understanding during the auction or play consequent on a > response by this pair to a question by opponents. > > The above remain in place. A fourth regulation read "(d) A pair > is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during > the auction or play consequent on an irregularity by either side." > However, today this was reviewed and altered to read: > "(d) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its > understandings during the auction and play consequent > on an irregularity by either side, except that following its > own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by > prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so > that it is brought within the criteria of Law27B1(b)." > > I am in dialogue with the CTD on the treatment* of some > other situations that may arise. When there is something to > report I will put something here. For the moment it would > not be useful to mingle speculation about them with the > firm decision above. >>> ....................................................................................... {* Max remarked correctly that there is no exclusion of Law 16 in Law 27B1(b). I observed, however, that 16D does not apply when the information it conveys is not in conflict with the IB. 16D relates to information from the withdrawn action, not to information from the withdrawal of the action. But this leaves for consideration some adjacent situations and our ongoing dialogue relates to these. Eventually our developed opinions will be put for consideration at international level. Max has these subjects to cover at the May 30/31 seminar for EBL TDs.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Apr 25 10:14:05 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:14:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080424143705.01da2148@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <480F4C7F.1040000@skynet.be> <000001c8a5b0$da97d5b0$8fc78110$@com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080424143705.01da2148@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <481192CD.6080008@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 12:13 PM 24/04/2008, you wrote: >> [HdW] >> >> In the DWS case, I refuse to give UI, and you lambast me for it. Yet in this >> case you have an NBO who expressely tells you to hide valuable information >> to opponents, in order not to give UI. >> >> [DALB] >> >> It seems to me that many, if not all, of the problems we have been >> discussing here would vanish if it were recognised that the creation of UI >> is never a crime, whereas allowing oneself to be influenced by UI into >> taking an action one would not otherwise have taken is always a crime. >> >> Come to think of it, if this principle were universally adopted, BLML would >> soon cease to exist. Unless, of course, the WBFLC created other stupid Laws. >> >> David Burn >> London, England > > I am sure Herman would enjoy directing in Australia, provided he passed > the required exam "Do you want to Direct?" > > This comes from Kate McCallum in the latest Australian Bridge: > > "I've played quite a lot of bridge in Australia, and all around the world, > but the > Gold Coast Teams was a first for me in at least one respect: Paul and I played > for 4 1/2 days with virtually no agreements - not even a convention card until > we reached the semi finals, when Kieran Dyke requested one from us. I coudn't > help but think that in America we wouldn't have survived the first deal > without a > card. There would dprobably have been a testy director call and lots of ill > will. > > What could have been an issue in my country was a non-event in Australia" > > Come on down, where we still try to play bridge > I play most of my sessions without a SC either - only with one regular and one semi-regular partner do I have a SC. I doubt if tomorrow in the final of the Flanders' Pairs more than half the pairs will turn up with a SC. I do know what it means to play without a SC. But that does not mean one plays without agreements! And consequently, the expression "no agreements" cannot be proven! So it should not be used. > Tony (Sydney) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From david.j.barton at lineone.net Fri Apr 25 10:53:05 2008 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:53:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net><003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred><03cc01c8a56f$269ff830$8cad9b51@stefanie><000201c8a651$64743bc0$6ecd403e@Mildred> <078c01c8a664$279621b0$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <003a01c8a6b1$c6deede0$0300a8c0@david> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay > L&E > >> However, today this was reviewed and altered to read: >> "(d) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its >> understandings during the auction and play consequent >> on an irregularity by either side, except that following its >> own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by >> prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so >> that it is brought within the criteria of Law27B1(b)." > > This is an improvement, but I am wondering if Grattan or DALB could > explain > why agreeing to vary "understandings" after an infraction by our side > would > be desirable. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > When, due to an infraction by our side, a member of our partnership is obliged to pass throughout, then our understandings are varied as follows (a) ALL bids are natural and non forcing (b) ALL doubles are for penalty (c) we no longer play any forcing passes. Does anyone think that such agreement is illegal or undesirable? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.93 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1396 - Release Date: 4/24/2008 6:32 PM From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 25 11:17:41 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:17:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Law 27 case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4811A1B5.6090608@NTLworld.com> [Gampas] I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I agree that a double or redouble may be substituted for an insufficient bid, but the example I gave was someone doubling instead of redoubling when intending to use ROPI. I agree that this is neither a bid, nor insufficient, and therefore cannot be corrected on two grounds. [nige1] Sorry Gampas. What you wrote was sensible and crystal clear but I paid inadequate attention. I agree it would make a bad rule more consistent and comprehensive if it catered for illegal calls other than insufficient bids. IMO it would also be be fairer, simpler for players to understand, and easier directors to apply (even more so if all player-options were removed). But Grattan tells us that we cannot expect any such correction until 2018. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 25 11:33:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:33:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie> References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net> <06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <4811A587.6020807@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > > Because a psyche has been fielded, and it is deemed to be legal. > > Sorry, it doesn't hold water. Psyches are *gross* misstatements. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 25 11:48:38 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:48:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8a5b0$da97d5b0$8fc78110$@com> References: <480F4C7F.1040000@skynet.be> <000001c8a5b0$da97d5b0$8fc78110$@com> Message-ID: <4811A8F6.6020701@NTLworld.com> [DALB] It seems to me that many, if not all, of the problems we have been discussing here would vanish if it were recognised that the creation of UI is never a crime, whereas allowing oneself to be influenced by UI into taking an action one would not otherwise have taken is always a crime. Come to think of it, if this principle were universally adopted, BLML would soon cease to exist. Unless, of course, the WBFLC created other stupid Laws. [Nige1] IMO it should always be an infraction to deliberately create unauthorised information in the hope of influencing partner's actions (whether or not partner uses that information, in any obvious way). On the contrary, it might be better to disallow as much extraneous information as possible and *authorise* all the rest. It is impossibly hard for most players to completely ignore unauthorised information from exposed cards and the like. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 25 12:24:46 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:24:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <4811A587.6020807@ulb.ac.be> References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net> <06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie> <4811A587.6020807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4811B16E.9010904@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] Because a psyche has been fielded, and it is deemed to be legal. [Alain Gottcheiner] Sorry, it doesn't hold water. Psyches are *gross* misstatements. [Nige1] I believe that the EBU sensibly regards the blatant fielding of a *minor* deviation as possible evidence of a concealed partnership misunderstanding. Especially when the deviation is by one card e.g. opening 1S with a 3-card rather than a 4-card suit. The problem is that the vocabulary for discussing misbids, psychs, and deviations and so on is woolly and confusing. I've suggested tighter some definitions in the past. For example TFLB defines A psych is as "a deliberate and gross mistatement of honour strength or suit length". For example, the definitions should include ... - clarification that this is a mistatement of our *disclosed* agreement rather than our (concealed or misexplained) *actual* agreement. - quantification of *minor* and *gross* deviation. Or better still, let the definition of psych include *any* deviation. - mistatement of overall *shape* or honour placement. Examples (1) your SC says 1N shows 5332, 4432, or 4333 shape but you open 1N with 5422 shape. (2)Your SC says 3N shows a solid suit but you hold QJTxxxx with AK outside. i.e better definition might be "a psych is a deliberate deviation from your disclosed agreement" From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 25 13:44:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:44:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <4811B16E.9010904@NTLworld.com> References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net> <06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie> <4811A587.6020807@ulb.ac.be> <4811B16E.9010904@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4811C42B.6080901@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Stefanie Rohan] > Because a psyche has been fielded, and it is deemed to be legal. > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > Sorry, it doesn't hold water. Psyches are *gross* misstatements. > > [Nige1] > I believe that the EBU sensibly regards the blatant fielding of a > *minor* deviation as possible evidence of a concealed partnership > misunderstanding. AG : and methinks fielding is having understood partner deviated while opponents had no chance of doing so ; it doesn't apply here, because given the exact circumstances (including allowed bds and their systemic meaning) anybody could draw the conclusion that 4C might be shaded (not by much, because you can always gamble 4H on a slightly weaker hand). It is more like light nonvul 3rd seat openings : everybody knows they can happen, and if it appears there are 44 HCP in the deal, everybody (including partner) legitimately knows who's the culprit. Now if opponents understand that and want to overbid, to trap you, they may try it in full knowledge. These three ast words say all. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 25 14:12:57 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:12:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. Message-ID: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <001e01c8a6d3$0279b4e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 3:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another L27 case > "I've never heard anyone say, "I just blanked out for a minute there > and have no idea why I bid that." " > > Well, actually, I have heard this, several times. People do it - more > often > than you think perhaps. I have ruled this way a couple of times. A lol was looking blankly and in astonishment at a pass card in front of her. "How did that Pass get there?" "I've absolutely no idea!". To opponents (more lols) "What was going on?" "We were chatting".. To offender "Put it back you dozy bint*, and try to be a bit more careful". Opponents "That seems fair". Offender "Sorry and thanks" John > > [And I have even done it myself - It turned out that I had incipient > influenza at the time and should have been home in bed. I soon was - I > could not continue the session, with humblest apologies to the Director > whose movement I had just stuffed up.] > Yep, the body language in this sort of case is very clear. [dozy bint*] Liverpool 60's slang for a likeable but stupid girl. It worked perfectly here. > regards, > Noel > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:29 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Another L27 case > > > On Apr 23, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> [Eric Landau] >> I disagree that L27 is an abomination, but it will rapidly become so >> if we force directors to take into account all of "the possible >> meanings" of the IB, as Paul's 2C example above demonstrates. >> >> If, however, we accept an interpretation by which the director must >> determine what the IBer believed the auction to be at the time of the >> IB (any reasonable protocol for dealing with IBs must assume they were >> not made intentionally) before applying L27B1, and by which this >> finding of fact is AI to the table, the nightmare scenarios disappear. >> >> [paul lamford] >> Really? You assume that the IBer thought the auction was different >> to the >> actual one and therefore the IB would have some meaning in the >> imaginary >> auction. > > IM admittedly low-level TDing E, nine times out of ten not only is > this the case, but the IBer has revealed it before I reached the > table. Typically, "That's insufficient," elicits an instinctive > response along the lines of, "I'm sorry, I thought I was the dealer," > or, "I'm sorry, I thought you passed," or whatever. A strong > argument for making this information AI is that it allows you to make > essentially identical rulings when this doesn't happen. > >> But this only covers a subset of IBs. In addition Law 27 makes no >> reference to the player's intention when making the IB, only to the >> meaning of the >> IB, or to be more precise what the TD thinks it might have meant. >> >> So, we ask the IBer what he thought the auction was. He admits >> sheepishly >> that he did not mistake the auction, but his brain stopped working >> for a moment. >> Your method might work when the auction has been mistaken, but I >> do not see >> how the TD can decide what the IB means when it wasn't. In fact I >> cannot see >> how he can rule at all. > > I've never heard anyone say, "I just blanked out for a minute there > and have no idea why I bid that." I can think of four possible > explanations for an IB: (1) It was not the call the player intended > to make (L25A applies); (2) It was deliberate (L72B1 applies); (3) > The player misread the auction and thought the IB was a legal call > (L27 applies), or (4) The player was confused about the rank order of > the suits (extra-legal measures are called for). > >> "When I make an insufficient bid", said Humpty Dumpty, in rather a >> scornful >> tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor >> less." > > Well, yeah, but Mr. Dumpty could say the same about lots of perfectly > legal bids, not just insufficient ones. > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 25 14:59:27 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:59:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] (pas de sujet) In-Reply-To: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4811D5AF.107@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D > opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced > 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 > (assume this is OK for the sake of the example). > > i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. > The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky > - score stands. > > ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. > Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or > not, the score is adjusted to game going off. > > AG : don't agree. At the moment the player decided to bid 1H, he decided his hand was worth 15. So the adjustment shouldn't be on the basis of "help from the IB", but on "fielded the underbid, had a CPU that 1H was in fact less than announced". From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 25 15:14:11 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:14:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080425103600.04104aa8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net> <06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie> <84E055E6-B1EA-43DC-87C9-9C9690B5EB38@starpower.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20080425103600.04104aa8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1DC645DF-8D7C-40CE-A583-D0052404E37B@starpower.net> On Apr 24, 2008, at 8:41 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 06:32 AM 25/04/2008, you wrote: > >> On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau: >>> >>>> OK. Let's recap. If we allow Alain to bid 4C, as we presumably >>>> must >>>> unless we are to look at his hand and base our ruling on what we >>>> find >>>> there, he will bid 4C, game forcing, with a bit less than he might >>>> have had he not made an IB and been subject to the possibility of >>>> penalty under L27. His partner -- along with his opponents, the >>>> TD, >>>> and any kibitzers -- will understand that he *may* be stretching >>>> (in >>>> a L27B1(b) case he cannot know for sure), because 4C may be the >>>> closest he can come to his actual holding without barring his >>>> partner. And because this is all AI, Alain's partner will allow >>>> for >>>> the possibility, >>> >>> Well... if partner deviates from the system being played, it is >>> supposed to >>> be unexpected by partner. Even Grattan, who sees nothing much wrong >>> with Law >>> 27, believes that Law 40C1 applies here. >> >> L40C1 does not require a call to be "unexpected by partner"; it >> requires that it be no less unexpected by partner than by the >> opponents. Ordinary common sense dictates that if a bridge player is >> given a choice between an action that will bar partner from the >> auction and one that will not, he will go out of his way to choose >> the latter. If he is permitted to make an RC without penalty holding >> a hand that would not have made the same call absent the infraction, >> he will most likely do so. I will expect him to, you will expect him >> to, partner will expect him to, the opponents will expect him to, and >> the man behind the tree will expect him to. So there is no potential >> L40C1 issue here. >> >>>> and in so doing will reach 4H, which is the same >>>> contract as everyone else has (or would have) reached, and the same >>>> contract the TD determines (giving the benefit of the doubt to the >>>> NOS) that Alain and his partner would have reached absent the >>>> infraction. >>> >>> But there was an infraction, and partner shows a game-forcing hand. >>> If his >>> hand actually had invitational values, and everyone else got to >>> game, then >>> Alain must have extra values. Thus his signing off in 4H may be a >>> violation >>> of Law 40C1. >> >> L40C1 applies to deviations from system. Passing out 4H cannot be a >> deviation from system -- unless 4H carries the specific systemic >> message "I know we're not high enough but I'm passing anyhow"! This >> is not in any way analogous to passing when constrained by UI. >> >>>> Both sides will get the same result they would have >>>> gotten had Alain not bid insufficiently in the first place, and the >>>> TD will not change it, not because "27D does not apply", but >>>> because >>>> L27D, properly applied, will tell him that no change is called for. > > Alain's partner has heard the director offering 3H and 4H to the IBer > while barring partner, as well as the penalty free 4C bid. Alain has > chosen 4C to keep partner in the auction. For what purpose you > think? Perhaps there is a slam in the offing, so I bid 6H which makes > when they misdefend. Will our top be taken away? The director will make a determination as to how the auction might have gone absent the IB. If he finds that you might not have reached the slam had you not made the IB he will adjust the score. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 25 15:45:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:45:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <002301c8a6ae$6dfc7100$dbd6403e@Mildred> References: <200804232139.m3NLdew0006070@cfa.harvard.edu> <480FE8C5.4050602@nhcc.net> <002301c8a6ae$6dfc7100$dbd6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <192C540F-1F29-4F9C-81FE-4667B76B46DF@starpower.net> On Apr 25, 2008, at 4:29 AM, wrote: > {* Max remarked correctly that there is no exclusion of Law 16 > in Law 27B1(b). I observed, however, that 16D does not apply > when the information it conveys is not in conflict with the IB. Indeed. L27B1(b) doesn't reference L16D because when L27B1(b) applies, there is no extraneous information for L16D to apply to. > 16D relates to information from the withdrawn action, not to > information from the withdrawal of the action. But the "withdrawal of the action" takes place (or doesn't) strictly at the option of the NOS. If there is any "information" passed by it, it can only be in their direction, not the OS's. > But this leaves for consideration some adjacent situations and > our ongoing dialogue relates to these. Eventually our developed > opinions will be put for consideration at international level. Max > has these subjects to cover at the May 30/31 seminar for EBL > TDs.) I'm curious as to what's left. The new L27 takes rather a bit of parsing to understand, but once done it seems to cover all the bases. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 25 15:54:15 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:54:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <003a01c8a6b1$c6deede0$0300a8c0@david> References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net><003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred><03cc01c8a56f$269ff830$8cad9b51@stefanie><000201c8a651$64743bc0$6ecd403e@Mildred> <078c01c8a664$279621b0$8cad9b51@stefanie> <003a01c8a6b1$c6deede0$0300a8c0@david> Message-ID: On Apr 25, 2008, at 4:53 AM, David Barton wrote: > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > >> L&E >> >>> However, today this was reviewed and altered to read: >>> "(d) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its >>> understandings during the auction and play consequent >>> on an irregularity by either side, except that following its >>> own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by >>> prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so >>> that it is brought within the criteria of Law27B1(b)." >> >> This is an improvement, but I am wondering if Grattan or DALB >> could explain >> why agreeing to vary "understandings" after an infraction by our >> side would >> be desirable. > > When, due to an infraction by our side, a member of our partnership > is obliged > to pass throughout, then our understandings are varied as follows > > (a) ALL bids are natural and non forcing > (b) ALL doubles are for penalty > (c) we no longer play any forcing passes. > > Does anyone think that such agreement is illegal or undesirable? Does anyone think the concept of "partnership agreement" is even meaningful, much less legally relevant, when partner is barred from the auction? Is this a troll? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Apr 25 16:02:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:02:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another L27 case In-Reply-To: <001e01c8a6d3$0279b4e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <000301c8a67b$0b89fd40$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> <001e01c8a6d3$0279b4e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <419811B0-90D0-4E4A-85B0-5E9E0A92F524@starpower.net> On Apr 25, 2008, at 8:50 AM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: > From: "Noel & Pamela" > >> "I've never heard anyone say, "I just blanked out for a minute there >> and have no idea why I bid that." " >> >> Well, actually, I have heard this, several times. People do it - >> more >> often >> than you think perhaps. > > I have ruled this way a couple of times. A lol was looking blankly > and in > astonishment at a pass card in front of her. "How did that Pass get > there?" > "I've absolutely no idea!". To opponents (more lols) "What was > going on?" > "We were chatting".. To offender "Put it back you dozy bint*, and > try to be > a bit more careful". Opponents "That seems fair". Offender "Sorry and > thanks" John Sounds just right to me. >>> [Eric Landau] >> >> I can think of four possible >> explanations for an IB: (1) It was not the call the player intended >> to make (L25A applies); Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 25 14:59:27 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:59:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] (pas de sujet) In-Reply-To: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4811D5AF.107@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D > opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced > 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 > (assume this is OK for the sake of the example). > > i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. > The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky > - score stands. > > ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. > Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or > not, the score is adjusted to game going off. > > AG : don't agree. At the moment the player decided to bid 1H, he decided his hand was worth 15. So the adjustment shouldn't be on the basis of "help from the IB", but on "fielded the underbid, had a CPU that 1H was in fact less than announced". From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Apr 25 16:26:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:26:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net><06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie><84E055E6-B1EA-43DC-87C9-9C9690B5EB38@starpower.net><6.1.0.6.2.20080425103600.04104aa8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1DC645DF-8D7C-40CE-A583-D0052404E37B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <083301c8a6e0$560cbe60$8cad9b51@stefanie> Eric Landau: > The director will make a determination as to how the auction might > have gone absent the IB. If he finds that you might not have reached > the slam had you not made the IB he will adjust the score. WTP? > I would have thought there was no problem at all, except that losts of people on this list want to allow a 6NT contract when an unlucky 6S would have been reached without the IB. Stefanie Rohan London, England > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Apr 25 16:40:34 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:40:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net><003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred><03cc01c8a56f$269ff830$8cad9b51@stefanie><000201c8a651$64743bc0$6ecd403e@Mildred><078c01c8a664$279621b0$8cad9b51@stefanie> <003a01c8a6b1$c6deede0$0300a8c0@david> Message-ID: <095b01c8a6e2$51fbb810$8cad9b51@stefanie> From: "David Barton" > > When, due to an infraction by our side, a member of our partnership is > obliged > to pass throughout, then our understandings are varied as follows > > (a) ALL bids are natural and non forcing > (b) ALL doubles are for penalty > (c) we no longer play any forcing passes. > > Does anyone think that such agreement is illegal or undesirable? > I don't; I admit that I hadn't thought of this sort of thing. But while this is "varying one's understandings", it is not doing so "by prior agreement". I doubt that most people have discussed this with their regular partners -- it is just logic, isn't it? Stefanie Rohan London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 25 16:49:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:49:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <083301c8a6e0$560cbe60$8cad9b51@stefanie> References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net><06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie><84E055E6-B1EA-43DC-87C9-9C9690B5EB38@starpower.net><6.1.0.6.2.20080425103600.04104aa8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1DC645DF-8D7C-40CE-A583-D0052404E37B@starpower.net> <083301c8a6e0$560cbe60$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <4811EF7C.6000201@ulb.ac.be> One more query : Do we allow a pass as a substitution call ? I don't see anything against it, but it's better when its said. 1C* 1S** 1NT*** 2D **** (2S) 2H * strong ** some point range *** GF relay **** begins description, no matter the meaning 2H was obviously meant as a further relay (no meaning, just asking). Do we allow a pass as a substitute relay over 2S (partner doubles with a 2S bid etc.) provided it's written in their system notes ? Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 25 16:57:00 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:57:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] (pas de sujet) In-Reply-To: <4811D5AF.107@ulb.ac.be> References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> <4811D5AF.107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4811F13C.8060806@NTLworld.com> [Max quoted by Grattan] Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 (assume this is OK for the sake of the example). i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky - score stands. ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or not, the score is adjusted to game going off. When I come to writing up my notes for the Zone 1 lecture, I'm hoping beyond hope that everyone already understands 27B1(a) as this is effectively the same as the old 1997 law. However, from some things I've read of late from other parts of the world, I'm not entirely convinced that such is the case. Of course we never discuss these things at International tournaments because we have screens so the situation never arises. [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : don't agree. At the moment the player decided to bid 1H, he decided his hand was worth 15. So the adjustment shouldn't be on the basis of "help from the IB", but on "fielded the underbid, had a CPU that 1H was in fact less than announced". [Nige1] I hope it's your turn for a misreading, Alain :( because I think I may be beginning to grasp the gist of the law-maker's sophisticated logic :) Overcaller's IH insufficient bid showed 13-17 HCP. His 2N replacement bid showed 15-17 HCP (OK because subset of IB range). His partner holds 10 HCP [i) Partner bids a making game, in spite of overcaller turning up with only 13 HCP, then that is just a lucky result - rub of the green. (ii) Partner passes and game fails, then whatever the overcaller's strength, his partner seems to have employed inferences from the insufficient bid, so the director adjusts the score to game going off. One aspect of Max's example is puzzling ... (iii) Partner passes with 10 HCP but opener has 17HCP and game makes, so that their opponents have not suffered damage and the putative offenders have already got a poor score; nevertheless, might the director still consider an additional penalty? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Apr 25 17:03:45 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:03:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. In-Reply-To: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4811F2D1.8040701@NTLworld.com> [Max quoted by Grattan] Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 (assume this is OK for the sake of the example). i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky - score stands. ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or not, the score is adjusted to game going off. When I come to writing up my notes for the Zone 1 lecture, I'm hoping beyond hope that everyone already understands 27B1(a) as this is effectively the same as the old 1997 law. However, from some things I've read of late from other parts of the world, I'm not entirely convinced that such is the case. Of course we never discuss these things at International tournaments because we have screens so the situation never arises. [Nige1] More interesting is the case when partner has *9 HP* and passes. From Gampas at aol.com Fri Apr 25 17:13:22 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:13:22 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: In a message dated 25/04/2008 14:57:12 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: [ehaa] Does anyone think the concept of "partnership agreement" is even meaningful, much less legally relevant, when partner is barred from the auction? Is this a troll? [paul lamford] I think it is completely relevant, and any serious partnership should have whatever legal agreements it can have in place, to take maximum advantage of the ability to vary one's agreements consequent upon partner being barred. Firstly, the requirement to alert a penalty double of a suit contract below 3NT is still present, as far as I can see, even if partner is barred from the auction, and the opponents might claim redress if they misplayed a hand as a result. Indeed, Brother Anthony was advised by the TD that he should have alerted his partner's penalty double of a weak two bid at St Titus recently. More importantly, an alternative meaning for various bids would be appropriate. For example, over a strong club, there is not much point playing Crash, so one should switch to One No-trump which says "I am present at the table, and may have a suit to run to, please don't bid your own suit partner, and don't lead mine!". Instead a bid of a suit at the two level would be pre-emptive, and ask for that suit to be led. And a Michaels cuebid should ask for the lowest or highest suit to be led, by agreement. (Law 26 provides lead penalties for a withdrawn bid, but not for a subsequent bid following an amendment to system after an infraction). Off subject, shouldn't Law 26A2a which reads: (a) require the offender?s partner to lead such a suit (if there are more than one declarer chooses the suit) read "(if there *is* more than one..." From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Apr 25 17:21:25 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:21:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Law 25A case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <09b301c8a6e8$06ee4080$8cad9b51@stefanie> Richard Hills: > If the bidder's "brain stopped working", then that has a one- > to-one correspondence with the Law 25A adjective "unintended". Not really. "Unintended" must mean that you did not reach for the bid or ever plan to take it out of the box. Remember the 1997 25B? An bid made with a "stopped brain" is not necessarily a mechanical error. Stefanie Rohan London, England From john at asimere.com Sat Apr 26 00:15:07 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:15:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] (pas de sujet) References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> <4811D5AF.107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000a01c8a721$d1c0ec20$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 1:59 PM Subject: [blml] (pas de sujet) gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D > opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced > 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 > (assume this is OK for the sake of the example). > > i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. > The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky > - score stands. > > ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. > Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or > not, the score is adjusted to game going off. > > AG : don't agree. At the moment the player decided to bid 1H, he decided his hand was worth 15. So the adjustment shouldn't be on the basis of "help from the IB", but on "fielded the underbid, had a CPU that 1H was in fact less than announced". This is OK Alain. We don't have the problem of 1S (1H) -> (2H) which is ok under 27A but contains elements of unauthorised information. Our replacement call is more tightly specified so it contains no element of UI (never mind we don't use 16C) and is therefore permitted. The WBF CTD has this one right. I know Max personally and rate him as one of the top 3 TDs in the UK just for his perception of how Law works. Remember he directs very few tables these days but his perception is very acute. He directed 50K or more tables earlier in his career though. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sat Apr 26 00:16:19 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:16:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <200804232139.m3NLdew0006070@cfa.harvard.edu><480FE8C5.4050602@nhcc.net><002301c8a6ae$6dfc7100$dbd6403e@Mildred> <192C540F-1F29-4F9C-81FE-4667B76B46DF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001101c8a721$fd037240$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay > On Apr 25, 2008, at 4:29 AM, > wrote: > >> {* Max remarked correctly that there is no exclusion of Law 16 >> in Law 27B1(b). I observed, however, that 16D does not apply >> when the information it conveys is not in conflict with the IB. > > Indeed. L27B1(b) doesn't reference L16D because when L27B1(b) > applies, there is no extraneous information for L16D to apply to. Absolutely the case. John > >> 16D relates to information from the withdrawn action, not to >> information from the withdrawal of the action. > > But the "withdrawal of the action" takes place (or doesn't) strictly > at the option of the NOS. If there is any "information" passed by > it, it can only be in their direction, not the OS's. > >> But this leaves for consideration some adjacent situations and >> our ongoing dialogue relates to these. Eventually our developed >> opinions will be put for consideration at international level. Max >> has these subjects to cover at the May 30/31 seminar for EBL >> TDs.) > > I'm curious as to what's left. The new L27 takes rather a bit of > parsing to understand, but once done it seems to cover all the bases. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sat Apr 26 00:22:51 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:22:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> <4811F2D1.8040701@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002601c8a722$e68fa780$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. > [Max quoted by Grattan] > Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D > opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced > 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 > (assume this is OK for the sake of the example). > > i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. > The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky > - score stands. > > ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. > Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or > not, the score is adjusted to game going off. > > When I come to writing up my notes for the Zone 1 lecture, > I'm hoping beyond hope that everyone already understands > 27B1(a) as this is effectively the same as the old 1997 law. > However, from some things I've read of late from other parts > of the world, I'm not entirely convinced that such is the case. > Of course we never discuss these things at International > tournaments because we have screens so the situation never > arises. > > [Nige1] > More interesting is the case when partner has *9 HP* and passes. > Fielder's choice, I think, Nigel. It seems to me that we've converged in our thinking on 27B. While I know you hate complexity, nonetheless the benefit of getting a bridge result on a few more hands tends in my mind to outweigh the pitfalls of the extra complexity. AAfter all we do want to *play* the game between director calls don't we? John > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Apr 26 01:24:24 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:24:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. In-Reply-To: <002601c8a722$e68fa780$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> <4811F2D1.8040701@NTLworld.com> <002601c8a722$e68fa780$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <48126828.7070408@NTLworld.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. > > [Max quoted by Grattan] > > Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D > > opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced > > 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 > > (assume this is OK for the sake of the example). > > > > i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. > > The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky > > - score stands. > > > > ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. > > Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or > > not, the score is adjusted to game going off. > > > > When I come to writing up my notes for the Zone 1 lecture, > > I'm hoping beyond hope that everyone already understands > > 27B1(a) as this is effectively the same as the old 1997 law. > > However, from some things I've read of late from other parts > > of the world, I'm not entirely convinced that such is the case. > > Of course we never discuss these things at International > > tournaments because we have screens so the situation never > > arises. > > [Nige1] More interesting is the case when partner has *9 HP* and passes. [John Mad Dog Probst] Fielder's choice, I think, Nigel. It seems to me that we've converged in our thinking on 27B. While I know you hate complexity, nonetheless the benefit of getting a bridge result on a few more hands tends in my mind to outweigh the pitfalls of the extra complexity. AAfter all we do want to *play* the game between director calls don't we? [Nige2] I disagree with John. In my untutored view, Max's argument would still apply if responder passed with 9 HCP and game failed i.e. With 9 HCP, most players would bid game opposite a 2N overcall that promised 15-17 HCP. Hence there is a suspicion that unauthorised information stemming from the 13-17 HCP insufficient bid may have influenced the more successful pass. If I'm right, the latter example might be more help to directors in *borderline* judgements. judgements which From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Apr 26 01:27:03 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:27:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. In-Reply-To: <002601c8a722$e68fa780$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> <4811F2D1.8040701@NTLworld.com> <002601c8a722$e68fa780$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <481268C7.8000502@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] More interesting is the case when partner has *9 HP* and passes. [John Mad Dog Probst] Fielder's choice, I think, Nigel. It seems to me that we've converged in our thinking on 27B. While I know you hate complexity, nonetheless the benefit of getting a bridge result on a few more hands tends in my mind to outweigh the pitfalls of the extra complexity. AAfter all we do want to *play* the game between director calls don't we? [Nige2] I disagree with John. In my untutored view, Max's argument would still apply if responder passed with 9 HCP and game failed i.e. With 9 HCP, most players would bid game opposite the replacement 2N overcall that promised 15-17 HCP. Hence there is a suspicion that information stemming from the 13-17 HCP insufficient bid may have influenced the more successful pass. If correct, the latter example might help directors with *borderline* judgements. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Apr 26 02:33:14 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:33:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. In-Reply-To: <4811F2D1.8040701@NTLworld.com> References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> <4811F2D1.8040701@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080426102732.0d3a42f0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 01:03 AM 26/04/2008, you wrote: >[Max quoted by Grattan] >Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D >opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced >13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 >(assume this is OK for the sake of the example). > >i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. >The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky >- score stands. > >ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. >Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or >not, the score is adjusted to game going off. So should I as director, explain at the table, "I am allowing a change without penalty to 2NT however you (IB's partner) must carefully ignore the attempted insufficient bid of 1H and whatever point range that may have shown" Surely, I cannot adjust the final score without some sort of table blurb at the time of the offence about L27D Cheers Tony (Sydney) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 26 13:18:05 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:18:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <005901c8a5a8$b3805540$c8d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002901c8a78f$385c8ad0$7fcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:45 PM, > wrote: > >> +=+ Somewhere I noticed this remark and response: >> < >> " I don't imagine, however, that such a correction would ever be >> allowed >> without penalty anyway." >> >> "There is nothing in L27 to suggest that. While there is something to >> suggest the opposite, viz. "Law 16D does not apply"." >> < >> This prompts me to observe, as may not have been established >> previously in this thread, that the exclusion applies specifically to >> information conveyed by the withdrawn bid. UI obtained from >> other sources is still UI. This could be relevant when questioning >> whether a partner's recognition of a player's misbid replacement >> call is lawful since the recognition will not be triggered by any info >> the IB conveys > > But if there is additional information other than from the withdrawn > call, it must have been "conveyed" by some means, and it is that > which determines whether it is "authorized". ISTM that the potential > "heightened awareness" we're talking about (of the likelihood of a > deviation from the systemic meaning of the RC) derives directly from > the knowledge of how L27B works, and the law itself cannot be UI. > +=+ I quote from some current explorations of 27B:- ........................................................................................... << When 27B1(a) does not apply 27B1(b) applies if (i) the RC has the same meaning as the IB, or (ii) the RC has a meaning fully contained within the meaning of the IB and is more precise in regard to what it shows and what it excludes. Partner of the offender must take the RC at face value. (The offender may misbid provided his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have opponents.) If partner's action is not consistent with the meaning of the RC adjust under 27D.>> ........................................................................................... These are not 'definitive' since the statements are still being 'tested out', but they are worthy of perusal on that basis. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 26 13:33:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:33:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com> <480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be> <0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie> <480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><480D0B8D.40208@hotmail.com> <480DD61F.5000303@NTLworld.com><03ca01c8a56b$be5b7e50$8cad9b51@stefanie> <481060D8.7010200@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <003401c8a791$f38d4f40$7fcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay > > [Stefanie Rowan] > Or that these poor individuals will have no training or > communication about the laws apart from their text? > The answer seems to be "no". > +=+ This will be true in some places. However, I am aware of diligent efforts in many places around the world to give TDs of all levels training in the new laws, and it is evident to me that the greatest demand is for clarification of Law 27B. That is why I am relaying here - and to private enquirers - whatever transpires from my dialogue with Max Bavin and Bill Schoder, the two that have by far the most massive experience of directing within my field of view. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 26 17:39:27 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:39:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. In-Reply-To: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Hi. Small, hopefully irrelevant point below. (I currently have a 24-hour delay in receiving blml messages, so I cannot know if anyone else has addressed this.) > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "Loquacity storms the ear, but > modesty takes the heart." > - Thomas Fuller. > > ************************* > +=+ My further discussion with Max Bavin has led to > the following position. If anyone wishes to comment on > this please send to me and NOT to Max who has a very > busy schedule. