From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu May 1 00:57:08 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:57:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <001a01c8aa5d$5269b940$d25f9951@stefanie> <557F025A-81EC-4532-A677-790331685991@starpower.net> Message-ID: <029201c8ab15$84cfc150$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.) SR: >> 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. EL; > 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. Well, there is nothing in the Laws to indicate that this type of communication is legal in this case. In any case, when it is stated as baldly as above I think we can all agree that it is undesirable. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu May 1 00:58:28 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:58:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: <029801c8ab15$b44346f0$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.) SR: > 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. > Ton: > > 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? Not "arrange". Ton: >Or are you saying that the only way to tell partner what the > meaning is, is by illegal means? Can you suggest a legal way? Stefanie Rohan London, England From henk at amsterdamned.org Thu May 1 01:01:00 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 May 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 Thu May 1 01:01:03 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 01:01:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for April 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 117 ehaa (at) starpower.net 103 hermandw (at) skynet.be 101 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 94 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 46 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 42 john (at) asimere.com 41 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 35 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 28 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 25 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 17 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 16 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 14 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 13 Gampas (at) aol.com 12 svenpran (at) online.no 9 swillner (at) nhcc.net 7 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 6 rbusch (at) ozemail.com.au 5 sater (at) xs4all.nl 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 4 geller (at) nifty.com 3 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 3 mustikka (at) charter.net 3 kgrauwel (at) hotmail.com 3 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 3 henk (at) ripe.net 3 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 2 schoderb (at) msn.com 2 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 2 jimfox00 (at) cox.net 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 emu (at) fwi.net.au 2 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 1 martino (at) bridgenz.co.nz 1 la7sg (at) nrrl.no 1 karel (at) esatclear.ie 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm 1 jpgss (at) uq.net.au 1 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 1 adam (at) irvine.com 1 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu May 1 01:01:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 00:01:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: Message-ID: <02a201c8ab16$32027070$d25f9951@stefanie> >> [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. > EL: > But that is exactly what L16D says. And, as explicitly as could > possibly have been written, "Law 16D does not apply". This is indeed unfortunate, but... > 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? No. But it is the information from the CALL that is now AI, not "the call and the IBer's explanation of what the call was intended to mean". Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu May 1 01:08:02 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 00:08:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 : before the infraction 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: <02ac01c8ab17$0a3e9450$d25f9951@stefanie> AG: 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. SR: Well, yes. It seems to be the case that the new Law was written precisely to ensure that E/W cannot lose from their infraction, and, yes, many of us feel that this is indeed a problem. AG: But "restoring equity" seems to suggest B. SR: This is a more sensible adjustment. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 1 03:43:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:43:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Another Law 25A case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01c8aaa4$75fcf650$47cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >>"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): [snipped, no longer relevant] Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Do not overlook the fact that 'unintended' is listed in >the Definitions at the front of the laws. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 2007 Definitions: Unintended - involuntary; not under control of the will; not the intention of the player at the moment of his action. Richard Hills: Yes, it is to the credit of the Drafting Sub-Committee that they fixed many "Beware of the leopard" problems by choosing to incorporate updated versions of many WBF LC interpretative minutes into the 2007 Lawbook itself. Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything." "But the plans were on display..." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a torch." "Ah, well the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard'." 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 May 1 04:22:31 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:22:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:38:30 -0400, 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. > > [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. Even in the old law, the director needed to know what the insufficient bid "meant". For example, a 2C bid over 2D could be corrected to 3C if it was meant to be a natural club overcall, but not if it was meant as a strong 2C opening. (I assume.) So the director has to determine the meaning of the insufficient bid. In Law 27, the director has to make this decision to know whether or not partner is barred. That means making this decision at least after the bid is made. I was planning on making it before so that the insufficient bidder knows if the planned RC will bar partner. To me, if the insufficient bidder says "I thought I was opening the bidding", that is UI to partner. As director, I would not announce the intended meaning of the insufficient bid. (I think Eric plans to announce this.) That means either looking at the hand of the insufficient bidder or talking to the insufficient bidder away from the table. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 1 04:53:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 12:53:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Summary of Zone 7 Laws Committee Law 27 interpretations by Arie Geursen, CTD New Zealand: Law 27B1(a) Not conventional and corrected by lowest sufficient bid in same denomination * As before, a player is still permitted to replace an insufficient bid with a bid in the same denomination at the lowest legal level without restriction provided that, in the opinion of the Director, neither the insufficient bid nor the substituted bid is artificial. * The auction continues normally and the information that the bid was intended to be natural is authorised to all players at the table and therefore Law 16D does not apply. Law 27B1(b) Corrected with a call that has the same, or more precise meaning. * In addition, players are also permitted to substitute other legal calls without restriction (even if they are artificial) provided that, in the opinion of the Director the selected call has: * the same meaning as the insufficient bid or; * a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid (i.e. the replacement conveys the same or more precise information). Law 27B2 Corrected by any legal call not permitted under Law 27B1 * Unless permitted under Law 27B1, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or a pass, the offender?s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Laws 23 & 26 may apply Law 27B1 or B2 Correct Procedure * In order for the Director to correctly exercise this discretion, he/she must first determine the offending player?s original intent at the time of the infraction and then investigate the pair's methods. * This will often entail quizzing the players away from the table and/or an examination of the pair?s system card. Only after these investigations should the Director then explain the options. Note that: * A truly unintentional action may be corrected via Law 25. * If the Director is unclear whether to allow the correction without restriction under Law 27B1(b), or to require the offender?s partner to pass throughout the remainder of the auction under Law 27B2, the Director is advised to err on the side of applying Law 27B1(b) but stand ready to apply 27D. * I.e. the inclination of the Director ought to be on obtaining a normal bridge result wherever possible. Law 27D Non-offending side Damaged * When you allow correction of an insufficient bid without restriction, you should always advise the non-offending side to call you back at the end of play if they consider that the outcome may have been different had the offender?s partner not had the assistance of the withdrawn bid. * If so, the score should be adjusted to the most likely outcome(s), had the insufficient bid not occurred. * Under no circumstances may any weight be given to the perceived benefit that might have accrued to the non-offending side if the Director had elected to bar the partner from the auction (even if it subsequently transpires, that it may have been the more appropriate action, i.e. it is not a Directors? error). Law 27B3 Replacement with a double not permitted under Law 27B1. Except as allowed for under Law 27B1, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or redouble for his insufficient bid, the double or redouble is cancelled and the offender must instead substitute a sufficient bid or pass. Now his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Law 23 and 26 may apply. Law 27B4 Replacement with another Insufficient Bid If the offender attempts to substitute one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid, unless LHO accepts it, the 2nd call is cancelled and he must substitute a sufficient bid or pass (but not a double or re-double) and his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Law 23 and 26 may apply. Law 27C Premature Replacement of an Insufficient Bid. If the offender attempts to replace his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, LHO may still accept the insufficient bid otherwise the substitution stands and the Director either applies 27B1 or 27B2 to the substitution. *Note: This happens a lot Insufficient bid - Examples West East 1S 3S 4NT 4D If the Director is satisfied that East was answering Blackwood but at the wrong level, then East will be allowed to correct to 5D without any restriction. West North East 1D 1S 1H * If 1H was intended to show at least four hearts and enough HCP to respond, then a replacement of 2H is permitted under Law 27B1(a) without any further restriction. * Alternatively, if a negative double by East would systemically guarantee at least a four-card heart holding, then East could also replace the 1H with a double under Law 27B1(b) without restriction. * However, a pass would not convey a heart suit and therefore Law 27B2 applies, i.e. partner will have to pass whenever it is his/her turn to call and Laws 23 and 26 may also apply. West North East 1NT 2S 2D * If East's intention was to transfer to hearts (he did not see the 2S bid), then a replacement bid of 3H would not bar his partner. West North East 1NT 2D 2C * 2C was intended as simple Stayman. A Lebensohl-type cue bid replacement of 3D (asking about a four-card major) would now have the same meaning as the original insufficient bid and thus not bar West. * Alternatively, if the Director is satisfied that the player intended to bid 3C naturally, he/she allows that change without restriction under Law 27B1(b). West East 2NT 2H * If 2H was intended as a transfer, then a bid of 3H (still transferring) would permit the auction to continue without constraints. West North East 1S 2H 1NT * The substitution of 2NT is permitted without restriction under Law 27B1(a) if both 1NT and 2NT are natural. * The information that East's HCP range might well be different from that of an original 2NT response is authorised to both sides but Law 27D will apply if the offending side achieves a favourable result that would not have been possible without the infraction (such as stopping in 2NT when it makes only eight tricks if played by East). * The replacement of 1NT with 2NT also is permitted without restriction under Law 27B1(b) if the Director is satisfied that this was East's original incontrovertible intention. Insufficient Bid How to proceed at the table Summary: Most insufficient bids arise from either a failure to observe the call of RHO or a general confusion about the current level of the auction. Therefore, in applying Law 27, the Director should proceed as follows: 1. Remove the offender from the table and determine his/her original intent and the specific meaning of the intended call (take a peek if that avoids having to take the offender from the table every time). 2. Verify the general methods of the partnership and, if necessary, consult the offender's system card or any other system notes. 3. Determine the possible replacement calls available and their meaning. 4. Return to the table and explain all the options to the players (including that LHO has the option of accepting the insufficient bid as per Law 27A). 5. Allow the (fully informed) player to select a replacement call and then, based upon the investigations detailed in steps (1)-(3), apply either Law 27B1 or Law 27B2. 6. If Law 27B1 is applied, inform the non-offending side of their right to apply for an adjusted score at the end of play if they believe that the outcome of the board would have been different without the assistance of the insufficient bid. 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 May 1 09:31:48 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 09:31:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <006601c8aa57$ca375640$0bd4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: " 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 ~ +=+ ton: Safer it is, not more accurate. This, simply spoken, should not be the way to look at it. L27D is clear: there will be an AS if without the assistance of the IB the result could well have been different. Not taken the RC at face value can't be called a failure. On the contrary: it is a bridge technical failure, or one by the TD, to take it at face value. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu May 1 09:58:36 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 09:58:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <2158D870-C518-4B9D-B0CC-CDB92C37319C@starpower.net> Message-ID: ton: >>> So may I suggest to stop this discussion and to concentrate on the >>> appplication of this law as it was meant? > David: > 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. Eric: Could that be a trans-Atlantic difference? This is how is has always worked IME, admittedly strictly limited to ACBL. ton: This is 19th century talking, England-USA being the only powers meaning something. What I know is that in my country, in all lectures given in the EBL for many years (or wherever by myself) 'my' interpretation is the one broadcasted. Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present L27B1a. I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) the 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask Max. ton From Gampas at aol.com Thu May 1 10:55:42 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 04:55:42 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: In a message dated 01/05/2008 03:25:45 GMT Standard Time, rfrick at rfrick.info writes: To me, if the insufficient bidder says "I thought I was opening the bidding", that is UI to partner. As director, I would not announce the intended meaning of the insufficient bid. (I think Eric plans to announce this.) That means either looking at the hand of the insufficient bidder or talking to the insufficient bidder away from the table. This seems correct, as nobody has given any valid reason why the reason the insufficient bid was made needs to be announced. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 1 14:51:56 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 08:51:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This looks great to me, except for one thing I would worry about. It seems to be placing the burden of finding replacement calls satisfying 27B1(b) on the director. That would be seem to be a difficult task, and rather time-consuming. For example, I am not sure I would have found the replacement call of 3NT after the auction 1C - P - 1C(intended as opening bid). Then my worry is that if the players later find a good replacement call that the director did not tell them about, that they will complain of director error. And I think the time-issue will be a problem even if this is not. So, it seems to me that if you have a choice, the director's responsibility should be to explain the laws, not think of replacement calls. I suspect that 27B1(b) was constructed with some replacement calls in mind (such as insufficient bids over 2NT and insufficient responses to Blackwood). At the club level, if the director just read the laws, a player might not realize that these were allowable. So at the club level, my current plan is to say something like, "You can replace your 2C bid with 3C and the auction will proceed as normal, or you have other options." So the idea of the director suggesting (obvious) options seems good to me. (I don't know if that is needed at the tournament level.) The problem is making it the director's obligation to find them all. Bob > > Summary of Zone 7 Laws Committee Law 27 interpretations > by Arie Geursen, CTD New Zealand: > > Law 27B1(a) > Not conventional and corrected by lowest > sufficient bid in same denomination > > * As before, a player is still permitted to replace an > insufficient bid with a bid in the same denomination at > the lowest legal level without restriction provided that, > in the opinion of the Director, neither the insufficient > bid nor the substituted bid is artificial. > > * The auction continues normally and the information > that the bid was intended to be natural is authorised > to all players at the table and therefore Law 16D does > not apply. > > Law 27B1(b) > Corrected with a call that has the > same, or more precise meaning. > > * In addition, players are also permitted to substitute > other legal calls without restriction (even if they are > artificial) provided that, in the opinion of the > Director the selected call has: > > * the same meaning as the insufficient bid or; > > * a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid > (i.e. the replacement conveys the same or more > precise information). > > Law 27B2 > Corrected by any legal call not permitted > under Law 27B1 > > * Unless permitted under Law 27B1, if the > insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid > or a pass, the offender?s partner must pass > whenever it is his turn to call. Laws 23 & 26 > may apply > > Law 27B1 or B2 > Correct Procedure > > * In order for the Director to correctly exercise this > discretion, he/she must first determine the > offending player?s original intent at the time of the > infraction and then investigate the pair's methods. > > * This will often entail quizzing the players away from > the table and/or an examination of the pair?s system > card. Only after these investigations should the > Director then explain the options. > > Note that: > > * A truly unintentional action may be corrected via Law 25. > > * If the Director is unclear whether to allow the correction > without restriction under Law 27B1(b), or to require the > offender?s partner to pass throughout the remainder of the > auction under Law 27B2, the Director is advised to err on the > side of applying Law 27B1(b) but stand ready to apply 27D. > > * I.e. the inclination of the Director ought to be on obtaining a > normal bridge result wherever possible. > > Law 27D > Non-offending side Damaged > > * When you allow correction of an insufficient bid without > restriction, you should always advise the non-offending side to > call you back at the end of play if they consider that the > outcome may have been different had the offender?s partner not > had the assistance of the withdrawn bid. > > * If so, the score should be adjusted to the most likely > outcome(s), had the insufficient bid not occurred. > > * Under no circumstances may any weight be given to the > perceived benefit that might have accrued to the non-offending > side if the Director had elected to bar the partner from the > auction (even if it subsequently transpires, that it may have been > the more appropriate action, i.e. it is not a Directors? error). > > Law 27B3 > Replacement with a double not > permitted under Law 27B1. > > Except as allowed for under Law 27B1, if > the offender attempts to substitute a > double or redouble for his insufficient bid, > the double or redouble is cancelled and the > offender must instead substitute a > sufficient bid or pass. Now his partner must > pass whenever it is his turn to call. Law 23 > and 26 may apply. > > Law 27B4 > Replacement with another Insufficient > Bid > > If the offender attempts to substitute one > insufficient bid with another insufficient > bid, unless LHO accepts it, the 2nd call is > cancelled and he must substitute a sufficient > bid or pass (but not a double or re-double) > and his partner must pass whenever it is his > turn to call. Law 23 and 26 may apply. > > Law 27C > Premature Replacement of an > Insufficient Bid. > > If the offender attempts to replace his > insufficient bid before the Director has > ruled on rectification, LHO may still accept > the insufficient bid otherwise the > substitution stands and the Director either > applies 27B1 or 27B2 to the substitution. > > *Note: This happens a lot > > Insufficient bid - Examples > > West East > 1S 3S > 4NT 4D > > If the Director is satisfied that East was > answering Blackwood but at the wrong > level, then East will be allowed to correct > to 5D without any restriction. > > West North East > 1D 1S 1H > > * If 1H was intended to show at least four hearts and enough > HCP to respond, then a replacement of 2H is permitted > under Law 27B1(a) without any further restriction. > > * Alternatively, if a negative double by East would > systemically guarantee at least a four-card heart holding, > then East could also replace the 1H with a double under Law > 27B1(b) without restriction. > > * However, a pass would not convey a heart suit and > therefore Law 27B2 applies, i.e. partner will have to pass > whenever it is his/her turn to call and Laws 23 and 26 may > also apply. > > West North East > 1NT 2S 2D > > * If East's intention was to transfer to > hearts (he did not see the 2S bid), then a > replacement bid of 3H would not bar his > partner. > > West North East > 1NT 2D 2C > > * 2C was intended as simple Stayman. A Lebensohl-type > cue bid replacement of 3D (asking about a > four-card major) would now have the same > meaning as the original insufficient bid and thus > not bar West. > > * Alternatively, if the Director is satisfied that the > player intended to bid 3C naturally, he/she allows > that change without restriction under Law > 27B1(b). > > West East > 2NT 2H > > * If 2H was intended as a transfer, then a > bid of 3H (still transferring) would permit > the auction to continue without > constraints. > > West North East > 1S 2H 1NT > > * The substitution of 2NT is permitted without restriction under Law > 27B1(a) if both 1NT and 2NT are natural. > > * The information that East's HCP range might well be different from that > of an original 2NT response is authorised to both sides but Law 27D will > apply if the offending side achieves a favourable result that would not > have been possible without the infraction (such as stopping in 2NT when > it makes only eight tricks if played by East). > > * The replacement of 1NT with 2NT also is permitted without restriction > under Law 27B1(b) if the Director is satisfied that this was East's > original incontrovertible intention. > > Insufficient Bid > How to proceed at the table > > Summary: > > Most insufficient bids arise from either a failure to observe the call of > RHO or a general confusion about the current level of the auction. > Therefore, in applying Law 27, the Director should proceed as follows: > > 1. Remove the offender from the table and determine his/her original > intent and the specific meaning of the intended call (take a peek if that > avoids having to take the offender from the table every time). > > 2. Verify the general methods of the partnership and, if necessary, > consult the offender's system card or any other system notes. > > 3. Determine the possible replacement calls available and their meaning. > > 4. Return to the table and explain all the options to the players > (including that LHO has the option of accepting the insufficient > bid as per Law 27A). > > 5. Allow the (fully informed) player to select a replacement call and > then, based upon the investigations detailed in steps (1)-(3), > apply either Law 27B1 or Law 27B2. > > 6. If Law 27B1 is applied, inform the non-offending side of their > right to apply for an adjusted score at the end of play if they > believe that the outcome of the board would have been different > without the assistance of the insufficient bid. > > > 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 Thu May 1 14:58:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 08:58:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <029201c8ab15$84cfc150$d25f9951@stefanie> References: <001a01c8aa5d$5269b940$d25f9951@stefanie> <557F025A-81EC-4532-A677-790331685991@starpower.net> <029201c8ab15$84cfc150$d25f9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <7BF73667-3E74-4149-857B-CF1D7388F81C@starpower.net> On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:57 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> 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. > > EL; > >> 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. > > Well, there is nothing in the Laws to indicate that this type of > communication is legal in this case. In any case, when it is stated as > baldly as above I think we can all agree that it is undesirable. ISTM that that very explicit "L16D does not apply" is *something*. It is, as we are demonstrating here, open to interpretation, but to say that there is "nothing... to indicate that [it] is legal" is rather an overbid. I and others have pointed out that to accept Stefanie's interpretation would reverse 45 years or more of precedent and practice. I, for one, would not find leaving the accepted interpretation undisturbed undesirable. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 1 15:15:18 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 09:15:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <02a201c8ab16$32027070$d25f9951@stefanie> References: <02a201c8ab16$32027070$d25f9951@stefanie> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> [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. > > EL: > >> But that is exactly what L16D says. And, as explicitly as could >> possibly have been written, "Law 16D does not apply". > > This is indeed unfortunate, but... > >> 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? > > No. But it is the information from the CALL that is now AI, not > "the call > and the IBer's explanation of what the call was intended to mean". The problem with that is that sometimes the information from the call, along with the L27 ruling, will be sufficient to allow the players to infer what the call was intended to mean. That makes the intended meaning AI, since neither the call nor the ruling can be UI. Whether or not this is the case depends on factors that have nothing to do with the irregularity having occured (it is essentially a function of the OS's regular agreements). Identical rulings in identical situations could cause it to be AI at some tables and UI at others. That seems like something to be avoided, and the obvious way to avoid it is for the intended meaning to be AI regardless. There is also the practical issue that if it is always AI, it will be much easier, and far more transparent (always a benefit to the customers), to deal with those cases in which the IBer's immediate instinctive reaction to having the IB pointed out gave the information to the table. IME, this happens more often than not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 1 15:42:52 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 09:42:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9905C57C-6640-44BA-B9CA-80DE78BCD7AF@starpower.net> On Apr 30, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > To me, if the insufficient bidder says "I thought I was opening the > bidding", that is UI to partner. As director, I would not announce the > intended meaning of the insufficient bid. (I think Eric plans to > announce > this.) That means either looking at the hand of the insufficient > bidder or > talking to the insufficient bidder away from the table. I'd *like* to wind up announcing this, but what I *plan* to do is pay attention to the discussion in this forum for the next two months (the ACBL starts using the new laws on 7/1) in the hope that a consensus -- or at least something better than my own inclinations -- emerges. If we can't quite get there, perhaps we can at least come to a consensus as to whether the TD needs to ascertain the information in order to rule properly. I think he does, but concede that if he does not then the case for making it AI disappears. And if he does, I would certainly favor asking him over attempting to draw my own conclusion by looking at his hand (or by any other means, for that matter). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 1 15:57:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 09:57:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <90C491EA-AE57-4601-9741-57C20052D692@starpower.net> On Apr 30, 2008, at 10:53 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 27B1 or B2 > Correct Procedure > > * In order for the Director to correctly exercise this > discretion, he/she must first determine the > offending player?s original intent at the time of the > infraction and then investigate the pair's methods. > > * This will often entail quizzing the players away from > the table and/or an examination of the pair?s system > card. Only after these investigations should the > Director then explain the options. The choice of "players" rather than "player" here specifies that the IBer's partner is entitled to the knowledge of the IBer's intention -- I don't see how he can not be, if he is to be actively involved in making that determination. Was that deliberate? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 1 16:14:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:14:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C9E6438-44FB-4C5B-BF43-B8F9F47F01CA@starpower.net> On May 1, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > So, it seems to me that if you have a choice, the director's > responsibility should be to explain the laws, not think of replacement > calls. Given that the legal eagles in this forum have spent the last month or so unsuccessfully trying to "explain" the new L27B to one another, do we really want to hold our customers responsible for understanding it at first encounter? Having the director huddle up with the players and work it out seems to be the practical solution. Not to mention satisfying L10C1 -- at least as best one can. >> Law 27B1 or B2 >> Correct Procedure >> >> * In order for the Director to correctly exercise this >> discretion, he/she must first determine the >> offending player?s original intent at the time of the >> infraction and then investigate the pair's methods. >> >> * This will often entail quizzing the players away from >> the table and/or an examination of the pair?s system >> card. Only after these investigations should the >> Director then explain the options. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu May 1 16:53:23 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:53:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <20080501142555.89E4A4859E4@zgate.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093B2E@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Ton wrote: > Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the > words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present L27B1a. > I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) the > 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask Max. This issue has come up in the EBU (for instance at TD training weekends) for 1997 laws. The instruction to TD on EBU practice is that although the insufficient 1H is not UI, we adjust under Law27B1(b) as if the insufficient bid was UI. So when the auction 1H -(P)- 1H occurs, and the insufficient bidder has had it explained what will happened if he bids 2H, then he will usually choose to bid 4H (or 6H or whatever). I have never been happy with this interpretation, so it is entirely possible I am misrepresenting the EBU position. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Gampas at aol.com Thu May 1 17:17:53 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:17:53 EDT Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 Message-ID: In a message dated 01/05/2008 14:58:06 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: [Eric Landau] The choice of "players" rather than "player" here specifies that the IBer's partner is entitled to the knowledge of the IBer's intention [Paul Lamford] If the Australian interpretation had said "quizzing the players at the same time" then there would be some justification for your assertion. As it stands there is none at all. From john at asimere.com Thu May 1 17:24:31 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:24:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093B2E@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <006501c8ab9f$742b3e80$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > Ton wrote: >> Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the >> words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present >> L27B1a. >> I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) >> the >> 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask >> Max. > > This issue has come up in the EBU (for instance at TD training weekends) > for > 1997 laws. > > The instruction to TD on EBU practice is that although the insufficient 1H > is > not UI, we adjust under Law27B1(b) as if the insufficient bid was UI. > > So when the auction 1H -(P)- 1H occurs, and the insufficient bidder has > had it > explained what will happened if he bids 2H, then he will usually choose to > bid > 4H (or 6H or whatever). > > I have never been happy with this interpretation, so it is entirely > possible > I am misrepresenting the EBU position. I think it is our standard practice. Why don't you like it? John > > Robin From Gampas at aol.com Thu May 1 17:38:58 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:38:58 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: In a message dated 01/05/2008 14:16:40 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: [Eric Landau] There is also the practical issue that if it is always AI, it will be much easier, and far more transparent (always a benefit to the customers), to deal with those cases in which the IBer's immediate instinctive reaction to having the IB pointed out gave the information to the table. [Paul Lamford] I thought we already had a law to deal with gestures and other remarks which give UI. Surely we do not need to bend other laws to cater for them? From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu May 1 19:21:37 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:21:37 +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$8cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <00ca01c8abaf$d02ac6f0$7ac59851@stefanie> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> Anyway, once misdecriptive and anti-systemic RCs are disallowed, these >> problems will be minimised. Eric Landau: > What Stefanie calls "misdecriptive and anti-systemic RCs" as penalty- > free replacements for IBs have been routinely allowed at least since > I began directing (with TF 1963 LB). I can't imagine that we're > about to -- or would want to -- disallow them now. This is not true at all. In the past, penalty-free corrections were only permitted when a natural bid was corrected to the same denomination at the next level, so long as the bid at the next level was also natural in the partnership's methods. This may have sometimes been "misdescriptive and anti-systemic", but not by very much. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 1 22:22:17 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:22:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <00ca01c8abaf$d02ac6f0$7ac59851@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$8cad9b51@stefanie> <00ca01c8abaf$d02ac6f0$7ac59851@stefanie> Message-ID: On May 1, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >>> Anyway, once misdecriptive and anti-systemic RCs are disallowed, >>> these >>> problems will be minimised. > > Eric Landau: > >> 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. > > This is not true at all. In the past, penalty-free corrections were > only > permitted when a natural bid was corrected to the same denomination > at the > next level, so long as the bid at the next level was also natural > in the > partnership's methods. This may have sometimes been "misdescriptive > and > anti-systemic", but not by very much. The thread example we have been discussing is 1H-P-1H, corrected to 2H (both "incontrovertibly not artificial"). There is nothing new here; the relevant portion of the law is the same whether we use TFLB from 1963, 1975, 1987, 1997 or 2008. And Stefanie apparently found this example "'misdescriptive and anti-systemic'" by enough to cause her to assert that "we can all agree that it is undesirable" (a rather strong assertion, since disproven). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 1 22:40:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:40:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL introduction of 2008 laws [WAS Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <9905C57C-6640-44BA-B9CA-80DE78BCD7AF@starpower.net> References: <9905C57C-6640-44BA-B9CA-80DE78BCD7AF@starpower.net> Message-ID: On May 1, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > (the ACBL starts using the new laws on 7/1) It has been brought to my attention that this is no more than a rumor and may well by incorrect. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu May 1 22:58:55 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 21:58:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 repair Message-ID: <481A2F0F.2080804@NTLworld.com> Law-makers seem to pander to directors with scant regard to the interests of players :( There are simple remedies for the nuisance of insufficient bids that might curtail the latest BLML feeding frenzy :) For example ... [A] Mandate the use of a bidding box -- only *one* per table -- but otherwise used in the ordinary way. It would be harder to make an insufficient bid if it was no longer available in the communal bidding box. Obviously, players would have to take some care when returning their bids to the box. [B] Achieve the same end with an electronic device, for example a Bridge-mate or a hand-held networked computer, with a display flat on the table. This would have other advantages: it would permanently record the auction. It would even provide an objective measure of tempo breaks so that the director could better judge the perennial "Opponent hesitated for 2 minutes" vs "Partner bid in normal tempo" dispute. [C] Failing [A] or [B], the director should allow the offender to substitute any call. The insufficient bidder's partner is silenced for the rest of the auction with the insufficient bid being unauthorised information to him. If nobody draws attention to the insufficient bid and the next bidder condones it, he does so at his own risk but nobody may agree special methods to take advantage of the insufficient bid. If the insufficient bidder profits by what may have been a cunning ploy, he is deprived of his (putatively) ill-gotten gains. Roll on 2018 :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 2 01:04:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:04:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080501102335.2E424AF528C@mailgw1.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >>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. Ton Kooijman: [snip] >Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the >words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present L27B1a. Richard Hills: Yes, I agree that the only sensible way to interpret the 2007 Law 27B1(a) statement "Law 16D does not apply but see D following" is that Law 27D replaces Law 16. That is, rather than the test for an adjusted score being the severe Law 16 one of avoiding any demonstrably suggested logical alternatives, the new test is the less severe Law 27D one of the probable outcome had the insufficient bid (and its demonstrable suggestion) not occurred. Ton Kooijman: >I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) the >1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask Max. Richard Hills: I take a middle position between Ton and David. The 1H opener bids on at their own risk. The risk in this case is that the 1H undercaller thought they were responding to a 1C opening bid, and the 2H replacement call is systemic, thus causing 3H to fail by a trick. But if the 1H undercaller states, "Oh no, I thought I was dealer," then the remark is UI even though the undercall itself is not. In that case the 1H opener may not bid on after the 2H replacement call if pass is a logical alternative. 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 May 2 01:52:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:52:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <90C491EA-AE57-4601-9741-57C20052D692@starpower.net> Message-ID: >>Law 27B1 or B2 >>Correct Procedure >> >>* In order for the Director to correctly exercise this >>discretion, he/she must first determine the >>offending player's original intent at the time of the >>infraction and then investigate the pair's methods. >> >>* This will often entail quizzing the players away from >>the table and/or an examination of the pair's system >>card. Only after these investigations should the >>Director then explain the options. Eric Landau: >The choice of "players" rather than "player" here >specifies that the IBer's partner is entitled to the >knowledge of the IBer's intention -- I don't see how he >can not be, if he is to be actively involved in making >that determination. Was that deliberate? Zone 7 LC Summary: >>1. Remove the offender from the table and determine >>his/her original intent and the specific meaning of >>the intended call (take a peek if that avoids having >>to take the offender from the table every time). >> >>2. Verify the general methods of the partnership and, >>if necessary, consult the offender's system card or >>any other system notes. >> >>..... [snip] Richard Hills: It seems to me that Eric Landau has drawn an incorrect conclusion by overlooking the Zone 7 LC Summary. Item 1 refers to the singular offender. But as for Item 2, both members of the partnership may be consulted as to their normal methods. Ergo, it seems to me that the Zone 7 LC interpretation of Law 27 is that only the TD and the undercaller are _entitled_ to know the undercaller's intent, with any extra information blurted out by the undercaller at the table being UI to the undercaller's partner (and AI to the opponents). 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 May 2 02:21:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:21:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >This looks great to me, except for one thing I would worry >about. > >It seems to be placing the burden of finding replacement calls >satisfying 27B1(b) on the director. [snip] Richard Hills: It seems to me that the burden of Law 27B1(b) selection is placed upon the player. Zone 7 LC: >>* If the Director is unclear whether to allow the correction >>without restriction under Law 27B1(b), or to require the >>offender's partner to pass throughout the remainder of the >>auction under Law 27B2, the Director is advised to err on the >>side of applying Law 27B1(b) but stand ready to apply 27D. >> >>* I.e. the inclination of the Director ought to be on >>obtaining a normal bridge result wherever possible. Richard Hills: That is, the Zone 7 LC has interpreted the Law 27B1(b) phrase "in the Director's opinion" as meaning "in the Director's _provisional_ opinion, trusting the undercaller in doubtful cases, but the Director's _provisional_ opinion may later be revised via a subsequent Law 27D ruling". Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 2 02:43:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:43:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >The thread example we have been discussing is 1H-P-1H, corrected to >2H (both "incontrovertibly not artificial"). There is nothing new >here; the relevant portion of the law is the same whether we use >TFLB from 1963, 1975, 1987, 1997 or 2008. And Stefanie apparently >found this example "'misdescriptive and anti-systemic'" by enough >to cause her to assert that "we can all agree that it is >undesirable" (a rather strong assertion, since disproven). Richard Hills: "Undesirable" is only relevant for discussions on what the 2018 Lawbook "should" contain. Ton has suggested that past practice by the WBF LC would mean that formal WBF LC debate on the 2018 Laws may commence circa 2010. But that does not stop blmlers putting forward views on the 2018 Lawbook two years earlier (as Nigel Guthrie has already done). But debate on the 2007 Lawbook is about what is "illegal", not what is "undesirable", so Stefanie Rohan's riding of a Rohirrim (hobby) horse is not only disproven, but also not relevant. 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 Fri May 2 03:54:17 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 02:54:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <019001c8abf7$6eb226a0$7ac59851@stefanie> Robert Frick: > So the idea of the director suggesting (obvious) options seems good to me. > (I don't know if that is needed at the tournament level.) The problem is > making it the director's obligation to find them all. > This is a good idea; if a player comes up with a different replacement call, he can ask the director whether it will be allowed. The important thing is that the player be told, before attempting to make a replacement call, whether it will be permitted. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 2 03:57:35 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 02:57:35 +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$8cad9b51@stefanie><00ca01c8abaf$d02ac6f0$7ac59851@stefanie> Message-ID: <019c01c8abf7$e486cb10$7ac59851@stefanie> Eric Landau: > > The thread example we have been discussing is 1H-P-1H, corrected to > 2H (both "incontrovertibly not artificial"). There is nothing new > here; the relevant portion of the law is the same whether we use TFLB > from 1963, 1975, 1987, 1997 or 2008. And Stefanie apparently found > this example "'misdescriptive and anti-systemic'" by enough to cause > her to assert that "we can all agree that it is undesirable" (a > rather strong assertion, since disproven). > What is new is that now it is thought by some that the RC 2H bid can be natural an non-forcing, game forcing, or who knows what else depending on the "meaning" of the IB. I had thought that when such a RC as this was made, partner had to treat it as a systemic call. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 2 03:58:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 02:58:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 References: <90C491EA-AE57-4601-9741-57C20052D692@starpower.net> Message-ID: <01a601c8abf8$004a0830$7ac59851@stefanie> Eric Landau: The choice of "players" rather than "player" here specifies that the IBer's partner is entitled to the knowledge of the IBer's intention -- I don't see how he can not be, if he is to be actively involved in making that determination. Was that deliberate? SR: Hope not! From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 2 04:14:05 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 03:14:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay References: <02a201c8ab16$32027070$d25f9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <01b001c8abfa$345f65a0$7ac59851@stefanie> EL: > The problem with [the "meaning" of the IB being UI] is that > sometimes the information from the > call, along with the L27 ruling, will be sufficient to allow the > players to infer what the call was intended to mean. That makes the > intended meaning AI, since neither the call nor the ruling can be > UI. Whether or not this is the case depends on factors that have > nothing to do with the irregularity having occured (it is essentially > a function of the OS's regular agreements). Information that is available by inference is not necessarily information that the players are entitled to. In any case, it is probable that a, say, 2H replacement bid cannot be game-forcing; ie, that the partner of the IBer must treat it as a "normal" 2H bid. Ton says otherwise, but I do not really know how the Law can sanely be applied otherwise. > Identical rulings in > identical situations could cause it to be AI at some tables and UI at > others. That seems like something to be avoided, and the obvious > way to avoid it is for the intended meaning to be AI regardless. I think it should be UI. If, in some cases, the players are able to infer the "meaning" of the IB, it should still be forbidden for partner to base his bidding or play on any such information unless it is also available by way of the legal auction. This is the way other irregularities in the auction and play are dealt with. > > There is also the practical issue that if it is always AI, it will be > much easier, and far more transparent (always a benefit to the > customers), to deal with those cases in which the IBer's immediate > instinctive reaction to having the IB pointed out gave the > information to the table. IME, this happens more often than not. It should not be too tough. I think that a player who made such an instinctive reaction tends to think that he has given UI. This is not difficult to deal with. Directors know how to instruct the players when UI has been made available. Suppose RHO has opened 1S, and our hero says, "Oh dear, I had hoped to open 1H but now I can't", and then proceeds to make a legal call. This is UI, is it not? It would be consistent to treat any extra information accompanying an IB the same way. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 2 04:26:00 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 03:26:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <01c001c8abfb$de59b0a0$7ac59851@stefanie> RJH: > Ergo, it seems to me that the Zone 7 LC interpretation > of Law 27 is that only the TD and the undercaller are > _entitled_ to know the undercaller's intent, with any > extra information blurted out by the undercaller at the > table being UI to the undercaller's partner (and AI to > the opponents). This is a very sensible approach, which should work well. There is one thing that is not clear to me, however. Is the IBer to be "stuck with" his intended meaning? I know that my examples are not great because they always seem to involve the same denomination at a higher level, but ignoring the fact that if both calls are natural, imagine this: 1S-(2H)-2C. The director discovers that the IBer meant to open 2C, precision. A 3C bid would now have a wider meaning. But compared to a response of 2C to 1S, the 3C bid would, presumably, have a narrower meaning, in that it would be game-forcing instead of 10+ or whatever the 2C would have been (ignoring upper limits for the sake of the example). Would 3C be permitted? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 2 04:37:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 03:37:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <01da01c8abfd$8310efe0$7ac59851@stefanie> Richard Hills: > > That is, the Zone 7 LC has interpreted the Law 27B1(b) phrase > "in the Director's opinion" as meaning "in the Director's > _provisional_ opinion, trusting the undercaller in doubtful > cases, but the Director's _provisional_ opinion may later be > revised via a subsequent Law 27D ruling". > By the director only? Can an AC revise the ruling, or are they not permitted to naysay the "director's opinion"? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 2 05:30:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 04:30:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <01f001c8ac04$e550bee0$7ac59851@stefanie> Richard Hills: > > I take a middle position between Ton and David. The 1H opener bids on at > their own risk. The risk in this case is that the 1H undercaller thought > they were responding to a 1C opening bid, and the 2H replacement call is > systemic, thus causing 3H to fail by a trick. > > But if the 1H undercaller states, "Oh no, I thought I was dealer," then > the > remark is UI even though the undercall itself is not. In that case the 1H > opener may not bid on after the 2H replacement call if pass is a logical > alternative. Sorry to post when I have nothing to add; it is just so refreshing to see this new Law discussed in a sensible and workable fashion. The above is the right balance between "getting a bridge result" and "letting the OS get away with murder". Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 2 05:42:41 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 13:42:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>That is, [it seems to me that] the Zone 7 LC has interpreted >>the Law 27B1(b) phrase "in the Director's opinion" as meaning >>"in the Director's _provisional_ opinion, trusting the >>undercaller in doubtful cases, but the Director's >>_provisional_ opinion may later be revised via a subsequent >>Law 27D ruling". Stefanie Rohan: >By the director only? Can an AC revise the ruling, or are >they not permitted to naysay the "director's opinion"? 2007 Law 93B3: "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" Richard Hills: It seems to me that "the Director's opinion" is a factual assessment as to which part of Law 27 is applicable, not a lawful interpretation as to what Law 27 means. If so, then an Appeals Committee may legally over-rule the Director's opinion on the facts. However, even if a South Pacific Appeals Committee did find a different set of facts, South Pacific regulation requires the AC to give a corrective ruling using Law 27D, _not_ a corrective ruling using Law 27B2. South Pacific Law 27D regulation: Law 27D Non-offending side Damaged * When you allow correction of an insufficient bid without restriction, you should always advise the non-offending side to call you back at the end of play if they consider that the outcome may have been different had the offender's partner not had the assistance of the withdrawn bid. * If so, the score should be adjusted to the most likely outcome(s), had the insufficient bid not occurred. * Under ***no circumstances*** may any weight be given to the perceived benefit that might have accrued to the non- offending side if the Director had elected to bar the partner from the auction (even if it subsequently transpires, that it may have been the more appropriate action, i.e. it is ***not*** a Directors' error). 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 May 2 08:02:21 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 02:02:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01da01c8abfd$8310efe0$7ac59851@stefanie> References: <01da01c8abfd$8310efe0$7ac59851@stefanie> Message-ID: On Thu, 01 May 2008 22:37:49 -0400, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Richard Hills: >> >> That is, the Zone 7 LC has interpreted the Law 27B1(b) phrase >> "in the Director's opinion" as meaning "in the Director's >> _provisional_ opinion, trusting the undercaller in doubtful >> cases, but the Director's _provisional_ opinion may later be >> revised via a subsequent Law 27D ruling". >> > By the director only? Can an AC revise the ruling, or are they not > permitted > to naysay the "director's opinion"? If l27B1(b) was "if...the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid..." then I can see an AC over-ruling the director's decision. But the law is "if...the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director?s opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid... Maybe there is some WBFLC ruling that covers this. But as stands, someone went through a lot of trouble to include "in the Director's opinion" and it doesn't seem right to then ignore it. So if an AC had a different opinion about the whether the RC meaning was the same (or more precise), that isn't really relevant. All that matters is the Director's opinion. Right or wrong, that is the basis for the ruling. I doubt it will get interpreted this way. But that's what it says, right? And for better or worse, it would seem to be the director's opinion at the time of the ruling. If the Director later changes his/her mind, partner of the insufficient bidder can't be barred from a completed auction. Bob From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri May 2 08:56:25 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 08:56:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01f001c8ac04$e550bee0$7ac59851@stefanie> Message-ID: Richard Hills: > > I take a middle position between Ton and David. The 1H opener bids on > at their own risk. The risk in this case is that the 1H undercaller > thought they were responding to a 1C opening bid, and the 2H > replacement call is systemic, thus causing 3H to fail by a trick. > > But if the 1H undercaller states, "Oh no, I thought I was dealer," > then the remark is UI even though the undercall itself is not. In > that case the 1H opener may not bid on after the 2H replacement call > if pass is a logical alternative. ton: To be able to take a middle position you need to know both end positions. I have never written or even suggested that bidding may continue normally if a player starts talking about the reason for his mistake. Where does that idea come from? ton From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Fri May 2 10:05:27 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:05:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <006501c8ab9f$742b3e80$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093B36@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> From: John (MadDog) Probst > I think it is our standard practice. Why don't you like it? John Not wishing to appear too trite: (1) Ruling as if there is UI when the laws say there isn't. (2) Ruling the opponents were damaged by the IB when OS side would reach 4H with or without the IB. (3) Ton taught me otherwise. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri May 2 10:35:45 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:35:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard: Ton has suggested that past practice by the WBF LC would mean that formal WBF LC debate on the 2018 Laws may commence circa 2010. ton: This was meant jokish. I am not ready in 2 years time. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 2 15:21:43 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:21:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <019c01c8abf7$e486cb10$7ac59851@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$8cad9b51@stefanie><00ca01c8abaf$d02ac6f0$7ac59851@stefanie> <019c01c8abf7$e486cb10$7ac59851@stefanie> Message-ID: <6A426A70-EB55-4648-9FEA-0CCE2FD5309D@starpower.net> On May 1, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> The thread example we have been discussing is 1H-P-1H, corrected to >> 2H (both "incontrovertibly not artificial"). There is nothing new >> here; the relevant portion of the law is the same whether we use TFLB >> from 1963, 1975, 1987, 1997 or 2008. And Stefanie apparently found >> this example "'misdescriptive and anti-systemic'" by enough to cause >> her to assert that "we can all agree that it is undesirable" (a >> rather strong assertion, since disproven). > > What is new is that now it is thought by some that the RC 2H bid > can be > natural an non-forcing, game forcing, or who knows what else > depending on > the "meaning" of the IB. I had thought that when such a RC as this > was made, > partner had to treat it as a systemic call. It is quite clear that 2008 L27B1(a) is, and was intended to be, identical in its effect to 1997 L27B1(a) and similar portions of older L27s. Rulings under L27B1(a) must work exactly as they did before. What we learn from this thread is that we do not have settled law as to how those rulings worked before. Is it possible that there is no right answer, except for "continue whatever the current practice in your jurisdiction is"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 2 15:41:37 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:41:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay In-Reply-To: <01b001c8abfa$345f65a0$7ac59851@stefanie> References: <02a201c8ab16$32027070$d25f9951@stefanie> <01b001c8abfa$345f65a0$7ac59851@stefanie> Message-ID: <76B4FCE6-37A6-49EE-A44A-3597570A81A7@starpower.net> On May 1, 2008, at 10:14 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > EL: > >> The problem with [the "meaning" of the IB being UI] is that >> sometimes the information from the >> call, along with the L27 ruling, will be sufficient to allow the >> players to infer what the call was intended to mean. That makes the >> intended meaning AI, since neither the call nor the ruling can be >> UI. Whether or not this is the case depends on factors that have >> nothing to do with the irregularity having occured (it is essentially >> a function of the OS's regular agreements). > > Information that is available by inference is not necessarily > information > that the players are entitled to. In any case, it is probable that > a, say, > 2H replacement bid cannot be game-forcing; ie, that the partner of > the IBer > must treat it as a "normal" 2H bid. Ton says otherwise, but I do > not really > know how the Law can sanely be applied otherwise. > >> Identical rulings in >> identical situations could cause it to be AI at some tables and UI at >> others. That seems like something to be avoided, and the obvious >> way to avoid it is for the intended meaning to be AI regardless. > > I think it should be UI. If, in some cases, the players are able to > infer > the "meaning" of the IB, it should still be forbidden for partner > to base > his bidding or play on any such information unless it is also > available by > way of the legal auction. This is the way other irregularities in the > auction and play are dealt with. > >> There is also the practical issue that if it is always AI, it will be >> much easier, and far more transparent (always a benefit to the >> customers), to deal with those cases in which the IBer's immediate >> instinctive reaction to having the IB pointed out gave the >> information to the table. IME, this happens more often than not. > > It should not be too tough. I think that a player who made such an > instinctive reaction tends to think that he has given UI. This is not > difficult to deal with. Directors know how to instruct the players > when UI > has been made available. > > Suppose RHO has opened 1S, and our hero says, "Oh dear, I had hoped > to open > 1H but now I can't", and then proceeds to make a legal call. This > is UI, is > it not? It would be consistent to treat any extra information > accompanying > an IB the same way. If the conditions in L27B1(a) are satisfied, "the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following." Imagine we were to replace those words with, "the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see Law 16D." Would we not, if that were the case, apply L27B1(a) exactly as Stefanie describes above? As she says, quite correctly, "This is the way other irregularities in the auction and play are dealt with... It would be consistent to treat any extra information accompanying an IB the same way." I merely assert that the words "Law 16D does not apply" were put there for a reason. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 2 16:05:11 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:05:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 In-Reply-To: <01c001c8abfb$de59b0a0$7ac59851@stefanie> References: <01c001c8abfb$de59b0a0$7ac59851@stefanie> Message-ID: <37F9977E-4A3F-488F-BCAC-7A38455AFD42@starpower.net> On May 1, 2008, at 10:26 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > RJH: > >> Ergo, it seems to me that the Zone 7 LC interpretation >> of Law 27 is that only the TD and the undercaller are >> _entitled_ to know the undercaller's intent, with any >> extra information blurted out by the undercaller at the >> table being UI to the undercaller's partner (and AI to >> the opponents). > > This is a very sensible approach, which should work well. There is > one thing > that is not clear to me, however. Is the IBer to be "stuck with" his > intended meaning? I know that my examples are not great because > they always > seem to involve the same denomination at a higher level, but > ignoring the > fact that if both calls are natural, imagine this: > > 1S-(2H)-2C. The director discovers that the IBer meant to open 2C, > precision. A 3C bid would now have a wider meaning. But compared to a > response of 2C to 1S, the 3C bid would, presumably, have a narrower > meaning, > in that it would be game-forcing instead of 10+ or whatever the 2C > would > have been (ignoring upper limits for the sake of the example). > Would 3C be > permitted? If the answer is no, then opener will know from the ruling, at this table, with the OS playing their particular methods, that the IBer meant to open 2C. This can't be UI, as the TD's ruling cannot be UI, and the inference is direct. But it is information that may not be available under identical circumstances at other tables. If the answer is yes, then you must similarly allow the IBer to substitute a 3C bid without penalty if he can show that it has a more precise meaning than it would have had the auction gone, say, P-1NT-. If you allow the RC to be chosen based on some possible "intention" which was not the actual one, you must allow it based on *any* such intention; you cannot limit the IBer to only those that sound "reasonable" to you. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 2 16:25:17 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:25:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 1, 2008, at 7:04 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > I take a middle position between Ton and David. The 1H opener bids > on at > their own risk. The risk in this case is that the 1H undercaller > thought > they were responding to a 1C opening bid, and the 2H replacement > call is > systemic, thus causing 3H to fail by a trick. > > But if the 1H undercaller states, "Oh no, I thought I was dealer," > then the > remark is UI even though the undercall itself is not. In that case > the 1H > opener may not bid on after the 2H replacement call if pass is a > logical > alternative. Undercaller blurts. 1H opener bids on with a minimum. 4H is reached. TD rules UI and adjusts the result back to 2H. OS appeals. Opener points out to the committee that he and his partner play transfer overcalls. 1C-1H or 1D-1H would show spades. *Only* if his partner had intended to open 1H could 1H have been "incontrovertably not artificial". If partner had said nothing, opener would still be 100% certain that partner intended to open the bidding, *because otherwise he would be barred*. He argues that the UI could have had absolutely no effect, because the *TD's ruling* would have left him with no logical alternative but to play partner for an opening bid and bid on "at his own risk". Uphold or reverse? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Fri May 2 16:43:47 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:43:47 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27 repair Message-ID: In a message dated 01/05/2008 21:59:48 GMT Standard Time, Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes: [A] Mandate the use of a bidding box -- only *one* per table -- but otherwise used in the ordinary way. It would be harder to make an insufficient bid if it was no longer available in the communal bidding box. This seems an excellent idea. In competitive backgammon, with clocks, one set of dice are used, and this avoids premature rolls. However, the current design of the bidding box is poor for multiple use, and an electronic system, similar to online bridge, might be better. Like technology for assisting arbiters in sport, I suspect price will prevent adoption. Meanwhile we have to make the best we can of Law 27! From Gampas at aol.com Fri May 2 16:50:47 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:50:47 EDT Subject: [blml] Law 27 - relay Message-ID: In a message dated 02/05/2008 03:16:16 GMT Standard Time, daisy_duck at btopenworld.com writes: [daisy_duck] Information that is available by inference is not necessarily information that the players are entitled to. [paul lamford] Indeed so, if it was inferred following an infraction. "How did you know to give your partner a diamond ruff, West?" "Well, he pulled out a heart on the first diamond, then replaced it with a diamond. I inferred that he was unlikely to have nearly revoked with more than one diamond." From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri May 2 20:24:20 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 19:24:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <01f001c8ac04$e550bee0$7ac59851@stefanie> Message-ID: <000601c8ac81$bdb9d3d0$392d7b70$@com> [TK] I have never written or even suggested that bidding may continue normally if a player starts talking about the reason for his mistake. Where does that idea come from? [DALB] >From this: "I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) the 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred." If he would pass after 1H-2H, which most 13-point hands would, he should pass ("is barred") after 1H-1H/2H. It seems to me that you have suggested that he is permitted to bid on, perhaps in order to achieve a "normal bridge result", in the knowledge that his partner has an opening bid. If this is not what you are suggesting, I apologise for having misunderstood. It might help, though I know it is an imposition on the time and goodwill of busy people, for active Directors to describe what they would do under the current Law 27 when: (a) called to the table by North, who says "I opened 1H, but then looked up and saw that my partner who is dealer had already opened 1H." (b) called to the table by West, who says "South opened 1H, I passed and North responded 1H." North has not said a word about why he did this, and nothing can be inferred from his demeanour by any of the players. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Fri May 2 23:39:34 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 22:39:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002101c8ac9d$0329e7a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> > > Yes, I agree that the only sensible way to interpret the 2007 Law 27B1(a) > statement "Law 16D does not apply but see D following" is that Law 27D > replaces Law 16. That is, rather than the test for an adjusted score > being > the severe Law 16 one of avoiding any demonstrably suggested logical > alternatives, the new test is the less severe Law 27D one of the probable > outcome had the insufficient bid (and its demonstrable suggestion) not > occurred. ok. I've once again concluded I do know how the new 27 works, and happily have decided that DALB and I can't cheat like hell. Good thing too. My initial reaction to the first version was "Good idea". My reaction to the reworded version is "Still good idea and a bit clearer". Sufficiently clear. John > > Ton Kooijman: > >>I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) the >>1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask > Max. > "Make it good dearie". I'll get opener if he treats it as anything but 6-9 ish under 27D. From john at asimere.com Fri May 2 23:40:50 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 22:40:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <019001c8abf7$6eb226a0$7ac59851@stefanie> Message-ID: <002c01c8ac9d$30b48900$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 2:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Robert Frick: > >> So the idea of the director suggesting (obvious) options seems good to >> me. >> (I don't know if that is needed at the tournament level.) The problem is >> making it the director's obligation to find them all. >> > This is a good idea; if a player comes up with a different replacement > call, > he can ask the director whether it will be allowed. The important thing is > that the player be told, before attempting to make a replacement call, > whether it will be permitted. > Would be if you called me. John > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri May 2 23:52:29 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 22:52:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093B36@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <004301c8ac9e$d15073a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > From: John (MadDog) Probst >> I think it is our standard practice. Why don't you like it? John > > Not wishing to appear too trite: > > (1) Ruling as if there is UI when the laws say there isn't. Ever since the Rottweiller coup and probably before that we've been perfectly happy to use 72B1, which is the route I go. If you can't be botherd to watch the auction and do something stupid you darn well "could have known" etc. "Make the bid good or pot the final contract" seemes to have worked pretty well. Nonetheless the New law does now allow us to get back into a sane auction some of these times. John > > (2) Ruling the opponents were damaged by the IB when OS side would reach > 4H with or without the IB. > Of course they're not damaged, if we do our job properly. AGain I fail to understand. It's the offenders who have their options circumscribed. > (3) Ton taught me otherwise. and I don't disagree with ton. Honestly Robin, I don't see a problem with what we do now. Perhaps I'm being really thick. John > > Robin > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat May 3 08:53:16 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 08:53:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101c8ac9d$0329e7a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: > Ton Kooijman: > >>I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) >>the 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have >>to ask > Max. > John: "Make it good dearie". I'll get opener if he treats it as anything but 6-9 ish under 27D. ton: Goodness, you really persist in not understanding what the laws want you to do. Opener is entitled to guess what his partner meant to do. Partner is not entitled to tell what he thought he was doing. (this answers a question from David). And if opener guesses right that not necessarily means that there was illegal communication. Take the following: North 1 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat May 3 08:57:08 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: > Ton Kooijman: > >>I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) >>the 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have >>to ask > Max. > John: "Make it good dearie". I'll get opener if he treats it as anything but 6-9 ish under 27D. ton: Goodness, you really persist in not understanding what the laws want you to do. Opener is entitled to guess what his partner meant to do. Partner is not entitled to tell what he thought he was doing. (this answers a question from David). And if opener guesses right that not necessarily means that there was illegal communication. Take the following: North 1S East 1C. The guess is not that difficult anymore is it? Are you going to punish players depending on the position they are in when they commit this infraction? ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat May 3 09:06:03 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 09:06:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093B36@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: From: John (MadDog) Probst > I think it is our standard practice. Why don't you like it? John Not wishing to appear too trite: (1) Ruling as if there is UI when the laws say there isn't. (2) Ruling the opponents were damaged by the IB when OS side would reach 4H with or without the IB. (3) Ton taught me otherwise. Robin ton: Good answer Robin. Keep strong. Nice to hear that I was able to teach at least one of you the menaing of this part of L 27. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 2 20:41:32 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 19:41:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <4816F4D6016963C7@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <000401c8acfd$0fb7b460$c5c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > This is 19th century talking, England-USA being the only powers meaning > something. > > What I know is that in my country, in all lectures given in the EBL for > many > years (or wherever by myself) 'my' interpretation is the one broadcasted. > > Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the > words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present > L27B1a. > I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) the > 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask > Max. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+ I do not think it matters now what the TD would have done under the 1997 laws. Let us concentrate on the 2007 Law 27. Here is my stance on the subject. ............................................................................................................. Case 1. 