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ............................................................................... > > [Max] > I'm relieved to say that I now agree that we cannot go via > Law 16 in 27B1(b) cases; the score adjustment (if any) is > via 27D. > > Curiously, though, the effect is similar either way i.e. the > circumstances in which we consider adjusting are the same. > It's the adjustment itself which is different (27D is to a > normal bridge result prior to the IB; 16D would have been > for an obligation for a player to make/not make a particular > bid or play after the IB/RC). > > To summarise, mis-bidding is OK (i.e. it does not cause the > TD to examine whether the side have gained any assistance > through the infraction), but catering for it is not (i.e. it does > cause the TD to examine whether the side have gained any > assistance through the infraction). > > Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D > opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced > 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 > (assume this is OK for the sake of the example). > > i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. > The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky > - score stands. > > ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. > Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or > not, the score is adjusted to game going off. This is phrased as a Law 16 adjustment. You have to add that they might/would have gotten to 3NT without assistance from the insufficient bid. (In other words, if the field is in 2NT, there is no basis for adjustment in Law 27D.) I realize that this could be something that goes without saying, but it seemed like the wrong context for doing that. > > When I come to writing up my notes for the Zone 1 lecture, > I'm hoping beyond hope that everyone already understands > 27B1(a) as this is effectively the same as the old 1997 law. > However, from some things I've read of late from other parts > of the world, I'm not entirely convinced that such is the case. > Of course we never discuss these things at International > tournaments because we have screens so the situation never > arises. > ................................................................................................. > [Grattan] > +=+ I agree. If you would let me have your notes for the seminar > I will pass them on to a number of places around the world where > they would very much like to read them. (I am also copying this > message to a wider audience, on the understanding that any reaction > should come to me as you will not have time to deal with responses.) > One thing I feel it would be right to look at is the situation > with > screens if, as I believe, Law 80B2(e) tells us that rectification for > actions transmitted through screens is not open to variation and such > actions are to be dealt with in accordance with the normal law. > ................................................................................................. > [I should add to the above that a pattern of repeated > infractions could well be considered under Law 72B1 > ~ G ~ ] > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 26 20:44:05 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:44:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think this unlikely example might illustrate things. (Or correct me if I am wrong, or sorry if this is obvious). Standard American: 1H - P - 1H/2H. The insufficient bidder meant to open the bidding. No system will have a bid satisfying 27B1(b) -- same or more precise replacement bid. But the 2H correction satisfies 27B1(a). Because (1) the IB is AI, (2) the insufficient bidder can bid 2H even if that would otherwise miscribe his hand, and (3) many/most players know that, the 2H RC essentially shows an opening hand with 5-card heart support. The lawmakers might not have envisioned this correction. But they meant to make it easier for players to recover from an insufficient bid. That has certainly happened. For example, the auction without the insufficient bid might be 1H - 2NT - 4H. With the insufficient bid it would then be 1H - 2H - 4H. The insufficient bidders gained nothing from the IB and 27D does not apply. This is not bad. Same thing if the insufficient bidders get to a slam everyone else is finding. Actually, the insufficient bidders are slightly ahead of the field. They have a little more room to explore slam. Also, the opening bidder knows partner has 5 hearts and a little stronger hand than would be promised by a 2NT response. But they would be foolish to use this advantage. If they do and get to a better contract than everyone else, 27D kicks in. If half the field is in 4H and the other half is in 6H, they want to get to the better contract BUT with no appearance of having used any of the advantage in the insufficient bid. Bob From john at asimere.com Sat Apr 26 21:42:15 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:42:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> <4811F2D1.8040701@NTLworld.com><002601c8a722$e68fa780$0901a8c0@JOHN> <48126828.7070408@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002701c8a7d5$a17178a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:03 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 27B1(b) cases and misbids. > > > > > [Max quoted by Grattan] > > > Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D > > > opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced > > > 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 > > > (assume this is OK for the sake of the example). > > > > > > i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. > > > The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky > > > - score stands. > > > > > > ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. > > > Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or > > > not, the score is adjusted to game going off. > > > > > > When I come to writing up my notes for the Zone 1 lecture, > > > I'm hoping beyond hope that everyone already understands > > > 27B1(a) as this is effectively the same as the old 1997 law. > > > However, from some things I've read of late from other parts > > > of the world, I'm not entirely convinced that such is the case. > > > Of course we never discuss these things at International > > > tournaments because we have screens so the situation never > > > arises. > > > > [Nige1] > More interesting is the case when partner has *9 HP* and passes. > > [John Mad Dog Probst] > Fielder's choice, I think, Nigel. It seems to me that we've converged in > our thinking on 27B. While I know you hate complexity, nonetheless the > benefit of getting a bridge result on a few more hands tends in my mind > to outweigh the pitfalls of the extra complexity. AAfter all we do want > to *play* the game between director calls don't we? > > [Nige2] > I disagree with John. In my untutored view, Max's argument would still > apply if responder passed with 9 HCP and game failed i.e. > > With 9 HCP, most players would bid game opposite a 2N overcall that > promised 15-17 HCP. Hence there is a suspicion that unauthorised > information stemming from the 13-17 HCP insufficient bid may have > influenced the more successful pass. > > If I'm right, the latter example might be more help to directors in > *borderline* judgements. Yeah, we'd discuss this amongst the EBU TDs and decide where to plant the flag. You could well be on the side of the angels, Nigel, at 9 points. > > judgements which > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Apr 27 01:56:39 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:56:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [RF] > I think this unlikely example might illustrate things. (Or correct me if I > am wrong, or sorry if this is obvious). Standard American: > > 1H - P - 1H/2H. > > The insufficient bidder meant to open the bidding. No system will have a > bid satisfying 27B1(b) -- same or more precise replacement bid. But the 2H > correction satisfies 27B1(a). > > Because (1) the IB is AI, (2) the insufficient bidder can bid 2H even if > that would otherwise miscribe his hand, and (3) many/most players know > that, the 2H RC essentially shows an opening hand with 5-card heart > support. > > The lawmakers might not have envisioned this correction. But they meant to > make it easier for players to recover from an insufficient bid. That has > certainly happened. For example, the auction without the insufficient bid > might be 1H - 2NT - 4H. With the insufficient bid it would then be 1H - 2H > - 4H. The insufficient bidders gained nothing from the IB and 27D does not > apply. This is not bad. Same thing if the insufficient bidders get to a > slam everyone else is finding. > > Actually, the insufficient bidders are slightly ahead of the field. They > have a little more room to explore slam. Also, the opening bidder knows > partner has 5 hearts and a little stronger hand than would be promised by > a 2NT response. > > But they would be foolish to use this advantage. If they do and get to a > better contract than everyone else, 27D kicks in. If half the field is in > 4H and the other half is in 6H, they want to get to the better contract > BUT with no appearance of having used any of the advantage in the > insufficient bid. [DALB] Indeed. This is why, to answer an earlier question, you would want to vary your agreements following an infraction by your own side. The way to do this here is obvious: "if we respond 1H to 1H, we correct to 2H but opener rebids as he would had we bid a Jacoby 2NT, not as if we had raised 1H to 2H". David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 27 03:20:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:20:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: Message-ID: <000c01c8a804$f8c49ef0$d8d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay > > Off subject, shouldn't Law 26A2a which reads: (a) require > the offender?s partner to lead such a suit (if there are more > than one declarer chooses the suit) read "(if there *is* more > than one..." > +=+ Yes. Attention slipped - the perceived complexities were over other things in Law 26. None of our readers, not even the most pernickety one, has previously drawn attention to it. ~ G ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Apr 27 04:40:27 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:40:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: Message-ID: <098101c8a810$0d5c8750$0100a8c0@stefanie> Robert Frick: >I think this unlikely example might illustrate things. (Or correct me if I > am wrong, or sorry if this is obvious). Standard American: > > 1H - P - 1H/2H. > > The insufficient bidder meant to open the bidding. No system will have a > bid satisfying 27B1(b) -- same or more precise replacement bid. But the 2H > correction satisfies 27B1(a). > > Because (1) the IB is AI, (2) the insufficient bidder can bid 2H even if > that would otherwise miscribe his hand, and (3) many/most players know > that, the 2H RC essentially shows an opening hand with 5-card heart > support. > > The lawmakers might not have envisioned this correction. But they meant to > make it easier for players to recover from an insufficient bid. That has > certainly happened. For example, the auction without the insufficient bid > might be 1H - 2NT - 4H. With the insufficient bid it would then be 1H - 2H > - 4H. The insufficient bidders gained nothing from the IB and 27D does not > apply. This is not bad. Same thing if the insufficient bidders get to a > slam everyone else is finding. > > Actually, the insufficient bidders are slightly ahead of the field. They > have a little more room to explore slam. Also, the opening bidder knows > partner has 5 hearts and a little stronger hand than would be promised by > a 2NT response. > > But they would be foolish to use this advantage. If they do and get to a > better contract than everyone else, 27D kicks in. If half the field is in > 4H and the other half is in 6H, they want to get to the better contract > BUT with no appearance of having used any of the advantage in the > insufficient bid. I do not think that this scenario is possible. The IBer's partner must assume that the 2H bid is according to system. So instead of 1H-2H-4H, the auction is likely to go: 1H-2H-P. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Apr 27 07:44:43 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:44:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <098101c8a810$0d5c8750$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <098101c8a810$0d5c8750$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080427153130.0d3a9598@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 12:40 PM 27/04/2008, you wrote: >Robert Frick: > > >I think this unlikely example might illustrate things. (Or correct me if I > > am wrong, or sorry if this is obvious). Standard American: > > > > 1H - P - 1H/2H. > > > > The insufficient bidder meant to open the bidding. No system will have a > > bid satisfying 27B1(b) -- same or more precise replacement bid. But the 2H > > correction satisfies 27B1(a). > > > > Because (1) the IB is AI, (2) the insufficient bidder can bid 2H even if > > that would otherwise miscribe his hand, and (3) many/most players know > > that, the 2H RC essentially shows an opening hand with 5-card heart > > support. > > > > The lawmakers might not have envisioned this correction. But they meant to > > make it easier for players to recover from an insufficient bid. That has > > certainly happened. For example, the auction without the insufficient bid > > might be 1H - 2NT - 4H. With the insufficient bid it would then be 1H - 2H > > - 4H. The insufficient bidders gained nothing from the IB and 27D does not > > apply. This is not bad. Same thing if the insufficient bidders get to a > > slam everyone else is finding. > > > > Actually, the insufficient bidders are slightly ahead of the field. They > > have a little more room to explore slam. Also, the opening bidder knows > > partner has 5 hearts and a little stronger hand than would be promised by > > a 2NT response. > > > > But they would be foolish to use this advantage. If they do and get to a > > better contract than everyone else, 27D kicks in. If half the field is in > > 4H and the other half is in 6H, they want to get to the better contract > > BUT with no appearance of having used any of the advantage in the > > insufficient bid. > >I do not think that this scenario is possible. The IBer's partner must >assume that the 2H bid is according to system. So instead of 1H-2H-4H, the >auction is likely to go: 1H-2H-P. > >Stefanie Rohan >London, England This is so confusing. In the olden days, 2H was always allowed without penalty provided not conventional. So the IBer with an opening hand would have probably bid 4H and barred partner, rather than risking his passing. Now there seems to be a thought, that provided partner knows that the the IBer does in fact have an opening bid, he can change to 2H under 27B1 (a), without any UI worries. So a bidding edifice might be structured starting at 2H instead of 2NT according to DALB. As you say, surely this cannot be?? Please? On the other hand, you cannot change to 2H via 27B1 (b), because the director finds that you wanted to open 1H (say 11+ points and 4+ hearts) and that is not a range covered by 2H over 1H (say 6-10 points and 3+ hearts). However, there may be other bids (eg 2NT) which are allowed under 27B1(b). Cheers Tony (Sydney) From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Apr 27 10:02:02 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:02:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] (pas de sujet) In-Reply-To: <000a01c8a721$d1c0ec20$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: John: I know Max personally and rate him as one of the top 3 TDs in the UK just for his perception of how Law works. ton: This statement fits the subject, being an underbid. England can not be that lucky to have a better TD than Max. So the substitution with '....is the top TD in the UK' is more precise and therewith should be accepted. From Gampas at aol.com Sun Apr 27 11:20:18 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:20:18 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: [dalburn] Indeed. This is why, to answer an earlier question, you would want to vary your agreements following an infraction by your own side. The way to do this here is obvious: "if we respond 1H to 1H, we correct to 2H but opener rebids as he would had we bid a Jacoby 2NT, not as if we had raised 1H to 2H". [lamford] This is one reason why I do not think that the reason that the person made the insufficient bid should be announced to the table. The opener now knows that the responder did not think that the opening bid was Pass, 1C or 1D. I can see nothing in the laws which permits the responder to tell his partner (either by statement or through the director) what he thought the auction was, although I may have missed a thread or post in which the WBFLC clarifies this. Also the substitution of 2H, logically showing a Jacoby 2NT, is clearly at least a systemic misbid, and is permitted "provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" (40C1). The less bright, or less informed, members at my club would certainly not expect 1H - 1H, corrected to 2H, to show a Jacoby 2NT, and I think it requires an alert because of its "surprising meaning" and "surprisingly forcing nature." (Orange Book). I also think that the use of 2H to show a Jacoby 2NT could be restricted by the SO under 40B2d. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 27 13:07:33 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:07:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Koen relays - Gottcheiner question Message-ID: <009001c8a85a$0e10bc80$c7ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Message-ID: [TM] > This is so confusing. In the olden days, 2H was always allowed without > penalty provided not conventional. So the IBer with an opening hand > would have probably bid 4H and barred partner, rather than risking his > passing. Now there seems to be a thought, that provided partner > knows that the the IBer does in fact have an opening bid, he can > change to 2H under 27B1 (a), without any UI worries. So a bidding > edifice might be structured starting at 2H instead of 2NT according > to DALB. As you say, surely this cannot be?? Please? Not only can it be, it already is. Even under the 1997 Laws, it is apparently possible to play inverted major suit raises - that is, to play 1H-2H as natural and forcing - by the simple expedient of first responding 1H. With a normal raise to 2H, one simply responds 2H. One cannot, of course, play these methods very often, otherwise it will be suspected that one is deliberately making insufficient bids, contrary to Law 72B1. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Sun Apr 27 20:11:37 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:11:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <098101c8a810$0d5c8750$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <001801c8a892$22af8940$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay > > Robert Frick: > >>I think this unlikely example might illustrate things. (Or correct me if I >> am wrong, or sorry if this is obvious). Standard American: >> >> 1H - P - 1H/2H. >> >> The insufficient bidder meant to open the bidding. No system will have a >> bid satisfying 27B1(b) -- same or more precise replacement bid. But the >> 2H >> correction satisfies 27B1(a). >> >> Because (1) the IB is AI, (2) the insufficient bidder can bid 2H even if >> that would otherwise miscribe his hand, and (3) many/most players know >> that, the 2H RC essentially shows an opening hand with 5-card heart >> support. >> >> The lawmakers might not have envisioned this correction. But they meant >> to >> make it easier for players to recover from an insufficient bid. That has >> certainly happened. For example, the auction without the insufficient bid >> might be 1H - 2NT - 4H. With the insufficient bid it would then be 1H - >> 2H >> - 4H. The insufficient bidders gained nothing from the IB and 27D does >> not >> apply. This is not bad. Same thing if the insufficient bidders get to a >> slam everyone else is finding. >> >> Actually, the insufficient bidders are slightly ahead of the field. They >> have a little more room to explore slam. Also, the opening bidder knows >> partner has 5 hearts and a little stronger hand than would be promised by >> a 2NT response. >> >> But they would be foolish to use this advantage. If they do and get to a >> better contract than everyone else, 27D kicks in. If half the field is in >> 4H and the other half is in 6H, they want to get to the better contract >> BUT with no appearance of having used any of the advantage in the >> insufficient bid. > > I do not think that this scenario is possible. The IBer's partner must > assume that the 2H bid is according to system. So instead of 1H-2H-4H, the > auction is likely to go: 1H-2H-P. s'ok Stef, next time I play with Burn I'll pull 1H over his 1H and correct to 2H. We shall see whether Burn thinks he's playing with Probst or a probst cheat :) John > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Apr 27 20:13:37 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:13:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] (pas de sujet) References: Message-ID: <001f01c8a892$6a0b34b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] (pas de sujet) > John: > > I know Max personally and rate him as one of the top 3 TDs in the > UK just for his perception of how Law works. > > ton: > This statement fits the subject, being an underbid. > England can not be that lucky to have a better TD than Max. > So the substitution with '....is the top TD in the UK' is more precise and > therewith should be accepted. > We can bicker on this, but I wouldn't argue. I'm 3-1 up on him at the moment. :) John > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Apr 27 20:33:51 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:33:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <001801c8a892$22af8940$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: [SR] >> I do not think that this scenario is possible. The IBer's partner must >> assume that the 2H bid is according to system. So instead of 1H-2H-4H, the >> auction is likely to go: 1H-2H-P. [JP] > s'ok Stef, next time I play with Burn I'll pull 1H over his 1H and correct > to 2H. We shall see whether Burn thinks he's playing with Probst or a probst > cheat :) [DALB] There is no question of cheating. The Law as presently constituted (and the Law as constituted in the future) means that if I respond 1H to 1H having meant to open 1H, I can correct to 2H and my partner may bid in the knowledge that I intended to open. If, however, I correct to 2H having thought I was responding to 1D, my partner may bid in the knowledge that I have a raise to 2H. The observant will have noticed that an assumption behind both of these scenarios is that the reason for the IB is AI to the partner of the insufficient bidder. There has been debate about whether this should be so, or indeed whether it is so. But I remind you that I am talking here not about the new Law 27, but about a Law that has existed for over a decade. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Sun Apr 27 23:01:36 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:01:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: Message-ID: <000c01c8a8a9$e1478800$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay > [SR] > >>> I do not think that this scenario is possible. The IBer's partner must >>> assume that the 2H bid is according to system. So instead of 1H-2H-4H, >>> the >>> auction is likely to go: 1H-2H-P. > > [JP] > >> s'ok Stef, next time I play with Burn I'll pull 1H over his 1H and >> correct >> to 2H. We shall see whether Burn thinks he's playing with Probst or a >> probst >> cheat :) > > [DALB] > > There is no question of cheating. The Law as presently constituted (and > the > Law as constituted in the future) means that if I respond 1H to 1H having > meant to open 1H, I can correct to 2H and my partner may bid in the > knowledge that I intended to open. > > If, however, I correct to 2H having thought I was responding to 1D, my > partner may bid in the knowledge that I have a raise to 2H. > > The observant will have noticed that an assumption behind both of these > scenarios is that the reason for the IB is AI to the partner of the > insufficient bidder. There has been debate about whether this should be > so, > or indeed whether it is so. But I remind you that I am talking here not > about the new Law 27, but about a Law that has existed for over a decade. > Sure thing David, but if I did this playing with you, any competent TD would smack us both with 72B1. otherwise we can play silly buggers all night. The auction continues without penalty, fine; but we're still cheats. which is what 72B1 is for. 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 Apr 28 00:42:58 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:42:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] protected scores. Message-ID: <000901c8a8b8$0ab1c350$0901a8c0@JOHN> So, I play a 3 session event; 67%, 54%; 62%. all-play-all. Nice little 61, might even be enough to win. Owing to loud discussion at a previous table I can't play one of the boards. Which session do I want this to happen in? Which session do I definitely NOT want it to happen in? Law 12. John From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Apr 28 00:53:23 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:53:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <000c01c8a8a9$e1478800$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: >> [SR] >> >>>> I do not think that this scenario is possible. The IBer's partner must >>>> assume that the 2H bid is according to system. So instead of 1H-2H-4H, >>>> the >>>> auction is likely to go: 1H-2H-P. >> >> [JP] >> >>> s'ok Stef, next time I play with Burn I'll pull 1H over his 1H and >>> correct >>> to 2H. We shall see whether Burn thinks he's playing with Probst or a >>> probst >>> cheat :) >> >> [DALB] >> >> There is no question of cheating. The Law as presently constituted (and >> the >> Law as constituted in the future) means that if I respond 1H to 1H having >> meant to open 1H, I can correct to 2H and my partner may bid in the >> knowledge that I intended to open. >> >> If, however, I correct to 2H having thought I was responding to 1D, my >> partner may bid in the knowledge that I have a raise to 2H. >> >> The observant will have noticed that an assumption behind both of these >> scenarios is that the reason for the IB is AI to the partner of the >> insufficient bidder. There has been debate about whether this should be >> so, >> or indeed whether it is so. But I remind you that I am talking here not >> about the new Law 27, but about a Law that has existed for over a decade. >> [JP] > Sure thing David, but if I did this playing with you, any competent TD would > smack us both with 72B1. otherwise we can play silly buggers all night. The > auction continues without penalty, fine; but we're still cheats. which is > what 72B1 is for. John I am not referring to cases where a player deliberately breaks a Law. I am referring to cases in which, a Law having inadvertently been broken, a player must (in effect) communicate illegally with his partner in order not to suffer from having broken it. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 01:05:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:05:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Vectigal urinae [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <062f01c8a625$16ff73e0$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >The problem is that most volunteer playing directors have not even >taken up Club TD training; if they are aware of the resources >above, they will not be very likely to take advantage of them. >What they will do is rely on the Lawbook to guide them, and in its >present form it does a piss-poor job of this. 2007 Lawbook, Preface: "the 'Code of Practice for Appeals Committees', to which attention is drawn" 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 Mon Apr 28 01:29:54 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:29:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] accepting a LOOT Message-ID: <001701c8a8be$99117590$0901a8c0@JOHN> New laws. The lead is with declarer. he leads from dummy. Partner can peter before I see his card by accepting or not accepting the lead. 2007, law 55. I like this one. From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 28 01:37:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:37:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 Message-ID: <001b01c8a8bf$a4eaa480$0901a8c0@JOHN> "when both sides have revoked on the same board." Que? Surely it's "same trick" This ought to be fixed, the intention is clear and we know why it's a good idea. revokes on different tricks don't cause problems; or have I missed something? John From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 02:27:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:27:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] No ogre meant [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48106426.4080602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >While the bid is non-systemic, logic (and my meta-agreements) tells >that it must show an exceptionally well-fitting hand. Now whether >it shows a ruffing value in hearts (KQxx - xx - AJ10x - Axx) or >heart strength (KQxx - KQx - A109x - xx) is an open problem, Richard Hills: Skewed logic. East has doubled for penalties, South is running, possibly with a balanced yarborough containing 4-4 in diamonds and spades. Opposite that yarborough North's well-fitting values mean that a doubled 2-level contract is only -300, but North now opts for a doubled 3-level contract and an increased number of -500??? When North's good values might prevent East-West making game??? Alain Gottcheiner: >Of course, it's barely possible that partner didn't see the >double and assumes I'm transferring. Too bad, I can't take this >unknown into my equations. Richard Hills: Yes, once East has not (in North's eyesight) doubled, then a super-accept of a "transfer to hearts" with four-card heart support has a much better cost-benefit ratio (from North's point of view). Ergo, I would argue that Alain's "barely possible" scenario is rather the "only logical alternative" scenario. Logical alternatives are relevant, since at the table South received UI from North, when North did alert and explain South's 2D as a transfer to hearts. 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 28 02:42:14 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:42:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080427153130.0d3a9598@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <098101c8a810$0d5c8750$0100a8c0@stefanie> <6.1.0.6.2.20080427153130.0d3a9598@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:44:43 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 12:40 PM 27/04/2008, you wrote: > >> Robert Frick: >> >> >I think this unlikely example might illustrate things. (Or correct me >> if I >> > am wrong, or sorry if this is obvious). Standard American: >> > >> > 1H - P - 1H/2H. >> > >> > The insufficient bidder meant to open the bidding. No system will >> have a >> > bid satisfying 27B1(b) -- same or more precise replacement bid. But >> the 2H >> > correction satisfies 27B1(a). >> > >> > Because (1) the IB is AI, (2) the insufficient bidder can bid 2H even >> if >> > that would otherwise miscribe his hand, and (3) many/most players know >> > that, the 2H RC essentially shows an opening hand with 5-card heart >> > support. >> > >> > The lawmakers might not have envisioned this correction. But they >> meant to >> > make it easier for players to recover from an insufficient bid. That >> has >> > certainly happened. For example, the auction without the insufficient >> bid >> > might be 1H - 2NT - 4H. With the insufficient bid it would then be 1H >> - 2H >> > - 4H. The insufficient bidders gained nothing from the IB and 27D >> does not >> > apply. This is not bad. Same thing if the insufficient bidders get to >> a >> > slam everyone else is finding. >> > >> > Actually, the insufficient bidders are slightly ahead of the field. >> They >> > have a little more room to explore slam. Also, the opening bidder >> knows >> > partner has 5 hearts and a little stronger hand than would be >> promised by >> > a 2NT response. >> > >> > But they would be foolish to use this advantage. If they do and get >> to a >> > better contract than everyone else, 27D kicks in. If half the field >> is in >> > 4H and the other half is in 6H, they want to get to the better >> contract >> > BUT with no appearance of having used any of the advantage in the >> > insufficient bid. >> >> I do not think that this scenario is possible. The IBer's partner must >> assume that the 2H bid is according to system. So instead of 1H-2H-4H, >> the >> auction is likely to go: 1H-2H-P. >> >> Stefanie Rohan >> London, England > > This is so confusing. In the olden days, 2H was always allowed without > penalty provided not conventional. So the IBer with an opening hand > would have probably bid 4H and barred partner, rather than risking his > passing. Now there seems to be a thought, that provided partner > knows that the the IBer does in fact have an opening bid, he can > change to 2H under 27B1 (a), without any UI worries. So a bidding > edifice might be structured starting at 2H instead of 2NT according > to DALB. As you say, surely this cannot be?? Please? Hi. I have variously heard that "everyone" knew that correcting an insufficient 1C opening to 2C could be done with only 3 clubs (Standard American). So that was in the old rules. I didn't know that, but I tend to be unaware about such things. On the old laws, I would not have allowed the 4H bid with a minimum hand on the auction 1H 1H/2H. I have been told I was wrong. But the new laws are quite clear (to me) that if 4H is the field contract, there was no damage from the IB and hence no basis for adjustment. > > On the other hand, you cannot change to 2H via 27B1 (b), because the > director finds that you wanted to open 1H (say 11+ points and 4+ hearts) > and that is not a range covered by 2H over 1H (say 6-10 points and > 3+ hearts). > However, there may be other bids (eg 2NT) which are allowed under > 27B1(b). In Standard American, the 1H opening shows 5 hearts. There are not going to be any replies to 1H showing 5 or more hearts and an opening hand. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 03:59:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:59:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48119518.2030901@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>No, the impractical silliness is with the De Wael protocol. >>A typical example: >> >>North: "4C" >>East: "What does that mean?" >>South(A): "Undiscussed, but I am taking it as Gerber." >>South(B): "Undiscussed, but I am taking it as natural." >> >>Before South's response, North did not know whether she was >>partnering South(A) or South(B). After South's response, >>North-South have created a mutual partnership understanding >>_during the auction_, contrary to the 2007 Law 16A1(d): >> >>"A player may use information in the auction or play if: >>it is information that the player possessed before he took >>his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not >>preclude his use of this information." Herman De Wael: >And indeed both South(A) and South(B) have given UI to North. >However, one of them has given the explanation that conforms >to North's intentions (and I assume North's hand will be an >indication of those intentions). So that particular piece of >UI is disregarded. Richard Hills: Obtuse as well as silly. That piece of UI is still UI since North is now aware that her intentions have been _correctly interpreted_. The simple unadorned answer of "undiscussed", as required by the ABF, would mean that North would not know whether South's rebid of 4NT was a Gerber response showing three aces - South(A) - or Blackwood asking for aces - South(B). Herman De Wael: >Your ABF regulation forbids the creation of certain UI. OK >they have that right. But it's at the cost of MI. Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. The ABF does _not_ rule that mutual implicit **partnership** understandings must be described as "undiscussed". ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: "If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call, you must say so (by saying "Undiscussed", for example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. When, however, as a result of **partnership** experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised information to partner." Herman De Wael: >I only want to point out that your position is not consistent. 2007 Law 75C "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North- South hands." 2018 Law 75C a la Herman De Wael: "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South **hands**; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North- South **agreement**." Richard Hills: I agree that Herman has _consistently_ advocated that it is more "truthful" to describe partner's cards than it is to describe mutual partnership understandings. Absolutely nothing wrong with Herman advocating the above hypothetical 2018 change to Law 75C. (Herman might even get support for that change from the Dutch National Appeal Committee.) However... In my opinion Herman De Wael has over-stepped the mark by twisting the _current_ Lawbook, via heterodox interpretation, to implement the hypothetical 2018 Law 75C a decade early. To that end as a player he gives MI when partner has misbid, plus he also gives unnecessary UI when partner has made an undiscussed call. As a TD he lets his extra-legal preferences affect what should be legal rulings on disputed facts (ruling "non-systemic" is automatically false). Most disappointingly Herman De Wael has moral authority as an International Director, which he misuses by presenting illegal advice to Belgian players who do not know better. 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 Mon Apr 28 04:42:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:42:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] protected scores. References: <000901c8a8b8$0ab1c350$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <0b6a01c8a8d9$92752720$0100a8c0@stefanie> > So, I play a 3 session event; 67%, 54%; 62%. all-play-all. Nice little 61, > might even be enough to win. > > Owing to loud discussion at a previous table I can't play one of the > boards. Which session do I want this to happen in? Which session do I > definitely NOT want it to happen in? > The first one, of course. The better a game you are having, the fewer boards you want to play. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Apr 28 04:45:41 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:45:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: Message-ID: <0b6c01c8a8d9$f32113e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> [DALB]> I am not referring to cases where a player deliberately breaks a Law. I am > referring to cases in which, a Law having inadvertently been broken, a > player must (in effect) communicate illegally with his partner in order > not > to suffer from having broken it. This is why it is better to suffer from having broken the Law, but the DSC seems to have been very keen to make sure that following the basic rules of the game is optional. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 04:51:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:51:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <480FE7B3.7070605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>In real-life criminal proceedings, ... Steve Willner: >As others have mentioned, the proper analogy for score adjustment >matters is civil law. In "real life" that entails procedures to ensure >that there is a real dispute before a matter comes to court. Bridge >law is not quite like that -- any player can summon the TD and make a >complaint. Once that happens, the TD has to rule on "balance of >probabilities," as specified by L85A1. Eric Landau: >>Does it make any sense to apply harsher rules of evidence to bridge >>infractors than we do for real-life accused criminals? Steve Willner: >You may be interested to know that the ACBL has just adopted >"preponderance of the evidence" as its standard for disciplinary >matters. (The previous standard was "clear and convincing evidence.") Richard Hills: I agree that the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" should not apply to the putative offending side when the facts are disputed at the table, since such a high standard would be inequitable to the putative non-offending side. But it seems to me that "preponderance of the evidence" is too low a standard for disciplinary matters, since there the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" is analogous, as only one side has equity in the outcome. It is possible that a real-life United States court might rule that the new ACBL disciplinary standard fails to meet the requirements of "natural justice" for the disciplined side. 2007 Law 93 footnote: "The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action." 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 jrmayne at mindspring.com Mon Apr 28 05:36:05 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:36:05 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <30054223.1209353766040.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Sent: Apr 27, 2008 7:51 PM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Eric Landau: > >>>In real-life criminal proceedings, ... > >Steve Willner: > >>As others have mentioned, the proper analogy for score adjustment >>matters is civil law. In "real life" that entails procedures to ensure >>that there is a real dispute before a matter comes to court. Bridge >>law is not quite like that -- any player can summon the TD and make a >>complaint. Once that happens, the TD has to rule on "balance of >>probabilities," as specified by L85A1. > >Eric Landau: > >>>Does it make any sense to apply harsher rules of evidence to bridge >>>infractors than we do for real-life accused criminals? > >Steve Willner: > >>You may be interested to know that the ACBL has just adopted >>"preponderance of the evidence" as its standard for disciplinary >>matters. (The previous standard was "clear and convincing evidence.") > >Richard Hills: > >I agree that the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" should >not apply to the putative offending side when the facts are disputed at >the table, since such a high standard would be inequitable to the >putative non-offending side. > >But it seems to me that "preponderance of the evidence" is too low a >standard for disciplinary matters, since there the criminal standard of >"beyond reasonable doubt" is analogous, as only one side has equity in >the outcome. I'm not sure what you mean. There's also the side of good bridge; the game (or, in the parlance of criminal justice, The People) have an interest, also. It is more than the accused who has an equity interest. I think that "clear and convincing evidence" is the best standard - lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt." > >It is possible that a real-life United States court might rule that the >new ACBL disciplinary standard fails to meet the requirements of >"natural justice" for the disciplined side. It is possible that a real-life United States court will do.... bad things. (Particular bad thing done by one court omitted for the sake of good taste.) But "natural justice" isn't a legal argument. Any court making a "natural justice" argument will surely get overturned. --JRM From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Apr 28 06:28:23 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:28:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] protected scores. In-Reply-To: <000901c8a8b8$0ab1c350$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <000901c8a8b8$0ab1c350$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080428142634.01d89470@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 08:42 AM 28/04/2008, you wrote: >So, I play a 3 session event; 67%, 54%; 62%. all-play-all. Nice little 61, >might even be enough to win. > >Owing to loud discussion at a previous table I can't play one of the boards. >Which session do I want this to happen in? Which session do I definitely NOT >want it to happen in? > >Law 12. John > I always get trick questions wrong. I want 60% for the unplayable in my worst session to get my score up a bit. It is useless getting 67% for an unplayed board in session 1 Cheers Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 07:16:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:16:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another Law 25A case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: [snip] >If you think that any such bid is unintended, it would still have to >be corrected without pause for thought for Law 25 to apply. [snip] Richard Hills: Paul has misinterpreted Law 25A. 2007 Law 25A1: "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or **attempts to do so**, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law." Richard Hills: To clarify "attempts to do so", Edgar Kaplan gave the example of a Little Old Lady emitting "oh this is dreadful ... what have I done?" for five minutes before clarifying she needed a Law 25A adjustment. To clarify the contrary case, Edgar Kaplan gave the spoken bidding example of an expert briskly saying "1H, 1C!" when holding a heart suit and 16 hcp, with the expert suddenly realising that he was playing Precision with that particular partner. 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 henk at ripe.net Mon Apr 28 08:02:15 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:02:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] protected scores. In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080428142634.01d89470@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <000901c8a8b8$0ab1c350$0901a8c0@JOHN> <6.1.0.6.2.20080428142634.01d89470@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <48156867.5050807@ripe.net> Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 08:42 AM 28/04/2008, you wrote: >> So, I play a 3 session event; 67%, 54%; 62%. all-play-all. Nice little 61, >> might even be enough to win. >> >> Owing to loud discussion at a previous table I can't play one of the boards. >> Which session do I want this to happen in? Which session do I definitely NOT >> want it to happen in? The 54% one. Average+ is 60% or your average in the session, whichever is better. In the 67% or 62% session, your average is better so you get 67 or 62%. That doesn't improve your score though. On the N-1 boards you played, you scored 67% and you get a 67% artificial score on the remaining boards. That translates to ((N-1)*67 + 67)/N = 67%, which is what you already got. In the 54% session, 60% is better, so you score ((N-1)*54+60)/N, which is more than the 54% you scored on the boards you played. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 28 09:51:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:51:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48112F05.8080001@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >However, this would not be a game I'd wish to play. The idea of >bridge, as I understand it, is to pick the calls and plays that will >work best, not the ones that are "least suggested" by UI. 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." 2007 Law 73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must **carefully avoid** taking **any advantage** from that unauthorized information." Richard Hills: Is not the "idea" of bridge defined by its rules? 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 emu at fwi.net.au Mon Apr 28 11:21:22 2008 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:21:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <4811EF7C.6000201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001201c8a911$3b8ddc30$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:50 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] More queries on Law 27 One more query : Do we allow a pass as a substitution call ? I don't see anything against it, but it's better when its said. 1C* 1S** 1NT*** 2D **** (2S) 2H * strong ** some point range *** GF relay **** begins description, no matter the meaning 2H was obviously meant as a further relay (no meaning, just asking). Do we allow a pass as a substitute relay over 2S (partner doubles with a 2S bid etc.) provided it's written in their system notes ? Best regards Alain _____________________________________ In my Relay system this would be the exact meaning of 2H without interference, and Pass over 2S. I think it must be allowed or the new law has no use. regards, Noel From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Apr 28 09:01:11 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:01:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <001b01c8a8bf$a4eaa480$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <001b01c8a8bf$a4eaa480$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: On 28/04/2008, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > "when both sides have revoked on the same board." Que? > > Surely it's "same trick" This ought to be fixed, the intention is clear and > we know why it's a good idea. revokes on different tricks don't cause > problems; or have I missed something? John Agree on that. It's only when both sides revoke on the same trick trouble ensues. And, as I remember, there's a WBFLC minute on this matter (same trick revoke) applying to the 1997 Law. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 28 12:23:55 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:23:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 References: <001b01c8a8bf$a4eaa480$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <005001c8a919$f69c63e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 > On 28/04/2008, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> "when both sides have revoked on the same board." Que? >> >> Surely it's "same trick" This ought to be fixed, the intention is clear >> and >> we know why it's a good idea. revokes on different tricks don't cause >> problems; or have I missed something? John > > Agree on that. It's only when both sides revoke on the same trick > trouble ensues. > And, as I remember, there's a WBFLC minute on this matter (same trick > revoke) applying to the 1997 Law. Indeed."the intention is clear and we know why it's a good idea". I decided to read every word of every change last night closely and wearing a "probst cheat" hat. Previously I just skimmed through picking off the odd point or two. I must confess I thought I'd understood 27, but now I'm again not sure. DALB is beginning to convince me we can cheat like hell. John > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Mon Apr 28 12:19:34 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:19:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] protected scores. References: <000901c8a8b8$0ab1c350$0901a8c0@JOHN><6.1.0.6.2.20080428142634.01d89470@mail.optusnet.com.au> <48156867.5050807@ripe.net> Message-ID: <004701c8a919$5af0b4a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] protected scores. > Tony Musgrove wrote: >> At 08:42 AM 28/04/2008, you wrote: >>> So, I play a 3 session event; 67%, 54%; 62%. all-play-all. Nice little >>> 61, >>> might even be enough to win. >>> >>> Owing to loud discussion at a previous table I can't play one of the >>> boards. >>> Which session do I want this to happen in? Which session do I definitely >>> NOT >>> want it to happen in? > > The 54% one. > > Average+ is 60% or your average in the session, whichever is better. > > In the 67% or 62% session, your average is better so you get 67 or 62%. > That doesn't improve your score though. On the N-1 boards you played, > you scored 67% and you get a 67% artificial score on the remaining boards. > That translates to ((N-1)*67 + 67)/N = 67%, which is what you already got. > > In the 54% session, 60% is better, so you score ((N-1)*54+60)/N, which > is more than the 54% you scored on the boards you played. > So, do I want 67%, 60% or 62% for my unplayed board? :) Because my average over 3 sessions is over 60% I do want the 67%, dont't want the 60% which is lowering my overall score. However, since it's a single event I ought to be awarded 61%, regardless of which session I scored it in. In other words the unplayed board should only be factored in in the final ranking across 3 sessions. A session score is irrelevant in the scenario i've given. John > Henk > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Is one of the choices leaving the office open? > Alan Greenspan on the next elections > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk at ripe.net Mon Apr 28 13:12:01 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:12:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] protected scores. In-Reply-To: <004701c8a919$5af0b4a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <000901c8a8b8$0ab1c350$0901a8c0@JOHN><6.1.0.6.2.20080428142634.01d89470@mail.optusnet.com.au> <48156867.5050807@ripe.net> <004701c8a919$5af0b4a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4815B101.2010300@ripe.net> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > So, do I want 67%, 60% or 62% for my unplayed board? :) > > Because my average over 3 sessions is over 60% I do want the 67%, dont't > want the 60% which is lowering my overall score. Law 12 says "session score", not "event score", so with the current laws, all you get is 60% in the 54% session or 67/62 in the other two sessions. > However, since it's a > single event I ought to be awarded 61%, regardless of which session I scored > it in. In other words the unplayed board should only be factored in in the > final ranking across 3 sessions. A session score is irrelevant in the > scenario i've given. John I agree that 61% is (or "event score"), in theory, better, but then again the conditions of contest said otherwise. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 28 10:57:22 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:57:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] (pas de sujet) In-Reply-To: <4811F13C.8060806@NTLworld.com> References: <002f01c8a6cd$fded4130$55c8403e@Mildred> <4811D5AF.107@ulb.ac.be> <4811F13C.8060806@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48159172.5050900@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Max quoted by Grattan] > Just to double check that we are now in total agreement. 2D > opening - 1H undercall. 1H is artificial showing a balanced > 13-17. Replaced with 2NT showing a balanced 15-17 > (assume this is OK for the sake of the example). > > i) responder raises to game with his 10 count. Game makes. > The overcaller has only 13 points. Outcome; they've got lucky > - score stands. > > ii) responder passes with his 10 count. Game doesn't make. > Outcome; regardless of whether the overcaller has his bid or > not, the score is adjusted to game going off. > > When I come to writing up my notes for the Zone 1 lecture, > I'm hoping beyond hope that everyone already understands > 27B1(a) as this is effectively the same as the old 1997 law. > However, from some things I've read of late from other parts > of the world, I'm not entirely convinced that such is the case. > Of course we never discuss these things at International > tournaments because we have screens so the situation never > arises. > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > AG : don't agree. At the moment the player decided to bid 1H, he decided > his hand was worth 15. So the adjustment shouldn't be on the basis of > "help from the IB", but on "fielded the underbid, had a CPU that 1H was > in fact less than announced". > > [Nige1] > I hope it's your turn for a misreading, Alain :( I read 15-17 in both cases ... I'm notoriously long-sighted. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 28 14:57:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:57:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 : before the infraction Message-ID: <4815C9C5.9020704@ulb.ac.be> Matchpoints, vulnerability indifferent, here are the E/W hands : AKxxx QJx Axx xxx AK xxx xxx Qxxx Obviously, there is no game. N/S don't make anything above 2 D/H. West opens 1S, North overcalls 2D and East responds 1NT. Assume we determine that East wanted to bid a forcing NT. Being told all he needs to know about L27, East knows he's fixed and decides to bid 2S. Partner is barred. Top for E/W. Now L23 cranes its neck and says "the score should be adjusted". To which contract ? a) To the contract E/W were heading towards before the infraction ? This seems to be 2S (West reopens with a double, and East bids 2S), or perhaps 3D (NS) - 1 ; one should select the latter (the best N/S score among reasonably plausible ones). Either would be a good score for E/W (at most tables, North didn't overcall and E/W ended in 3S, sometomes 4S or 3NT). b) To the contract E/W were heading towards before the "favorable penalty" (enforced pass) was applied to the infraction ? If 2S didn't bar partner, the final contract could well be 4S. ISTM that TFLB says A, which means E/W can't lose from their infraction, which is a bit of a problem. But "restoring equity" seems to suggest B. In fact, the problem didn't arise : at the table, a clever South decided to accept the 1NT IB and used the available space to bid 2H on his chunky 5-carder. Now West was deluded into doubling, then bidding oce again over partner's 2S. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 28 15:06:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:06:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <4811EF7C.6000201@ulb.ac.be> References: <33120CA2-76D8-48E6-8ABD-61F237531295@starpower.net><06c401c8a63c$ef8c0a40$8cad9b51@stefanie><84E055E6-B1EA-43DC-87C9-9C9690B5EB38@starpower.net><6.1.0.6.2.20080425103600.04104aa8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1DC645DF-8D7C-40CE-A583-D0052404E37B@starpower.net> <083301c8a6e0$560cbe60$8cad9b51@stefanie> <4811EF7C.6000201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <420946E8-E142-4E3A-93AB-BD36A4DA4D49@starpower.net> On Apr 25, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > One more query : > > Do we allow a pass as a substitution call ? I don't see anything > against > it, but it's better when its said. > > 1C* 1S** > 1NT*** 2D **** (2S) > 2H > > * strong > ** some point range > *** GF relay > **** begins description, no matter the meaning > > 2H was obviously meant as a further relay (no meaning, just asking). > Do we allow a pass as a substitute relay over 2S (partner doubles > with a > 2S bid etc.) provided it's written in their system notes ? Sure. "In the Director?s opinion [it] has the same meaning as... the insufficient bid" [L27B1(b)]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 28 15:21:23 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:21:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <002901c8a78f$385c8ad0$7fcb403e@Mildred> References: <005901c8a5a8$b3805540$c8d0403e@Mildred> <002901c8a78f$385c8ad0$7fcb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Apr 26, 2008, at 7:18 AM, wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> But if there is additional information other than from the withdrawn >> call, it must have been "conveyed" by some means, and it is that >> which determines whether it is "authorized". ISTM that the potential >> "heightened awareness" we're talking about (of the likelihood of a >> deviation from the systemic meaning of the RC) derives directly from >> the knowledge of how L27B works, and the law itself cannot be UI. > > +=+ I quote from some current explorations of 27B:- > ...................................................................... > ..................... > << When 27B1(a) does not apply 27B1(b) applies if > (i) the RC has the same meaning as the IB, or > (ii) the RC has a meaning fully contained within the > meaning of the IB and is more precise in regard to > what it shows and what it excludes. > > Partner of the offender must take the RC at face > value. (The offender may misbid provided his partner > has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than > have opponents.) If partner's action is not consistent > with the meaning of the RC adjust under 27D.>> > ...................................................................... > ..................... > These are not 'definitive' since the statements are still being > 'tested out', but they are worthy of perusal on that basis. Excellent guideline. We seem to be moving towards a workable notion of how to apply the new L27B1 at the table. There is a subtle suggestion in the above that an RC that could be made without penalty under either L27B1(a) or L27B1(b) is to be treated by applying L27B1(a). Was that intended? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 28 15:28:29 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:28:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <480A11CA.5070300@hotmail.com><480C5E09.3000305@ulb.ac.be><0a8c01c8a3ad$53f76110$2ec39851@stefanie><480CCA71.6020508@ulb.ac.be><78AFDAB7-36DF-4949-9C57-1366DF7B70A4@starpower.net><003d01c8a555$bff7f240$10c9403e@Mildred><03cc01c8a56f$269ff830$8cad9b51@stefanie><000201c8a651$64743bc0$6ecd403e@Mildred><078c01c8a664$279621b0$8cad9b51@stefanie><003a01c8a6b1$c6deede0$0300a8c0@david> <095b01c8a6e2$51fbb810$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <006901c8a933$cefbbdd0$67ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 - relay > > From: "David Barton" > > >> When, due to an infraction by our side, a member of our partnership is >> obliged >> to pass throughout, then our understandings are varied as follows >> >> (a) ALL bids are natural and non forcing >> (b) ALL doubles are for penalty >> (c) we no longer play any forcing passes. >> >> Does anyone think that such agreement is illegal or undesirable? >> > I don't; I admit that I hadn't thought of this sort of thing. But while > this > is "varying one's understandings", it is not doing so "by prior > agreement". > I doubt that most people have discussed this with their regular > partners -- > it is just logic, isn't it? > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > +=+ It looks very like an inference drawn from knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. Also, it may be thought common sense. I do not see any prior agreement required. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Apr 28 15:58:12 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:58:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [GE] >> +=+ I quote from some current explorations of 27B:- >> ...................................................................... >> ..................... >> << When 27B1(a) does not apply 27B1(b) applies if >> (i) the RC has the same meaning as the IB, or >> (ii) the RC has a meaning fully contained within the >> meaning of the IB and is more precise in regard to >> what it shows and what it excludes. >> >> Partner of the offender must take the RC at face >> value. (The offender may misbid provided his partner >> has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than >> have opponents.) If partner's action is not consistent >> with the meaning of the RC adjust under 27D.>> >> ...................................................................... >> ..................... >> These are not 'definitive' since the statements are still being >> 'tested out', but they are worthy of perusal on that basis. [EL] > Excellent guideline. We seem to be moving towards a workable notion > of how to apply the new L27B1 at the table. [DALB] Pleased to hear it. But what is meant by "face value"? It has been said that under the current Law 27 as much as under the future Law 27, when North opens 1H and sees that South has already opened 1H and West has passed, North may correct to a natural and forcing 2H. When South opens 1H and North, thinking that South has opened 1D, responds 1H, North may correct to a natural and non-forcing 2H. What has this to do with taking the RC at "face value"? David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 28 15:32:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:32:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B6DF878-91D4-42EB-B2C4-44ED7590C3E8@starpower.net> On Apr 26, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I think this unlikely example might illustrate things. (Or correct > me if I > am wrong, or sorry if this is obvious). Standard American: > > 1H - P - 1H/2H. > > The insufficient bidder meant to open the bidding. No system will > have a > bid satisfying 27B1(b) -- same or more precise replacement bid. But > the 2H > correction satisfies 27B1(a). > > Because (1) the IB is AI, (2) the insufficient bidder can bid 2H > even if > that would otherwise miscribe his hand, and (3) many/most players know > that, the 2H RC essentially shows an opening hand with 5-card heart > support. > > The lawmakers might not have envisioned this correction. But they > meant to > make it easier for players to recover from an insufficient bid. > That has > certainly happened. For example, the auction without the > insufficient bid > might be 1H - 2NT - 4H. With the insufficient bid it would then be > 1H - 2H > - 4H. The insufficient bidders gained nothing from the IB and 27D > does not > apply. This is not bad. Same thing if the insufficient bidders get > to a > slam everyone else is finding. I think the lawmakers probably envisioned it, as this is the way it has worked for at least the last 45 years. > Actually, the insufficient bidders are slightly ahead of the field. > They > have a little more room to explore slam. Also, the opening bidder > knows > partner has 5 hearts and a little stronger hand than would be > promised by > a 2NT response. > > But they would be foolish to use this advantage. If they do and get > to a > better contract than everyone else, 27D kicks in. If half the field > is in > 4H and the other half is in 6H, they want to get to the better > contract > BUT with no appearance of having used any of the advantage in the > insufficient bid. This part has only been there since 1975. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 28 16:18:54 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:18:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 References: <001b01c8a8bf$a4eaa480$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <00b601c8a93a$ed143160$67ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 > On 28/04/2008, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> "when both sides have revoked on the same board." Que? >> >> Surely it's "same trick" This ought to be fixed, the intention is clear >> and >> we know why it's a good idea. revokes on different tricks don't cause >> problems; or have I missed something? John > > Agree on that. It's only when both sides revoke on the same trick > trouble ensues. > And, as I remember, there's a WBFLC minute on this matter (same trick > revoke) applying to the 1997 Law. > +=+ I think you should read the law as it is written. Why should you think what it says was not intended? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 28 16:21:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:21:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 : before the infraction In-Reply-To: <4815C9C5.9020704@ulb.ac.be> References: <4815C9C5.9020704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <078003FF-AE60-4CE7-9DB4-C4BDB87A53CF@starpower.net> On Apr 28, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Matchpoints, vulnerability indifferent, here are the E/W hands : > > AKxxx QJx > Axx xxx > AK xxx > xxx Qxxx > > Obviously, there is no game. N/S don't make anything above 2 D/H. > > West opens 1S, North overcalls 2D and East responds 1NT. Assume we > determine that East wanted to bid a forcing NT. > Being told all he needs to know about L27, East knows he's fixed and > decides to bid 2S. Partner is barred. Top for E/W. > > Now L23 cranes its neck and says "the score should be adjusted". To > which contract ? L23 requires that the "offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side". On what basis? To use L23, we would have to find that East might have reason to believe that had his side reached 4S on a normal auction it would be likely to go down. Otherwise we're back to saying that any player who commits any irregularity ever "might" know that it "could" work to his advantage. > a) To the contract E/W were heading towards before the infraction ? > This > seems to be 2S (West reopens with a double, and East bids 2S), or > perhaps 3D (NS) - 1 ; one should select the latter (the best N/S score > among reasonably plausible ones). Either would be a good score for E/W > (at most tables, North didn't overcall and E/W ended in 3S, > sometomes 4S > or 3NT). > b) To the contract E/W were heading towards before the "favorable > penalty" (enforced pass) was applied to the infraction ? If 2S didn't > bar partner, the final contract could well be 4S. > > ISTM that TFLB says A, which means E/W can't lose from their > infraction, > which is a bit of a problem. > But "restoring equity" seems to suggest B. > > In fact, the problem didn't arise : at the table, a clever South > decided > to accept the 1NT IB and used the available space to bid 2H on his > chunky 5-carder. Now West was deluded into doubling, then bidding oce > again over partner's 2S. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 28 16:26:48 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:26:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5CD8984F-738F-4220-AC0A-626EDA90A33A@starpower.net> On Apr 28, 2008, at 9:58 AM, David Burn wrote: > [GE] > >>> +=+ I quote from some current explorations of 27B:- >>> .................................................................... >>> .. >>> ..................... >>> << When 27B1(a) does not apply 27B1(b) applies if >>> (i) the RC has the same meaning as the IB, or >>> (ii) the RC has a meaning fully contained within the >>> meaning of the IB and is more precise in regard to >>> what it shows and what it excludes. >>> >>> Partner of the offender must take the RC at face >>> value. (The offender may misbid provided his partner >>> has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than >>> have opponents.) If partner's action is not consistent >>> with the meaning of the RC adjust under 27D.>> >>> .................................................................... >>> .. >>> ..................... >>> These are not 'definitive' since the statements are still being >>> 'tested out', but they are worthy of perusal on that basis. > > [EL] > >> Excellent guideline. We seem to be moving towards a workable notion >> of how to apply the new L27B1 at the table. > > [DALB] > > Pleased to hear it. But what is meant by "face value"? > > It has been said that under the current Law 27 as much as under the > future > Law 27, when North opens 1H and sees that South has already opened > 1H and > West has passed, North may correct to a natural and forcing 2H. > When South > opens 1H and North, thinking that South has opened 1D, responds 1H, > North > may correct to a natural and non-forcing 2H. What has this to do > with taking > the RC at "face value"? Nothing. I think we are meant to read the second paragraph ("must take the RC at face value") in the context of "when 27B1(a) does not apply [but] 27B1(b) applies". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 28 16:32:55 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:32:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ton: We intentionally have made it 'the same board'. So consider that to be the law. The reason is that we did not like the idea to have tricks going from one side to the other and back. Or: not back, since 'the other' didn't win any trick from the revoke on. What seems to be not clear to everybody (I got questions) is that we are talking about established revokes both of them. With one side revoking in the 12th trick for example the penalty for the other side remains valid. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran Sent: maandag 28 april 2008 9:01 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 On 28/04/2008, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > "when both sides have revoked on the same board." Que? > > Surely it's "same trick" This ought to be fixed, the intention is > clear and we know why it's a good idea. revokes on different tricks > don't cause problems; or have I missed something? John Agree on that. It's only when both sides revoke on the same trick trouble ensues. And, as I remember, there's a WBFLC minute on this matter (same trick revoke) applying to the 1997 Law. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Apr 28 16:36:51 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:36:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <005001c8a919$f69c63e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: I decided to read every word of every change last night closely and wearing a "probst cheat" hat. Previously I just skimmed through picking off the odd point or two. I must confess I thought I'd understood 27, but now I'm again not sure. DALB is beginning to convince me we can cheat like hell. John ton: Yes there are nice examples available to illustrate that possibility (of cheating). But that becomes clear immediately and we have L23 or worse to handle it. ton From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 28 16:06:49 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:06:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:08:21 -0400, David Burn wrote: > [TM] > >> This is so confusing. In the olden days, 2H was always allowed without >> penalty provided not conventional. So the IBer with an opening hand >> would have probably bid 4H and barred partner, rather than risking his >> passing. Now there seems to be a thought, that provided partner >> knows that the the IBer does in fact have an opening bid, he can >> change to 2H under 27B1 (a), without any UI worries. So a bidding >> edifice might be structured starting at 2H instead of 2NT according >> to DALB. As you say, surely this cannot be?? Please? > > Not only can it be, it already is. Even under the 1997 Laws, it is > apparently possible to play inverted major suit raises - that is, to play > 1H-2H as natural and forcing - by the simple expedient of first > responding > 1H. With a normal raise to 2H, one simply responds 2H. > > One cannot, of course, play these methods very often, otherwise it will > be > suspected that one is deliberately making insufficient bids, contrary to > Law > 72B1. It is pointless to play a system to try to benefit from an IB. If you get to the same contract as everyone else, you have wasted your time. If you get to a good contract that many people are not getting to, it had better be VERY obvious that you did not use the information in your IB, or else the director will rectify you (27D), and doubtful decisions will not go in your favor. In other words, a system after insufficient bids (if you can have one) should be designed to recover from the IB, and only that. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 28 17:11:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:11:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 : before the infraction In-Reply-To: <078003FF-AE60-4CE7-9DB4-C4BDB87A53CF@starpower.net> References: <4815C9C5.9020704@ulb.ac.be> <078003FF-AE60-4CE7-9DB4-C4BDB87A53CF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4815E928.8080904@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 28, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Matchpoints, vulnerability indifferent, here are the E/W hands : >> >> AKxxx QJx >> Axx xxx >> AK xxx >> xxx Qxxx >> >> Obviously, there is no game. N/S don't make anything above 2 D/H. >> >> West opens 1S, North overcalls 2D and East responds 1NT. Assume we >> determine that East wanted to bid a forcing NT. >> Being told all he needs to know about L27, East knows he's fixed and >> decides to bid 2S. Partner is barred. Top for E/W. >> >> Now L23 cranes its neck and says "the score should be adjusted". To >> which contract ? >> > > L23 requires that the "offender could have been aware at the time of > his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending > side". On what basis? To use L23, we would have to find that East > might have reason to believe that had his side reached 4S on a normal > auction it would be likely to go down. Otherwise we're back to > saying that any player who commits any irregularity ever "might" know > that it "could" work to his advantage. > AG : I'd say it's the case. If East wants to play 2S, no more, that's a way to achieve it. Or if you wish, substract the CQ and answer the same question. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 28 17:46:01 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:46:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 : before the infraction In-Reply-To: <4815E928.8080904@ulb.ac.be> References: <4815C9C5.9020704@ulb.ac.be> <078003FF-AE60-4CE7-9DB4-C4BDB87A53CF@starpower.net> <4815E928.8080904@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <61388888-3667-4A40-92F6-866EB9F2DB09@starpower.net> On Apr 28, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> On Apr 28, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Matchpoints, vulnerability indifferent, here are the E/W hands : >>> >>> AKxxx QJx >>> Axx xxx >>> AK xxx >>> xxx Qxxx >>> >>> Obviously, there is no game. N/S don't make anything above 2 D/H. >>> >>> West opens 1S, North overcalls 2D and East responds 1NT. Assume we >>> determine that East wanted to bid a forcing NT. >>> Being told all he needs to know about L27, East knows he's fixed and >>> decides to bid 2S. Partner is barred. Top for E/W. >>> >>> Now L23 cranes its neck and says "the score should be adjusted". To >>> which contract ? >> >> L23 requires that the "offender could have been aware at the time of >> his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending >> side". On what basis? To use L23, we would have to find that East >> might have reason to believe that had his side reached 4S on a normal >> auction it would be likely to go down. Otherwise we're back to >> saying that any player who commits any irregularity ever "might" know >> that it "could" work to his advantage. > > AG : I'd say it's the case. If East wants to play 2S, no more, > that's a > way to achieve it. Or if you wish, substract the CQ and answer the > same > question. Subtract the CQ and I will almost certainly adjust. To keep their score, East would have to convince me that his system calls for 1S- P-1NT holding QJx/xxx/xxx/xxxx, and West would have to convince me that, allowing for the possibility, he would not bid too much, neither of which will be easy. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 29 00:02:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:02:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200804250120.AA13455@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller asserted: >.....The inadvertent creation of UI through uncontrollable >human reactions (variations in tempo, grimaces, gestures, >etc.) is an irregularity..... 2007 Law 73D1: ....Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction..... 2007 Definitions: Infraction - a player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation. Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the Definitions state that "an infraction" is fully contained within - a subset of - "an irregularity". Ergo, if a player's action is specifically defined by Law 73D1 as "not in itself an infraction", then it is "not in itself an irregularity". WBF Code of Practice, page 7: A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws. Best wishes Richard James Hills 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 Apr 29 00:56:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:56:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >Does anyone think the concept of "partnership agreement" is even >meaningful, much less legally relevant, when partner is barred >from the auction? Is this a troll? Richard Hills: One crosses the troll bridge if the partnership becomes the defenders, when partnership agreements would be relevant. As for legal relevance, choosing a deliberately misleading call when partner is barred from the auction (for example, choosing a partner-barring replacement call which just happens to be an "overcall" in hearts with a singleton heart - a "safe psyche" since pard cannot raise) could well fall foul of Law 23. 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 Apr 29 01:09:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:09:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another Law 25A case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <09b301c8a6e8$06ee4080$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>If the bidder's "brain stopped working", then that has a one- >>to-one correspondence with the Law 25A adjective "unintended". Stefanie Rohan: >Not really. "Unintended" must mean that you did not reach for >the bid or ever plan to take it out of the box. Remember the >1997 25B? A bid made with a "stopped brain" is not necessarily >a mechanical error. WBF LC minutes, 30th August 2000 (EBU White Book paraphrase): What is inadvertent? Assume the player intends to do one thing at the moment he reaches for the bidding box, or his pen or pencil if using written bidding, or for the bidding board, or starts to speak. Then it is inadvertent if his attention is drawn in that instant to some other matter and then he finds he has actually done something different. His mind has switched away from what he was doing. 