1H-P-1H(2H)-P : Law 27B1(a) applies. (We only go to 27B1(b) after we have tried to apply 27B1(a).) Information from the IB is AI to the opening 1H bidder. What is that information? What he knows is that his partner was either responding to 1m, overcalling RHO's 1m, or opening the bidding. Therefore he has the information that partner has a hand suitable for one of these actions. If the opening bidder bids a direct 4H he has a hand suitable for a rebid of 4H after 1m - P - 1H - P; but he also knows that partner may have a hand suitable for opening 1H and he is entitled to explore that possibility with a trial or strength enquiry bid of some kind. ................................................................................................................. Case 2 2S - 1NT(2NT) - P -? Here the possibility is that the 1NT insufficient bid was either an opening bid or an overcall of his RHO's 1-suit. The opening 1NT is 14-16; 2NT in defence to the weak 2S is 17-19. 1NT overcall of opponent's 1-suit is 17-19. The partner of the insufficient bidder has AI that his partner has either 14-16 or 17-19. He may bid his hand accordingly on the same principles as above. .................................................................................................................. 27D Law 27D will kick in if the IB has enabled the offending side to reach a contract that it could not/would not reach by its agreed methods and obtain a favourable result thereby. So in Case 2 if the offending side's methods in defence to weak 2S include, say, 'Double' to show 14-16 balanced there is no problem with case 2; nor indeed if he has 17-19 and would clearly have bid 2NT. If with 14-16 balanced the partnership method is to pass and protect, the score will be adjusted if the partner does not have a hand on which it is clear he would have balanced the auction; where Law 12C1(c) is available the adjustment may be a weighted score if the Director is of the opinion that the probability is that some but not all of players would have balanced the auction with the hand the partner holds. (A 27D adjustment seeks "to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred".) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 2 20:59:05 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 19:59:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093B2E@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <000501c8acfd$10e42670$c5c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > Ton wrote: >> Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the >> words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present >> L27B1a. >> I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) >> the >> 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask >> Max. > > This issue has come up in the EBU (for instance at TD training weekends) > for > 1997 laws. > > The instruction to TD on EBU practice is that although the insufficient 1H > is > not UI, we adjust under Law27B1(b) as if the insufficient bid was UI. > > So when the auction 1H -(P)- 1H occurs, and the insufficient bidder has > had it > explained what will happened if he bids 2H, then he will usually choose to > bid > 4H (or 6H or whatever). > > I have never been happy with this interpretation, so it is entirely > possible > I am misrepresenting the EBU position. > +=+ I do not think a complete EBU position is yet established on Law 27. There is considerable discussion and exchange of opinions on various aspects. Eventually material for seminars will evolve. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat May 3 11:58:14 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 10:58:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <000401c8acfd$0fb7b460$c5c9403e@Mildred> References: <4816F4D6016963C7@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com) <000401c8acfd$0fb7b460$c5c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000a01c8ad04$36547c00$a2fd7400$@com> [GE] Case 1. 1H-P-1H(2H)-P : Law 27B1(a) applies. (We only go to 27B1(b) after we have tried to apply 27B1(a).) Information from the IB is AI to the opening 1H bidder. What is that information? What he knows is that his partner was either responding to 1m, overcalling RHO's 1m, or opening the bidding. Therefore he has the information that partner has a hand suitable for one of these actions. If the opening bidder bids a direct 4H he has a hand suitable for a rebid of 4H after 1m - P - 1H - P; but he also knows that partner may have a hand suitable for opening 1H and he is entitled to explore that possibility with a trial or strength enquiry bid of some kind. [DALB] This appears to contain the suggestion that the offending side may modify its trial bidding structure thus: after 1H-2H-2S (for example), responder bids game with a maximum limit raise or a suitable spade holding; but after 1H-1H/2H-2S, responder bids game only if he would have opened 1H, finding some other bid with a maximum limit raise or suitable spade holding (just in case opener has a minimum opening bid). Of course, the offending side is now varying its agreements consequent upon its own infraction, which it may or may not be allowed to do. Still, that is a minor difficulty by comparison with some of the problems we have encountered so far. And it does seem to provide a procedure that may work without the perpetrator of the IB having to disclose his reasons for making it. I have been speaking to some English directors at the Spring Foursomes this weekend, and whereas not all of them agree with the Kooijman Interpretation in its entirety, they are all agreed that the reason for the IB should not be revealed and should be treated as UI if it is revealed. Whereas 16D does not apply, 16B still does. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 2 20:41:32 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 19:41:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <4816F4D6016963C7@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <000801c8ad1a$95262880$add0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > This is 19th century talking, England-USA being the only powers meaning > something. > > What I know is that in my country, in all lectures given in the EBL for > many > years (or wherever by myself) 'my' interpretation is the one broadcasted. > > Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the > words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present > L27B1a. > I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) the > 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask > Max. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+ I do not think it matters now what the TD would have done under the 1997 laws. Let us concentrate on the 2007 Law 27. Here is my stance on the subject. ............................................................................................................. Case 1. 1H-P-1H(2H)-P : Law 27B1(a) applies. (We only go to 27B1(b) after we have tried to apply 27B1(a).) Information from the IB is AI to the opening 1H bidder. What is that information? What he knows is that his partner was either responding to 1m, overcalling RHO's 1m, or opening the bidding. Therefore he has the information that partner has a hand suitable for one of these actions. If the opening bidder bids a direct 4H he has a hand suitable for a rebid of 4H after 1m - P - 1H - P; but he also knows that partner may have a hand suitable for opening 1H and he is entitled to explore that possibility with a trial or strength enquiry bid of some kind. ................................................................................................................. Case 2 2S - 1NT(2NT) - P -? Here the possibility is that the 1NT insufficient bid was either an opening bid or an overcall of his RHO's 1-suit. The opening 1NT is 14-16; 2NT in defence to the weak 2S is 17-19. 1NT overcall of opponent's 1-suit is 17-19. The partner of the insufficient bidder has AI that his partner has either 14-16 or 17-19. He may bid his hand accordingly on the same principles as above. .................................................................................................................. 27D Law 27D will kick in if the IB has enabled the offending side to reach a contract that it could not/would not reach by its agreed methods and obtain a favourable result thereby. So in Case 2 if the offending side's methods in defence to weak 2S include, say, 'Double' to show 14-16 balanced there is no problem with case 2; nor indeed if he has 17-19 and would clearly have bid 2NT. If with 14-16 balanced the partnership method is to pass and protect, the score will be adjusted if the partner does not have a hand on which it is clear he would have balanced the auction; where Law 12C1(c) is available the adjustment may be a weighted score if the Director is of the opinion that the probability is that some but not all of players would have balanced the auction with the hand the partner holds. (A 27D adjustment seeks "to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred".) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 2 20:59:05 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 19:59:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093B2E@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <000901c8ad1a$96a611c0$add0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > Ton wrote: >> Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the >> words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present >> L27B1a. >> I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) >> the >> 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask >> Max. > > This issue has come up in the EBU (for instance at TD training weekends) > for > 1997 laws. > > The instruction to TD on EBU practice is that although the insufficient 1H > is > not UI, we adjust under Law27B1(b) as if the insufficient bid was UI. > > So when the auction 1H -(P)- 1H occurs, and the insufficient bidder has > had it > explained what will happened if he bids 2H, then he will usually choose to > bid > 4H (or 6H or whatever). > > I have never been happy with this interpretation, so it is entirely > possible > I am misrepresenting the EBU position. > +=+ I do not think a complete EBU position is yet established on Law 27. There is considerable discussion and exchange of opinions on various aspects. Eventually material for seminars will evolve. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 3 15:24:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 14:24:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. Message-ID: <007a01c8ad21$0db60da0$add0403e@Mildred> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:58 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > > >> This is 19th century talking, England-USA being the only powers meaning >> something. >> >> What I know is that in my country, in all lectures given in the EBL for >> many >> years (or wherever by myself) 'my' interpretation is the one broadcasted. >> >> Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the >> words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present >> L27B1a. >> I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) >> the >> 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask >> Max. >> > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ I do not think it matters now what the TD would have done under > the 1997 laws. Let us concentrate on the 2007 Law 27. Here is my > stance on the subject. > ............................................................................................................. > Case 1. > 1H-P-1H(2H)-P : Law 27B1(a) applies. (We only go to 27B1(b) after > we have tried to apply 27B1(a).) > Information from the IB is AI to the opening 1H bidder. What is that > information? What he knows is that his partner was either responding > to 1m, overcalling RHO's 1m, or opening the bidding. Therefore he has > the information that partner has a hand suitable for one of these actions. > If the opening bidder bids a direct 4H he has a hand suitable for a rebid > of 4H after 1m - P - 1H - P; but he also knows that partner may have a > hand suitable for opening 1H and he is entitled to explore that > possibility > with a trial or strength enquiry bid of some kind. > ................................................................................................................. > Case 2 > 2S - 1NT(2NT) - P -? > Here the possibility is that the 1NT insufficient bid was either an > opening > bid or an overcall of his RHO's 1-suit. The opening 1NT is 14-16; 2NT > in defence to the weak 2S is 17-19. 1NT overcall of opponent's 1-suit is > 17-19. The partner of the insufficient bidder has AI that his partner has > either 14-16 or 17-19. He may bid his hand accordingly on the same > principles as above. > .................................................................................................................. > 27D > Law 27D will kick in if the IB has enabled the offending side to reach > a contract that it could not/would not reach by its agreed methods and > obtain a favourable result thereby. So in Case 2 if the offending side's > methods in defence to weak 2S include, say, 'Double' to show 14-16 > balanced there is no problem with case 2; nor indeed if he has 17-19 > and would clearly have bid 2NT. If with 14-16 balanced the partnership > method is to pass and protect, the score will be adjusted if the partner > does not have a hand on which it is clear he would have balanced the > auction; where Law 12C1(c) is available the adjustment may be a > weighted score if the Director is of the opinion that the probability is > that some but not all of players would have balanced the auction with > the hand the partner holds. (A 27D adjustment seeks "to recover as > nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the > insufficient bid not occurred".) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 3 15:24:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 14:24:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. Message-ID: <007a01c8ad21$0db60da0$add0403e@Mildred> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:58 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > > >> This is 19th century talking, England-USA being the only powers meaning >> something. >> >> What I know is that in my country, in all lectures given in the EBL for >> many >> years (or wherever by myself) 'my' interpretation is the one broadcasted. >> >> Though David's interpretation is not unbelievable when just reading the >> words, it doesn't make sense at all when knowing the aim of present >> L27B1a. >> I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) >> the >> 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have to ask >> Max. >> > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ I do not think it matters now what the TD would have done under > the 1997 laws. Let us concentrate on the 2007 Law 27. Here is my > stance on the subject. > ............................................................................................................. > Case 1. > 1H-P-1H(2H)-P : Law 27B1(a) applies. (We only go to 27B1(b) after > we have tried to apply 27B1(a).) > Information from the IB is AI to the opening 1H bidder. What is that > information? What he knows is that his partner was either responding > to 1m, overcalling RHO's 1m, or opening the bidding. Therefore he has > the information that partner has a hand suitable for one of these actions. > If the opening bidder bids a direct 4H he has a hand suitable for a rebid > of 4H after 1m - P - 1H - P; but he also knows that partner may have a > hand suitable for opening 1H and he is entitled to explore that > possibility > with a trial or strength enquiry bid of some kind. > ................................................................................................................. > Case 2 > 2S - 1NT(2NT) - P -? > Here the possibility is that the 1NT insufficient bid was either an > opening > bid or an overcall of his RHO's 1-suit. The opening 1NT is 14-16; 2NT > in defence to the weak 2S is 17-19. 1NT overcall of opponent's 1-suit is > 17-19. The partner of the insufficient bidder has AI that his partner has > either 14-16 or 17-19. He may bid his hand accordingly on the same > principles as above. > .................................................................................................................. > 27D > Law 27D will kick in if the IB has enabled the offending side to reach > a contract that it could not/would not reach by its agreed methods and > obtain a favourable result thereby. So in Case 2 if the offending side's > methods in defence to weak 2S include, say, 'Double' to show 14-16 > balanced there is no problem with case 2; nor indeed if he has 17-19 > and would clearly have bid 2NT. If with 14-16 balanced the partnership > method is to pass and protect, the score will be adjusted if the partner > does not have a hand on which it is clear he would have balanced the > auction; where Law 12C1(c) is available the adjustment may be a > weighted score if the Director is of the opinion that the probability is > that some but not all of players would have balanced the auction with > the hand the partner holds. (A 27D adjustment seeks "to recover as > nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the > insufficient bid not occurred".) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat May 3 15:55:21 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 15:55:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <000a01c8ad04$36547c00$a2fd7400$@com> Message-ID: [DALB] I have been speaking to some English directors at the Spring Foursomes this weekend, and whereas not all of them agree with the Kooijman Interpretation in its entirety, ton: Don't use them anymore But if Max is among those I am in trouble ton David: they are all agreed that the reason for the IB should not be revealed and should be treated as UI if it is revealed. ton: Ok, some compensation, may be a warning is enough ton Whereas 16D does not apply, 16B still does. David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 3 20:37:42 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 19:37:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <4816F4D6016963C7@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (addedby postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com)<000401c8acfd$0fb7b460$c5c9403e@Mildred> <000a01c8ad04$36547c00$a2fd7400$@com> Message-ID: <000f01c8ad4d$b00ae450$a4cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > [GE] > > Case 1. > > 1H-P-1H(2H)-P : Law 27B1(a) applies. (We only go to 27B1(b) after we have > tried to apply 27B1(a).) > > Information from the IB is AI to the opening 1H bidder. What is that > information? What he knows is that his partner was either responding to > 1m, > overcalling RHO's 1m, or opening the bidding. Therefore he has the > information that partner has a hand suitable for one of these actions. If > the opening bidder bids a direct 4H he has a hand suitable for a rebid of > 4H > after 1m - P - 1H - P; but he also knows that partner may have a hand > suitable for opening 1H and he is entitled to explore that possibility > with > a trial or strength enquiry bid of some kind. > > [DALB] > > This appears to contain the suggestion that the offending side may modify > its trial bidding structure thus: after 1H-2H-2S (for example), responder > bids game with a maximum limit raise or a suitable spade holding; but > after > 1H-1H/2H-2S, responder bids game only if he would have opened 1H, finding > some other bid with a maximum limit raise or suitable spade holding (just > in > case opener has a minimum opening bid). Of course, the offending side is > now > varying its agreements consequent upon its own infraction, which it may or > may not be allowed to do. > > Still, that is a minor difficulty by comparison with some of the problems > we > have encountered so far. And it does seem to provide a procedure that may > work without the perpetrator of the IB having to disclose his reasons for > making it. I have been speaking to some English directors at the Spring > Foursomes this weekend, and whereas not all of them agree with the > Kooijman > Interpretation in its entirety, they are all agreed that the reason for > the > IB should not be revealed and should be treated as UI if it is revealed. > Whereas 16D does not apply, 16B still does. > > David Burn > London, England > (GE) +=+ I would say it may or may not require the offending side to vary its understandings, depending on what they are. If, following partner's raise to 2H in a normal auction, a rebid of (say) 2S indicates an interest in game and requests partner to evaluate his hand to that purpose, is there a variation of meaning in the DALB example above? If there is doubt, the question becomes one of bridge judgement for the Director and the Appeals Committee. And by the way, I am broadly in agreement with the fundamentals of Ton's opinion in the matter but have felt they need some refinement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Sun May 4 09:41:24 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 17:41:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <000f01c8ad4d$b00ae450$a4cb403e@Mildred> References: <4816F4D6016963C7@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (addedby postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com)<000401c8acfd$0fb7b460$c5c9403e@Mildred> <000a01c8ad04$36547c00$a2fd7400$@com> <000f01c8ad4d$b00ae450$a4cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <481D68A4.8090002@ozemail.com.au> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >************************* >"we that live to please > must please to live" > ~ Dr Samuel Johnson >************************* >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" >To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 10:58 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > > > > >>[GE] >> >>Case 1. >> >>1H-P-1H(2H)-P : Law 27B1(a) applies. (We only go to 27B1(b) after we have >>tried to apply 27B1(a).) >> >> >> I hope I have misunderstood this. Are you saying that, if 27B1(a) applies, then we always rule under this, and never go on to 27B1(b)? If this pair were playing 4 card mjors, I would offer the IBer his rights under B1(a), and also suggest he may have alternative actions available under B1(b) e.g. some sort of artificial game forcing bid which conveys the same meaning.. Reg > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 4 12:21:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 11:21:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093B36@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> <004301c8ac9e$d15073a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <000201c8add6$2da05cf0$f7d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> From: John (MadDog) Probst > Honestly Robin, I don't see a problem with > what we do now. Perhaps I'm being really > thick. John >> +=+ As I have made clear, it does not matter to me what we did with the 1997 laws - I am working with the 2007 Code where I am committed to undertake any task. I think we should all read the 2007 Code with fresh drops in our eyes to remove any film placed there by what we did, or did not do, under the 1997 laws. I presume, John, that where the new laws call for a modification of past practices you will flex to the need. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 4 13:41:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 12:41:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <4816F4D6016963C7@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (addedby postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com)<000401c8acfd$0fb7b460$c5c9403e@Mildred> <000a01c8ad04$36547c00$a2fd7400$@com><000f01c8ad4d$b00ae450$a4cb403e@Mildred> <481D68A4.8090002@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000201c8adea$b7877700$37cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >>> > I hope I have misunderstood this. Are you saying > that, if 27B1(a) applies, then we always rule under > this, and never go on to 27B1(b)? If this pair were > playing 4 card mjors, I would offer the IBer his rights > under B1(a), and also suggest he may have alternative > actions available under B1(b) e.g. some sort of > artificial game forcing bid which conveys the same > meaning.. > Reg > +=+ When a player has options the Director must explain all the options to him. (Law 10C1). So you are right to point to all the possibilities. After receiving the explanation the player selects his call. If it is the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination Law 27B1(a) applies. If it is not the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination then either 27B1(b) or 27B2, or 27B3, or 27B4 will apply. So it is also right that when 27B1(a) applies to his selected option you never go to 27B1(b), nor to any of 27B2, 27B3, 27B4. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From john at asimere.com Sun May 4 17:09:06 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 16:09:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001d01c8adf8$cc2fabb0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Ton Kooijman: >> >>>I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) >>>the 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have >>>to ask >> Max. >> > > John: > "Make it good dearie". I'll get opener if he treats it as anything but 6-9 > ish under 27D. > The problem ton, is that opener "knows" what 1H meant. However hard responder tries there will be UI, and while I'm happy L16 doesn't apply I have no sensible alternative to stopping probst cheats from prospering. I don't care what the intent was; i do care that someone who is behaving as a cheat would behave may gain therefrom. Am I being unreasonable? Are you suggesting those who do what cheats would do should gain? cheers john > > ton: > Goodness, you really persist in not understanding what the laws want you > to > do. > > Opener is entitled to guess what his partner meant to do. Partner is not > entitled to tell what he thought he was doing. (this answers a question > from > David). And if opener guesses right that not necessarily means that there > was illegal communication. > > Take the following: North 1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun May 4 17:24:11 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 16:24:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002201c8adfa$e7924050$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Ton Kooijman: >> >>>I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H (2H) >>>the 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have >>>to ask >> Max. >> > > John: > "Make it good dearie". I'll get opener if he treats it as anything but 6-9 > ish under 27D. > > > ton: > Goodness, you really persist in not understanding what the laws want you > to > do. > > Opener is entitled to guess what his partner meant to do. Partner is not > entitled to tell what he thought he was doing. (this answers a question > from > David). And if opener guesses right that not necessarily means that there > was illegal communication. > > Take the following: North 1S East 1C. The guess is not that difficult > anymore is it? Are you going to punish players depending on the position > they are in when they commit this infraction? the implicit values in this auction are similar, though I concede that the clubs may be a stretch. When my mother "makes it good" we're still in a sensible auction [1H (1C) -> (2C)]. 1H (P) 1H leads to a different problem. As DALB points out, the correction to 2H is 6-9(+) if responder thought he was responding to 1D and 13+ GF if responder was "opening". In the first case, responder can bid 2H, no penalty, or 2nd case bash 4H (losing slam sequences, but we're agreed he's a plonker for bidding 1H in the first place)and therein is his equity restored. This has been the case since 1963. I'm happy indeed if the 1H call had been an intended opener then under the new law a 2N call may well be acceprable; this is "a good thing". In all cases I have recourse to 72B1 (or in the New laws: 27D and 23) if I feel that my probst cheat opener has used the insufficient bid to his side's advantage. I'm not intending to remove rub-of-the-green results. I am stopping advantage gained by the infraction. That _IS_ and _WAS_ what the Law says isn't it? John > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun May 4 17:36:55 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 16:36:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093B36@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local><004301c8ac9e$d15073a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <000201c8add6$2da05cf0$f7d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <003d01c8adfc$aefcdc30$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "we that live to please > must please to live" > ~ Dr Samuel Johnson > ************************* >>> From: John (MadDog) Probst > >> Honestly Robin, I don't see a problem with >> what we do now. Perhaps I'm being really >> thick. John >>> > +=+ As I have made clear, it does not matter to me > what we did with the 1997 laws - I am working with > the 2007 Code where I am committed to undertake > any task. > I think we should all read the 2007 Code with > fresh drops in our eyes to remove any film placed > there by what we did, or did not do, under the 1997 > laws. I presume, John, that where the new laws call > for a modification of past practices you will flex to > the need. ca va sans rien dire. but I will continue with the instruction and education of my probst cheats in order that they may take maximum advantage of the interpretations; and I will endeavour to position the interpretation of the new law so as to deny them any advantage. My apologies if this position causes grief. I've many times remarked that almost all infractions are made with no intent to gain advantage, but I'd be surprised if anyone here would not want to position the interpretation of the law in such a way as to deny those who make infractions _with intent_ from gaining thereby. We then keep a level playing field and don't have to call anyone a cheat. John > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Mon May 5 03:56:22 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 21:56:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 In-Reply-To: <200805021602.m42G257U006864@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200805021602.m42G257U006864@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <481E6946.2000508@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > It is quite clear that 2008 L27B1(a) is, and was intended to be, > identical in its effect to 1997 L27B1(a) I don't doubt "intended to be," but I'm not so sure about "is." Has anyone noted that the new definition of "artificial call" is far broader than the old definition of "convention?" If you take the words literally, probably half the bids that most of us think of as natural are artificial according to the definition. In particular, a 5cM opening is apparently artificial. So is any call with a narrowly- limited strength range. I'm sure there are other examples. I suppose an interpretation of the new definition in accord with past practice is possible, but it looks to me as though it will take quite a bit of "creativity." [I've been intending to comment on other things but don't have time; maybe next weekend.] From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon May 5 04:47:19 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 03:47:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 In-Reply-To: <37F9977E-4A3F-488F-BCAC-7A38455AFD42@starpower.net> Message-ID: <752720.54696.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Eric Landau wrote: > If you allow the RC to be chosen based on > some possible > "intention" which was not the actual one, you must > allow it based on > *any* such intention; you cannot limit the IBer to > only those that > sound "reasonable" to you. > Well, it does not seem to me that there is a choice, because there is nothing in the Law that says anything about the IBer's intention. So clearly his intention is not a matter of law, and it does not seem that he must be forced to disclose it to the director. In any case, there will be a limited number of explanations for the IB, depending on which bids were missed, misheard/misread, etc. So thinking of alternative intentions and RCs with the same "meaning" will not be as difficult as some people seem to think. The possible RCs will be as "reasonable" as the system being played. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 5 04:51:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 12:51:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Steve Willner asserted: >Has anyone noted that the new definition of "artificial call" is far >broader than the old definition of "convention?" If you take the >words literally, probably half the bids that most of us think of as >natural are artificial according to the definition. In particular, >a 5cM opening is apparently artificial. So is any call with a >narrowly-limited strength range. I'm sure there are other examples. Richard Hills quibbles: In the 2007 definition of Artificial Call, there is a Haig-speak caveat stating "(not being information taken for granted by players generally)". * It is "information taken for granted by players generally" that many pairs play 5-card majors and better minor. It is not "information taken for granted by players generally" that one pair played 5-card minors and better major. 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 * I suspect this was inserted because under the 1997 definition of Convention, a Standard American 16-18 hcp 1NT opening was technically conventional. This was not because 1NT had a specified point range (the 1997 definition excluded strength), but because 1NT had limits specified on overall hand shape (for example, denying a semi-balanced 7222 shape if the 7-card suit was a major). Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From adam at tameware.com Mon May 5 07:29:57 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 01:29:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit cases posted Message-ID: The ACBL has posted initial versions of the case write-ups from the Detroit NABC here: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Detroit2008.html No comments are there yet. I'll post mine to BLML as soon as I can. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Mon May 5 07:32:14 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 01:32:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: If you haven't seen the case write-up yet please refrain a little longer. I'll give just the hand in question for now, though knowing the whole deal shouldn't make much of a difference. Playing matchpoints, in first seat at favorable vulnerability you pick up: 954 3 JT4 JT9865 You pass, LHO opens a 15-17 point NT, RHO transfers to hearts, and 2H is passed around to you. It will not surprise you to learn that your partner did not have a penalty double of 1NT available. He did have calls available to show any two suits. I won't ask what your call is. I'm confident a poll would be split between Pass and 3C, each of which I would consider a logical choice. It will also not surprise you to learn, since this is BLML, that partner hesitated for 20 seconds or so before passing 1NT. Let's make a few assumptions. One is that, since the opponents will hold at most 25 HCP, partner holds at least 13 HCP, and more likely at least 15 HCP. Another is that partner's hesitation implies he holds more like 20 HCP. Would knowing that partner held 20 HCP make 3C more attractive, or would it make Pass more attractive, or neither? We are all familiar with the school that holds that partner's hesitations usually suggest bidding. The more partner holds, the more tricks we are likely to take in our contract, and the more likely we can set the opponents if they bid on. A contrary argument here is that +200 is a live possibility if you pass, a result not available in 3C. The laws require you to figure out what action partner's UI suggests, if anything, so that you can do the opposite. Knowing partner huddled, and wanting to follow the laws, what is your call, and why? -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 5 08:18:48 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 02:18:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Zone 7 LC interprets Law 27 In-Reply-To: <752720.54696.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <752720.54696.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 May 2008 22:47:19 -0400, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > --- Eric Landau wrote: > >> If you allow the RC to be chosen based on >> some possible >> "intention" which was not the actual one, you must >> allow it based on >> *any* such intention; you cannot limit the IBer to >> only those that >> sound "reasonable" to you. >> > Well, it does not seem to me that there is a choice, > because there is nothing in the Law that says anything > about the IBer's intention. So clearly his intention > is not a matter of law, and it does not seem that he > must be forced to disclose it to the director. You have to determine the meaning of the bid. The question is whether you do it from the perspective of the insufficient bidder or from the table. Suppose 2D is overcalled by 2C. In the old Law 27, and the new 27B1(a), wouldn't you allow a 3C correction (without barring partner) if 2C was intended to be an overcall and disallow it if 2C was intended to be a strong artifical opening? If so, this is taking into account the insufficent bidder's intention. From the table perspective, 2C could be artificial, hence a 27B1(a) correction to 3C would not be allowed. The logic of L27B1(b) suggests that the meaning in the insufficient bid can and should be determined from the perspective of the table. If so, the director does not need to look in the player's hand. However, it would be odd to use the insufficient bidder's intention to determine the meaning of a bid for 27B1(a) while using the table persective for 27B1(b). Which is to say, no one reading the laws would guess that "meaning" should be determined differently in 27B1(a) than in 27B1(b). From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon May 5 10:01:46 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:01:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <004d01c8aaa4$74fdd5d0$47cb403e@Mildred> References: <001b01c8a8bf$a4eaa480$0901a8c0@JOHN> <00b601c8a93a$ed143160$67ce403e@Mildred> <002301c8a995$48360460$0901a8c0@JOHN> <004d01c8aaa4$74fdd5d0$47cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On 30/04/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "we that live to please > must please to live" > ~ Dr Samuel Johnson > ************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > 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. I guess John meant that he'd inform the players as to the nature of the penalty when called. As a TD should. A revoker not winning the revoke trick should be informed at that time that the penalty might vary according to him later winning a trick or not with a card that could lawfully have been played to the revoke trick. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 5 10:03:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 18:03:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: [snip] >Playing matchpoints, in first seat at favorable vulnerability you >pick up: > >954 >3 >JT4 >JT9865 > >You pass, LHO opens a 15-17 point NT, RHO transfers to hearts, and >2H is passed around to you. It will not surprise you to learn that >your partner did not have a penalty double of 1NT available. He did >have calls available to show any two suits. [snip] >Knowing partner huddled, and wanting to follow the laws, what is >your call, and why? Richard Hills: "A flaw in balancing theory is that it makes the unjustified assumption that the opponents know what they are doing." First uttered by Richard Hills in April 2008. However, a similar idea was expressed by David Bird in his monks of St Titus bridge stories when he invented the Biltcliffe Coup. Three times during a single match Brother Biltcliffe balanced when the opponents had stopped in a partscore. Three times the opponents bid game. Three times Brother Biltcliffe doubled. Three times the doubled game made. In this case you have UI that pard is super-strong and consequently that the opponents are less likely to employ the Biltcliffe Coup of bidding and making 4Hx if you balance. Ergo, since the UI indicates that the debacle of -790 after a balance will not occur, it is Pass which is the only legal logical alternative. 