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Apr 29 01:31:27 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:31:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48165E4F.9090507@NTLworld.com> [WBF Code of Practice, page 7 quoted by Richard Hills] A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws. [Nigel] Is my impression correct that the WBF code of practice is *not* law unless specifically adopted by a local legislature. If so, that is a blessed relief. IMO the sensible default must be that giving unnecessary unauthorised information *is* an irregularity. IMO it does not matter much *how* unnecessary UI arises. For example, an involuntary grimace at an unwanted lead or an unnecessary disclosure (defender offering the unprompted explanation "My double is lead directing") should both be irregularities. For many players, even at County and National level, it seems to be an almost impossible imaginative contortion to completely ignore such information from partner. IMO, such UI should be an irregularity because it is ridiculous to expect ordinary Club players to ignore it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 29 01:50:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:50:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005001c8a919$f69c63e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: 2007 Law 64B7: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: when both sides have revoked on the same board." John (MadDog) Probst: >>Que? >> >>Surely it's "same trick" This ought to be fixed, the intention >>is clear and we know why it's a good idea. revokes on different >>tricks don't cause problems; or have I missed something? John Harald Skj?ran: >Agree on that. It's only when both sides revoke on the same trick >trouble ensues. > >And, as I remember, there's a WBFLC minute on this matter (same >trick revoke) applying to the 1997 Law. Richard Hills: It was entirely within the Drafting Committee's powers to over- ride a previous WBF LC minute. Indeed, the Drafting Committee clearly did just that when it wrote the 2007 Law 92D. Ergo, I am not convinced that the 2007 Law 64B7 "same board" is a typo for "same trick". To me it seems entirely sensible that if both sides have committed non-simultaneous revokes, then the only correction should be an adjusted score under the 2007 Law 64C: "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." 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 Apr 29 02:11:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:11:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] protected scores. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004701c8a919$5af0b4a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >However, since it's a single event I ought to be >awarded 61%, regardless of which session I scored >it in. In other words the unplayed board should >only be factored in in the final ranking across 3 >sessions. A session score is irrelevant in the >scenario i've given. John 2007 Law 12C2(c): "The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a **session** score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a **session** score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that **session**." Richard Hills: So is MadDog's ruling illegal? Not necessarily; it depends upon the regulations that have been created by the Tournament Organizer. 2007 Definitions: "Session - an extended period of play during which a number of boards, specified by the Tournament Organizer, is scheduled to be played. (May have different meanings as between Laws 4, 12C2 and 91.)" Richard Hills: Given the event is all-play-all, a fair reg would define the entire event as one session for the purpose of Law 12C2 Ave+ and Ave-, but as three sessions for the purpose of Law 4 substitutes. 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 Apr 29 03:06:40 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 References: <001b01c8a8bf$a4eaa480$0901a8c0@JOHN> <00b601c8a93a$ed143160$67ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002301c8a995$48360460$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "Since few women ever pass forty, > maximum fascination can continue > indefinitely." > { Christian Dior } > ************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:01 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 > > >> On 28/04/2008, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> "when both sides have revoked on the same board." Que? >>> >>> Surely it's "same trick" This ought to be fixed, the intention is clear >>> and >>> we know why it's a good idea. revokes on different tricks don't cause >>> problems; or have I missed something? John >> >> Agree on that. It's only when both sides revoke on the same trick >> trouble ensues. >> And, as I remember, there's a WBFLC minute on this matter (same trick >> revoke) applying to the 1997 Law. >> > +=+ I think you should read the law as it is written. Why should > you think what it says was not intended? Mainly because of the problems where both sides revoke on a single trick and the guidance handed down re 1997 Laws. it's not a big deal when one side revokes at trick 3; calls you at trick 5, so you assess the penalty and the other side revokes a trick 7 so now you assess a further penalty, whereas in future you cancel the previous penalty. We've never been close to that scenario. I don't mind either way, but it seems an odd change to me, and if that's what was intended, fine. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Tue Apr 29 03:09:30 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:09:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 References: Message-ID: <002c01c8a995$ad5eedc0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 ton: >We intentionally have made it 'the same board'. So consider that to be the law. The reason is that we did not like the idea to have tricks going from one side to the other and back. Or: not back, since 'the other' didn't win any trick from the revoke on. >What seems to be not clear to everybody (I got questions) is that we are talking about established revokes both of them. With one side revoking in the 12th trick for example the penalty for the other side remains valid. sure thing ton. Thanks for the explanation; somewhat more helpful than Grattan's "It is because we say it is". cheers john. >ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran Sent: maandag 28 april 2008 9:01 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 On 28/04/2008, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > "when both sides have revoked on the same board." Que? > > Surely it's "same trick" This ought to be fixed, the intention is > clear and we know why it's a good idea. revokes on different tricks > don't cause problems; or have I missed something? John Agree on that. It's only when both sides revoke on the same trick trouble ensues. And, as I remember, there's a WBFLC minute on this matter (same trick revoke) applying to the 1997 Law. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran _______________________________________________ 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 29 06:32:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:32:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Worst Method in the World [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <30054223.1209353766040.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>But it seems to me that "preponderance of the evidence" is too low a >>standard for disciplinary matters, since there the criminal standard of >>"beyond reasonable doubt" is analogous, as only one side has equity in >>the outcome. John R. Mayne: >I'm not sure what you mean. There's also the side of good bridge; the >game (or, in the parlance of criminal justice, The People) have an >interest, also. It is more than the accused who has an equity interest. > >I think that "clear and convincing evidence" is the best standard - >lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Richard Hills: John's argument has convinced me to partially modify my position. I now agree that for the routine Law 91 disciplinary actions, such as the suspension of a player for the rest of the session for being obnoxiously drunk, "clear and convincing evidence" is the best standard. But for the rare and exceptional Law 73B2 disciplinary actions, which are defined as "the gravest possible offence", I believe that the equally grave standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" should apply. I do not mind if a Law 85A1 "balance of probabilities" a.k.a "preponderance of evidence" score adjustment ruling means that my correct version of facts is incorrectly ruled false by the TD. It is only one board. C'est la vie. But I would mind if a Disciplinary Committee weighed the facts 51% to 49% to judge that I should be expelled from Duplicate Bridge for a decade. Indeed, in my youth an Elderly Gentleman accused me of being a cheat, since in his opinion I was reaching inexplicably good contracts after uncontested auctions. (The Elderly Gentleman was miffed after his "obvious" double of our 7NT contract saw me make 7NT redoubled.) The non-cheating explanation was my partnership was using the then-novel but legal Symmetric Relay system. 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 Apr 29 07:55:46 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:55:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am not referring to cases where a player deliberately breaks a Law. I am referring to cases in which, a Law having inadvertently been broken, a player must (in effect) communicate illegally with his partner in order not to suffer from having broken it. David Burn London, England ton: I know you as using your words very carefully, so please tell me why a player must communicate ilegally after having made an insufficient bid? (I know that by making the insufficient bid he communicates illegally.) ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Apr 29 08:03:12 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:03:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [GE] >> +=+ I quote from some current explorations of 27B:- >> ...................................................................... >> ..................... >> << When 27B1(a) does not apply 27B1(b) applies if >> (i) the RC has the same meaning as the IB, or >> (ii) the RC has a meaning fully contained within the >> meaning of the IB and is more precise in regard to >> what it shows and what it excludes. >> >> Partner of the offender must take the RC at face >> value. (The offender may misbid provided his partner >> has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than >> have opponents.) If partner's action is not consistent >> with the meaning of the RC adjust under 27D.>> >> ...................................................................... >> ..................... >> These are not 'definitive' since the statements are still being >> 'tested out', but they are worthy of perusal on that basis. [EL] > Excellent guideline. We seem to be moving towards a workable notion > of how to apply the new L27B1 at the table. [DALB] Pleased to hear it. But what is meant by "face value"? It has been said that under the current Law 27 as much as under the future Law 27, when North opens 1H and sees that South has already opened 1H and West has passed, North may correct to a natural and forcing 2H. When South opens 1H and North, thinking that South has opened 1D, responds 1H, North may correct to a natural and non-forcing 2H. What has this to do with taking the RC at "face value"? David Burn London, England ton: Good question, whatever 'face value' means this statement given by Grattan here is not at all a Laws Committee opinion, nor does it express the meaning of L27. ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 08:34:34 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:34:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] The real issue of "no agreement" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48165E4F.9090507@NTLworld.com> References: <48165E4F.9090507@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On 29/04/2008, Guthrie wrote: > [WBF Code of Practice, page 7 quoted by Richard Hills] > A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information > available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law > or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a > breach of the laws. > > [Nigel] > Is my impression correct that the WBF code of practice is *not* law > unless specifically adopted by a local legislature. If so, that is a > blessed relief. The WBF Code of practice only elaborates on what's already law - reread Law 73D1 as cited by Richard above. > > IMO the sensible default must be that giving unnecessary unauthorised > information *is* an irregularity. > > IMO it does not matter much *how* unnecessary UI arises. For example, an > involuntary grimace at an unwanted lead or an unnecessary disclosure > (defender offering the unprompted explanation "My double is lead > directing") should both be irregularities. > > For many players, even at County and National level, it seems to be an > almost impossible imaginative contortion to completely ignore such > information from partner. > > IMO, such UI should be an irregularity because it is ridiculous to > expect ordinary Club players to ignore it. > I don't think it's wise to make unintentional creation of UI an irregularity. We'd need one TD for each table (I'm exaggerating a little, but not much). I'd neither want to play nor direct in this game. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Gampas at aol.com Tue Apr 29 08:44:43 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:44:43 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. Message-ID: [DALB] Pleased to hear it. But what is meant by "face value"? It has been said that under the current Law 27 as much as under the future Law 27, when North opens 1H and sees that South has already opened 1H and West has passed, North may correct to a natural and forcing 2H. When South opens 1H and North, thinking that South has opened 1D, responds 1H, North may correct to a natural and non-forcing 2H. What has this to do with taking the RC at "face value"? [paul lamford] Presumably 0 for an ace, 3 for a king, 2 for a queen and 1 for a jack. Joking aside, a better wording might be: "The partner of the person making an RC under Law 27b must assume that the RC has the systemic meaning for that partnership. Vioaltions are treated in the same way as a fielded systemic misbid." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 29 09:31:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:31:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn: >Not only can it be, it already is. Even under the 1997 Laws, it is >apparently possible to play inverted major suit raises - that is, >to play 1H-2H as natural and forcing - by the simple expedient of >first responding 1H. With a normal raise to 2H, one simply responds >2H. Richard Hills: I agree with David caveating* the noun "possible" with the adjective "apparently", so I therefore disagree with the best Director in Benelux** on his idea that new partnership understandings are automatically created by "bridge logic" after an insufficient bid. In my opinion, the fact that the cancelled insufficient bid of 1H is AI under the 2007 Law 16D to the offender's partner merely means that the partner's logical alternatives in responding to the replacement bid of 2H are not constrained. In my opinion it does _not_ mean that new logical alternatives are created via a new post-infraction partnership understanding. As Grattan Endicott has noted, the Law 16 waiver applies only to the cancelled insufficient bid, not to the replacement call or any other extraneous information generated. The 2007 Law 16A1(d) requires partnership understandings to be created before the partners take their cards from the board as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for those partnership understandings to be AI. David Burn: >One cannot, of course, play these methods very often, otherwise it >will be suspected that one is deliberately making insufficient bids, >contrary to [2007] Law 72B1. Richard Hills: Yes, if it is not so-called "bridge logic", but rather an old pre- existing partnership understanding to play inverted major suit raises only after an insufficient bid, then that passes the 2007 Law 16A1(d) test. But it is very likely to fail the 2007 Law 23 test on its first outing, then attract a 2007 Law 72B1 disciplinary penalty on its second outing. This 2007 Law 27B1(a) debate is moot for ABF and ACBL blmlers, since their Regulating Authorities will impose somewhat (ABF) or very (ACBL) stricter Law 40B3 regulations than the EBU Regulating Authority has chosen to do so far. 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 *Alexander Haig, Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, notoriously mangled the English language, including misusing the noun "caveat" as a verb. He later showed unexpected signs of self- deprecating humour by entitling his memoirs "Caveat". **For once I am not disagreeing with the person who thinks he is the best Director in Benelux, but instead disagreeing with the person who actually is the best Director in Benelux, Ton Kooijman. Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Tue Apr 29 08:43:42 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:43:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <005001c8a919$f69c63e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: On 29/04/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 2007 Law 64B7: > > "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: > when both sides have revoked on the same board." > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > >>Que? > >> > >>Surely it's "same trick" This ought to be fixed, the intention > >>is clear and we know why it's a good idea. revokes on different > >>tricks don't cause problems; or have I missed something? John > > Harald Skj?ran: > > >Agree on that. It's only when both sides revoke on the same trick > >trouble ensues. > > > >And, as I remember, there's a WBFLC minute on this matter (same > >trick revoke) applying to the 1997 Law. > > Richard Hills: > > It was entirely within the Drafting Committee's powers to over- > ride a previous WBF LC minute. Indeed, the Drafting Committee > clearly did just that when it wrote the 2007 Law 92D. > > Ergo, I am not convinced that the 2007 Law 64B7 "same board" is a > typo for "same trick". To me it seems entirely sensible that if > both sides have committed non-simultaneous revokes, then the only > correction should be an adjusted score under the 2007 Law 64C: I'm sure both John and I are aware of the possibility that the WBF DSC might have made this change deliberately. However, I don't think that's what happened. I might be mistaken, of course. But I believe Ton Koiijman would have made this pretty clear in his lessons on the new laws at Hell (yeah - that's what the place outside Trondheim is called) three weeks ago if this change was intentional. It's a pretty big change IMO. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject > to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side > is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > he shall assign an adjusted score." > > > 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 > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Apr 29 11:34:31 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:34:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] protected scores. In-Reply-To: <000901c8a8b8$0ab1c350$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <000901c8a8b8$0ab1c350$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4816EBA7.7070408@meteo.fr> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > So, I play a 3 session event; 67%, 54%; 62%. all-play-all. Nice little 61, > might even be enough to win. > > Owing to loud discussion at a previous table I can't play one of the boards. > Which session do I want this to happen in? Which session do I definitely NOT > want it to happen in? i think the question is not clear and the answer is not obvious. if we assume, for example, each session to have 30 boards, it's not clear what is meant by your score in one session: your score over 30 effectively played boards? over 29 boards with 1 unplayable board? maybe a realistic way to modelize the problem would be to consider the scores of 67, 54, 62 over 29 boards, leaving one board to be played (or canceled) in every session. from this point we need to know a variable about the field, in order to advance: - 1st hypothesis: homogeneous field. you score a mean of 61% against it and the scores of 67, 54, 62 are only fluctuations around the 61 mean. if you have to play one more board in any session, your expected result is 61. so, you had better not play the 30th board in session 1, so as to score 67, 61 and 61 on the 3 remaining boards. (better than 61, 60, 61 or 61, 61, 62). - 2nd hypothesis: the field is not homogeneous in the 3 sessions, and your scores exactly reflect their value (and/or your present state of form maybe?). if you have to play one more board in each session, your expected result on this board will be 67 in the first one, 54 and 62 in the other ones. so you had better fail to play the 30th board in session 2, in order to score 67, 60, 62 on the 3 remaining boards, better than 67, 54, 62 otherwise. jpr > > Law 12. John > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 08:49:24 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:49:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <005001c8a919$f69c63e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: Disregard my previous post - just read Grattan's and Ton's posts. On 29/04/2008, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 29/04/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > 2007 Law 64B7: > > > > "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: > > when both sides have revoked on the same board." > > > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > > > >>Que? > > >> > > >>Surely it's "same trick" This ought to be fixed, the intention > > >>is clear and we know why it's a good idea. revokes on different > > >>tricks don't cause problems; or have I missed something? John > > > > Harald Skj?ran: > > > > >Agree on that. It's only when both sides revoke on the same trick > > >trouble ensues. > > > > > >And, as I remember, there's a WBFLC minute on this matter (same > > >trick revoke) applying to the 1997 Law. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > It was entirely within the Drafting Committee's powers to over- > > ride a previous WBF LC minute. Indeed, the Drafting Committee > > clearly did just that when it wrote the 2007 Law 92D. > > > > Ergo, I am not convinced that the 2007 Law 64B7 "same board" is a > > typo for "same trick". To me it seems entirely sensible that if > > both sides have committed non-simultaneous revokes, then the only > > correction should be an adjusted score under the 2007 Law 64C: > > I'm sure both John and I are aware of the possibility that the WBF DSC > might have made this change deliberately. However, I don't think > that's what happened. I might be mistaken, of course. But I believe > Ton Koiijman would have made this pretty clear in his lessons on the > new laws at Hell (yeah - that's what the place outside Trondheim is > called) three weeks ago if this change was intentional. It's a pretty > big change IMO. > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > > > "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject > > to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side > > is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > > he shall assign an adjusted score." > > > > > > 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 > > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 29 12:59:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:59:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] 27B1(a) enquiry. Message-ID: <004e01c8a9e8$272879d0$4fca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <4816D5AD.5030607@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > > Herman De Wael: > >> And indeed both South(A) and South(B) have given UI to North. >> However, one of them has given the explanation that conforms >> to North's intentions (and I assume North's hand will be an >> indication of those intentions). So that particular piece of >> UI is disregarded. > > Richard Hills: > > Obtuse as well as silly. How polite! > That piece of UI is still UI since > North is now aware that her intentions have been _correctly > interpreted_. Which is the same with every single piece of correct information - we are well aware of this form of UI which is tolerated. > The simple unadorned answer of "undiscussed", > as required by the ABF, would mean that North would not > know whether South's rebid of 4NT was a Gerber response > showing three aces - South(A) - or Blackwood asking for aces > - South(B). > But he cannot use that information anyhow! You are always maintaining that it is not a crime to give UI. Yet here you are saying that the answer is UI! Look at it this way: North has a hand which is suited to either an ace-asking bid, or a majors-asking one. He makes the 4C call with a particular intention. It is very easy for the Director to then rule that he must interpret the answer along that intention, and a particular next bid will be the logical consequence. > Herman De Wael: > >> Your ABF regulation forbids the creation of certain UI. OK >> they have that right. But it's at the cost of MI. > > Richard Hills: > > Begging the question, petitio principii. The ABF does _not_ > rule that mutual implicit **partnership** understandings must > be described as "undiscussed". > Does the ABF have a standard telling the Directors when they shall accept "undiscussed" as true and when they should say that MI has occured? > ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: > > "If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a > call, you must say so (by saying "Undiscussed", for > example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. > When, however, as a result of **partnership** experience and > style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely > meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be > given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should > not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm > treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives > unauthorised information to partner." > > Herman De Wael: > >> I only want to point out that your position is not consistent. > > 2007 Law 75C > > "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did > receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; > they have no claim to an accurate description of the North- > South hands." > > 2018 Law 75C a la Herman De Wael: > > "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did > receive an accurate description of the North-South **hands**; > they have no claim to an accurate description of the North- > South **agreement**." > > Richard Hills: > > I agree that Herman has _consistently_ advocated that it is > more "truthful" to describe partner's cards than it is to > describe mutual partnership understandings. Absolutely > nothing wrong with Herman advocating the above hypothetical > 2018 change to Law 75C. (Herman might even get support for > that change from the Dutch National Appeal Committee.) > > However... > > In my opinion Herman De Wael has over-stepped the mark by > twisting the _current_ Lawbook, via heterodox interpretation, > to implement the hypothetical 2018 Law 75C a decade early. > > To that end as a player he gives MI when partner has misbid, > plus he also gives unnecessary UI when partner has made an > undiscussed call. As a TD he lets his extra-legal preferences > affect what should be legal rulings on disputed facts (ruling > "non-systemic" is automatically false). > > Most disappointingly Herman De Wael has moral authority as an > International Director, which he misuses by presenting illegal > advice to Belgian players who do not know better. > > > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 29 11:13:50 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:13:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 : before the infraction In-Reply-To: <61388888-3667-4A40-92F6-866EB9F2DB09@starpower.net> References: <4815C9C5.9020704@ulb.ac.be> <078003FF-AE60-4CE7-9DB4-C4BDB87A53CF@starpower.net> <4815E928.8080904@ulb.ac.be> <61388888-3667-4A40-92F6-866EB9F2DB09@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4816E6CE.4090604@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 28, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >>> On Apr 28, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Matchpoints, vulnerability indifferent, here are the E/W hands : >>>> >>>> AKxxx QJx >>>> Axx xxx >>>> AK xxx >>>> xxx Qxxx >>>> >>>> Obviously, there is no game. N/S don't make anything above 2 D/H. >>>> >>>> West opens 1S, North overcalls 2D and East responds 1NT. Assume we >>>> determine that East wanted to bid a forcing NT. >>>> Being told all he needs to know about L27, East knows he's fixed and >>>> decides to bid 2S. Partner is barred. Top for E/W. >>>> >>>> Now L23 cranes its neck and says "the score should be adjusted". To >>>> which contract ? >>>> >>> L23 requires that the "offender could have been aware at the time of >>> his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending >>> side". On what basis? To use L23, we would have to find that East >>> might have reason to believe that had his side reached 4S on a normal >>> auction it would be likely to go down. Otherwise we're back to >>> saying that any player who commits any irregularity ever "might" know >>> that it "could" work to his advantage. >>> >> AG : I'd say it's the case. If East wants to play 2S, no more, >> that's a >> way to achieve it. Or if you wish, substract the CQ and answer the >> same >> question. >> > > Subtract the CQ and I will almost certainly adjust. To keep their > score, East would have to convince me that his system calls for 1S- > P-1NT holding QJx/xxx/xxx/xxxx, and West would have to convince me > that, allowing for the possibility, he would not bid too much, > neither of which will be easy. > > So please allow me to ask : to what do you adjust ? Quotation of the first question : a) To the contract E/W were heading towards before the infraction ? This seems to be 2S (West reopens with a double, and East bids 2S), or perhaps 3D (NS) - 1 ; one should select the latter (the best N/S score among reasonably plausible ones). Either would be a good score for E/W (at most tables, North didn't overcall and E/W ended in 3S, sometomes 4S or 3NT). b) To the contract E/W were heading towards before the "favorable penalty" (enforced pass) was applied to the infraction ? If 2S didn't bar partner, the final contract could well be 4S. ISTM that TFLB says A, which means E/W can't lose from their infraction, which is a bit of a problem. But "restoring equity" seems to suggest B. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 29 15:20:52 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:20:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 : before the infraction In-Reply-To: <4816E6CE.4090604@ulb.ac.be> References: <4815C9C5.9020704@ulb.ac.be> <078003FF-AE60-4CE7-9DB4-C4BDB87A53CF@starpower.net> <4815E928.8080904@ulb.ac.be> <61388888-3667-4A40-92F6-866EB9F2DB09@starpower.net> <4816E6CE.4090604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <239374D6-6CD4-4786-9529-773FBEFBBADA@starpower.net> On Apr 29, 2008, at 5:13 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> On Apr 28, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> AG : I'd say it's the case. If East wants to play 2S, no more, >>> that's a >>> way to achieve it. Or if you wish, substract the CQ and answer the >>> same >>> question. >> >> Subtract the CQ and I will almost certainly adjust. To keep their >> score, East would have to convince me that his system calls for 1S- >> P-1NT holding QJx/xxx/xxx/xxxx, and West would have to convince me >> that, allowing for the possibility, he would not bid too much, >> neither of which will be easy. > > So please allow me to ask : to what do you adjust ? Quotation of the > first question : > > a) To the contract E/W were heading towards before the infraction ? > This > seems to be 2S (West reopens with a double, and East bids 2S), or > perhaps 3D (NS) - 1 ; one should select the latter (the best N/S score > among reasonably plausible ones). Either would be a good score for E/W > (at most tables, North didn't overcall and E/W ended in 3S, > sometomes 4S > or 3NT). > b) To the contract E/W were heading towards before the "favorable > penalty" (enforced pass) was applied to the infraction ? If 2S didn't > bar partner, the final contract could well be 4S. > > ISTM that TFLB says A, which means E/W can't lose from their > infraction, > which is a bit of a problem. > But "restoring equity" seems to suggest B. It is A; as Alain says, L27D unambiguously calls for "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred". E-W can "lose from their infraction" only to the extent that the TD gives "the benefit of the doubt" to N-S in determining a potential adjustment. I cannot answer the question of what I would adjust to without seeing the N-S hands (and, probably, knowing something about their methods as well). When I say "I would adjust" I mean that I would investigate to determine the appropriate "adjustment"; I do not rule out the possibility that this might turn out to be 2S, leading to a "score stands" ruling. Indeed, this is far more likely where I live than where Alain does, as the ACBL has elected to use L12C1(e). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 29 19:33:52 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:33:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 References: <001201c8a911$3b8ddc30$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> Message-ID: <002801c8aa1f$4976a700$3ecd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >Matchpoints, vulnerability indifferent, here are the E/W hands: > >AKxxx QJx >Axx xxx >AK xxx >xxx Qxxx > >Obviously, there is no game. Richard Hills quibbles: Alain instead should have said "game is unlikely". If North's shape is 4=3=2=4, and North also holds both the ace and king of clubs, then 3NT is cold. 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 Wed Apr 30 01:47:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:47:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080429205327.22F0CAE89F3@mailgw1.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 2007 Law 64B7: There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: when both sides have revoked on the same board. >What seems to be not clear to everybody (I got questions) is that we are >talking about established revokes both of them. With one side revoking >in the 12th trick for example the penalty for the other side remains >valid. > >ton 2018 Law 64B7 with footnote: There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: when both sides have revoked* on the same board. *This law does not apply if one side's revoke was not established. Or 2018 Law 64B7 without footnote: There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: when both sides have established at least one revoke each on the same board. 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 30 02:09:29 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:09:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <5CD8984F-738F-4220-AC0A-626EDA90A33A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <006601c8aa57$ca375640$0bd4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. >>>> Partner of the offender must take the RC at face >>>> value. (The offender may misbid provided his partner >>>> has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than >>>> have opponents.) If partner's action is not consistent >>>> with the meaning of the RC adjust under 27D.>> >>>> .................................................................... >>>> .. >>>> ..................... >>>> These are not 'definitive' since the statements are still being >>>> 'tested out', but they are worthy of perusal on that basis. >> >> [EL] > Nothing. I think we are meant to read the second paragraph ("must > take the RC at face value") in the context of "when 27B1(a) does not > apply [but] 27B1(b) applies". > +=+ Advice suggests my wording was too strong. It may be that we are headed towards the position reflected in this comment: " It may be more accurate (and safer) to say that a failure to take the bid at face value may lead to a 27D adjusted score." As you say, it is 27B1(b) that we are talking about. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 30 02:18:33 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:18:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: More queries on Law 27 Message-ID: <006701c8aa57$cb5ee650$0bd4403e@Mildred> > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "we that live to please > must please to live" > ~ Dr Samuel Johnson > ************************* > > +=+ Readers may be interested in my reply, expressing > personal opinions, to the following enquiry. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ==================================== > > (Question put and example cases:) > Has anything changed, deliberately or accidentally, in the 27B1(a) > situation - natural bid replaced with natural bid - from the old 1997 > law? > > 2S opening. 1NT 'undercall' - didn't see the opening bid. Was trying > to open a 14-16 1NT. > > A 2NT overcall would normally show 17-20 for the pair concerned. > The normal action would be to pass with 14-16, after which the > contract would be quietly played out in 2S which would make (i.e. > neither of the other players would have bid either). > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > (Grattan replies +=+) > The player decides to overcall 2NT anyway. I think we can quickly > agree that it is AI that he has only 14-16 HCP(?). > > +=+ Yes+=+ > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > a) partner holds 8 points, and passes (not the normal action facing > 17-20, but entirely normal facing 14-16). 2NT makes 8 tricks. > > +=+ In 1997 the partner has legitimately chosen a LA suggested > by the information that the offender has 14-16. If the information from > the IB conveyed such information as to damage the NOS the Director > adjusts the score; the Director must examine whether the IBer has > conveyed information that he was unable to convey in an irregularity > free (IF) auction. > In 2007 the partner has chosen a LA suggested by the AI that > the offender has 14-16. If the Director judges that without assistance > gained through the infraction the result could well have been different > and the NOS is damaged he adjusts the score. I see no way in which > the result could well have been different unless the IB has been able > to convey information that the IBer would be unable to convey in an > IF auction. (A subtle question here just might arise if the method of > getting the information across in an IF auction were obscure in some > circumstances and unlikely to come to mind. I think we can dismiss > this scenario from our discussion other than to say the Director should > remain alert to the question.) > Superficially at least, it seems to me that the question in both > Codes is whether the IBer has an agreed method of showing his > balanced 14-16 over the 2S opener. If he would have passed the > score should be adjusted under both Codes. The score would be > put back to 2S. +=+ > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > b) partner holds 8 points, and raises to 3NT (the normal action facing > a 17-20 2NT, but not facing 14-16). 3NT makes 9 tricks. > > +=+ Am I missing something here? The partner has ignored the IB and > the AI from it and has, in effect, taken a shot at 3NT. In 1997 the IB > has not conveyed any information on which the partner has acted. > There is no basis for score adjustment. > In 2007 the Director asks himself in what way the OS has gained > through the infraction, in what way has the OS been 'assisted' by the > infraction? I may be thinking slowly, but when the partner defies the > odds and gets lucky I do not see it as anything but rub-of-the-green. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > c) partner holds 11 points and raises to 3NT - the normal thing to > do facing either range. 3NT makes 10 tricks. > > +=+ Now we have a tricky situation. The IB has (1997) 'conveyed such > information as to damage the NOS', the OS has (2007) assistance > gained through the infraction. So the score is to be adjusted. > The 2007 requirement is to "recover as nearly as possible the > probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred". > Now I must challenge the assertion that following the IBer's Pass his > partner would also pass. With eleven points, knowing that the player > would pass a balanced 14-16 you are asking me to believe that the > partner would take no action, whereas I am thinking that a proportion > of players using these methods would not pass in the partner's position > with 11HCP. (What proportion would be down to the class of player.) > Unless forbidden by regulation a weighted adjusted score seems a likely > decision to me. > For the 1997 basis of adjustment we must go to Law 12, and a > 12C3 adjustment would be targeted "to do equity". What is 'equity'? > In 2007 the Law 12C1(c) 'in order to do equity' is probably the same > thing as 'the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not > occurred' (Law 27D) but, whatever, the latter is what applies here. +=+ > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > +=+ I feel that I have not grasped your point. . I have wrestled > with the above opinions, largely because I worried that your gremlins > did not seem to be biting me. But until my eyes are opened some > more these are my best efforts. In case (c) the IB has helped the side > to its action in a situation where if offender had passed his partner > would have had to judge whether to balance or not. With a full > opener opposite a smoothly passing player the partner, if at all awake, > would have a near 100% probability of doing so; with 9-11HCP in > a situation where the partnership method over a weak two is to pass > a balanced 14-16, the partner is under pressure to judge his action.+=+ > ================================================ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 30 02:58:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:58:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: <001a01c8aa5d$5269b940$d25f9951@stefanie> DALB: > I am not referring to cases where a player deliberately breaks a Law. I am > referring to cases in which, a Law having inadvertently been broken, a > player must (in effect) communicate illegally with his partner in order > not > to suffer from having broken it. > > ton: > I know you as using your words very carefully, so please tell me why a > player must communicate ilegally after having made an insufficient bid? (I > know that by making the insufficient bid he communicates illegally.) > Isn't it obvious? After 1H-1H, corrected to 2H, the IBer must communicate illegally in order to let him know whether this bid is a minimum raise to 2 or a game-forcing raise. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 30 08:21:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:21:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >There is a subtle suggestion in the above that an RC that could >be made without penalty under either L27B1(a) or L27B1(b) is to >be treated by applying L27B1(a). Was that intended? Richard Hills: There is a subtle suggestion in the above that an RC that could be made without penalty under either L27B1(a) or L27B1(b) may not be treated by applying L27B2. Was that intended? 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 Wed Apr 30 08:56:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:56:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] 27B1(a) enquiry. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01c8a9e8$272879d0$4fca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott replies: >+=+ Readers may be interested in my reply, expressing personal >opinions, to the following enquiry. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >==================================== > >(Question put:) >Has anything changed, deliberately or accidentally, in the 27B1(a) >situation - natural bid replaced with natural bid - from the old >1997 law? > >2S opening. 1NT 'undercall' - didn't see the opening bid. Was >trying to open a 14-16 1NT. > >A 2NT overcall would normally show 17-20 for the pair concerned. >The normal action would be to pass with 14-16, after which the >contract would be quietly played out in 2S which would make (i.e. >neither of the other players would have bid either). >------------------------------------------------------------------ >(Grattan replies +=+) >The player decides to overcall 2NT anyway. I think we can quickly >agree that it is AI that he has only 14-16 HCP(?). > >+=+ Yes+=+ Richard Hills asks: Yes and No? In my impersonal non-opinion? What if a 1NT overcall of 1S is also 17-20 HCP, so the undercaller might have merely mistaken the number of spades bid by RHO? What is the mandatory AI then? Is the undercaller required to volunteer her reason for the undercall to the table and the Director? Or merely to the TD? Or is the undercaller permitted to keep schtum, causing the Law 27B1 "Director's opinion" to be formed on externalities, not on the undercaller's intent? 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 30 09:26:46 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:26:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [paul lamford] "The partner of the person making an RC under Law 27b must assume that the RC has the systemic meaning for that partnership. Vioaltions are treated in the same way as a fielded systemic misbid." ton: To be honest, I do not understand this ongoing discussion. Why don't you all just follow the laws instead of trying to formulate new ones. I am willing to accept the idea that for the next one we open applications. Don't be impatient: given our recent experience this will start in two years time. But we demand some knowledge of the laws, don't worry not more than mine. Take L27. It seems that many of you were not aware of the exact content of the old/present one. At this moment after (N-S): 1H - 1H south may bid 2H without further restriction. Nobody has complained during the last 10 years but now most of you start complaining. Take Paul above: What is the sense behind giving 2H the systematic meaning? It is a huge penalty which makes the whole treatment useless. We want the auction to be continued as normal as possible. And with new L27B1b we wanted to extend this approach. So may I suggest to stop this discussion and to concentrate on the appplication of this law as it was meant? For example: N E S W 1NT - pass - 2H - 3C 2S not accepted. NS do not have any agreement of special answers after a transfer bid, they always bid 2 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 30 09:31:20 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:31:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. Message-ID: [paul lamford] "The partner of the person making an RC under Law 27b must assume that the RC has the systemic meaning for that partnership. Vioaltions are treated in the same way as a fielded systemic misbid." ton: To be honest, I do not understand this ongoing discussion. Why don't you all just follow the laws instead of trying to formulate new ones. I am willing to accept the idea that for the next one we open applications. Don't be impatient: given our recent experience this will start in two years time. But we demand some knowledge of the laws, don't worry not more than mine. Take L27. It seems that many of you were not aware of the exact content of the old/present one. At this moment after (N-S): 1H - 1H south may bid 2H without further restriction. Nobody has complained during the last 10 years but now most of you start complaining. Take Paul above: What is the sense behind giving 2H the systematic meaning? It is a huge penalty which makes the whole treatment useless. We want the auction to be continued as normal as possible. And with new L27B1b we wanted to extend this approach. So may I suggest to stop this discussion and to concentrate on the appplication of this law as it was meant? For example: N E S W 1NT - pass - 2H - 3C 2S not accepted. NS do not have any agreement of special answers after a transfer bid, they always bid 2S. Do we agree that N may make any call he wants now and that the auction then continues without any restriction? ton From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 30 09:56:05 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 : before the infraction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4815E928.8080904@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c8aa97$a51d17b0$ef574710$@com> Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >Matchpoints, vulnerability indifferent, here are the E/W hands: > >AKxxx QJx >Axx xxx >AK xxx >xxx Qxxx > >Obviously, there is no game. Richard Hills quibbles: Alain instead should have said "game is unlikely". If North's shape is 4=3=2=4, and North also holds both the ace and king of clubs, then 3NT is cold. David Burn remarks that "unlikely" is too mild a term for describing the probability that North has overcalled 2D on a doubleton. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 30 11:03:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:03:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 References: <001b01c8a8bf$a4eaa480$0901a8c0@JOHN><00b601c8a93a$ed143160$67ce403e@Mildred> <002301c8a995$48360460$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <004d01c8aaa4$74fdd5d0$47cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 > >> +=+ I think you should read the law as it is written. Why should >> you think what it says was not intended? > > Mainly because of the problems where both sides revoke on a > single trick and the guidance handed down re 1997 Laws. it's not > a big deal when one side revokes at trick 3; calls you at trick 5, > so you assess the penalty and the other side revokes a trick 7 so > now you assess a further penalty, whereas in future you cancel > the previous penalty. We've never been close to that scenario. I > don't mind either way, but it seems an odd change to me, and if > that's what was intended, fine. > >> +=+ Well, the fact is that the item was discussed in some detail and, with varying degrees of enthusiasm among the DSC members, it was agreed that tricks passing to and fro on the same board should be avoided. By the way, I understood that you would decide whether the revoke was established when first called to the table; I had thought under the 1997 code you would leave the nature of the penalty to the end of the hand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 30 11:19:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:19:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another Law 25A case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004e01c8aaa4$75fcf650$47cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Another Law 25A case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> . "Unintended" must mean that you did not reach for >>the bid or ever plan to take it out of the box. Remember the >>1997 25B? A bid made with a "stopped brain" is not necessarily >>a mechanical error. > > WBF LC minutes, 30th August 2000 (EBU White Book paraphrase): > > What is inadvertent? Assume the player intends to do one > thing at the moment he reaches for the bidding box, or his > pen or pencil if using written bidding, or for the bidding > board, or starts to speak. Then it is inadvertent if his > attention is drawn in that instant to some other matter and > then he finds he has actually done something different. His > mind has switched away from what he was doing. > +=+ Do not overlook the fact that 'unintended' is listed in the Definitions at the front of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 30 11:39:15 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:39:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <4816F4DD00A579FC@mail-10-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-10.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <002a01c8aaa6$1286db20$47cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > > > [GE] > >>> +=+ I quote from some current explorations of 27B:- >>> ...................................................................... >>> ..................... >>> << When 27B1(a) does not apply 27B1(b) applies if >>> (i) the RC has the same meaning as the IB, or >>> (ii) the RC has a meaning fully contained within the >>> meaning of the IB and is more precise in regard to >>> what it shows and what it excludes. >>> >>> Partner of the offender must take the RC at face >>> value. (The offender may misbid provided his partner >>> has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than >>> have opponents.) If partner's action is not consistent >>> with the meaning of the RC adjust under 27D.>> >>> ...................................................................... >>> ..................... >>> These are not 'definitive' since the statements are still being >>> 'tested out', but they are worthy of perusal on that basis. > > [EL] > >> Excellent guideline. We seem to be moving towards a workable notion >> of how to apply the new L27B1 at the table. > > [DALB] > > Pleased to hear it. But what is meant by "face value"? > > It has been said that under the current Law 27 as much as under the future > Law 27, when North opens 1H and sees that South has already opened 1H and > West has passed, North may correct to a natural and forcing 2H. When South > opens 1H and North, thinking that South has opened 1D, responds 1H, North > may correct to a natural and non-forcing 2H. What has this to do with > taking > the RC at "face value"? > > David Burn > London, England > > ton: > Good question, whatever 'face value' means this statement given by Grattan > here is not at all a Laws Committee opinion, nor does it express the > meaning > of L27. > > ton > +=+ I made it clear it was not a Laws Committee opinion - we do not have one yet. In the meantime I repeat my subsequent response: < Advice suggests my wording was too strong. It may be that we are headed towards the position reflected in this comment: " It may be more accurate (and safer) to say that a failure to take the bid at face value may lead to a 27D adjusted score." As you say, it is 27B1(b) that we are talking about.> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Apr 30 12:06:32 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:06:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <001a01c8aa5d$5269b940$d25f9951@stefanie> Message-ID: DALB: > I am not referring to cases where a player deliberately breaks a Law. > I am referring to cases in which, a Law having inadvertently been > broken, a player must (in effect) communicate illegally with his > partner in order not to suffer from having broken it. > > ton: > I know you as using your words very carefully, so please tell me why a > player must communicate ilegally after having made an insufficient > bid? (I know that by making the insufficient bid he communicates > illegally.) > Isn't it obvious? After 1H-1H, corrected to 2H, the IBer must communicate illegally in order to let him know whether this bid is a minimum raise to 2 or a game-forcing raise. Stefanie Rohan London, England You ask whether it isn't obvious? Not to me. Are you trying to say that players will arrange illegal communication to tell partner what the meaning of the IB was? Or are you saying that the only way to tell partner what the meaning is, is by illegal means? ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 30 14:50:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:50:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <001a01c8aa5d$5269b940$d25f9951@stefanie> References: <001a01c8aa5d$5269b940$d25f9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <557F025A-81EC-4532-A677-790331685991@starpower.net> On Apr 29, 2008, at 8:58 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > DALB: > >> I am not referring to cases where a player deliberately breaks a >> Law. I am >> referring to cases in which, a Law having inadvertently been >> broken, a >> player must (in effect) communicate illegally with his partner in >> order >> not >> to suffer from having broken it. >> >> ton: >> I know you as using your words very carefully, so please tell me >> why a >> player must communicate ilegally after having made an insufficient >> bid? (I >> know that by making the insufficient bid he communicates illegally.) > > Isn't it obvious? After 1H-1H, corrected to 2H, the IBer must > communicate > illegally in order to let him know whether this bid is a minimum > raise to 2 > or a game-forcing raise. Stefanie again assumes her conclusion. It is "obvious" that "the IBer must communicate", but whether he does so "illegally" is precisely the question being examined. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 30 14:58:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:58:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <200804300728.ILF06223@mr11.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <200804300728.ILF06223@mr11.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: <3D4E32F5-341E-4602-A770-599D264ACDD7@starpower.net> On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:26 AM, ton wrote: > [paul lamford] > > "The partner of the person making an RC under Law 27b must assume > that the > RC has the systemic meaning for that partnership. Vioaltions are > treated in > the same way as a fielded systemic misbid." > > ton: > To be honest, I do not understand this ongoing discussion. Why > don't you all > just follow the laws instead of trying to formulate new ones. I am > willing > to accept the idea that for the next one we open applications. > Don't be > impatient: given our recent experience this will start in two years > time. > > But we demand some knowledge of the laws, don't worry not more than > mine. > > Take L27. It seems that many of you were not aware of the exact > content of > the old/present one. At this moment after (N-S): 1H - 1H south may > bid 2H > without further restriction. Nobody has complained during the last > 10 years [actually the last 45 years *at least*; I am not familiar with the laws or precedents prior to 1963] > but now most of you start complaining. > > Take Paul above: What is the sense behind giving 2H the systematic > meaning? > It is a huge penalty which makes the whole treatment useless. We > want the > auction to be continued as normal as possible. And with new L27B1b > we wanted > to extend this approach. > > So may I suggest to stop this discussion and to concentrate on the > appplication of this law as it was meant? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 30 15:28:25 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:28:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <3D4E32F5-341E-4602-A770-599D264ACDD7@starpower.net> Message-ID: On 30/04/2008 13:58, "Eric Landau" wrote: > On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:26 AM, ton wrote: > >> [paul lamford] >> >> "The partner of the person making an RC under Law 27b must assume >> that the >> RC has the systemic meaning for that partnership. Vioaltions are >> treated in >> the same way as a fielded systemic misbid." >> >> ton: >> To be honest, I do not understand this ongoing discussion. Why >> don't you all >> just follow the laws instead of trying to formulate new ones. I am >> willing >> to accept the idea that for the next one we open applications. >> Don't be >> impatient: given our recent experience this will start in two years >> time. >> >> But we demand some knowledge of the laws, don't worry not more than >> mine. >> >> Take L27. It seems that many of you were not aware of the exact >> content of >> the old/present one. At this moment after (N-S): 1H - 1H south may >> bid 2H >> without further restriction. Nobody has complained during the last >> 10 years > > [actually the last 45 years *at least*; I am not familiar with the > laws or precedents prior to 1963] > >> but now most of you start complaining. >> >> Take Paul above: What is the sense behind giving 2H the systematic >> meaning? >> It is a huge penalty which makes the whole treatment useless. We >> want the >> auction to be continued as normal as possible. And with new L27B1b >> we wanted >> to extend this approach. >> >> So may I suggest to stop this discussion and to concentrate on the >> appplication of this law as it was meant? The fact that nobody has complained during the last 45 years is because no one, in my experience, has ever applied the Law in the fashion suggested by Ton. Law 27 currently says: If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred (Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, but see (b) following). But under Ton's interpretation the auction does not proceed as though the irregularity had not occurred. 1H-2H is not forcing, so any auction that follows 1H-2H (forcing) will not be (or is most unlikely to be) an auction that would have happened had there not been an irregularity. The reference to 16C2 (or 16D in the new code) is mildly perplexing. 16C2 says: For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information. Now, what does it mean to say "this does not apply"? Does it mean "the converse of this does apply"? (in which case all information arising from withdrawn actions is authorised, including the reason for taking the withdrawn action in the first place). Or does it mean "this does not apply, so the rest of the Laws relating to UI must be used to determine whether this particular kind of I is U or not"? In that case, a player may not base his actions on his partner's insufficient bids, because they are not legal calls. In order to do what it wants to do (and in order to shorten and simplify the Lawbook considerably), the WBFLC should say: Any illegal call that is not accepted must, at the player's turn to call, be replaced by a legal call. Any information arising from the illegal call is unauthorised to the offending side, but authorised to the non-offending side. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 30 15:46:16 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:46:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 : before the infraction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48187828.5000101@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner asserted: > > >> Matchpoints, vulnerability indifferent, here are the E/W hands: >> >> AKxxx QJx >> Axx xxx >> AK xxx >> xxx Qxxx >> >> Obviously, there is no game. >> > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Alain instead should have said "game is unlikely". If North's > shape is 4=3=2=4, and North also holds both the ace and king of > clubs, then 3NT is cold. > > Alain conterquibbles : with North inserting a 2D bid, this pattern is quite unlikely. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 30 15:40:16 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:40:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <006401c8aac9$80edddc0$fccb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 2007 Law 64B7: > > There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: > when both sides have revoked on the same board. > >>What seems to be not clear to everybody (I got questions) is > that we are talking about established revokes both of them. With >one side revoking in the 12th trick for example the penalty for the > other side remains valid. >> >>ton > +=+ It is questionable whether the above is actually what the law says - Law 64B7: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke ........when both sides have revoked on the same board" Law 61A: "Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke." It is only in reading this thread that I have opened my eyes to the question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 30 19:17:16 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:17:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] protected scores. References: <000901c8a8b8$0ab1c350$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4816EBA7.7070408@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <008c01c8aae6$09c49fa0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] protected scores. John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > So, I play a 3 session event; 67%, 54%; 62%. all-play-all. Nice little 61, > might even be enough to win. > > Owing to loud discussion at a previous table I can't play one of the > boards. > Which session do I want this to happen in? Which session do I definitely > NOT > want it to happen in? i think the question is not clear and the answer is not obvious. if we assume, for example, each session to have 30 boards, it's not clear what is meant by your score in one session: your score over 30 effectively played boards? over 29 boards with 1 unplayable board? maybe a realistic way to modelize the problem would be to consider the scores of 67, 54, 62 over 29 boards, leaving one board to be played (or canceled) in every session. from this point we need to know a variable about the field, in order to advance: - 1st hypothesis: homogeneous field. you score a mean of 61% against it and the scores of 67, 54, 62 are only fluctuations around the 61 mean. if you have to play one more board in any session, your expected result is 61. so, you had better not play the 30th board in session 1, so as to score 67, 61 and 61 on the 3 remaining boards. (better than 61, 60, 61 or 61, 61, 62). - 2nd hypothesis: the field is not homogeneous in the 3 sessions, and your scores exactly reflect their value (and/or your present state of form maybe?). if you have to play one more board in each session, your expected result on this board will be 67 in the first one, 54 and 62 in the other ones. so you had better fail to play the 30th board in session 2, in order to score 67, 60, 62 on the 3 remaining boards, better than 67, 54, 62 otherwise. Accept your point about lack of clarity. The point at issue of course is that if you play a marathon 78 board session you'd have been awarded 61%, regardless of outcomes in the original case. It seems a tad artificial to me to allocate an assigned score based on some ostensibly random part of a complete event. John jpr > > Law 12. John > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 30 19:38:30 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:38:30 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: [Stefanie Rohan] Isn't it obvious? After 1H-1H, corrected to 2H, the IBer must communicate illegally in order to let (his partner) know whether this bid is a minimum raise to 2 or a game-forcing raise. [David Burn] Any illegal call that is not accepted must, at the player's turn to call, be replaced by a legal call. Any information arising from the illegal call is unauthorised to the offending side, but authorised to the non-offending side. [paul lamford] I wholeheartedly agree with both Stefanie and David. Indeed I can see nothing in the laws which allows for the person making the insufficient bid to make any statement at all such as: a) I thought I was dealer b) I did not see the overcall c) Hey, I am new to this game, by next week I should know the order of the suits. As far as I can see the director tells the IBer the law, and the latter makes a correction without giving a speech first. I don't see why the director needs to find out what the IBer thought, giving UI to the rest of the table. He just quotes the law and lets the IBer get on with it. If the IBer makes a bid that silences his partner, then there are laws to cover that. As Ton says, "Why don't you all just follow the laws instead of trying to formulate new ones." Indeed, where is the one which says that the IBer announces what he thought the auction was? We can of course just be happy if the responder is allowed to tell the world and his dog what mishap occurred. I can imagine the auction going: 1H - (Pass) - 1H (Player announces he did not see the 1H bid by his partner and corrects to 2H which is alerted). Next player: "Yes?". After the IB, we play that as showing a Jacoby 2NT. Auction continues: 3H (alerted). "Yes?" from the next chap. "A singleton spade". "And what would 2S have shown?" "We have agreed not to use 2S and 2NT in this sequence to avoid a 27d adjusted score." Fine, if this is the way you want to play your bridge. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 30 20:22:17 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:22:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2158D870-C518-4B9D-B0CC-CDB92C37319C@starpower.net> On Apr 30, 2008, at 9:28 AM, David Burn wrote: > On 30/04/2008 13:58, "Eric Landau" wrote: > >> On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:26 AM, ton wrote: >> >>> To be honest, I do not understand this ongoing discussion. Why >>> don't you all >>> just follow the laws instead of trying to formulate new ones. I am >>> willing >>> to accept the idea that for the next one we open applications. >>> Don't be >>> impatient: given our recent experience this will start in two years >>> time. >>> >>> But we demand some knowledge of the laws, don't worry not more than >>> mine. >>> >>> Take L27. It seems that many of you were not aware of the exact >>> content of >>> the old/present one. At this moment after (N-S): 1H - 1H south may >>> bid 2H >>> without further restriction. Nobody has complained during the last >>> 10 years >> >> [actually the last 45 years *at least*; I am not familiar with the >> laws or precedents prior to 1963] >> >>> but now most of you start complaining. >>> >>> Take Paul above: What is the sense behind giving 2H the systematic >>> meaning? >>> It is a huge penalty which makes the whole treatment useless. We >>> want the >>> auction to be continued as normal as possible. And with new L27B1b >>> we wanted >>> to extend this approach. >>> >>> So may I suggest to stop this discussion and to concentrate on the >>> appplication of this law as it was meant? > > The fact that nobody has complained during the last 45 years is > because no > one, in my experience, has ever applied the Law in the fashion > suggested by > Ton. Could that be a trans-Atlantic difference? This is how is has always worked IME, admittedly strictly limited to ACBL. > Law 27 currently says: > > If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are > incontrovertibly > not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the lowest > sufficient bid in > the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though the > irregularity had > not occurred (Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, but see (b) > following). > > But under Ton's interpretation the auction does not proceed as > though the > irregularity had not occurred. 1H-2H is not forcing, so any auction > that > follows 1H-2H (forcing) will not be (or is most unlikely to be) an > auction > that would have happened had there not been an irregularity. I (and I assume, as nobody has told me otherwise in the past 45 years, the ACBL) have always read "as though the irregularity had not occurred" as referring to the applicability of the law, not to the actions of the players. If it meant the latter, wouldn't it constrain the actions of the NOS to the same degree as the actions of the IBer's side? That doesn't seem right > The reference to 16C2 (or 16D in the new code) is mildly > perplexing. 16C2 > says: > > For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn > action > and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is > unauthorised. A > player of the offending side may not choose from among logical > alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested > over another by the unauthorised information. > > Now, what does it mean to say "this does not apply"? Does it mean "the > converse of this does apply"? (in which case all information > arising from > withdrawn actions is authorised, including the reason for taking the > withdrawn action in the first place). Or does it mean "this does > not apply, > so the rest of the Laws relating to UI must be used to determine > whether > this particular kind of I is U or not"? In that case, a player may > not base > his actions on his partner's insufficient bids, because they are > not legal > calls. It doesn't sound perplexing. "Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, but see (b) following." That sounds to me like a straightforward instruction to use "(b) following" instead of L16C2. > In order to do what it wants to do (and in order to shorten and > simplify the > Lawbook considerably), the WBFLC should say: > > Any illegal call that is not accepted must, at the player's turn to > call, be > replaced by a legal call. Any information arising from the illegal > call is > unauthorised to the offending side, but authorised to the non- > offending > side. Wouldn't that contradict David's reading of "as though the irregularity had not occurred"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 30 20:31:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:31:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Stefanie Rohan] > Isn't it obvious? After 1H-1H, corrected to 2H, the IBer must > communicate > illegally in order to let (his partner) know whether this bid is a > minimum > raise to 2 > or a game-forcing raise. > > [David Burn] > Any illegal call that is not accepted must, at the player's turn to > call, be > replaced by a legal call. Any information arising from the illegal > call is > unauthorised to the offending side, but authorised to the non- > offending > side. But that is exactly what L16D says. And, as explicitly as could possibly have been written, "Law 16D does not apply". Am I missing some other law in TFLB, not L16D, that says that information from a withdrawn illegal call is UI to the OS and AI to the NOS? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 30 23:15:41 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:15:41 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: [Eric Landau] I (and I assume, as nobody has told me otherwise in the past 45 years, the ACBL) have always read "as though the irregularity had not occurred" as referring to the applicability of the law, not to the actions of the players. [paul lamford] Law 27 currently says: If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional I can accept the arguments that the auction proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred means "that no further legal restriction is put on the auction". Where it says that "Law 16C2 does not apply" I think there is an assumption that the substituted bid a level higher contains similar information to the original bid. The next question is whether 1H - (Pass) - 1H changed to 2H (showing a game-forcing heart raise with 5 hearts) is conventional. I must confess that I did not follow the discussion of what constituted a conventional bid, some time ago in BLML, closely enough to know, but others will be able to clarify this, and I do not see conventional in the definitions. If it is deemed to be so, and I think it meets the meaning of artificial in the definitions at the front of the laws, then this would prevent the player correcting to 2H. From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Wed Apr 30 21:38:16 2008 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Steffens?=) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:38:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] How to... for TDs concerning Law 27? Message-ID: <000301c8aaf9$bc5b5560$1810a8c0@FK27.local> Forgive me if this has been discussed before, I have been unable to unearth a thread about this subject. I would be very interested in the experiences of TDs that already work with the 2007 Laws and I would like to know if any guidelines have been published for TDs about how to implement Law 27 at the table. Questions I have are: -Should the TD limit himself to explaining this Law and offer no assistance in finding a RB that satisfies the conditions of Law 27B1? -Is the offender entitled to the TD's opinion as to whether offender's proposed RB will silence partner before actually making it? -Should the TD take an offender's statement that his proposed RB satisfies the criteria of Law 27B1 at face value? -If so, how to adjust when it surfaces that the RB did after all not meet the conditions of Law 27B1? I appreciate you answers! Andr? Steffens -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080430/00ab9262/attachment.htm From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 30 23:14:28 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:14:28 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. Message-ID: [Eric Landau] I (and I assume, as nobody has told me otherwise in the past 45 years, the ACBL) have always read "as though the irregularity had not occurred" as referring to the applicability of the law, not to the actions of the players. [paul lamford] Law 27 currently says: If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional I can accept the arguments that the auction proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred means "that no further legal restriction is put on the auction". Where it says that "Law 16C2 does not apply" I think there is an assumption that the substituted bid a level higher contains similar information to the original bid. The next question is whether 1H - (Pass) - 1H changed to 2H (showing a game-forcing heart raise with 5 hearts) is conventional. I must confess that I did not follow the discussion of what constituted a conventional bid, some time ago in BLML, closely enough to know, but others will be able to clarify this, and I do not see conventional in the definitions. If it is deemed to be so, and I think it meets the meaning of artificial in the definitions at the front of the laws, then this would prevent the player correcting to 2H. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080430/cd72e051/attachment.htm