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 Mon May 5 10:13:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 10:13:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> Adam Wildavsky a ?crit : > If you haven't seen the case write-up yet please refrain a little > longer. I'll give just the hand in question for now, though knowing > the whole deal shouldn't make much of a difference. > > Playing matchpoints, in first seat at favorable vulnerability you pick up: > > 954 > 3 > JT4 > JT9865 > > You pass, LHO opens a 15-17 point NT, RHO transfers to hearts, and 2H > is passed around to you. It will not surprise you to learn that your > partner did not have a penalty double of 1NT available. He did have > calls available to show any two suits. > > I won't ask what your call is. I'm confident a poll would be split > between Pass and 3C, each of which I would consider a logical choice. > > It will also not surprise you to learn, since this is BLML, that > partner hesitated for 20 seconds or so before passing 1NT. > > Let's make a few assumptions. One is that, since the opponents will > hold at most 25 HCP, partner holds at least 13 HCP, and more likely at > least 15 HCP. Another is that partner's hesitation implies he holds > more like 20 HCP. Would knowing that partner held 20 HCP make 3C more > attractive, or would it make Pass more attractive, or neither? > AG : I don't know why pass should suggest a stronger hand. Especially if he didn't take any action over 2H. The one thing we know is that he has a problem. Contrary to passing before making a penalty double, for example, we can't know what this problem is. Perhaps he has a very strong hand. Perhaps he has a 2-suiter, but low ODR, and fancies his chances in defense ; in that case one of the suits will probably be hearts, which means we shouldn't ropen. Perhaps he has something like 3352 pattern, and didn't want to show a 1-suited hand on that pattern ; in that case, we'd rather reopen. And so on ... I'll judge "no UI". Best regards Alain From jrhind at therock.bm Mon May 5 13:46:52 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 08:46:52 -0300 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I believe that there is UI and therefore Pass is a logical alternative. I expect that this may go to an AC though as it is close. Jack On 5/5/08 5:03 AM, "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" wrote: > > Adam Wildavsky: > > [snip] > >> Playing matchpoints, in first seat at favorable vulnerability you >> pick up: >> >> 954 >> 3 >> JT4 >> JT9865 >> >> You pass, LHO opens a 15-17 point NT, RHO transfers to hearts, and >> 2H is passed around to you. It will not surprise you to learn that >> your partner did not have a penalty double of 1NT available. He did >> have calls available to show any two suits. > > [snip] > >> Knowing partner huddled, and wanting to follow the laws, what is >> your call, and why? > > Richard Hills: > > "A flaw in balancing theory is that it makes the unjustified > assumption that the opponents know what they are doing." > > First uttered by Richard Hills in April 2008. However, a similar > idea was expressed by David Bird in his monks of St Titus bridge > stories when he invented the Biltcliffe Coup. > > Three times during a single match Brother Biltcliffe balanced when > the opponents had stopped in a partscore. Three times the > opponents bid game. Three times Brother Biltcliffe doubled. Three > times the doubled game made. > > In this case you have UI that pard is super-strong and consequently > that the opponents are less likely to employ the Biltcliffe Coup of > bidding and making 4Hx if you balance. > > Ergo, since the UI indicates that the debacle of -790 after a > balance will not occur, it is Pass which is the only legal logical > alternative. > > > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 5 14:27:13 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 14:27:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <481EFD21.8020502@ulb.ac.be> Jack Rhind a ?crit : > I believe that there is UI and therefore Pass is a logical alternative. > I expect that this may go to an AC though as it is close. > When tackling UI problems, you should always ask three questions : 1) is there UI ? 2) does it suggest something about partner's hand ? 3) did this help partner select among LA ? My answers here are : 1) yes, we know partner had a difficult hand over 1NT, which points to a balanced type if I understand the pair's methods. 2) probably not about strength ; saying that partner will be prone to hesitate with a 20-count but not with a 17-count and the same pattern would be a bit surprising. But about pattern, the combination of partner's slow pass over 1NT and his pass over 2H (where he could easily have made up for his previous tempo by issuing a delayed double, most probably showing a strong all-around hand) hints at the fact that he holds hearts. Surely he would pass over 2H with 3442 pattern (where he would have hesitated to show D+H over 1NT), and double 4333 and 3 small hearts. 3) whence partner's mannerism suggests pass would be profitable. Bidding 3C is therefore certainly not "using UI". And about your phraseology : the fact that such-and-such bids are LA is independent of the existence of UI. Pass would be a LA if partner hadn't hesitated, to be sure. We only need to address the combination UI + LA. Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Mon May 5 15:26:56 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 14:26:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <001801c8aeb3$b0d5a6b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 6:32 AM Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > If you haven't seen the case write-up yet please refrain a little > longer. I'll give just the hand in question for now, though knowing > the whole deal shouldn't make much of a difference. > > Playing matchpoints, in first seat at favorable vulnerability you pick up: > > 954 > 3 > JT4 > JT9865 > > You pass, LHO opens a 15-17 point NT, RHO transfers to hearts, and 2H > is passed around to you. It will not surprise you to learn that your > partner did not have a penalty double of 1NT available. He did have > calls available to show any two suits. snip > > The laws require you to figure out what action partner's UI suggests, > if anything, so that you can do the opposite. Knowing partner huddled, > and wanting to follow the laws, what is your call, and why? Assuming X of 2H by pard is t/o he didn't make that call and may have a penalty double, therefore the UI suggests passing/doubling. One of our questions for TDs is based on a long suit, weak hand after 1NT has been passed around, which is not much different from this case, and calling is certainly allowed. Absent hesitation at mps, I'm torn between double and 3C. With it, 3C. John > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From john at asimere.com Mon May 5 15:32:00 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 14:32:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 References: <001b01c8a8bf$a4eaa480$0901a8c0@JOHN><00b601c8a93a$ed143160$67ce403e@Mildred><002301c8a995$48360460$0901a8c0@JOHN><004d01c8aaa4$74fdd5d0$47cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002901c8aeb4$66ce46c0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 snip regarding the revoke Law that goes to 64C if both sides revoke. >> >> >> +=+ 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. > > I guess John meant that he'd inform the players as to the nature of > the penalty when called. As a TD should. A revoker not winning the > revoke trick should be informed at that time that the penalty might > vary according to him later winning a trick or not with a card that > could lawfully have been played to the revoke trick. > Yes, thanks Harald. I'll tell them now how the Law will be applied at the end of the hand. John > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon May 5 18:12:56 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 17:12:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> [Adam Wildavsky] Matchpoints, first seat, favorable vulnerability you pick up: S:954 H:3 D:JT4 C:JT9865 You pass, LHO opens a 15-17 point NT, RHO transfers to hearts, and 2H is passed around to you. It will not surprise you to learn that your partner did not have a penalty double of 1NT available. He did have calls available to show any two suits. I won't ask what your call is. I'm confident a poll would be split between Pass and 3C, each of which I would consider a logical choice. [Nige1] IMO _P = 10, 3C = 3 _X = 2. It will also not surprise you to learn, since this is BLML, that partner hesitated for 20 seconds or so before passing 1NT. Let's make a few assumptions. One is that, since the opponents will hold at most 25 HCP, partner holds at least 13 HCP, and more likely at least 15 HCP. Another is that partner's hesitation implies he holds more like 20 HCP. Would knowing that partner held 20 HCP make 3C more attractive, or would it make Pass more attractive, or neither? We are all familiar with the school that holds that partner's hesitations usually suggest bidding. The more partner holds, the more tricks we are likely to take in our contract, and the more likely we can set the opponents if they bid on. A contrary argument here is that +200 is a live possibility if you pass, a result not available in 3C. The laws require you to figure out what action partner's UI suggests, if anything, so that you can do the opposite. Knowing partner huddled, and wanting to follow the laws, what is your call, and why? [Nige1] Interesting and difficult decision. I have not read the director or appeal ruling, so I am unprejudiced. Assume that Adam is right that (i) opponents have not made a mistake (ii) Hence partner is marked with a good hand and (ii) His hesitation implies he has 20 HCP. Can we deduce that partner does not have good major suit or a major two suiter? I think so, because, because then, it would be risky for partner to pass 1N. If that inference is valid, 2H may be making or going one down when can make game in notrump or a minor. Hence, IMO the hesitation *clearly* suggests bidding 3C, so if South bid and gained by it, IMO the director would adjust back to 2H. Were that director decision appealed, IMO the committee should not impose an AMWM or PP because superficially plausible arguments can be made for other rulings. Caveat: if it turns out that partner has a *massive* heart stack and a mountain, then the director should rule against him and impose a PP, arguing that *he might have known* that his hesitation would prevent his ethical partner from competing in a suit. From john at asimere.com Mon May 5 19:31:39 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 18:31:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000901c8aed5$e01e7a60$0901a8c0@JOHN> > made for other rulings. > > Caveat: if it turns out that partner has a *massive* heart stack and a > mountain, then the director should rule against him and impose a PP, > arguing that *he might have known* that his hesitation would prevent his > ethical partner from competing in a suit. > This one's wrong nigel; hesitating is NOT an infraction. Surprised me you did, getting that one wrong. John > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon May 5 19:59:02 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 18:59:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <000901c8aed5$e01e7a60$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> <000901c8aed5$e01e7a60$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <481F4AE6.90603@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] Caveat: if it turns out that partner has a *massive* heart stack and a mountain, then the director should rule against him and impose a PP, arguing that *he might have known* that his hesitation would prevent his ethical partner from competing in a suit. [John Mad Dog Probst] This one's wrong nigel; hesitating is NOT an infraction. Surprised me you did, getting that one wrong. John [Nige2] I'm not a secretary bird so I expect to get Bridge law wrong sometimes but here, I'd be shocked if John is right and I'm wrong. From jrmayne at mindspring.com Mon May 5 20:12:42 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 14:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: <12472604.1210011162550.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Adam Wildavsky >Sent: May 5, 2008 1:32 AM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > >If you haven't seen the case write-up yet please refrain a little >longer. I'll give just the hand in question for now, though knowing >the whole deal shouldn't make much of a difference. > >Playing matchpoints, in first seat at favorable vulnerability you pick up: > >954 >3 >JT4 >JT9865 > >You pass, LHO opens a 15-17 point NT, RHO transfers to hearts, and 2H >is passed around to you. It will not surprise you to learn that your >partner did not have a penalty double of 1NT available. He did have >calls available to show any two suits. > >I won't ask what your call is. I'm confident a poll would be split >between Pass and 3C, each of which I would consider a logical choice. Sure. I'd bid 3C, and I do think it's the winner, long-term. > >It will also not surprise you to learn, since this is BLML, that >partner hesitated for 20 seconds or so before passing 1NT. > >Let's make a few assumptions. One is that, since the opponents will >hold at most 25 HCP, partner holds at least 13 HCP, and more likely at >least 15 HCP. Another is that partner's hesitation implies he holds >more like 20 HCP. Would knowing that partner held 20 HCP make 3C more >attractive, or would it make Pass more attractive, or neither? > If partner holds a moose with a heart stack, he knows at these colors that they aren't psyching. We are going to whomp their contract for more than the partscore. I'm going to balance on most shaped hands here, so he knows if it gets passed out.... well, we might get an average for +400. Passing cleanly is standout. If partner has a balanced 18-cound with three little hearts, that's going to be harder for him to sit through. For a strong partner, I'd assume the latter. >We are all familiar with the school that holds that partner's >hesitations usually suggest bidding. The more partner holds, the more >tricks we are likely to take in our contract, and the more likely we >can set the opponents if they bid on. > >A contrary argument here is that +200 is a live possibility if you >pass, a result not available in 3C. Sure, but I think partner should be able to pass more smoothly on AJT94 of hearts. He doesn't have anything else to do. (And we don't need the 4 for partner to figure that out.) > >The laws require you to figure out what action partner's UI suggests, >if anything, so that you can do the opposite. Knowing partner huddled, >and wanting to follow the laws, what is your call, and why? > Pass. Partner has a difficult hand - a monster with four weak hearts, or a big hand with three hearts, probably. With some partners, that inference wouldn't be available; they wouldn't know how to handle a 20-count. So, they could have anything. If so, I think it's a toss-up - and I can bid 3C. As an appeal committee member, I'd want to have a long conversation with these folks to sort it out. --JRM From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon May 5 21:34:33 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 20:34:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <481F4AE6.90603@NTLworld.com> References: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> <000901c8aed5$e01e7a60$0901a8c0@JOHN> <481F4AE6.90603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <481F6149.5030704@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] I must read the question more carefully. Partner did not hesitate over 2H. He hesitated earlier over 1N. I thought it was the other way round. The UI from the hesitation is that partner has a strong hand, not 2-suited or single-suited. As Richard Hills says, the important point is that partner's hesitation makes it less likely that opponents have made a mistake by grossly underbidding. If you protect, opponents are unlikely to wake up and bid a making game or slam. The AI from partner's pass of 2 hearts is that he does not have a void, singleton or doubleton heart. IMO, however, this still means that. - X/bid is suggested by the UI. - Pass is not suggested by the UI. From john at asimere.com Tue May 6 00:38:45 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 23:38:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> <000901c8aed5$e01e7a60$0901a8c0@JOHN><481F4AE6.90603@NTLworld.com> <481F6149.5030704@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <003301c8af00$c6f93220$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > [Nigel] > I must read the question more carefully. > Partner did not hesitate over 2H. > He hesitated earlier over 1N. I'll bank the grovel, Nigel :) On balance, 3C is less likely to get us a good score here, even though it's a winner overall. The point being that hesitations here make it more attractive to look for 200, as we know partner is somewhat offshape - he knows what to do with fairly balanced hands. I think.maybe JRM is right. "Can't tell, anything goes" John > > I thought it was the other way round. > > The UI from the hesitation is that partner has a strong hand, not > 2-suited or single-suited. > > As Richard Hills says, the important point is that partner's hesitation > makes it less likely that opponents have made a mistake by grossly > underbidding. If you protect, opponents are unlikely to wake up and bid > a making game or slam. > > The AI from partner's pass of 2 hearts is that he does not have a void, > singleton or doubleton heart. > > IMO, however, this still means that. > - X/bid is suggested by the UI. > - Pass is not suggested by the UI. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Tue May 6 02:25:33 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 02:25:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <00c401c8af0f$b32d2670$72a80453@mala15b1d381fb> This case has been discussed on the Polish pl.rec.gry.brydz Usenet group. My opinion was that everything here depends on the player's level. When pressed to rule without this information I'd say a) for an expert it is automatic to re-open with the hand with long clubs b) for experts hesitation over strong NT suggests a borderline overcall in terms of _shape_, not HCP c) but for an expert it is also automatic to pass in tempo with a strong balanced hand over the strong 1NT opener So the mere fact that North had to think about what to do with this strong balanced hand and it took him so long to pass is an indication that he is no expert. And for non-experts hesitation over 1NT usually means a strong balanced hand and "Oh my God, I have so many points, what do I do now?". So in my opinion the AC screwed up big time. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Lepszy niz zakladki. Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1db1 From cibor at poczta.fm Tue May 6 03:01:22 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 03:01:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <00e401c8af14$b38650b0$72a80453@mala15b1d381fb> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:32 AM Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > If you haven't seen the case write-up yet please refrain a little > longer. I'll give just the hand in question for now, though knowing > the whole deal shouldn't make much of a difference. > > Playing matchpoints, in first seat at favorable vulnerability you pick up: > > 954 > 3 > JT4 > JT9865 > > You pass, LHO opens a 15-17 point NT, RHO transfers to hearts, and 2H > is passed around to you. It will not surprise you to learn that your > partner did not have a penalty double of 1NT available. He did have > calls available to show any two suits. > > I won't ask what your call is. I'm confident a poll would be split > between Pass and 3C, each of which I would consider a logical choice. > > It will also not surprise you to learn, since this is BLML, that > partner hesitated for 20 seconds or so before passing 1NT. > > Let's make a few assumptions. One is that, since the opponents will > hold at most 25 HCP, partner holds at least 13 HCP, 13 HCP? So RHO has 8+ HCP with a five carder and doesn't even _invite_ game? Come on. And opener holding 17 HCP himself with almost always 3+H doesn't break the transfer? And these two events has just happened at the same time? Give me a break. Yes, everything can happen in bridge, but what are the odds? If we allow for the possibility of partner holding 13 HCP that we might as well start considering that RHO holds 19 HCP and has pulled the wrong card at his second turn or that opener.has psyched in first seat. Or that responder transferred to hearts holding 6C and a heart singleton. And so on. It has nothing to do with serious analysis. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrzej Piaseczny w roli kucharza? Zobacz! http://link.interia.pl/f1dcb From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 6 09:45:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 09:45:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> References: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48200C81.2050108@ulb.ac.be> > [Nige1] > Interesting and difficult decision. I have not read the director or > appeal ruling, so I am unprejudiced. > > Assume that Adam is right that > (i) opponents have not made a mistake > (ii) Hence partner is marked with a good hand and > (ii) His hesitation implies he has 20 HCP. > AG : I disagree strongly with this statement. Over a strong NT, playing "all two-suiters", I would pass without any sort of problem holding a (4333) 20-count, but give me a hand like : Axx - KJ10x - QJxx - AQ and I could think a little about bidding my red 2-suiter. > Can we deduce that partner does not have good major suit or a major two > suiter? I think so, because, because then, it would be risky for partner > to pass 1N. If that inference is valid, 2H may be making or going one > down when can make game in notrump or a minor. > > Hence, IMO the hesitation *clearly* suggests bidding 3C, so if South bid > and gained by it, IMO the director would adjust back to 2H. > > Were that director decision appealed, IMO the committee should not > impose an AMWM or PP because superficially plausible arguments can be > made for other rulings. > > Caveat: if it turns out that partner has a *massive* heart stack and a > mountain, then the director should rule against him and impose a PP, > arguing that *he might have known* that his hesitation would prevent his > ethical partner from competing in a suit. > How on Earth could he have known that his hesitation *on 1NT* would help partner deduce he holds hearts ? Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 6 11:27:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 10:27:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: <00e401c8af14$b38650b0$72a80453@mala15b1d381fb> Message-ID: <001001c8af5b$99c68c70$a0ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:32 AM > Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > >> >> I won't ask what your call is. I'm confident a poll would be split >> between Pass and 3C, each of which I would consider a logical choice. >> >> It will also not surprise you to learn, since this is BLML, that >> partner hesitated for 20 seconds or so before passing 1NT. >> ------------------- \x/ cut \x/------------------------------- > > If we allow for the possibility of partner holding 13 HCP > that we might as well start considering that > RHO holds 19 HCP and has pulled the > wrong card at his second turn or that opener.has psyched > in first seat. Or that responder transferred to hearts > holding 6C and a heart singleton. > And so on. > > It has nothing to do with serious analysis. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > +=+ Let us step back and look at this as an AC should look at it. "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." So, with partner passing smoothly, would a player of this class give serious consideration to (a) 3C (b) Pass? If 'yes' what proportion of players of this class could be expected to select the call? We are dealing with experienced/skilled players? I think they would seriously consider both possible actions. More difficult is the question how many would select 3C, how many Pass. In my judgement in each case 'some' would do so - 'some' is a plurality, not just the exceptional one, but it is not many. So I would be inclined to think both calls are logical alternatives; I would lean in this direction more strongly when I am aware that a player of some ability, well practised in his own methods and in the art of passing smoothly and in tempo, has paused for some twenty seconds. The only excuse for a player of any quality is that he is old and doddery - but even then the information is conveyed and it is unlawful to use it. I would want the AC decision to be clear cut and beyond doubt if allowing an advantageous action. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ .......................................................................................... From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 6 11:49:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 10:49:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> <48200C81.2050108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001f01c8af5e$ad7f5910$a0ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > >> Caveat: if it turns out that partner has a *massive* heart stack and a >> mountain, then the director should rule against him and impose a PP, >> arguing that *he might have known* that his hesitation would prevent >> his ethical partner from competing in a suit. >> > How on Earth could he have known that his hesitation *on 1NT* > would help partner deduce he holds hearts ? > +=+ And he has committed no infraction. Or are you suggesting a violation of Law 73B? ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 6 12:54:52 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 11:54:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> <48200C81.2050108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003601c8af67$a4df5090$a0ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > > AG : I disagree strongly with this statement. Over a strong NT, > playing "all two-suiters", I would pass without any sort of problem > holding a (4333) 20-count, but give me a hand like : Axx - KJ10x - QJxx - AQ > and I could think a little about bidding my red 2-suiter. > +=+ It is my view that a player of experience and ability should know beforehand what types of hands he passes, on what types he bids; he should know whether in borderline cases he passes or bids. I regard it as a duty to partner to think about these questions and develop the decision making skill in advance of situations at the table. This has always been a requirement of both partners in my regular partnerships - and if in doubt my choice is to pass (and leave the regrets until later) since the partnership style I favour is protective of passes. I pass the above hand because it has defensive quality and the odds are slanted a little against bidding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 6 17:37:24 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 16:37:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI iinfraction? Message-ID: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> [Max Bavin] Accidentally giving UI is not an infraction. Bridge is a thinking game; when we think it is often possible to diagnose what it was we were thinking about. The infraction is when this unauthorized information is used. [Nigel] What Max writes seems in accord with the intentions of the WBFLC. Are his words of wisdom enshrined the new law-book? Such a clear statement would save lots of argument and unpleasantness! :) :) Yet ... nevertheless ... it is still unclear - - How can you tell if UI is *intentional*? - How should a director rule in a doubtful case? Here is an example (changed from a real appeal case). (1N ) P (2D = Hearts) P (2H ) ...P (P) ?? Suppose, in this case, that partner - an experienced player - - passes smoothly over LHO's 1N but - hesitates over LHO' 2H response to RHO's 2D transfer. 2H is passed round to you and you have a hand on which P and 3C are logical alternatives. You surmise from partner's trance that he has a marginal take-out double so you feel constrained to pass (choosing the LA *not* suggested). Unexpectedly, partner has a massive heart stack (hence an automatic pass over 2H) and your side gets a near top. The director is called. The director *believes* your opponent's claim that: Many pairs would bid on your hand and your partner *might have known* that his hesitation would inhibit such action by you". First, consider the case when partner can offer no explanation for his hesitation - - Should you have called the director yourself? - How should the director rule? - What is relevant law? (Grattan has suggested L73). Now suppose that partner, a player of good repute, has a plausible explanation for his hesitation. For example ... "I was considering a penalty double :) Belatedly I remembered that, systemically, double would be takeout :(". The director *believes* this explanation and concludes that the hesitation was inadvertent -- without nefarious intent. Should that effect his ruling? *IMO* The stated intention of the player should be irrelevant. But without it it is even harder to judge whether UI is accidental or deliberate. And surely *deliberate* UI is a possible infraction. Anyway, in cases like this: the hesitator should be ruled against, even if the director is *certain* that the misleading UI was *accidental*. Accidental UI may not be an *infraction* but is an *irregularity* and the law should not sanction damage to innocent players directly caused by opponents' irregularities. More controversially: The player's intent should *never* be relevant to bridge rules except - in senses like "The player might have known that it would work to his advantage to...". - in cases of suspected cheating. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue May 6 17:41:17 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 16:41:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <002901c8aeb4$66ce46c0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <136902.34509.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> From: "Harald Skj?ran > A revoker not winning the > revoke trick should be informed at that time that > the penalty might vary according to him later winning a trick or not > with a card that could lawfully have been played to the revoke > trick. > No need to do this under the 2007 Laws, though. Revoking, along with insufficient bidding, has now become a win-or-break-even proposition. I disagree with the philosophy of the new Laws. It is true that the Laws are not designed to catch cheats, but they should be designed so that there is some deterrent effect. Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 6 17:46:24 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 16:46:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: <001a01c8af90$5a2f9b80$a7c9403e@Mildred> > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* +=+ I do not know whether this message got out or not. My machine is playing up. ~ G ~ +=+ .................................................................................... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:01 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Adam Wildavsky" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:32 AM >> Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? >> >>> >>> I won't ask what your call is. I'm confident a poll would be split >>> between Pass and 3C, each of which I would consider a logical choice. >>> >>> It will also not surprise you to learn, since this is BLML, that >>> partner hesitated for 20 seconds or so before passing 1NT. >>> > ------------------- \x/ cut \x/------------------------------- >> >> If we allow for the possibility of partner holding 13 HCP >> that we might as well start considering that >> RHO holds 19 HCP and has pulled the >> wrong card at his second turn or that opener.has psyched >> in first seat. Or that responder transferred to hearts >> holding 6C and a heart singleton. >> And so on. >> >> It has nothing to do with serious analysis. >> >> Konrad Ciborowski >> Krakow, Poland >> > +=+ Let us step back and look at this as an AC should look at it. > "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of > players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would > be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such > players, of whom it is judged some might select it." > So, with partner passing smoothly, would a player of this class > give serious consideration to (a) 3C (b) Pass? > If 'yes' what proportion of players of this class could be > expected to select the call? > We are dealing with experienced/skilled players? I think > they would seriously consider both possible actions. More difficult > is the question how many would select 3C, how many Pass. In my > judgement in each case 'some' would do so - 'some' is a plurality, > not just the exceptional one, but it is not many. So I would be > inclined to think both calls are logical alternatives; I would lean in > this direction more strongly when I am aware that a player of some > ability, well practised in his own methods and in the art of passing > smoothly and in tempo, has paused for some twenty seconds. The > only excuse for a player of any quality is that he is old and doddery > - but even then the information is conveyed and it is unlawful to use > it. I would want the AC decision to be clear cut and beyond doubt > if allowing an advantageous action. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > .......................................................................................... > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 6 17:46:24 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 16:46:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: <001a01c8af90$5a2f9b80$a7c9403e@Mildred> > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* +=+ I do not know whether this message got out or not. My machine is playing up. ~ G ~ +=+ .................................................................................... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:01 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Adam Wildavsky" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:32 AM >> Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? >> >>> >>> I won't ask what your call is. I'm confident a poll would be split >>> between Pass and 3C, each of which I would consider a logical choice. >>> >>> It will also not surprise you to learn, since this is BLML, that >>> partner hesitated for 20 seconds or so before passing 1NT. >>> > ------------------- \x/ cut \x/------------------------------- >> >> If we allow for the possibility of partner holding 13 HCP >> that we might as well start considering that >> RHO holds 19 HCP and has pulled the >> wrong card at his second turn or that opener.has psyched >> in first seat. Or that responder transferred to hearts >> holding 6C and a heart singleton. >> And so on. >> >> It has nothing to do with serious analysis. >> >> Konrad Ciborowski >> Krakow, Poland >> > +=+ Let us step back and look at this as an AC should look at it. > "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of > players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would > be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such > players, of whom it is judged some might select it." > So, with partner passing smoothly, would a player of this class > give serious consideration to (a) 3C (b) Pass? > If 'yes' what proportion of players of this class could be > expected to select the call? > We are dealing with experienced/skilled players? I think > they would seriously consider both possible actions. More difficult > is the question how many would select 3C, how many Pass. In my > judgement in each case 'some' would do so - 'some' is a plurality, > not just the exceptional one, but it is not many. So I would be > inclined to think both calls are logical alternatives; I would lean in > this direction more strongly when I am aware that a player of some > ability, well practised in his own methods and in the art of passing > smoothly and in tempo, has paused for some twenty seconds. The > only excuse for a player of any quality is that he is old and doddery > - but even then the information is conveyed and it is unlawful to use > it. I would want the AC decision to be clear cut and beyond doubt > if allowing an advantageous action. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > .......................................................................................... > > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 6 18:09:21 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 17:09:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <136902.34509.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <136902.34509.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <482082B1.8050709@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] I disagree with the philosophy of the new Laws. It is true that the Laws are not designed to catch cheats, but they should be designed so that there is some deterrent effect. [Nige1] I too am a heretic. Many players are not regular law-breakers or cheats. We would prefer rules designed to compensate victims and deter law-breakers. We accept that almost all infractions are careless or rationalised but I can see no harm in catching cheats. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 6 18:52:14 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 18:52:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] UI iinfraction? In-Reply-To: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> References: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48208CBE.7050404@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > Now suppose that partner, a player of good repute, has a plausible > explanation for his hesitation. For example ... > "I was considering a penalty double :) Belatedly I remembered that, > systemically, double would be takeout :(". > > The director *believes* this explanation and concludes that the > hesitation was inadvertent -- without nefarious intent. Should that > effect his ruling? > > AG : well, I'm very surprised. I was ready to answer that TFLB say "intent isn't necessary, only the possibility counts", but I re-read L73F and saw that this "could have known" provision only applies to what *opponents* do after your mannerism (the well-known case of the 2-sided finesse). And L23 only speaks of cases where your partner will be under a penalty. Never in TFLB, apparently, is anything said about mannerisms tending to use partner's sense of ethics in situations where he isn't restrained by a penalty, only by the obligation to "bend backwards". I repeat it, it's quite surprising, because many of us have written about disallowing those. But I'd say it would indeed be better if "mannerisms-to-block-partner" wouldn't be explicitly disallowed, because this plus normal UI rules would lead to "it he hesitates, shoot him". Whether partner acted this or that way, he would be deprived of any fair score. That's not what we intend. It would be better to have such cases registered, kind of "amber tempi". Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue May 6 18:59:46 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 17:59:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <482082B1.8050709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <425046.92632.qm@web86105.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Guthrie wrote: > [Stefanie Rohan] > I disagree with the philosophy of the new Laws. It > is true that the Laws > are not designed to catch cheats, but they should be > designed so that > there is some deterrent effect. > > [Nige1] > I too am a heretic. Many players are not regular > law-breakers or cheats. > We would prefer rules designed to compensate victims > and deter > law-breakers. We accept that almost all infractions > are careless or > rationalised but I can see no harm in catching > cheats. > Yes. There used to be the idea that one was not thought to be cheating, but could not be allowed to get away with "what a cheater would do". This new law is particularly disappointing for those who think that this idea makes sense. It used to be that sometimes a person's carelessness caused more harm to their side than might be thought "fair", but requiring people to be careful enough to play legal cards doesn't seem unreasonable. And a side benefit was that people who decided to try it on could not profit. Now, a revoker gains if the revoke is not noticed, and if it is, he will break even. No reason for the unethical not to give it a go. If the point of the change was the inane concept of "protecting the field", it might have been wiser to let the revoke penalty accrue to the OS but not to the NOS. Of course, there will be fewer revokes now that we will have the opportunity to be entertained by the unending chorus of "having none"s. I fully expect to be driven round the bend by this. I suppose that the old penalty for this is no longer possible, but the EBU do have the power of regulation in this instance. Perhaps the practice could be banned and subject to a procedural penalty. By the way, for people in jurisdictions where this question is currently permitted: Is it necessary to ask every time partner shows out of the same suit, in order not to transmit the UI that you have already noticed that partner is void? Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 6 19:00:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 18:00:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI iinfraction? References: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <006c01c8af9a$c2faa650$a7c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 4:37 PM Subject: [blml] UI infraction? > [Max Bavin] > Accidentally giving UI is not an infraction. Bridge is a thinking game; > when we think it is often possible to diagnose what it was we were > thinking about. The infraction is when this unauthorized information is > used. > > [Nigel] > What Max writes seems in accord with the intentions of the WBFLC. Are > his words of wisdom enshrined the new law-book? Such a clear statement > would save lots of argument and unpleasantness! :) :) > > Yet ... nevertheless ... it is still unclear - > - How can you tell if UI is *intentional*? > - How should a director rule in a doubtful case? > > Here is an example (changed from a real appeal case). > (1N ) P (2D = Hearts) P > (2H ) ...P (P) ?? > > Suppose, in this case, that partner - an experienced player - > - passes smoothly over LHO's 1N but > - hesitates over LHO' 2H response to RHO's 2D transfer. > > 2H is passed round to you and you have a hand on which P and 3C are > logical alternatives. > > You surmise from partner's trance that he has a marginal take-out double > so you feel constrained to pass (choosing the LA *not* suggested). > > Unexpectedly, partner has a massive heart stack (hence an automatic pass > over 2H) and your side gets a near top. The director is called. > > The director *believes* your opponent's claim that: > Many pairs would bid on your hand and your partner *might have known* > that his hesitation would inhibit such action by you". > > First, consider the case when partner can offer no explanation for his > hesitation - > - Should you have called the director yourself? > - How should the director rule? > - What is relevant law? (Grattan has suggested L73). > > Now suppose that partner, a player of good repute, has a plausible > explanation for his hesitation. For example ... > "I was considering a penalty double :) Belatedly I remembered that, > systemically, double would be takeout :(". > > The director *believes* this explanation and concludes that the > hesitation was inadvertent -- without nefarious intent. Should that > effect his ruling? > > *IMO* > > The stated intention of the player should be irrelevant. But without it > it is even harder to judge whether UI is accidental or deliberate. And > surely *deliberate* UI is a possible infraction. > > Anyway, in cases like this: the hesitator should be ruled against, even > if the director is *certain* that the misleading UI was *accidental*. > > Accidental UI may not be an *infraction* but is an *irregularity* and > the law should not sanction damage to innocent players directly caused > by opponents' irregularities. > > More controversially: The player's intent should *never* be relevant to > bridge rules except > - in senses like "The player might have known that it would work to > his advantage to...". > - in cases of suspected cheating. > +=+ I agree with Max that 'accidental' or 'unintentional' passing of UI to partner, as when complying with a requirement of law for example, is not an offence under the laws. To find in a particular case that there is an offence the Director must deem that there has been a purposeful communication with partner contrary to Law 73B. The laws do not specify that accidentally/unintentionally making UI available to partner is a violation of law. We do not need to say more in the laws to establish the fact that it is not. My mind is open at this time on the question whether power exists to establish by regulation that when a player makes UI available to his partner Law 73B1 is presumed to apply in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is discussible whether [Law 80B2(f)] such a regulation is 'in conflict with these laws', or whether to speculate that it may infract human rights legislation in some jurisdictions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Tue May 6 19:04:28 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 18:04:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 References: <136902.34509.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <482082B1.8050709@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <007f01c8af9b$3e906020$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 > [Stefanie Rohan] > I disagree with the philosophy of the new Laws. It is true that the Laws > are not designed to catch cheats, but they should be designed so that > there is some deterrent effect. > > [Nige1] > I too am a heretic. Many players are not regular law-breakers or cheats. > We would prefer rules designed to compensate victims and deter > law-breakers. We accept that almost all infractions are careless or > rationalised but I can see no harm in catching cheats. > d'accord Nigel. john > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 7 13:34:07 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 12:34:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> <48200C81.2050108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000401c8b037$0212b750$5bd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > >> [Nige1] >> Interesting and difficult decision. I have not read the director or >> appeal ruling, so I am unprejudiced. >> >> Assume that Adam is right that >> (i) opponents have not made a mistake >> (ii) Hence partner is marked with a good hand and >> (ii) His hesitation implies he has 20 HCP. >> > AG : I disagree strongly with this statement. Over a strong > NT, playing "all two-suiters", I would pass without any sort > of problem holding a (4333) 20-count, but give me a hand > like : Axx - KJ10x - QJxx - AQ and I could think a little > about bidding my red 2-suiter. > +=+ In a private communication received I read: "I still believe that the UI is really not unauthorized since the big hand cannot double 1NT since that shows 15-18 and the auction make it clear that the huddler has more than 18 pts .... that's all it shows and the 3C bidder seems to me, to be free to do as he chooses.... " This is an argument that the huddle has not suggested Pass over 3C, nor vice-versa. If it were certain that in an auction of even tempo and devoid of irregularity the passed hand must have 19+ HCP then I agree the partner is under no constraint and may do as he pleases. However, if the pass would be made on some weaker hands then in principle the huddle has suggested action rather than Pass. (I would only reconsider this if it were demonstrated in the case in question that the pass must show either 19+ or a hand including a club suit.) Only exceptionally, as in parenthesis above, could I allow a bid of 3C. However, this is a view from the audience. I would only consider myself in a true position to judge if I had been present in committee when the case was heard. I would want to hear the players - or at least the player with the weak club hand (his partner should be silenced until this player has been heard so that a strong huddler does not 'guide' a weaker partner in what he should say - there is always the risk that the huddle itself was prompted by a desire to keep a weaker partner awake). I do not know the case or who was involved. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Wed May 7 14:17:22 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 08:17:22 EDT Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: In a message dated 06/05/2008 01:26:07 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm writes: My opinion was that everything here depends on the player's level. [paul lamford] Certainly in England all UI rulings depend on the player's level, as the assessment of an LA is one which would be considered by a reasonable number of a player's peers of whom some would select it (at least I think this is the new wording replacing the old 70% rule, although I am unsure when this comes into effect). However, the very fact that there is so much argument and counter-argument on here about whether pass or 3C is suggested by the UI makes it clear to me that neither is *demonstrably* suggested which is the requirement for the player not to select one over the other. What is suggested? Well partner does not have a 4-3-3-3 hand (he would have nothing to think about over 1NT however strong he was (either in HCP or as a player, as he is not playing penalty doubles). Most likely he is (4 4 3 2) or (4 4 4 1), and it is clear he does not have a doubleton heart. In my experience people think because they have a choice of bids, and not when their bid is forced. Let us assume he plays, as I and several other London players do, that, over a strong 1NT, double is majors or minors or diamonds, and maybe 2C is clubs and a major and 2D is diamonds and a major. It does not matter what our actual defence is. So it seems like partner might be 2-4-4-3 or 2-4-3-4 and have been thinking of showing that minor and a major, and now when he passes over 2H, you know that he is not 4-2-4-3 or 4-2-3-4 which are other hands that might have been thinking. I presume he would always have bid with any 5-4. So it looks like partner has four hearts, and defending will be right if he has something like KQTx or even AJTx. The bid that is not suggested at all by the UI is 3C, but, as I have said before, neither is *demonstrably* suggested. And anyone who thinks it is should ask why the hand generated so much discussion if it was *demonstrably* suggested. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 7 14:46:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 14:46:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4821A493.3040607@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > However, the very fact that there is so much argument and counter-argument > on here about whether pass or 3C is suggested by the UI makes it clear to me > that neither is *demonstrably* suggested which is the requirement for the > player not to select one over the other. > > > > And anyone who thinks it is should ask why the hand generated so much > discussion if it was *demonstrably* suggested. > > Could thios be an official line of conduct ? When the members of the AC can't agree about what as suggested, then nothing was *demonstrably* suggested. ISTR I made this suggetion some months ago, and reactions were harsh. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 7 15:37:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 09:37:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <002101c8ac9d$0329e7a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <002101c8ac9d$0329e7a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: On May 2, 2008, at 5:39 PM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: >> Yes, I agree that the only sensible way to interpret the 2007 Law >> 27B1(a) >> statement "Law 16D does not apply but see D following" is that Law >> 27D >> replaces Law 16. That is, rather than the test for an adjusted score >> being >> the severe Law 16 one of avoiding any demonstrably suggested logical >> alternatives, the new test is the less severe Law 27D one of the >> probable >> outcome had the insufficient bid (and its demonstrable suggestion) >> not >> occurred. > > ok. I've once again concluded I do know how the new 27 works, and > happily > have decided that DALB and I can't cheat like hell. Good thing > too. My > initial reaction to the first version was "Good idea". My reaction > to the > reworded version is "Still good idea and a bit clearer". Sufficiently > clear. John > >> Ton Kooijman: >> >>> I can't believe David really saying that in England after 1H - 1H >>> (2H) the >>> 1H bidder with a 13 point hand is barred. If he persists I have >>> to ask >> Max. > > "Make it good dearie". I'll get opener if he treats it as anything > but 6-9 > ish under 27D. I don't think that you can on that basis alone. L27D requires adjusting to "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred". Had the IB not occurred, nobody would have bid 2H, so it shouldn't matter what it might have "meant" if someone had. You can only adjust if the ultimate outcome would have been different. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 7 15:57:39 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 09:57:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <000201c8adea$b7877700$37cf403e@Mildred> References: <4816F4D6016963C7@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (addedby postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com)<000401c8acfd$0fb7b460$c5c9403e@Mildred> <000a01c8ad04$36547c00$a2fd7400$@com><000f01c8ad4d$b00ae450$a4cb403e@Mildred> <481D68A4.8090002@ozemail.com.au> <000201c8adea$b7877700$37cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <5C74B132-D9D5-444B-93CF-FF44385AE81F@starpower.net> On May 4, 2008, at 7:41 AM, wrote: > From: "Reg Busch" > >> I hope I have misunderstood this. Are you saying >> that, if 27B1(a) applies, then we always rule under >> this, and never go on to 27B1(b)? If this pair were >> playing 4 card mjors, I would offer the IBer his rights >> under B1(a), and also suggest he may have alternative >> actions available under B1(b) e.g. some sort of >> artificial game forcing bid which conveys the same >> meaning.. >> Reg > > +=+ When a player has options the Director must > explain all the options to him. (Law 10C1). So you > are right to point to all the possibilities. > After receiving the explanation the player > selects his call. If it is the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination Law 27B1(a) applies. If it is not > the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination > then either 27B1(b) or 27B2, or 27B3, or 27B4 will > apply. So it is also right that when 27B1(a) applies to > his selected option you never go to 27B1(b), nor to > any of 27B2, 27B3, 27B4. JFTR, if the RC is the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (LSBSD) *and in the Director?s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial* Law 27B1(a) applies. When L27B1(a) does not apply because the RC fails the "incontrovertably not artificial" test, we may then apply L27B1(b) to the LSBSD. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 6 15:02:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 15:02:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <003601c8af67$a4df5090$a0ca403e@Mildred> References: <481F3208.1050509@NTLworld.com> <48200C81.2050108@ulb.ac.be> <003601c8af67$a4df5090$a0ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <482056E6.6070904@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "we that live to please > must please to live" > ~ Dr Samuel Johnson > ************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:45 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > > > >> AG : I disagree strongly with this statement. Over a strong NT, >> playing "all two-suiters", I would pass without any sort of problem >> holding a (4333) 20-count, but give me a hand like : >> > Axx - KJ10x - QJxx - AQ > >> and I could think a little about bidding my red 2-suiter. >> >> > +=+ It is my view that a player of experience and ability should > know beforehand what types of hands he passes, on what types > he bids; he should know whether in borderline cases he passes > or bids. I regard it as a duty to partner to think about these > questions and develop the decision making skill in advance of > situations at the table. Absolutely right. But that's not the point. It happened and now we must decide whether there was damage. The point is : given that partner hesitated before passing (unfair to partner and all the rest), does it suggest : a) a whale of a hand b) a hand which fits some overcall but is marginal as to pattern In case a), it suggests bidding 3C In case b), it suggests passing, because the 2nd-round pass means he's got hearts (he won't miss a second occasion with eg 4243 or 3253). The wording of L16A means that you need strong feelings about either a) or b) before you disallow some option. Do you ? I don't. Those who take argument from the fact that it was a), to say it suggests a), are taking a dangerous route : that of assessing damage, not according to what the tempo meant, but according to what the player held in that case. There is nothing in TFLB to suggest this. It looks very much like the Dutch decision that Hans complained about. /Horresco referens./ Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080506/d3d59841/attachment.htm From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 7 18:59:13 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 12:59:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] club director torment In-Reply-To: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> References: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: To make a long story short, following an insufficient bid of 1C, I thought LHO's two choices were "accept or not accept the insufficient bid". She waited until after the insufficient bidder had decided on a rectification-free 2C replacement, then tried to exercise her right to accept the insufficient bid or the 2C replacement. The general question is: How much information is LHO entitled to before making a decision? The laws, at least to me, seem clearly on my side, with a few niggling details to clear up. I do not feel an obligation to voluntarily tell her all of the Law 27, but if she had asked, I would have. It is obviously AI. I am obviously being an illegal memory aid, but no one pays strict attention to that law. I would have let her look at the opp's convention card or ask what bids mean, even though I don't think it was her turn to bid. That's another not-quite-right rule. That leaves things like whether she can wait to find out what the replacement call will be, or if she can find out my decisions about replacement calls that do not bar partner. Fortunately, our club has a copy of "Duplicate Decisions", which is published by the ACBL and often incorporates opinions (or whatever they are) of the ACBL LC. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear that I first rule on whether the IB and the potential replacement call (old rules) are conventional, then she makes her decision. (And don't get me started about the rule that I am supposed to first ask if her insufficient bid was inadvertant. Isn't that just an invitation to lie? I did. She said it was inadvertant, the opps said it wasn't, creating a squabble. I felt I had to rule for inadvertency, even though I didn't actually trust her. Then she tried to correct to 2NT instead of 1C. I decided I didn't have to accept that. Then the opps said, at the table, that she was not telling the truth, THANK YOU ACBL!) Time for a third opinion, this time from the ACBL's Club Directors Handbook. Yep, I get a third opinion -- explain all of the laws before she makes her choice. Fortunately, there is an ACBL tournament director playing at the game, so I can get a fourth opinion. As coincidence would have it, she was LHO. Fortunately, I can ask rulings at acbl.org. Unfotunately, it is my experience that they do not like questions like this. Also, how many questions can I ask before I am officially on their pest list? Fortunately, I can ask at IBLF. They like questions like this. Unfortunately, I worry that they portray opinion as fact, but maybe I will go there. I don't know if I can ask at BLML. This was probably discussed X months/years ago and there was no consensus. Or maybe this will start a discussion, and what is the chance of consensus? Hmm, I can read through 8 years worth of minutes of meetings of Law Commissions/Committees. Sorry to say this, but I have not seen a WBFLC opinion (or whatever) that I liked. Maybe I shouldn't be spending all of today running my obsessive-compulsive-perfectionistic programs and trying to figure out if there even is a right ruling or how I would find that out. Maybe I should just take for granted that if I make a ruling, a higher up will probably judge it "wrong" and there is nothing I can do in advance to avoid that. Maybe no one really expects club directors to do anything more than apply their own interpretation of the laws. Or, as you all know, the laws are pretty good, but they aren't great, and there is no good way of handling the ambiguities. Bob From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed May 7 19:23:42 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 18:23:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <328494.80935.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Eric Landau wrote: > I don't think that you can on that basis alone. > L27D requires > adjusting to "the probable outcome of the board had > the insufficient > bid not occurred". Had the IB not occurred, nobody > would have bid > 2H, so it shouldn't matter what it might have > "meant" if someone > had. You can only adjust if the ultimate outcome > would have been > different. > This seems to be the case, but I am not sure that it is the intention of the law or will turn out to be the practice. If someone opens 1H with 16 HCP and then makes a series of bids that amount to slam tries over partner's raise to 2, and then subsides in the janitor's dog's 4H... well... I am going to rule against him somehow, but I don't yet know how! You really get to eat your cake and have it with this new Law. You can just bid 4H like in the old days, barring partner, or you can try to get more infomation. If the latter doesn't seem to be working, you can still bid 4H, which will have a high probability of silencing partner. Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 7 19:29:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 18:29:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <4816F4D6016963C7@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (addedby postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com)<000401c8acfd$0fb7b460$c5c9403e@Mildred> <000a01c8ad04$36547c00$a2fd7400$@com><000f01c8ad4d$b00ae450$a4cb403e@Mildred><481D68A4.8090002@ozemail.com.au><000201c8adea$b7877700$37cf403e@Mildred> <5C74B132-D9D5-444B-93CF-FF44385AE81F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001501c8b067$fcd02a80$d8d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. On May 4, 2008, at 7:41 AM, wrote: > From: "Reg Busch" > >> I hope I have misunderstood this. Are you saying >> that, if 27B1(a) applies, then we always rule under >> this, and never go on to 27B1(b)? If this pair were >> playing 4 card mjors, I would offer the IBer his rights >> under B1(a), and also suggest he may have alternative >> actions available under B1(b) e.g. some sort of >> artificial game forcing bid which conveys the same >> meaning.. >> Reg > > +=+ When a player has options the Director must > explain all the options to him. (Law 10C1). So you > are right to point to all the possibilities. > After receiving the explanation the player > selects his call. If it is the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination Law 27B1(a) applies. If it is not > the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination > then either 27B1(b) or 27B2, or 27B3, or 27B4 will > apply. So it is also right that when 27B1(a) applies to > his selected option you never go to 27B1(b), nor to > any of 27B2, 27B3, 27B4. JFTR, if the RC is the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (LSBSD) *and in the Director?s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial* Law 27B1(a) applies. When L27B1(a) does not apply because the RC fails the "incontrovertably not artificial" test, we may then apply L27B1(b) to the LSBSD. +=+ Thank you Eric, for improving the accuracy of the statement. When 27B1(a) does not apply, for any reason, the first step is to see whether 27B1(b) applies; if not, on to the remainder of Law 27. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 7 22:06:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 16:06:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <425046.92632.qm@web86105.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <425046.92632.qm@web86105.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8DE0D41F-A542-40D4-BF22-1213BB61CFC7@starpower.net> On May 6, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > By the way, for people in jurisdictions where this > question is currently permitted: Is it necessary to > ask every time partner shows out of the same suit, in > order not to transmit the UI that you have already > noticed that partner is void? You had to have noticed partner showing out before you asked about it for the first time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 7 22:30:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 16:30:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 7, 2008, at 8:17 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 06/05/2008 01:26:07 GMT Standard Time, > cibor at poczta.fm > writes: > > My opinion was that everything here depends on the player's level. > > [paul lamford] > Certainly in England all UI rulings depend on the player's level, > as the > assessment of an LA is one which would be considered by a > reasonable number of a > player's peers of whom some would select it (at least I think this > is the new > wording replacing the old 70% rule, although I am unsure when this > comes > into effect). > > However, the very fact that there is so much argument and counter- > argument > on here about whether pass or 3C is suggested by the UI makes it > clear to me > that neither is *demonstrably* suggested which is the requirement > for the > player not to select one over the other. > > What is suggested? Well partner does not have a 4-3-3-3 hand (he > would have > nothing to think about over 1NT however strong he was (either in > HCP or as a > player, as he is not playing penalty doubles). Most likely he is (4 > 4 3 2) or > (4 4 4 1), and it is clear he does not have a doubleton heart. In my > experience people think because they have a choice of bids, and > not when their bid > is forced. Let us assume he plays, as I and several other London > players do, > that, over a strong 1NT, double is majors or minors or diamonds, > and maybe 2C > is clubs and a major and 2D is diamonds and a major. It does not > matter what > our actual defence is. So it seems like partner might be 2-4-4-3 > or 2-4-3-4 > and have been thinking of showing that minor and a major, and now > when he > passes over 2H, you know that he is not 4-2-4-3 or 4-2-3-4 which > are other hands > that might have been thinking. I presume he would always have bid > with any > 5-4. So it looks like partner has four hearts, and defending will > be right if he > has something like KQTx or even AJTx. The bid that is not > suggested at all > by the UI is 3C, but, as I have said before, neither is > *demonstrably* > suggested. > > And anyone who thinks it is should ask why the hand generated so much > discussion if it was *demonstrably* suggested. In my area, defensive bidding over a 1NT opening is probably the least standardized area of agreement; there are at least 10 different sets of agreements in regular use at our weekly game. A hesitation over RHO's 1NT almost always means that the hesitator is trying to remember which set of agreements he is using with that week's partner. From a hesitation followed by a pass partner can reasonably infer that hesitator probably has a hand with which he could have bid something playing different methods. That is certainly UI, but most often carries no demonstrable suggestion of any particular action. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed May 7 23:22:52 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 22:22:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <8DE0D41F-A542-40D4-BF22-1213BB61CFC7@starpower.net> References: <425046.92632.qm@web86105.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <8DE0D41F-A542-40D4-BF22-1213BB61CFC7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48221DAC.3080202@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] By the way, for people in jurisdictions where this question is currently permitted: Is it necessary to ask every time partner shows out of the same suit, in order not to transmit the UI that you have already noticed that partner is void? [Eric Landau] You had to have noticed partner showing out before you asked about it for the first time. [Nige1] I am afraid that you are flogging a dead horse, Stefanie. For years, senior directors and law-makers (especially Americans) have been in simple denial that unauthorised information is available to partner when you always ask "Having none?", unless you *know* from your own holding that he has none left. Unfortunately, these daft rules that reward law-breakers, encourage normally law-abiding players to adopt a philosophy of "If you can't beat them, you may as well join them". Here it seems that an astute partnership should adopt *attitude* or *preference* signals when partner shows out; because your question or lack of it will usually already indicate your *count*. From svenpran at online.no Wed May 7 23:34:55 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 23:34:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] club director torment In-Reply-To: References: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000c01c8b08a$31526d00$93f74700$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > To make a long story short, following an insufficient bid of 1C, I thought > LHO's two choices were "accept or not accept the insufficient bid". That is correct. Observe that law 27B only applies when (and after) LHO refuses to accept the insufficient bid (Law 27A). > She > waited until after the insufficient bidder had decided on a > rectification-free 2C replacement, then tried to exercise her right to > accept the insufficient bid or the 2C replacement. The offender shall only decide on a rectification call when (and after) LHO does not accept the IB. LHO has absolutely no right to know what rectification call the offender will select before deciding whether or not to accept the IB. > > The general question is: How much information is LHO entitled to before > making a decision? LHO is entitled to "full explanation" of the IB according to law 20. However, due to the nature of insufficient bids the value of such explanations will always be rather limited. > > The laws, at least to me, seem clearly on my side, with a few niggling > details to clear up. I do not feel an obligation to voluntarily tell her > all of the Law 27, but if she had asked, I would have. It is obviously AI. > I am obviously being an illegal memory aid, but no one pays strict > attention to that law. I would have let her look at the opp's convention > card or ask what bids mean, even though I don't think it was her turn to > bid. That's another not-quite-right rule. Until she decides not to accept the insufficient bid it is certainly her time to call! Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 8 05:33:58 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 23:33:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:36:51 -0400, ton wrote: > > 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 If the rectification for the first revoke is going to be one trick, and the Probst cheat (am I using that term right?) finds a revoke that gains two tricks.....Law 23 kicks in, but it will be work for the director to detect that situation. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu May 8 09:03:21 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 08:03:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <8DE0D41F-A542-40D4-BF22-1213BB61CFC7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <304027.76131.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Eric Landau wrote: > On May 6, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > > By the way, for people in jurisdictions where this > > question is currently permitted: Is it necessary > to > > ask every time partner shows out of the same suit, > in > > order not to transmit the UI that you have already > > noticed that partner is void? > > You had to have noticed partner showing out before > you asked about it > for the first time. > Yes. My question was whether you need to ask again so as not to confirm that you have remembered the first time. Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 7 19:57:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 18:57:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <000301c8b0da$e5f336e0$3dd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > In a message dated 06/05/2008 01:26:07 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm > writes: > > My opinion was that everything here depends on the player's level. > > [paul lamford] > Certainly in England all UI rulings depend on the player's level, as the > assessment of an LA is one which would be considered by a reasonable > number of a > player's peers of whom some would select it (at least I think this is the > new > wording replacing the old 70% rule, although I am unsure when this comes > into effect). > > However, the very fact that there is so much argument and counter-argument > on here about whether pass or 3C is suggested by the UI makes it clear to > me > that neither is *demonstrably* suggested which is the requirement for the > player not to select one over the other. > > What is suggested? Well partner does not have a 4-3-3-3 hand (he would > have > nothing to think about over 1NT however strong he was (either in HCP or as > a > player, as he is not playing penalty doubles). Most likely he is (4 4 3 2) > or > (4 4 4 1), and it is clear he does not have a doubleton heart. In my > experience people think because they have a choice of bids, and not when > their bid > is forced. Let us assume he plays, as I and several other London players > do, > that, over a strong 1NT, double is majors or minors or diamonds, and maybe > 2C > is clubs and a major and 2D is diamonds and a major. It does not matter > what > our actual defence is. So it seems like partner might be 2-4-4-3 or > 2-4-3-4 > and have been thinking of showing that minor and a major, and now when he > passes over 2H, you know that he is not 4-2-4-3 or 4-2-3-4 which are > other hands > that might have been thinking. I presume he would always have bid with > any > 5-4. So it looks like partner has four hearts, and defending will be > right if he > has something like KQTx or even AJTx. The bid that is not suggested at > all > by the UI is 3C, but, as I have said before, neither is *demonstrably* > suggested. > > And anyone who thinks it is should ask why the hand generated so much > discussion if it was *demonstrably* suggested. > +=+ Quoting from an email I sent earlier: <> We should not assume this pair has such agreements as we might have. We should be dealing with the methods this partnership has agreed, whatever these may be. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 8 10:03:21 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:03:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] club director torment References: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002901c8b0e2$2f103d30$3dd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 5:59 PM Subject: [blml] club director torment > > Hmm, I can read through 8 years worth of minutes of meetings of Law > Commissions/Committees. Sorry to say this, but I have not seen a WBFLC > opinion (or whatever) that I liked. > > Maybe I shouldn't be spending all of today running my > obsessive-compulsive-perfectionistic programs and trying to figure out if > there even is a right ruling or how I would find that out. Maybe I should > just take for granted that if I make a ruling, a higher up will probably > judge it "wrong" and there is nothing I can do in advance to avoid that. > Maybe no one really expects club directors to do anything more than apply > their own interpretation of the laws. > > Or, as you all know, the laws are pretty good, but they aren't great, and > there is no good way of handling the ambiguities. > > Bob > +=+ No grief Bob about not liking a WBFLC opinion. It is a rare opinion that does not meet with 'dislike' on the part of some people. We live with that. Take the law step by step. When a Director is summoned to deal with an insufficient bid the first duty lies upon his shoulders. He must tell the players at the table what the law is. He ought to tell them about the LHO's option to accept or not accept, and that when LHO has decided the offender will have options. He should tell them about 27B1(a) and (b) , about 27B2 and that replacement with a double or redouble is only permissible if it meets the requirements of 27B1(b). (It will help the Director if he thinks about his task beforehand and works out the simplest way for him of stating the law adequately to the players. I suspect that numbers of TDs will start by telling LHO of his options and that if he rejects the IB the offender will have options some of which will place restrictions upon his side. If LHO asks for more information about offender's options he is entitled to it. ) When he has stated the law he should ask the LHO to decide whether to accept the IB or not. Only after LHO has decided not to accept the IB does offender have any options and he does not have to select an option until he has options. He may need to be reminded again what they are. My advice is to work out beforehand the easiest way for you of accomplishing all of this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. my spellchecker keeps asking me to remove the 'ic' from 'perfectionistic'. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 8 11:05:04 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 10:05:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <002101c8ac9d$0329e7a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <000201c8b0eb$17443bd0$b9c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. >> >> "Make it good dearie". I'll get opener if he treats it as anything >> but 6-9 >> ish under 27D. > > I don't think that you can on that basis alone. L27D requires > adjusting to "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient > bid not occurred". Had the IB not occurred, nobody would have bid > 2H, so it shouldn't matter what it might have "meant" if someone > had. You can only adjust if the ultimate outcome would have been > different. > +=+ In connection with the subject of Law 27 generally (and Law 40B3) readers may be interested in the attached. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EBU regulation re 40B3(d).rtf Type: application/msword Size: 6224 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080508/d7174f05/attachment.wiz From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 8 11:48:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 10:48:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: <4821A493.3040607@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002b01c8b0f0$a03a3cf0$b9c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > However, the very fact that there is so much argument > and counter-argument on here about whether pass or > 3C is suggested by the UI makes it clear to me > that neither is *demonstrably* suggested which is the > requirement for the player not to select one over the > other. > > > > And anyone who thinks it is should ask why the hand > generated so much discussion if it was *demonstrably* > suggested. > > > Could thios be an official line of conduct ? When the > members of the AC can't agree about what as suggested, > then nothing was *demonstrably* suggested. > ISTR I made this suggetion some months ago, and > reactions were harsh. < +=+ It's worse than you think. Every time there has been a long debate on here about an appeal no-one has got the answer right. Alternatively, since everyone (nearly) thinks one is suggested over the other - but there is a division as to which over which - all we have to do is to accept this must be so and determine which way up the box is standing. +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 8 15:03:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:03:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <304027.76131.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <304027.76131.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 8, 2008, at 3:03 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > --- Eric Landau wrote: > >> On May 6, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >>> By the way, for people in jurisdictions where this >>> question is currently permitted: Is it necessary >> to >>> ask every time partner shows out of the same suit, >> in >>> order not to transmit the UI that you have already >>> noticed that partner is void? >> >> You had to have noticed partner showing out before >> you asked about it >> for the first time. >> > Yes. My question was whether you need to ask again so > as not to confirm that you have remembered the first > time. Of course. And you must also ask for a review of the entire auction every time it's your call, so as not to confirm that you have remembered the auction. And if you have asked for an explanation of an opponent's call, you must ask again every time, so as not to confirm that you have remembered the answer. Not really. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 8 15:15:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:15:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] club director torment In-Reply-To: <002901c8b0e2$2f103d30$3dd5403e@Mildred> References: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> <002901c8b0e2$2f103d30$3dd5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <31DC2732-1AAE-4A33-BD34-27BC9BAFC140@starpower.net> On May 8, 2008, at 4:03 AM, wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" > >> Hmm, I can read through 8 years worth of minutes of meetings of Law >> Commissions/Committees. Sorry to say this, but I have not seen a >> WBFLC >> opinion (or whatever) that I liked. >> >> Maybe I shouldn't be spending all of today running my >> obsessive-compulsive-perfectionistic programs and trying to figure >> out if >> there even is a right ruling or how I would find that out. Maybe I >> should >> just take for granted that if I make a ruling, a higher up will >> probably >> judge it "wrong" and there is nothing I can do in advance to avoid >> that. >> Maybe no one really expects club directors to do anything more >> than apply >> their own interpretation of the laws. >> >> Or, as you all know, the laws are pretty good, but they aren't >> great, and >> there is no good way of handling the ambiguities. > > +=+ No grief Bob about not liking a WBFLC opinion. It is a rare > opinion that does not meet with 'dislike' on the part of some people. > We live with that. > Take the law step by step. When a Director is summoned to > deal with an insufficient bid the first duty lies upon his > shoulders. He > must tell the players at the table what the law is. He ought to > tell them > about the LHO's option to accept or not accept, and that when LHO > has decided the offender will have options. He should tell them about > 27B1(a) and (b) , about 27B2 and that replacement with a double or > redouble is only permissible if it meets the requirements of 27B1(b). > (It will help the Director if he thinks about his task beforehand and > works out the simplest way for him of stating the law adequately to > the players. I suspect that numbers of TDs will start by telling > LHO of > his options and that if he rejects the IB the offender will have > options > some of which will place restrictions upon his side. If LHO asks for > more information about offender's options he is entitled to it. ) When > he has stated the law he should ask the LHO to decide whether to > accept the IB or not. > Only after LHO has decided not to accept the IB does offender > have any options and he does not have to select an option until he has > options. He may need to be reminded again what they are. My advice > is to work out beforehand the easiest way for you of accomplishing all > of this. That is a formula for achieving Bob's dystopia, in which "directors [do nothing] more than apply their own interpretation of the laws". ISTM it should be up to our RAs, or some higher authority, to "think [] about [the] task beforehand and work[] out the simplest way for [TDs] of stating the law adequately to the players", and to communicate it to the TDs within their jurisdiction. That might actually prevent our winding up with every club having the functional equivalent of its very own version of L27. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 9 02:09:17 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 01:09:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] club director torment References: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> <002901c8b0e2$2f103d30$3dd5403e@Mildred> <31DC2732-1AAE-4A33-BD34-27BC9BAFC140@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003b01c8b169$a33856c0$d8c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] club director torment > On May 8, 2008, at 4:03 AM, > wrote: > >> From: "Robert Frick" >> >>> Hmm, I can read through 8 years worth of minutes of meetings of Law >>> Commissions/Committees. Sorry to say this, but I have not seen a >>> WBFLC >>> opinion (or whatever) that I liked. >>> >>> Maybe I shouldn't be spending all of today running my >>> obsessive-compulsive-perfectionistic programs and trying to figure >>> out if >>> there even is a right ruling or how I would find that out. Maybe I >>> should >>> just take for granted that if I make a ruling, a higher up will >>> probably >>> judge it "wrong" and there is nothing I can do in advance to avoid >>> that. >>> Maybe no one really expects club directors to do anything more >>> than apply >>> their own interpretation of the laws. >>> >>> Or, as you all know, the laws are pretty good, but they aren't >>> great, and >>> there is no good way of handling the ambiguities. >> >> +=+ No grief Bob about not liking a WBFLC opinion. It is a rare >> opinion that does not meet with 'dislike' on the part of some people. >> We live with that. >> Take the law step by step. When a Director is summoned to >> deal with an insufficient bid the first duty lies upon his >> shoulders. He >> must tell the players at the table what the law is. He ought to >> tell them >> about the LHO's option to accept or not accept, and that when LHO >> has decided the offender will have options. He should tell them about >> 27B1(a) and (b) , about 27B2 and that replacement with a double or >> redouble is only permissible if it meets the requirements of 27B1(b). >> (It will help the Director if he thinks about his task beforehand and >> works out the simplest way for him of stating the law adequately to >> the players. I suspect that numbers of TDs will start by telling >> LHO of >> his options and that if he rejects the IB the offender will have >> options >> some of which will place restrictions upon his side. If LHO asks for >> more information about offender's options he is entitled to it. ) When >> he has stated the law he should ask the LHO to decide whether to >> accept the IB or not. >> Only after LHO has decided not to accept the IB does offender >> have any options and he does not have to select an option until he has >> options. He may need to be reminded again what they are. My advice >> is to work out beforehand the easiest way for you of accomplishing all >> of this. > > That is a formula for achieving Bob's dystopia, in which "directors > [do nothing] more than apply their own interpretation of the laws". > ISTM it should be up to our RAs, or some higher authority, to "think > [] about [the] task beforehand and work[] out the simplest way for > [TDs] of stating the law adequately to the players", and to > communicate it to the TDs within their jurisdiction. That might > actually prevent our winding up with every club having the functional > equivalent of its very own version of L27. > +=+ There will be seminars. In England these will go down to club level. The advice will be available. We cannot guarantee that every TD will find her/his way to it. We cannot guarantee that every NBO will organize seminars to the same extent. But in the past, helped on by willing winds, advice has surged like a tide to reach most of the beach. Why not again this time? ~ G ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 9 19:03:40 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 13:03:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] club director torment In-Reply-To: <31DC2732-1AAE-4A33-BD34-27BC9BAFC140@starpower.net> References: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> <002901c8b0e2$2f103d30$3dd5403e@Mildred> <31DC2732-1AAE-4A33-BD34-27BC9BAFC140@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:15:00 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 8, 2008, at 4:03 AM, > wrote: > >> From: "Robert Frick" >> >>> Hmm, I can read through 8 years worth of minutes of meetings of Law >>> Commissions/Committees. Sorry to say this, but I have not seen a >>> WBFLC >>> opinion (or whatever) that I liked. >>> >>> Maybe I shouldn't be spending all of today running my >>> obsessive-compulsive-perfectionistic programs and trying to figure >>> out if >>> there even is a right ruling or how I would find that out. Maybe I >>> should >>> just take for granted that if I make a ruling, a higher up will >>> probably >>> judge it "wrong" and there is nothing I can do in advance to avoid >>> that. >>> Maybe no one really expects club directors to do anything more >>> than apply >>> their own interpretation of the laws. >>> >>> Or, as you all know, the laws are pretty good, but they aren't >>> great, and >>> there is no good way of handling the ambiguities. >> >> +=+ No grief Bob about not liking a WBFLC opinion. It is a rare >> opinion that does not meet with 'dislike' on the part of some people. >> We live with that. >> Take the law step by step. When a Director is summoned to >> deal with an insufficient bid the first duty lies upon his >> shoulders. He >> must tell the players at the table what the law is. He ought to >> tell them >> about the LHO's option to accept or not accept, and that when LHO >> has decided the offender will have options. He should tell them about >> 27B1(a) and (b) , about 27B2 and that replacement with a double or >> redouble is only permissible if it meets the requirements of 27B1(b). >> (It will help the Director if he thinks about his task beforehand and >> works out the simplest way for him of stating the law adequately to >> the players. I suspect that numbers of TDs will start by telling >> LHO of >> his options and that if he rejects the IB the offender will have >> options >> some of which will place restrictions upon his side. If LHO asks for >> more information about offender's options he is entitled to it. ) When >> he has stated the law he should ask the LHO to decide whether to >> accept the IB or not. >> Only after LHO has decided not to accept the IB does offender >> have any options and he does not have to select an option until he has >> options. He may need to be reminded again what they are. My advice >> is to work out beforehand the easiest way for you of accomplishing all >> of this. > > That is a formula for achieving Bob's dystopia, in which "directors > [do nothing] more than apply their own interpretation of the laws". > ISTM it should be up to our RAs, or some higher authority, to "think > [] about [the] task beforehand and work[] out the simplest way for > [TDs] of stating the law adequately to the players", and to > communicate it to the TDs within their jurisdiction. That might > actually prevent our winding up with every club having the functional > equivalent of its very own version of L27. I think we disagree on which is the utopia and which is the dystopia. These are still developing thoughts for me, but... The other day I went to table and there was the start of mild hard feelings. Mild but typical -- one side is a little upset by the criminal behavior of their opps, the other side is upset to be called out in public like they were criminals. I made a joke, I did my ruling, and I left the table. A few seconds later I heard the table laughing, now at their own jokes. Okay, I am bragging here, but did it really make any difference if my ruling was technically correct? Conversely, a player plays out half of the hand with an extra card (from the next board) before it is noticed. I make a Law 14 ruling. The opp is very unhappy and argumentative. She says that I should be applying Law 13. I point out that Law 13 makes no sense in this situation, while Law 14 does. She points out that Law 14 is for missing card, and this wasn't a missing card. I point out that Law 13 will come out about the same. She points out that Law 13 will give her the chance to refuse to play the board. I don't want to give her the chance to refuse to play the board just because of some extra card that didn't influence anything. (Sincere appreciation of the new laws. But this was old laws.) I don't change my ruling. Was my ruling "correct"? I don't even know what "correct" means. Will we really find that 5 experts all agree? And what good does that do me anyway -- I had to make a ruling that night. The situation is ambiguous, the player is not happy, and if I gave the opposite ruling, probably the opps would be unhappy. So my dystopia is (1) ambiguous laws, or laws that are not ambiguous but are nonetheless interpreted in different ways, and (2) a culture in which the director is supposedly can just apply the laws and the opps complain if the director is wrong. (I have no problem with the opps complaining for Law 84B irregularities with clear penalties.) If we can eliminate either one, my dystopia disappears. I understand that the laws have to be ambiguous. But there is no good way of resolving the ambiguities. Meanwhile, new laws....if a player makes an insufficient bid, shoots out a contract barring partner, and gets a top because of a 5-0 spade break, then the director adjusts using 27D, who on this list is going to support that director? My worry is that I will be the only one. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri May 9 20:40:44 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 19:40:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48249AAC.40807@NTLworld.com> [paul lamford] However, the very fact that there is so much argument and counter-argument on here about whether pass or 3C is suggested by the UI makes it clear to me that neither is *demonstrably* suggested which is the requirement for the player not to select one over the other. [SNIP] ...The bid that is not suggested at all by the UI is 3C, but, as I have said before, neither is *demonstrably* suggested. And anyone who thinks it is should ask why the hand generated so much discussion if it was *demonstrably* suggested. [nige1] What is the *practical* *Bridge* meaning of "demonstrably" suggested? For example ... Suppose that the director consults a group of the alleged offender's peers, *without* telling them what was the actual result. 80% of this sample agree that there are two equally plausible logical alternatives and 60% agree that the successful alternative (which was the one actually chosen) is suggested by unauthorised information? How should the director rule? Paul seems to believe that dissent over what is "demonstrably suggested" means that the director should rule "no infraction". I feel that a majority verdict should be sufficient. IMO, the law-book should state that clearly. Surely other interpretations would render the law ineffective? Can you remember any UI case, discussed in any online forum, where the verdict was unanimous? But what is the current law? I fear that once again the verdict depends on the untrammelled "judgement" ( = whim ) of directors and committees. The only advantage of such a legal philosophy is that it may provide a hint as to who your friends are :) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 9 20:51:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 19:51:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] club director torment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <756285.50571.qm@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Robert Frick \ wrote: > Meanwhile, new > laws....if a player makes an > insufficient bid, shoots out a contract barring > partner, and gets a top > because of a 5-0 spade break, then the director > adjusts using 27D, who on > this list is going to support that director? My > worry is that I will be > the only one. > This is a toughie. We are all so used to the idea of an IBer taking a bash at the final contract and winning or losing thereby. It always seemed so fair. However, 27D seems pretty clear about the matter, so I will support that director with you. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri May 9 21:31:24 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 20:31:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] club director torment In-Reply-To: <756285.50571.qm@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <756285.50571.qm@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4824A68C.1020007@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick] Meanwhile, new laws....if a player makes an insufficient bid, shoots out a contract barring partner, and gets a top because of a 5-0 spade break, then the director adjusts using 27D, who on this list is going to support that director? My worry is that I will be the only one. [Stefanie Rohan] This is a toughie. We are all so used to the idea of an IBer taking a bash at the final contract and winning or losing thereby. It always seemed so fair. However, 27D seems pretty clear about the matter, so I will support that director with you. [TNLB L27D1] If the insufficient bid is replaced, except as 27C1 allows, by any bid or a pass the offender?s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply and see Law 23. [TNLB L23] Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. [nigel] Stefanie and Robert are usually right but I feel here they may have misinterpreted L27D1 and L23 above (if I have the latest version) IMO the TBFLC intended that the application of Law 23 be contingent on the director's opinion that the offender could have known *at the time of his irregularity* ... Common sense says that a bad suit break or whatever does not fall into that category. IMO the director, Robert, and Stefanie should all rule "Rub of the green". IMO law 23 is applicable when, for example, the offender's replacement call seems designed to mislead opponents. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri May 9 22:08:24 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 21:08:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] club director torment In-Reply-To: <4824A68C.1020007@NTLworld.com> References: <756285.50571.qm@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4824A68C.1020007@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4824AF38.1060209@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] This is a toughie. We are all so used to the idea of an IBer taking a bash at the final contract and winning or losing thereby. It always seemed so fair. However, 27D seems pretty clear about the matter, so I will support that director with you. [Nige1] As I explained, I disagree with Bob's & Stefanie's interpretation of the new L27D1 and L23 Another kind example to clarify. The auction starts 1S 1H Partner calls the director, refusing to condone the insufficient bid. The offender substitutes X which the director judges to comply with L27. The auction quickly ends 1S (_X) _P _P _P RHO passes for penalties and the result is -4 (-1100), a poor score for your side. Should the director allow this result to stand? IMO Yes. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 9 22:12:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 16:12:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] club director torment In-Reply-To: References: <48207B34.9090305@NTLworld.com> <002901c8b0e2$2f103d30$3dd5403e@Mildred> <31DC2732-1AAE-4A33-BD34-27BC9BAFC140@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8A467261-10FC-44FD-84B4-C55A2B9E73EF@starpower.net> On May 9, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I understand that the laws have to be ambiguous. But there is no > good way > of resolving the ambiguities. Meanwhile, new laws....if a player > makes an > insufficient bid, shoots out a contract barring partner, and gets a > top > because of a 5-0 spade break, then the director adjusts using 27D, > who on > this list is going to support that director? My worry is that I > will be > the only one. Not to worry. L27D only applies "following the application of [L27] B1". It does not apply when a player, after an IB, "shoots out" a contract, barring his partner. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat May 10 00:49:45 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 23:49:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. In-Reply-To: <000201c8b0eb$17443bd0$b9c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <9522.13037.qm@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> So Grattan, I understand that your attachment indicates that in England, after 1H-1H/2H, the 2H must be treated as whatever 2H is in the OS's system, yes? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 10 03:09:52 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 21:09:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] club director torment In-Reply-To: <756285.50571.qm@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <756285.50571.qm@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sorry, a better word would have been supportive, and a better example would have been the law about two revokes on the same board. The director reads the rules fives times and then decides that an established revoke and an unestablished revoke cancel each other out and there is no rectification. I would like to be supportive of that director even though I know that ruling wasn't what was intended. I think the people here mostly are that way. > > --- Robert Frick \ wrote: > >> Meanwhile, new >> laws....if a player makes an >> insufficient bid, shoots out a contract barring >> partner, and gets a top >> because of a 5-0 spade break, then the director >> adjusts using 27D, who on >> this list is going to support that director? My >> worry is that I will be >> the only one. >> > This is a toughie. We are all so used to the idea of > an IBer taking a bash at the final contract and > winning or losing thereby. It always seemed so fair. > > However, 27D seems pretty clear about the matter, so I > will support that director with you. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Sat May 10 11:43:30 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 11:43:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement Message-ID: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> As you may know we had trouble with the Dutch NAC and their treatment of the famous Law 75 footnotes. Now there is the result of some committee, and the high powers of the Dutch Bridge Federation want to make the following change: Any agreement in non fixed partnerships, or any agreement less than one year old in fixed partnerships becomes essentially a non-agreement. Getting it wrong would automatically lead to a ruling of misinformation. Furthermore, all agreements older than a year in fixed partnerships would need additional documentation, not just the name on the convention card. Directors would be forced to check for this, not just when they are unsure of the misinformation/misbid situation. Just back from a holiday this all strikes me as pretty harsh, but that is not my point of the day. The first question that strikes me: Is this legal? Hans van Staveren From schoderb at msn.com Sat May 10 19:22:59 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 13:22:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> Message-ID: Is it legal for an RA to control the use of "agreements"? Sure, Law 40. Is this particular foray into control good for the game of bridge? I don't know what the game of bridge "is" in that RA, but what I read makes me think not. But, Mr. Clinton says that first you have to define "is". This concept is not new. It's the favorite of a well known world class USA player for decades - and his philosophy is basically that opponents are not allowed to benefit from honest mistakes, play bad bridge, and get good results. Knee jerk reactions to penalize mistakes don't impress me, and drive away honest players. He keeps pushing and thanks to common sense keeps losing. Maybe the TD should "protect the field" from the plus 2000 the opponents got and give a two way score? I hope not. That's another pet idea of the same USA player -- you are minus 2000 but your opponents don't get plus 2000. "Death to the miscreant (-2000) but only 'normal result' to the guy who's +2000 is being taken away." Helps to keep 'inferior' players from winning events that 'rightfully' belong to the expert player(s). I'd like to be a witness to a TD taking away an unearned +2000 from him! Or should the TD perhaps remove the plus/minus 2000 caused by a mistake, rule misinformation, and then establish FOR BOTH SIDES what would have happened had the information been correct? I hope not. (sure would do away with swings, wouldn't it?) It's a good point re "names" in what you posted, IMO. "Names" in place of readily available detailed explanations is bad for the game. I've played against too many cards covered with names without explanations and designed to dare me to show my ignorance and be embarrassed by asking. I ask, and it's usually great fun -- they are the ones who frequently don't know the agreements or conventional meanings! I can't see the TDs being forced to go around looking at convention cards to see if they meet this "requirement" without a misinformation/misbid situation. The Compliance Police have never been a favorite of mine, I prefer player education. When I ran club level games I started sessions with a SHORT point of law or regulations which IMO ideally fits this kind of problem rather than draconian methods sent from "On High." The LAW 75 footnotes worked very well for many years and have been incorporated into body of the 2007 Law 75. Then again, perhaps such draconian methods are needed in a particular RA, or do I smell the 'control freak syndrome'? I hope not. Kojak P.S. Control Freak Syndrome = I've been given the power to alter something, but if I never do so, I have been given nothing. Very common disease in political hierarchies. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 5:43 AM Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement > As you may know we had trouble with the Dutch NAC and their treatment of > the > famous Law 75 footnotes. > > Now there is the result of some committee, and the high powers of the > Dutch > Bridge Federation want to make the following change: > > Any agreement in non fixed partnerships, or any agreement less than one > year > old in fixed partnerships becomes essentially a non-agreement. Getting it > wrong would automatically lead to a ruling of misinformation. > Furthermore, all agreements older than a year in fixed partnerships would > need additional documentation, not just the name on the convention card. > Directors would be forced to check for this, not just when they are unsure > of the misinformation/misbid situation. > > Just back from a holiday this all strikes me as pretty harsh, but that is > not my point of the day. The first question that strikes me: Is this > legal? > > Hans van Staveren > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat May 10 21:52:06 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 20:52:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Law Mistakes Message-ID: <4825FCE6.8000106@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] Ecats now lists many corrections of mistakes in the 2007 laws, some involving substantial rewrites. I'm sure I speak for all players, when I congratulate the WBFLC on their change of heart and welcome this new initiative. Players and directors will be especially relieved to find that the amendments are being made, *in place*, rather than in obscure minutes. I hope the WBFLC will continue their good work, making other necessary corrections when their attention is drawn to them by translators and others. It is vital that the dated list of *corrigenda* (below) be published together with the new laws, so that directors do not have to reread the whole book to find the latest changes. [Ecats Bridge Mar 2008] The revised Law 27 is posted. It is included in the Complete Laws Documents, as are the following changes to the Index: Index references to Law 27 have been made to reflect the renumbering and new structure There is inconsistency between Redouble, Inadmissible and Double corrected as follows: Inadmissible: Add 27B3, Redouble: change 19B3 to 19B Double: Add 19A In Review, Call not clearly heard - Replace "heard" with "recognized" Add the term "Playing Area" to the Index. 76 (incl. footnote) February 2008 The following amendments are made to the index: 1. "Authorized Information" Arising from law or regulation: 16A1(d) should be 16A1(c) 2. "Counting cards" 7B1 should be 7B2 3. "Double" Inadmissible: 27E should be 27D2 4. "Irregularity" Retention of rights: 9B1C should be 9B1(c) 5. "Partnership understanding" djusted score: 406(b) should be 40B6(b)-B missing 6. "Rectification" after forfeiture of the right to: 11C should be 11B - not 11C 7. "Revoke" After round has ended: 64B4 should be 64B5 8. "Session" Date and time: 80B2(d) should be 80B2(c) The amendments have also been made to the complete documents (both the word and pdf versions) January 2008 The WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee is considering a problem drawn to its attention concerning Law 27C. It is possible this Law will be rewritten. Alternatively guidance in the form of a footnote or an interpretation may be issued. Please hold back any publication of this Law until a solution has been agreed and issued. 22 November 2007: Foreword by Mr Jos? Damiani, President of the World Bridge Federation is added to the site - NBOs wishing to print the Laws are particularly advised to note the contents of this document. 31 October 2007: The following typographical errors are corrected: In the index: Procedural penalty: Assessed independently: 90A2 There is no 90A2, only 90A Change 90A2 in the Index to 90A. In Law 20G, clause 2 to read: Except as the Regulating Authority allows a player may not consult his own system card and notes during the auction and play periods, but see Law 40B2(b)." 19 October 2007: The following typographical errors are corrected: Law 40B2(c)(i) - "auction period" has been changed to "auction" Law 79B2 - "C or D below, as applicable," changed to "C below or Law 87, as applicable," These changes have been made in the individual files (parallel versions) as well as in both versions of the complete Laws. The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge were adopted by the Executive Council of the World Bridge Federation at its meeting on 12th October 2007, and are now available for NBOs to obtain and translate or typeset as required. There is a document in Word format and a copy of the complete document in PDF format In addition to the standard presentation of these Laws there is a second parallel version for translators showing where the changes are. Since NBOs were given a sight of the drafts as they were in November 2006 numbers of further changes have been made and these are indicated (red and underlined for new text, blue and struck through for deleted text). The Introduction and Definitions form part of the Laws. Zonal Organizations are authorized to introduce and give effect to the 2007 Code of Laws on dates of their choosing in the period 1st January 2008 to 30th September 2008 inclusive. Please note that it is not appropriate to delegate the choice of date below NBO level. From sater at xs4all.nl Sun May 11 13:06:20 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 13:06:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> Message-ID: <029f01c8b357$0b4ef630$21ece290$@nl> [Kojak says] Is it legal for an RA to control the use of "agreements"? Sure, Law 40. Is this particular foray into control good for the game of bridge? I don't know what the game of bridge "is" in that RA, but what I read makes me think not. But, Mr. Clinton says that first you have to define "is". [me] Perhaps I have never properly understood this Law 40 possibility. Suppose the rule is: "any misbid of an agreement less than 1 year old is misinformation" Now a 6 month old partnership opens 2C, agreed as GF. Opps ask. What can they explain? Take 1: They say "GF". Turns out bidder was confused, thinking about other partner(s) and has weak 2 in diamonds. TD rules misinformation according to above rule. Take 2: They say "an agreement less than 1 year old, no need to explain further". Ridiculous. Take 3: They say "this is a six month old agreement in this six month old partnership. We agreed GF. It is the third occurrence, all others have been correct so far". Brilliant. Perfect information. The weak two again. TD has to rule misinformation???? But we just agreed the information was perfect, so how can it be misinformation? Hans From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 12 13:05:24 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 12:05:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> Message-ID: <002801c8b420$17570070$30ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement > Is it legal for an RA to control the use of "agreements"? Sure, Law 40. > > Is this particular foray into control good for the game of bridge? I > don't know what the game of bridge "is" in that RA, but what I read makes > me think not. But, Mr. Clinton says that first you have to define "is". > > This concept is not new. It's the favorite of a well known world class USA > player for decades - and his philosophy is basically that opponents are > not allowed to benefit from honest mistakes, play bad bridge, and get good > results. Knee jerk reactions to penalize mistakes don't impress me, and > drive away honest players. He keeps pushing and thanks to common sense > keeps losing. > > Maybe the TD should "protect the field" from the plus 2000 the opponents > got and give a two way score? I hope not. That's another pet idea of the > same USA player -- you are minus 2000 but your opponents don't get plus > 2000. "Death to the miscreant (-2000) but only 'normal result' to the guy > who's +2000 is being taken away." Helps to keep 'inferior' players from > winning events that 'rightfully' belong to the expert player(s). I'd like > to be a witness to a TD taking away an unearned +2000 from him! > > Or should the TD perhaps remove the plus/minus 2000 caused by a mistake, > rule misinformation, and then establish FOR BOTH SIDES what would have > happened had the information been correct? I hope not. (sure would do > away with swings, wouldn't it?) > > It's a good point re "names" in what you posted, IMO. "Names" in place of > readily available detailed explanations is bad for the game. I've played > against too many cards covered with names without explanations and > designed to dare me to show my ignorance and be embarrassed by asking. I > ask, and it's usually great fun -- they are the ones who frequently don't > know the agreements or conventional meanings! > > I can't see the TDs being forced to go around looking at convention cards > to see if they meet this "requirement" without a misinformation/misbid > situation. The Compliance Police have never been a favorite of mine, I > prefer player education. When I ran club level games I started sessions > with a SHORT point of law or regulations which IMO ideally fits this kind > of problem rather than draconian methods sent from "On High." The LAW 75 > footnotes worked very well for many years and have been incorporated into > body of the 2007 Law 75. > > Then again, perhaps such draconian methods are needed in a particular RA, > or do I smell the 'control freak syndrome'? I hope not. > > Kojak > > P.S. Control Freak Syndrome = I've been given the power to alter > something, but if I never do so, I have been given nothing. Very common > disease in political hierarchies. > ......................................................................................................... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans van Staveren" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 5:43 AM > Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement > > >> As you may know we had trouble with the Dutch NAC and their treatment of >> the >> famous Law 75 footnotes. >> >> Now there is the result of some committee, and the high powers of the >> Dutch >> Bridge Federation want to make the following change: >> >> Any agreement in non fixed partnerships, or any agreement less than one >> year >> old in fixed partnerships becomes essentially a non-agreement. Getting it >> wrong would automatically lead to a ruling of misinformation. >> Furthermore, all agreements older than a year in fixed partnerships would >> need additional documentation, not just the name on the convention card. >> Directors would be forced to check for this, not just when they are >> unsure >> of the misinformation/misbid situation. >> >> Just back from a holiday this all strikes me as pretty harsh, but that is >> not my point of the day. The first question that strikes me: Is this >> legal? >> >> Hans van Staveren >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 12 13:30:33 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 12:30:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. References: <9522.13037.qm@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002601c8b423$9c295a70$30ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27B1(b) - 16D exclusion. > > So Grattan, > > I understand that your attachment indicates that in > England, after 1H-1H/2H, the 2H must be treated as > whatever 2H is in the OS's system, yes? > +=+ The attachment deals with cases in which the meaning is changed in order to bring it within the scope of Law 27B1(b). The case you cite is not such a case; it falls clearly within the scope of Law 27B1(a). I quote the following exchange dealing with the subject of Law 27B1(a): .............................................................................................. [GE] Case 1. 1H-P-1H(2H)-P : Law 27B1(a) applies. (We only go to 27B1(b) after we have tried to apply 27B1(a).) Information from the IB is AI to the opening 1H bidder. What is that information? What he knows is that his partner was either responding to 1m, overcalling RHO's 1m, or opening the bidding. Therefore he has the information that partner has a hand suitable for one of these actions. If the opening bidder bids a direct 4H he has a hand suitable for a rebid of 4H after 1m - P - 1H - P; but he also knows that partner may have a hand suitable for opening 1H and he is entitled to explore that possibility with a trial or strength enquiry bid of some kind. [DALB] This appears to contain the suggestion that the offending side may modify its trial bidding structure thus: after 1H-2H-2S (for example), responder bids game with a maximum limit raise or a suitable spade holding; but after 1H-1H/2H-2S, responder bids game only if he would have opened 1H, finding some other bid with a maximum limit raise or suitable spade holding (just in case opener has a minimum opening bid). Of course, the offending side is now varying its agreements consequent upon its own infraction, which it may or may not be allowed to do. Still, that is a minor difficulty by comparison with some of the problems we have encountered so far. And it does seem to provide a procedure that may work without the perpetrator of the IB having to disclose his reasons for making it. I have been speaking to some English directors and ......they are all agreed that the reason for the IB should not be revealed and should be treated as UI if it is revealed. Whereas 16D does not apply, 16B still does. ......................................................................................................... [GE] I would say it may or may not require the offending side to vary its understandings, depending on what they are. If, following partner's raise to 2H in a normal auction, a rebid of (say) 2S indicates an interest in game and requests partner to evaluate his hand to that purpose, is there a variation of meaning in the DALB example above? If there is doubt, the question becomes one of bridge judgement for the Director and the Appeals Committee. ...................................................................................................... ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Mon May 12 14:16:49 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 08:16:49 EDT Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? Message-ID: In a message dated 09/05/2008 19:41:45 GMT Standard Time, Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes: [Nige1] Paul seems to believe that dissent over what is "demonstrably suggested" means that the director should rule "no infraction". I feel that a majority verdict should be sufficient. IMO, the law-book should state that clearly. [paul lamford] If the auction goes 1H -3H -4NT-5C-...5H then bidding on is *demonstrably* suggested by the hesitation. A BIT, followed by a pass, or even less commonly followed by a bid, shows that the hesitator was considering another action. A flexible bid can also be *demonstrably* suggested if it caters for the majority of these possible actions. For example 1H - (1S ) - 3H - (3S) - ...Pass - (Pass). Now partner could have been thinking of doubling or bidding 4H, so the bid that is *demonstrably* suggested is double which shows extra offence and extra defence by a pre-emptor and illegally caters for both reasons for partner's hesitation, as he will bid 4H with the right hand. The panel in our example were not only split as to what bid to make, but they were also split as to what bid was *demonstrably* suggested. I am happy with a majority decision on whether an action is 70% or whatever percentage we decide the new criteria require, but if a bid is to be deemed *demonstrably* suggested we surely need close to unanimity that it is suggested, or why bother with the word *demonstrably* at all? From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 12 15:19:31 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 09:19:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: <029f01c8b357$0b4ef630$21ece290$@nl> References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <029f01c8b357$0b4ef630$21ece290$@nl> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:06:20 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > [Kojak says] > > Is it legal for an RA to control the use of "agreements"? Sure, Law 40. > > Is this particular foray into control good for the game of bridge? I > don't > know what the game of bridge "is" in that RA, but what I read makes me > think > > not. But, Mr. Clinton says that first you have to define "is". > > [me] > > Perhaps I have never properly understood this Law 40 possibility. > > Suppose the rule is: "any misbid of an agreement less than 1 year old is > misinformation" > > Now a 6 month old partnership opens 2C, agreed as GF. Opps ask. What can > they explain? > > Take 1: They say "GF". Turns out bidder was confused, thinking about > other > partner(s) and has weak 2 in diamonds. TD rules misinformation according > to > above rule. > > Take 2: They say "an agreement less than 1 year old, no need to explain > further". Ridiculous. > > Take 3: They say "this is a six month old agreement in this six month old > partnership. We agreed GF. It is the third occurrence, all others have > been > correct so far". Brilliant. Perfect information. The weak two again. TD > has > to rule misinformation???? But we just agreed the information was > perfect, > so how can it be misinformation? > > Hans It seems to me that (1) players would like to be protected against the effects of opponents' misleading explanation of the intended meaning of a bid and (2) are not greatly concerned about their own rights to give misleading explanations of their intended meanings. Perhaps the Dutch League is working towards this goal. They are not doing it in a very straightforward way, and your message above illustrates two of the potential problems. Perhaps they should be "clarifying" the evidence needed to rule mistaken explanation versus mistaken call. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon May 12 16:40:03 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 15:40:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> [paul lamford] The panel in our example were not only split as to what bid to make, but they were also split as to what bid was *demonstrably* suggested. I am happy with a majority decision on whether an action is 70% or whatever percentage we decide the new criteria require, but if a bid is to be deemed *demonstrably* suggested we surely need close to unanimity that it is suggested, or why bother with the word *demonstrably* at all? [nige1] OK lets go back to the recent example... - We were split whether to pass or bid 3C. That merely shows that, for us, both were logical alternatives. - What is important is that we also disagreed as to what bid was *suggested* by the unauthorised information. Although I think a majority, who expressed an opinion either way, thought that 3C rather than pass was so-suggested. What is the *practical* meaning of *demonstrably* suggested? If a player's peers most often select a particular call as suggested by the UI, does that suffice to deem it *demonstrably* suggested? (Surely it would make sense). Or is Paul right? Do we need virtual unanimity? Paul has several big guns on his side. Many legal gurus have opined that, in Bridge Law, "Demonstrably" is a synonym for "Provably". Near unanimity still seems to be a ludicrously high standard. In practice, it is rarely met. For example, in all the UI cases discussed in BLML (and in other fora), can you remember any case of unanimity over what the UI suggested? IMO, if BLMLers were deemed their peers, not a single alleged offender, who chose a winning action when in receipt of UI, would be penalized, using the strictest criteria. Are there *practical* *common sense* guidelines (e.g. a percentage probability) for deciding what is "demonstrably" suggested? or do such decisions depend (as usual) on the mere whim of the director or committee? If you disagree with with Grattan, Paul, Alain and Co, then you should have the guts to say so. If there is anything wrong with the rules of Bridge, then it is not just the fault of the law-makers. The main blame must lie with the apathy of players and the laziness, stupidity, or timidity of directors. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 12 20:05:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:05:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> References: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net> On May 12, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [paul lamford] > The panel in our example were not only split as to what bid to > make, but > they were also split as to what bid was *demonstrably* suggested. I am > happy with a majority decision on whether an action is 70% or whatever > percentage we decide the new criteria require, but if a bid is to be > deemed *demonstrably* suggested we surely need close to unanimity that > it is suggested, or why bother with the word *demonstrably* at all? > > [nige1] > OK lets go back to the recent example... > - We were split whether to pass or bid 3C. That merely shows > that, for > us, both were logical alternatives. > - What is important is that we also disagreed as to what bid was > *suggested* by the unauthorised information. Although I think a > majority, who expressed an opinion either way, thought that 3C rather > than pass was so-suggested. > > What is the *practical* meaning of *demonstrably* suggested? If a > player's peers most often select a particular call as suggested by the > UI, does that suffice to deem it *demonstrably* suggested? (Surely it > would make sense). > > Or is Paul right? Do we need virtual unanimity? Paul has several big > guns on his side. Many legal gurus have opined that, in Bridge Law, > "Demonstrably" is a synonym for "Provably". Near unanimity still seems > to be a ludicrously high standard. In practice, it is rarely met. > > For example, in all the UI cases discussed in BLML (and in other > fora), > can you remember any case of unanimity over what the UI suggested? > IMO, > if BLMLers were deemed their peers, not a single alleged offender, who > chose a winning action when in receipt of UI, would be penalized, > using > the strictest criteria. > > Are there *practical* *common sense* guidelines (e.g. a percentage > probability) for deciding what is "demonstrably" suggested? or do such > decisions depend (as usual) on the mere whim of the director or > committee? > > If you disagree with with Grattan, Paul, Alain and Co, then you should > have the guts to say so. If there is anything wrong with the rules of > Bridge, then it is not just the fault of the law-makers. The main > blame > must lie with the apathy of players and the laziness, stupidity, or > timidity of directors. I like the "opposite adjustment" test. A player with UI has successfully chosen action A over action B, and you must decide whether A was "demonstrably suggested over" B. Imagine that the same player, with the same table action, had chosen B, and that the deal was such that B turned out to be the winning decision rather than A. Would you consider adjusting the score under those circumstances? If you would, you should not adjust now (or then). IMO this appropriately reflects the apparent intention of the authors who, in 1997, carefully changed the key word in L16A from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon May 12 20:57:15 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:57:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net> References: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0805121157g34b1c336x203b8d642619710f@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > I like the "opposite adjustment" test. A player with UI has > successfully chosen action A over action B, and you must decide > whether A was "demonstrably suggested over" B. Imagine that the same > player, with the same table action, had chosen B, and that the deal > was such that B turned out to be the winning decision rather than A. > Would you consider adjusting the score under those circumstances? If > you would, you should not adjust now (or then). > > IMO this appropriately reflects the apparent intention of the authors > who, in 1997, carefully changed the key word in L16A from > "reasonably" to "demonstrably". > Oh, I agree! The opposite-adjustment test is magnificent. It would have prevented dozens of errors that appear in the ACBL casebooks. I think that failure to apply the opposite-adjustment test is one of the easiest ways for the director or committee or panel to err. Jerry Fusselman From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 13 02:48:29 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 01:48:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0805121157g34b1c336x203b8d642619710f@mail.gmail.com> References: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0805121157g34b1c336x203b8d642619710f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4828E55D.3070403@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] I like the "opposite adjustment" test. A player with UI has successfully chosen action A over action B, and you must decide whether A was "demonstrably suggested over" B. Imagine that the same player, with the same table action, had chosen B, and that the deal was such that B turned out to be the winning decision rather than A. Would you consider adjusting the score under those circumstances? If you would, you should not adjust now (or then). IMO this appropriately reflects the apparent intention of the authors who, in 1997, carefully changed the key word in L16A from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". [Jerry Fusselman] Oh, I agree! The opposite-adjustment test is magnificent. It would have prevented dozens of errors that appear in the ACBL casebooks. I think that failure to apply the opposite-adjustment test is one of the easiest ways for the director or committee or panel to err. [Nige1] Eric's proposal is similar to (but slightly less objective than) what I suggest: that a panel of the player's peers should decide - what are the logical alternatives. - what action was suggested by the unauthorised information. both of these *without knowing* what action was in fact chosen and the actual result. Such assessments are unlikely to be unanimous. Hence to be practical, such protocols depend on probabilistic criteria. They're certainly not "provable". But are they what Bridge law means by "demonstrable"? From adam at tameware.com Tue May 13 08:43:36 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 23:43:36 -0700 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 Message-ID: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com> Here's my first draft of my casebook comments. Criticisms, corrections, and comments on my comments are welcome! The write-ups are here: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Detroit2008.html 1. Not written yet. 2. North's testimony was useful, though perhaps not in the way he expected. He confirmed that be broke tempo, thereby making UI available. The reasons for his doing so are not relevant. The AC used a blind preview in this case and it proved effective. When given as a defensive problem, with just the authorized information, most of the AC members quickly continued with a third high diamond. Kudos to the TD and AC for a sound decision in an unusual situation. Kudos also to EW for realizing that they might have been damaged and allowing the TD to assess the situation. I see little merit to the appeal, but I don't fault the committee for failing to assess an AWMW. 3. I'm delighted that the TDs took a poll. I'd have loved to know the result of the poll, not just the conclusion drawn. It might have affected both NS's decision to appeal and the AC's decision whether to assess an AWMW. 4. Kudos to the TDs for correcting their error. This appeal had no merit. 5. It seems to me it might be "at all probable" that East would allow South to play 3C on some auctions. I won't fault the TD or the AC decisions -- I'd say this one is too close to call. I don't understand, though, why the AC failed to issue a PP. East had a clear pass over 2S, the UI strongly suggested the pull, and East offered no reason for his 3H call. 6. What did the TD and AC decide was the actual EW agreement, or did they conclude there was none? We need to know, since it affects the decision. Let's suppose that "Stayman" was the EW agreement. I'm not sure it's even at all probable that South would have doubled. He's promised 14 and he has 15 -- that doesn't sound like extra values to me. I'd want to know more about the NS agreements. This one is close between the TD and AC decisions, both of which were reasonable. 7. This one was close -- both decisions seem reasonable. The write-up seems to be missing a little something. Based on what I read I'd have strongly considered giving a split ruling, NS -620 and EW +130, per Law 72b1. 8. A don't understand either part of the TD ruling. Certainly the question made UI available, and that UI demonstrably suggested acting. Perhaps the TDs extrapolated from NABC+ case 1, which had appeared in the daily bulletin by the time this case came up. I believe such extrapolation is not justified here, but this is something committees ought to keep in mind. In close cases we should consider the message our decision will send. 9. The TD ruling was reasonable, and the AC ruling improved upon it. The "In real life" comment at the end of the write-up is not relevant. EW are entitled to know the actual NS agreement whether or not North knows it himself. 10. A thorough job by the AC. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 13 17:30:27 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 16:30:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4829B413.7060604@NTLworld.com> [Adam Wildavsky] Here's my first draft of my casebook comments. Criticisms, corrections, and comments on my comments are welcome! The write-ups are here: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Detroit2008.html [Nigel] Thank you Adam, a pity that few players (at least in the UK) have heard about these appeal write-ups and expert commentaries. People would be considerably cheered up to discover that nowadays more than half the appeal decisions are substantially correct -- and that improvement is mostly a result of *previous* case-law. I agree with almost all Adam's comments; but have added my tuppence worth at 6, 7, and 10. [Adam] 1. Not written yet. 2. North's testimony was useful, though perhaps not in the way he expected. He confirmed that be broke tempo, thereby making UI available. The reasons for his doing so are not relevant. The AC used a blind preview in this case and it proved effective. When given as a defensive problem, with just the authorized information, most of the AC members quickly continued with a third high diamond. Kudos to the TD and AC for a sound decision in an unusual situation. Kudos also to EW for realizing that they might have been damaged and allowing the TD to assess the situation. I see little merit to the appeal, but I don't fault the committee for failing to assess an AWMW. 3. I'm delighted that the TDs took a poll. I'd have loved to know the result of the poll, not just the conclusion drawn. It might have affected both NS's decision to appeal and the AC's decision whether to assess an AWMW. 4. Kudos to the TDs for correcting their error. This appeal had no merit. 5. It seems to me it might be "at all probable" that East would allow South to play 3C on some auctions. I won't fault the TD or the AC decisions -- I'd say this one is too close to call. I don't understand, though, why the AC failed to issue a PP. East had a clear pass over 2S, the UI strongly suggested the pull, and East offered no reason for his 3H call. 6. What did the TD and AC decide was the actual EW agreement, or did they conclude there was none? We need to know, since it affects the decision. Let's suppose that "Stayman" was the EW agreement. I'm not sure it's even at all probable that South would have doubled. He's promised 14 and he has 15 -- that doesn't sound like extra values to me. I'd want to know more about the NS agreements. This one is close between the TD and AC decisions, both of which were reasonable. [Nigel] East explained his 2C bid to North as "Stayman" (as it was obviously intended). lacking a major, West explained the 2C bid to South as "Natural" but then he passed with *five card support* ... And the band played "believe it if you like" 7. This one was close -- both decisions seem reasonable. The write-up seems to be missing a little something. Based on what I read I'd have strongly considered giving a split ruling, NS -620 and EW +130, per Law 72b1. [Nige1] When asked, South explained North's 3H as "Nothing special". After the play, with coommendable honesty, North reminded South that their agreement was "Lead directing with a spade fit". If the latter was their agreement then, manifestly, East-West were damaged. IMO whether or not it was indided their agreement is a moot point that should have been decided in favour of their opponents. [Adam] 8. A don't understand either part of the TD ruling. Certainly the question made UI available, and that UI demonstrably suggested acting. Perhaps the TDs extrapolated from NABC+ case 1, which had appeared in the daily bulletin by the time this case came up. I believe such extrapolation is not justified here, but this is something committees ought to keep in mind. In close cases we should consider the message our decision will send. 9. The TD ruling was reasonable, and the AC ruling improved upon it. The "In real life" comment at the end of the write-up is not relevant. EW are entitled to know the actual NS agreement whether or not North knows it himself. 10. A thorough job by the AC. [Nige1] East found out about aces, then found out about kings (a mild grand slam try). Then he mad another clear grand slam try which West again refused, this time after some thought. I understand the argument that whatever West bid, East was going to bid 6N anyway (rather than play in the 4-4 fit); but it did give East a third chance to reconsider and it was suggested by the unauthorised information. I still wonder if a panel of West'e peers would have considered a pass of 6H to be a logival alternative. Anyway. Thank you Adam. Interesting and educational. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 13 18:50:51 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 17:50:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> Message-ID: <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> [Hans van Staveren] As you may know we had trouble with the Dutch NAC and their treatment of the famous Law 75 footnotes. Now there is the result of some committee, and the high powers of the Dutch Bridge Federation want to make the following change: Any agreement in non fixed partnerships, or any agreement less than one year old in fixed partnerships becomes essentially a non-agreement. Getting it wrong would automatically lead to a ruling of misinformation. Furthermore, all agreements older than a year in fixed partnerships would need additional documentation, not just the name on the convention card. Directors would be forced to check for this, not just when they are unsure of the misinformation/misbid situation. Just back from a holiday this all strikes me as pretty harsh, but that is not my point of the day. The first question that strikes me: Is this legal? [Nige1] Penalising players for forgetting agreements does seem to be against the spirit of a game where such mistakes usually harm the perpetrators. One problem is that many players, answer "no agreement" when they are unsure and they are unsure a lot of the time. Another is that some players seem to have deliberately vague agreements about Ghestem and the like), which they use as a license to indulge in random psychs; and, in the past, directors have tended to be lenient with these comedians. Hence there is a strong counter-argument for the Dutch position. There are many benefits of defining a *standard* system (as suggested previously). For example, the Dutch would be able to have their cake and eat it. - If you adopt the standard system, you can forget your agreements without penalty. That takes care of beginners and pick-up partnerships. - If, instead, you agree your own system, then forgetting an agreement is treated as misexplanation rather than misbid. - Also, obviously, there is no problem about system cards and notes if you adopt the standard system. The best of all worlds :) From adam at tameware.com Tue May 13 08:45:02 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 23:45:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805121632m3bd2dfees2027bbedb090bfe9@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805121632m3bd2dfees2027bbedb090bfe9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> Again, comments, corrections, and criticisms are welcome. 1. An AWMW is a judgment about the appeal, not the appellants. If the panel finds the appeal lacks merit, they ought to assess a penalty. The pair will learn at least as much with an AWMW as without one. If they have indeed learned, they'll accumulate no more warnings and will have no need for concern. The criterion for being experienced enough to accept a penalty is being experienced enough to file an appeal. 2. I see no merit to the appeal. Yes, 4H might have gone down fewer, but laws do not give the offenders the benefit of the doubt and in any case, there was likely little or no difference between -300 and -200. 3. How did the TD determine that there was no LA to 4S? As the Panel's admirably thorough poll showed 3S was a standout. The panel corrected an injustice. I do not understand, though, why they removed the PP. I'd have assessed a heavier one! North caused this problem all by himself, by speaking during the auction with no reason. 3D, being a cue-bid, did not require an alert. If North never the less wanted to call attention to the call he ought to have used the single word "Alert" and to have done so immediately after his partner's call. This is not rocket science, and ought to be well known to a player with over 1000 masterpoints. 4. The Panel improved upon the TD's ruling. All that was missing was the legal basis for their ruling, which I believe is Law 72b1. This will be made clearer in the 2007 Laws, scheduled to take effect in the ACBL in September 2008. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 13 23:57:22 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 22:57:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805121632m3bd2dfees2027bbedb090bfe9@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <482A0EC2.50103@NTLworld.com> [Adam Wildavsky] Again, comments, corrections, and criticisms are welcome. [Nige1] Thanks again Adam. Again I agree with most of what Adam writes. My dissenting views [as a player not a director] below. [Adam] 1. An AWMW is a judgment about the appeal, not the appellants. If the panel finds the appeal lacks merit, they ought to assess a penalty. The pair will learn at least as much with an AWMW as without one. If they have indeed learned, they'll accumulate no more warnings and will have no need for concern. The criterion for being experienced enough to accept a penalty is being experienced enough to file an appeal. [Nige1] In the UK you can consult an *appeals adviser*. He is a player with some knowledge of the laws, on whom you can rely for independent advice. This seems to be a better idea than a *screening director*, who is himself a director, and whose function is to deter appeals - in the perception of American players. IMO, if The appeals adviser thinks you have no case, you insist on proceeding anyway, and the committee unanimously uphold the director's decision, then an AMWM may be justified, even against relative tyros. [Adam] 2. I see no merit to the appeal. Yes, 4H might have gone down fewer, but laws do not give the offenders the benefit of the doubt and in any case, there was likely little or no difference between -300 and -200. [Nige1] If the committee change the directors ruling to a milder ruling, as here, then to me it is obvious that the appeal is justified. In fact if the committee disagree with the directors argument or ruling in any substantial way, I feel that the appeal is justified. For example, even if the committee change it to a harsher ruling, I think it is justified. I think you should be allowed to appeal a ruling if you think you got away too lightly. [Adam] 3. How did the TD determine that there was no LA to 4S? As the Panel's admirably thorough poll showed 3S was a standout. The panel corrected an injustice. I do not understand, though, why they removed the PP. I'd have assessed a heavier one! North caused this problem all by himself, by speaking during the auction with no reason. 3D, being a cue-bid, did not require an alert. If North never the less wanted to call attention to the call he ought to have used the single word "Alert" and to have done so immediately after his partner's call. This is not rocket science, and ought to be well known to a player with over 1000 masterpoints. 4. The Panel improved upon the TD's ruling. All that was missing was the legal basis for their ruling, which I believe is Law 72b1. This will be made clearer in the 2007 Laws, scheduled to take effect in the ACBL in September 2008. [Nige1] Wow! what an excellent ruling! The committee were not trying win a popularity contest! And in every case, the committee did an excellent job of consulting the player's peers! Thanks again Adam. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed May 14 05:51:11 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 23:51:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <482A0EC2.50103@NTLworld.com> References: <694eadd40805121632m3bd2dfees2027bbedb090bfe9@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> <482A0EC2.50103@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <1A28B42B2BE146398EE2EAFF63C47652@erdos> "Guthrie" writes: > [Adam] > 2. I see no merit to the appeal. Yes, 4H might have gone down fewer, > but laws do not give the offenders the benefit of the doubt and in any > case, there was likely little or no difference between -300 and -200. > > [Nige1] > If the committee change the directors ruling to a milder ruling, as > here, then to me it is obvious that the appeal is justified. In fact if > the committee disagree with the directors argument or ruling in any > substantial way, I feel that the appeal is justified. For example, even > if the committee change it to a harsher ruling, I think it is justified. > I think you should be allowed to appeal a ruling if you think you got > away too lightly. I would say that if the committee changes, or considers changing, the ruling to be potentially in your favor, your appeal must have merit. "Potentially in your favor" covers a score which is changed from average-minus to -620; you may have had a legitimate case that average-minus was wrong and you were entitled to either +100 or -620. Similarly, if the TD rules 3NT making for -600, and you appeal because 3NT is not a likely contract and the AC rules that 4S is the likely contract for -620, your appeal has merit, as the issue of changing the contract was decided in your favor. However, if you get -500, appeal seeking a better score, and the AC rules that you should have been -800, your appeal can be without merit. From adam at tameware.com Wed May 14 07:38:51 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 22:38:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805132230l6be85c0aie370a8507bc1aa7b@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805121632m3bd2dfees2027bbedb090bfe9@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805132230l6be85c0aie370a8507bc1aa7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40805132238v2812738kc639f0d906e0fbde@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:45 PM, I wrote: > 1. An AWMW is a judgment about the appeal, not the appellants. If the > panel finds the appeal lacks merit, they ought to assess a penalty. > The pair will learn at least as much with an AWMW as without one. If > they have indeed learned, they'll accumulate no more warnings and will > have no need for concern. > > The criterion for being experienced enough to accept a penalty is > being experienced enough to file an appeal. > > 2. I see no merit to the appeal. Yes, 4H might have gone down fewer, > but laws do not give the offenders the benefit of the doubt and in any > case, there was likely little or no difference between -300 and -200. Thanks to everyone who's posted so far. I've updated my comments on cases 1 and 2, the first because my wording was imprecise and the second in response to the legitimate concerns raised here. 1. An AWMW is a judgment about the appeal, not the appellants. If the panel finds the appeal lacks merit, it ought to issue a warning. The pair will learn at least as much with an AWMW as without one. If they have indeed learned, they'll accumulate no more warnings and will have no need for concern. The criterion for being experienced enough to accrue a warning is being experienced enough to file an appeal. 2. -200 seems closer to the correct adjustment than -300, though there was likely little or no matchpoint difference between the two scores. Had the panel left the score unchanged I hope it would also have found the appeal without merit. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed May 14 09:19:50 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 09:19:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805121632m3bd2dfees2027bbedb090bfe9@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 13/05/2008, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Again, comments, corrections, and criticisms are welcome. > > 1. An AWMW is a judgment about the appeal, not the appellants. If the > panel finds the appeal lacks merit, they ought to assess a penalty. > The pair will learn at least as much with an AWMW as without one. If > they have indeed learned, they'll accumulate no more warnings and will > have no need for concern. > > The criterion for being experienced enough to accept a penalty is > being experienced enough to file an appeal. I don't agree with this being a break in tempo by west over 5H. I don't understand why there's not an automatic 10 second pause at this point of the auction - we have that in Norway (in all competitive auction from the 3-level and upwards). I'd not consider a 13 second pause as BIT then. I don't know why west had a problem, he's got an auto-pass IMO. East also has a pass over the double, but might possibly need to evaluate before deciding. Had there been a real BIT, I strongly agree with the decisions made by the TD and AC, and also Adam's comment regarding AWMW. > > 2. I see no merit to the appeal. Yes, 4H might have gone down fewer, > but laws do not give the offenders the benefit of the doubt and in any > case, there was likely little or no difference between -300 and -200. Here I'd never have bid 4S. I think it's a clearcut pass. I'd expect to set 4H some 60% of the time. If desperate, I might consider doubling. However, the poll make it clear that north's peers agree with his evaluation. And the TD/AC got this one right. > > 3. How did the TD determine that there was no LA to 4S? As the Panel's > admirably thorough poll showed 3S was a standout. The panel corrected > an injustice. I do not understand, though, why they removed the PP. > I'd have assessed a heavier one! North caused this problem all by > himself, by speaking during the auction with no reason. 3D, being a > cue-bid, did not require an alert. If North never the less wanted to > call attention to the call he ought to have used the single word > "Alert" and to have done so immediately after his partner's call. This > is not rocket science, and ought to be well known to a player with > over 1000 masterpoints. Agree 100% with Adam's comment. > > 4. The Panel improved upon the TD's ruling. All that was missing was > the legal basis for their ruling, which I believe is Law 72b1. This > will be made clearer in the 2007 Laws, scheduled to take effect in the > ACBL in September 2008. West's 5D bid really was insane. Partner passed 3D and made a penalty double of 4H. I'd be delighted holding the west hand with the singleton spade and an expected club trick. This should be murder! Good decision by the AC. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 14 10:29:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 10:29:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > Hence there is a strong counter-argument for the Dutch position. > > There are many benefits of defining a *standard* system (as suggested > previously). For example, the Dutch would be able to have their cake and > eat it. > - If you adopt the standard system, you can forget your agreements > without penalty. That takes care of beginners and pick-up partnerships. > - If, instead, you agree your own system, then forgetting an agreement > is treated as misexplanation rather than misbid. > > > The best of all worlds :) > > > [AG] Except for three points : 1) It goes against L40A and L75B. No OB may change any article of Law. 2) How do you differentiate a misbid from a mispull, a psyche or not having seen opponent's bid ? If you begin penalizing players who pulled 2H in lieu of 2S, because partner couldn't explain the bid, you'll rapidly end up with no players. Remember the explanation must cover what is in the system, not in the player's hand. And if you don't penalize mispulls, players will begin claiming they mispulled when they forgot the system. The liars against which the Dutch federation is working with their ruling won't shy away from this. 3) The "standard system" can't be made to cover all situations : neither details of intricated auctions, defense against standard systems, nor what you do over their infractions (no conventions, remember) will be covered ; how do you ascertain if the pair plays "standard" in that case ? Best regards Alain > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 14 12:31:58 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:31:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question Message-ID: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> Have we settled on the following: North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the opening. A 2Di opening is Multi: 6-cards in H or S, or strong 3H would be transfer : having spades. The fact that the 3H bid excludes some of the possibilities of the 2Di opening (the hearts and the strong variants) is not a factor in allowing it or not. The fact that the 3H bid includes some possibilities (stronger) not present in the 2Di bid (if spades then below an opening) is also not very important. The fact that the 3H bid promises only 5 spades while the 2Di promised six of them might be enough not to allow the penalty-free correction to 3H. Is this correct? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 14 13:02:02 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:02:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? References: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net><2b1e598b0805121157g34b1c336x203b8d642619710f@mail.gmail.com> <4828E55D.3070403@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000101c8b5b2$56586960$93ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? [Nige1] Eric's proposal is similar to (but slightly less objective than) what I suggest: that a panel of the player's peers should decide - what are the logical alternatives. - what action was suggested by the unauthorised information. both of these *without knowing* what action was in fact chosen and the actual result. > Such assessments are unlikely to be unanimous. Hence to be practical, such protocols depend on probabilistic criteria. They're certainly not "provable". But are they what Bridge law means by "demonstrable"? > +=+ It would be wise to read the law once more. There seems to be an assumption in many of the comments in this thread that the law requires the Director to determine whether (when there is a logical alternative) the action the player took was suggested, demonstrably, by the UI conveyed from partner. This is not so. The judgement the law requires the Director to make is whether, when there is a logical alternative action, the action taken by the player "could demonstrably have been suggested" over that alternative. It is a case of 'could it have been', not 'was it', and it is whether it could have been that the Director must judge to be a demonstrable possibility. 'Demonstrable' eliminates the obscure and requires the Director to stay in the real world of what could be so. He does not have to judge that it actually is so. If the Director forms the opinion that an infraction of law (i.e. that the player has selected an action that could have been demonstrably suggested as above) and that the offender has thereby gained an advantageous result, the Director is required to award an adjusted score in accordance with Law 12C. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed May 14 13:43:20 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 13:43:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 14/05/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > Have we settled on the following: > > North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. > South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the > opening. > A 2Di opening is Multi: 6-cards in H or S, or strong > 3H would be transfer : having spades. > > The fact that the 3H bid excludes some of the possibilities of the 2Di > opening (the hearts and the strong variants) is not a factor in > allowing it or not. > > The fact that the 3H bid includes some possibilities (stronger) not > present in the 2Di bid (if spades then below an opening) is also not > very important. > > The fact that the 3H bid promises only 5 spades while the 2Di promised > six of them might be enough not to allow the penalty-free correction > to 3H. > > Is this correct? If 2D promised a 6-card suit, I'd say a correction to 3D/3H should be disallowed. There can't be much doubt about that. -- 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 john at asimere.com Wed May 14 13:58:32 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:58:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001601c8b5b9$d4fa74a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:31 AM Subject: [blml] L27 question > Have we settled on the following: > > North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. > South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the > opening. > A 2Di opening is Multi: 6-cards in H or S, or strong > 3H would be transfer : having spades. > > The fact that the 3H bid excludes some of the possibilities of the 2Di > opening (the hearts and the strong variants) is not a factor in > allowing it or not. > > The fact that the 3H bid includes some possibilities (stronger) not > present in the 2Di bid (if spades then below an opening) is also not > very important. > > The fact that the 3H bid promises only 5 spades while the 2Di promised > six of them might be enough not to allow the penalty-free correction > to 3H. > > Is this correct? I would rule this way. 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 14 13:59:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 13:59:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <482AD421.7050401@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Have we settled on the following: > > North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. > South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the > opening. > A 2Di opening is Multi: 6-cards in H or S, or strong > 3H would be transfer : having spades. > > The fact that the 3H bid excludes some of the possibilities of the 2Di > opening (the hearts and the strong variants) is not a factor in > allowing it or not. > Agreed. > The fact that the 3H bid includes some possibilities (stronger) not > present in the 2Di bid (if spades then below an opening) is also not > very important. > > The fact that the 3H bid promises only 5 spades while the 2Di promised > six of them might be enough not to allow the penalty-free correction > to 3H. > > > Either would be enough. Even if your Multi didn't promise a 6-card suit (mine doesn't), the bid would probably still be diasllowed, since it most probably doesn't contain some handsthat are possible in the 3H transfer : yarborough, 4-card heart suit etc. Notice that the problem isn't very big, because responder may bid 4H or 4S, most probably reaching the normal contract, and it is unlikely that L23 will come into action. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 14 13:59:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 13:59:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <482AD421.7050401@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Have we settled on the following: > > North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. > South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the > opening. > A 2Di opening is Multi: 6-cards in H or S, or strong > 3H would be transfer : having spades. > > The fact that the 3H bid excludes some of the possibilities of the 2Di > opening (the hearts and the strong variants) is not a factor in > allowing it or not. > Agreed. > The fact that the 3H bid includes some possibilities (stronger) not > present in the 2Di bid (if spades then below an opening) is also not > very important. > > The fact that the 3H bid promises only 5 spades while the 2Di promised > six of them might be enough not to allow the penalty-free correction > to 3H. > > > Either would be enough. Even if your Multi didn't promise a 6-card suit (mine doesn't), the bid would probably still be diasllowed, since it most probably doesn't contain some handsthat are possible in the 3H transfer : yarborough, 4-card heart suit etc. Notice that the problem isn't very big, because responder may bid 4H or 4S, most probably reaching the normal contract, and it is unlikely that L23 will come into action. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 14 14:58:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 08:58:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <482A0EC2.50103@NTLworld.com> References: <694eadd40805121632m3bd2dfees2027bbedb090bfe9@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> <482A0EC2.50103@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On May 13, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [Adam Wildavsky] > > 4. The Panel improved upon the TD's ruling. All that was missing was > the legal basis for their ruling, which I believe is Law 72b1. This > will be made clearer in the 2007 Laws, scheduled to take effect in the > ACBL in September 2008. > > [Nige1] > Wow! what an excellent ruling! The committee were not trying win a > popularity contest! And in every case, the committee did an excellent > job of consulting the player's peers! Thanks again Adam. An excellent ruling... until the last paragraph, which I find extremely discomforting. "Two members of the committee felt the incorrect ruling was enough reason not to award an AWMW." Only two? Shouldn't that be 100% automatic? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 14 15:03:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 09:03:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40805121632m3bd2dfees2027bbedb090bfe9@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> <482A0EC2.50103@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <52B7AE33-C620-4065-9D3D-6CADE92581C3@starpower.net> On May 14, 2008, at 8:58 AM, I wrote: > On May 13, 2008, at 5:57 PM, Guthrie wrote: > >> [Adam Wildavsky] >> >> 4. The Panel improved upon the TD's ruling. All that was missing was >> the legal basis for their ruling, which I believe is Law 72b1. This >> will be made clearer in the 2007 Laws, scheduled to take effect in >> the >> ACBL in September 2008. >> >> [Nige1] >> Wow! what an excellent ruling! The committee were not trying win a >> popularity contest! And in every case, the committee did an excellent >> job of consulting the player's peers! Thanks again Adam. > > An excellent ruling... until the last paragraph, which I find > extremely discomforting. "Two members of the committee felt the > incorrect ruling was enough reason not to award an AWMW." Only > two? Shouldn't that be 100% automatic? Oops, sorry. That comment was addressed to NABC+ #4, not the case Nigel was commenting on. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 14 15:17:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 09:17:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> Message-ID: On May 14, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Have we settled on the following: > > North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. > South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the > opening. > A 2Di opening is Multi: 6-cards in H or S, or strong > 3H would be transfer : having spades. > > The fact that the 3H bid excludes some of the possibilities of the 2Di > opening (the hearts and the strong variants) is not a factor in > allowing it or not. > > The fact that the 3H bid includes some possibilities (stronger) not > present in the 2Di bid (if spades then below an opening) is also not > very important. > > The fact that the 3H bid promises only 5 spades while the 2Di promised > six of them might be enough not to allow the penalty-free correction > to 3H. > > Is this correct? I'm not sure we've settled this yet. The question still on the table is whether the TD is to take into account that, "South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the opening." If so, then Herman has it right. If not, then we would presumably allow the penalty-free correction, as L27B1(b) would apply to a 2D IB intended as a transfer over 1NT. Also if so, we will need to answer the additional question of whether it might matter (although it wouldn't seem to here) that "South tells the table" or "just the Director". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 14 15:39:23 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 14:39:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002b01c8b5c7$f1f90f90$7bcd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question > On 14/05/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Have we settled on the following: >> >> North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. >> South tells the table*** (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the >> opening. +=+ It was David Burn who reminded readers that even when Law 27 says that Law 16D does not apply there is no exemption from Law 16B which still does apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 14 16:16:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 16:16:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On May 14, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Have we settled on the following: >> >> North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. >> South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the >> opening. >> A 2Di opening is Multi: 6-cards in H or S, or strong >> 3H would be transfer : having spades. >> >> The fact that the 3H bid excludes some of the possibilities of the 2Di >> opening (the hearts and the strong variants) is not a factor in >> allowing it or not. >> >> The fact that the 3H bid includes some possibilities (stronger) not >> present in the 2Di bid (if spades then below an opening) is also not >> very important. >> >> The fact that the 3H bid promises only 5 spades while the 2Di promised >> six of them might be enough not to allow the penalty-free correction >> to 3H. >> >> Is this correct? > > I'm not sure we've settled this yet. The question still on the table > is whether the TD is to take into account that, "South tells the > table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the opening." If > so, then Herman has it right. If not, then we would presumably allow > the penalty-free correction, as L27B1(b) would apply to a 2D IB > intended as a transfer over 1NT. Also if so, we will need to answer > the additional question of whether it might matter (although it > wouldn't seem to here) that "South tells the table" or "just the > Director". > That doesn't make sense, Eric. A 2D intended over a 1NT would promise hearts, not the spades that the Multi-opener has. It is OK to change such a 2D to 3D, also promising hearts, but in doing so (and in accepting it as TD), the table knows the intentions of the IB. In order to be able to rule: "the IB can be changed into a SB with the same meaning", we have to know the "meaning" of the IB. Therefore, the TD needs to know the intended meaning of the IB. What I am still not certain about is whether the TD must tell the table what the intention was. Certainly if he does rule that the SB can be made without penalty, he tells them in so many words the intention. When OTOH he finds that there is no SB with a sufficiently close meaning to the IB, he simply informs the player that he must make a SB, and tells his partner to pass. The player may now make a call which also tells what he had, and all three can deduce the probable cause. The question now remains is whether the partner needs to disclose his deductions to the opponents. I believe he must. But of course the IBer can pass and reveal nothing about the cause of his IB. Again, the partner has a better chance of deducing what the IB means. After all, he knows his system and can go through the possible meanings of the IB; and he knows which ones might have a parallel SB. Again he needs to tell his deductions to the table. Is it not better after all to reveal the IB intent to the table. It is AI to the opponents, and UI to the partner to the degree that the information cannot be repeated in the SB - if it can, it's AI to partner as well (well, it has become useless information). > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 14 16:56:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 16:56:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <482AFDBA.6050002@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > Therefore, the TD needs to know the intended meaning of the IB. > What I am still not certain about is whether the TD must tell the > table what the intention was. Certainly if he does rule that the SB > can be made without penalty, he tells them in so many words the > intention. And more so by giving a list of the possible non-penalizable bids. And that he has to do, to let opponents see what other choices the player had. That might influence their decision to believe the replacemernt bid or not. > When OTOH he finds that there is no SB with a sufficiently > close meaning to the IB, he simply informs the player that he must > make a SB, and tells his partner to pass. The player may now make a > call which also tells what he had, and all three can deduce the > probable cause. The question now remains is whether the partner needs > to disclose his deductions to the opponents. I believe he must. > > But of course the IBer can pass and reveal nothing about the cause of > his IB. Again, the partner has a better chance of deducing what the IB > means. After all, he knows his system and can go through the possible > meanings of the IB; and he knows which ones might have a parallel SB. > Again he needs to tell his deductions to the table. > > And remember a player may be told such-or-such bid may be made without penalty, and yet decide to make some other bid (I'm allowed to answer a forcing 2NT raise ? No, thanks, I'll just bid 4H). What information will opponents get in this case ? Here, the player's choice tells more than if he were barred anyway, and opponents are entitled to know it. 1H - 4H when everything you'll do bars partner could be stronger than when 2NT forcing was available. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed May 14 18:56:48 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 17:56:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: <000101c8b5b2$56586960$93ca403e@Mildred> References: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net><2b1e598b0805121157g34b1c336x203b8d642619710f@mail.gmail.com> <4828E55D.3070403@NTLworld.com> <000101c8b5b2$56586960$93ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <482B19D0.3060007@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] Such assessments are unlikely to be unanimous. Hence to be practical, such protocols depend on probabilistic criteria. They're certainly not "provable". But are they what Bridge law means by "demonstrable"? [Grattan Endicott] +=+ It would be wise to read the law once more. There seems to be an assumption in many of the comments in this thread that the law requires the Director to determine whether (when there is a logical alternative) the action the player took was suggested, demonstrably, by the UI conveyed from partner. This is not so. The judgement the law requires the Director to make is whether, when there is a logical alternative action, the action taken by the player "could demonstrably have been suggested" over that alternative. It is a case of 'could it have been', not 'was it', and it is whether it could have been that the Director must judge to be a demonstrable possibility. 'Demonstrable' eliminates the obscure and requires the Director to stay in the real world of what could be so. He does not have to judge that it actually is so. If the Director forms the opinion that an infraction of law (i.e. that the player has selected an action that could have been demonstrably suggested as above) and that the offender has thereby gained an advantageous result, the Director is required to award an adjusted score in accordance with Law 12C. [Grattan Endicott] {Nige2] Thank you Grattan. I've reread the law (below) but I I'm still unclear what is the practical meaning of "could demonstrably". For example - In an old thread, when I tried to introduce probabilistic arguments as to what was suggested by unauthorised information, Alain Gottcheiner and many other BLMLers demurrred because, for them, "could demonstrably" seemed to mean "you would be able to prove it if necessary". And Grattan seemed to agree. I confess that I was amazed :( - In a more recent case, Paul Lamford echoed that interpretation when he said that the agreement over what was suggested would have to be almost unanimous. Nobody (except me) queried this interpretation. :( Do BLMLers really believe that "could demonstrably" means "provable beyond reasonable doubt". Surely, in the context of Bridge Law, it should mean "on the balance of probability". Or perhaps something in between. Grattan now seems to be admitting to a more practical interpretation. :) :) :) But I still think the wording of the law could be improved to reduce confusion and to be of some practical help. Perhaps: If a majority of the player's peers would judge it to be logically suggested - ideally this being the result of an actual poll -- or failing that -- the considered opinion of the director(s) or committee" IMO, it would be even better if the poll, as to what was suggested, took place without those consulted knowing the actual result. IMO this, too, should be recommended in the law book. [TNLB L16B1] After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 14 22:09:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 16:09:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7DC3DAD0-BAC8-4FF6-B0C9-E67C4D8BE7A7@starpower.net> On May 14, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On May 14, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Have we settled on the following: >>> >>> North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. >>> South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the >>> opening. >>> A 2Di opening is Multi: 6-cards in H or S, or strong >>> 3H would be transfer : having spades. >>> >>> The fact that the 3H bid excludes some of the possibilities of >>> the 2Di >>> opening (the hearts and the strong variants) is not a factor in >>> allowing it or not. >>> >>> The fact that the 3H bid includes some possibilities (stronger) not >>> present in the 2Di bid (if spades then below an opening) is also not >>> very important. >>> >>> The fact that the 3H bid promises only 5 spades while the 2Di >>> promised >>> six of them might be enough not to allow the penalty-free correction >>> to 3H. >>> >>> Is this correct? >> >> I'm not sure we've settled this yet. The question still on the table >> is whether the TD is to take into account that, "South tells the >> table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the opening." If >> so, then Herman has it right. If not, then we would presumably allow >> the penalty-free correction, as L27B1(b) would apply to a 2D IB >> intended as a transfer over 1NT. Also if so, we will need to answer >> the additional question of whether it might matter (although it >> wouldn't seem to here) that "South tells the table" or "just the >> Director". > > That doesn't make sense, Eric. > A 2D intended over a 1NT would promise hearts, not the spades that the > Multi-opener has. It is OK to change such a 2D to 3D, also promising > hearts, but in doing so (and in accepting it as TD), the table knows > the intentions of the IB. Indeed, I misread the example, so my specifics don't make sense. The thrust of my comment was... > In order to be able to rule: "the IB can be changed into a SB with the > same meaning", we have to know the "meaning" of the IB. I agree entirely, but I don't think we've convinced enough of BLML to call this a consensus position yet. > Therefore, the TD needs to know the intended meaning of the IB. > What I am still not certain about is whether the TD must tell the > table what the intention was. There does seem to be a forming consensus that he should not, although I'd like to see it otherwise, because... > Certainly if he does rule that the SB > can be made without penalty, he tells them in so many words the > intention. When OTOH he finds that there is no SB with a sufficiently > close meaning to the IB, he simply informs the player that he must > make a SB, and tells his partner to pass. The player may now make a > call which also tells what he had, and all three can deduce the > probable cause. The question now remains is whether the partner needs > to disclose his deductions to the opponents. I believe he must. > > But of course the IBer can pass and reveal nothing about the cause of > his IB. Again, the partner has a better chance of deducing what the IB > means. After all, he knows his system and can go through the possible > meanings of the IB; and he knows which ones might have a parallel SB. > Again he needs to tell his deductions to the table. ...it cuts right through all this stuff, leaving us with a straightforward situation, no UI nonsense, no disclosure nonsense, just a recognition that it's OK for everyone to know what, as Herman suggests, everyone will know anyhow most of the time. > Is it not better after all to reveal the IB intent to the table. It is > AI to the opponents, and UI to the partner to the degree that the > information cannot be repeated in the SB - if it can, it's AI to > partner as well (well, it has become useless information). If it's presumed AI, we won't have to deal nearly every time with judging how much is known via the AI (system, ruling) vs. the UI. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Wed May 14 22:35:47 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 13:35:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805141328x32f939f1m6d2c20f74edc5eb2@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805121632m3bd2dfees2027bbedb090bfe9@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> <482A0EC2.50103@NTLworld.com> <52B7AE33-C620-4065-9D3D-6CADE92581C3@starpower.net> <694eadd40805141328x32f939f1m6d2c20f74edc5eb2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40805141335v739489b2mcb037e47e2bc2b2d@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > An excellent ruling... until the last paragraph, which I find > > extremely discomforting. "Two members of the committee felt the > > incorrect ruling was enough reason not to award an AWMW." Only > > two? Shouldn't that be 100% automatic? > > Oops, sorry. That comment was addressed to NABC+ #4, not the case > Nigel was commenting on. What you don't mention is that the TDs fixed their own ruling before the case was appealed. The first TD ruling was manifestly incorrect, and fortunately this was caught during TD review. The TD returned to the players and gave them the corrected ruling. It was this corrected ruling that was appealed. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 14 23:04:50 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 22:04:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003901c8b606$2a3bcbc0$3ecd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question > Eric Landau wrote: >> On May 14, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Have we settled on the following: >>> >>> North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. >>> South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the >>> opening. >>> A 2Di opening is Multi: 6-cards in H or S, or strong >>> 3H would be transfer : having spades. >>> >>> The fact that the 3H bid excludes some of the possibilities of the 2Di >>> opening (the hearts and the strong variants) is not a factor in >>> allowing it or not. >>> >>> The fact that the 3H bid includes some possibilities (stronger) not >>> present in the 2Di bid (if spades then below an opening) is also not >>> very important. >>> >>> The fact that the 3H bid promises only 5 spades while the 2Di promised >>> six of them might be enough not to allow the penalty-free correction >>> to 3H. >>> >>> Is this correct? >> >> I'm not sure we've settled this yet. The question still on the table >> is whether the TD is to take into account that, "South tells the >> table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the opening." > +=+Even when Law 27 says that Law 16D does not apply there is no exemption from Law 16B which still does apply. If South tells the table how he came to make the IB this information is UI to North. The Director must take it into account that South has conveyed UI to North. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 15 02:22:03 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 01:22:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? References: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net><2b1e598b0805121157g34b1c336x203b8d642619710f@mail.gmail.com> <4828E55D.3070403@NTLworld.com><000101c8b5b2$56586960$93ca403e@Mildred> <482B19D0.3060007@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000501c8b621$fbdcb2a0$97d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? > > {Nige2] > . I've reread the law (below) but I I'm still unclear > what is the practical meaning of "could demonstrably". For example > > - In an old thread, when I tried to introduce probabilistic arguments > as to what was suggested by unauthorised information, Alain Gottcheiner > and many other BLMLers demurrred because, for them, "could demonstrably" > seemed to mean "you would be able to prove it if necessary". And Grattan > seemed to agree. I confess that I was amazed :( > > - In a more recent case, Paul Lamford echoed that interpretation when > he said that the agreement over what was suggested would have to be > almost unanimous. Nobody (except me) queried this interpretation. :( > > Do BLMLers really believe that "could demonstrably" means "provable > beyond reasonable doubt". Surely, in the context of Bridge Law, it > should mean "on the balance of probability". Or perhaps something in > between. Grattan now seems to be admitting to a more practical > interpretation. :) :) :) > > But I still think the wording of the law could be improved to reduce > confusion and to be of some practical help. > > Perhaps: If a majority of the player's peers would judge it to be > logically suggested - ideally this being the result of an actual poll -- > or failing that -- the considered opinion of the director(s) or committee" > > IMO, it would be even better if the poll, as to what was suggested, took > place without those consulted knowing the actual result. IMO this, too, > should be recommended in the law book. > > [TNLB L16B1] > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, > a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, > gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among > logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested > over another by the extraneous information. > +=+ I certainly did not intend to give the impression that I believed the standard was "able to prove it if necessary". It is a judgemental matter for the Director and the AC. They have to judge it to be the case; they do not have to prove anything. The fundamental judgement to be made is whether the extraneous information from partner could have suggested the action the player selected over another logical alternative action. The word 'demonstrably' is inserted to provide a kind of load-line indicating a minimum level of suggestion to qualify for the award of an adjusted score. In the preparation of the 1997 laws the drafting committee spent some time looking for a word to replace 'reasonably' because it was felt ACs were too easily agreeing that the UI could 'reasonably' have suggested the action the player took over the LA. Choice of a word was difficult. Finally we settled for 'demonstrably' in the belief that it was a better word for the purpose of excluding too easy a judgement that the law applies, but without making it over difficult to decide that it does. Then we let it go to the bridge judgement of Directors and ACs to determine case by case whether the law applies. Their decisions, and the concurrence in them of national appeals committees, and of supranational (Zonal or higher) appeals committees, lead to guiding precedents. So no help here for the resolution of your uncertainty. Here I can only talk principle. Your best resource is case law and whatever models it furnishes. Despite the increasing seminarial influences for international harmony in applying the laws, the guidance from these tends to vary in consonance with location and its bridge culture. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu May 15 03:23:10 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 02:23:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: <000501c8b621$fbdcb2a0$97d2403e@Mildred> References: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net><2b1e598b0805121157g34b1c336x203b8d642619710f@mail.gmail.com> <4828E55D.3070403@NTLworld.com><000101c8b5b2$56586960$93ca403e@Mildred> <482B19D0.3060007@NTLworld.com> <000501c8b621$fbdcb2a0$97d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <482B907E.1050301@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I certainly did not intend to give the impression that I believed the standard was "able to prove it if necessary". It is a judgemental matter for the Director and the AC. They have to judge it to be the case; they do not have to prove anything. The fundamental judgement to be made is whether the extraneous information from partner could have suggested the action the player selected over another logical alternative action. The word 'demonstrably' is inserted to provide a kind of load-line indicating a minimum level of suggestion to qualify for the award of an adjusted score. In the preparation of the 1997 laws the drafting committee spent some time looking for a word to replace 'reasonably' because it was felt ACs were too easily agreeing that the UI could 'reasonably' have suggested the action the player took over the LA. Choice of a word was difficult. Finally we settled for 'demonstrably' in the belief that it was a better word for the purpose of excluding too easy a judgement that the law applies, but without making it over difficult to decide that it does. Then we let it go to the bridge judgement of Directors and ACs to determine case by case whether the law applies. Their decisions, and the concurrence in them of national appeals committees, and of supranational (Zonal or higher) appeals committees, lead to guiding precedents. So no help here for the resolution of your uncertainty. Here I can only talk principle. Your best resource is case law and whatever models it furnishes. Despite the increasing seminarial influences for international harmony in applying the laws, the guidance from these tends to vary in consonance with location and its bridge culture. [Nige1] Thank you, Grattan, for clarifying what the law-makers intended. It seems they were deliberately vague again. Unfortunately, with no *practical* criterion for deciding that a call could be demonstrably suggested, I am afraid that there will be a substantial minority of directors, who, like Paul Lamford and Alain Gottcheiner, reject arguments based on the balance of probability. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu May 15 03:37:02 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 21:37:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <549C8BED25B54F3BB8A941AE46AB4E21@erdos> 1. The TD and AC rulings are both reasonable; the TD is to presume damage, and the AC can carry out a more thorough investigation, determining, in this case, that North had AI about the strong hand opposite, independent of the slow pass. However, the AC writeup suggests that South's double was a double shot, which it was not; South made a reasonable penalty double, attempting to collect +300 on a part-score deal, which happened not to work out. [2D-(question)P-P-X] > 8. A don't understand either part of the TD ruling. Certainly the > question made UI available, and that UI demonstrably suggested acting. > Perhaps the TDs extrapolated from NABC+ case 1, which had appeared in > the daily bulletin by the time this case came up. I believe such > extrapolation is not justified here, but this is something committees > ought to keep in mind. In close cases we should consider the message > our decision will send. What I would like to know in this case is how well E-W complied with the convention card rules; in the final of an NABC+ event, I would expect good compliance, but it's not guaranteed. I usually look at the convention card when an unalerted 2D is opened because the bid is so often conventional and the alert might be missing. If E-W had a convention card easily accessible to North, and North asked a question, the question (rather than looking) may have transmitted UI. If the closest convention card was under West's coffee cup, in East's lap, in front of South (only one card), incompletely filled out, or illegible, then the question should not be considered to transmit UI. > 9. The TD ruling was reasonable, and the AC ruling improved upon it. > The "In real life" comment at the end of the write-up is not relevant. > EW are entitled to know the actual NS agreement whether or not North > knows it himself. The TD ruling implied that it was "at all probable" that a pair playing RKC would get to a slam off an ace and the queen of trump; this led to the need for the offenders to appeal to restore equity. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 15 03:44:02 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 21:44:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] club director torment In-Reply-To: <200805091747.m49Hlxt5012477@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200805091747.m49Hlxt5012477@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <482B9562.6040609@nhcc.net> > From: "Robert Frick" > if a player makes an > insufficient bid, shoots out a contract barring partner, and gets a top > because of a 5-0 spade break, then the director adjusts using 27D, who on > this list is going to support that director? Nobody, I hope, though I made the same mistake. L27D only applies when a penalty-free RC is allowed. If IBer's partner ends up barred, the table score stands unless L23 ("could have known") applies. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 15 03:48:10 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 21:48:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <200805072143.m47LhYtb010477@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200805072143.m47LhYtb010477@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <482B965A.1030608@nhcc.net> > From: Guthrie > senior directors and law-makers (especially Americans) have been in > simple denial that unauthorised information is available to partner when > you always ask "Having none?", unless you *know* from your own holding > that he has none left. This is bizarre. Who has said any such thing? If you sometimes ask and sometimes don't, that is quite likely to create UI. What most of us Americans have been telling Nigel is that most players follow a policy of "always ask" or "never ask." Either of those is fine. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu May 15 03:53:32 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 21:53:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805121632m3bd2dfees2027bbedb090bfe9@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805122345m56c9f100gb313776425cb88e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Again, comments, corrections, and criticisms are welcome. > > 1. An AWMW is a judgment about the appeal, not the appellants. If the > panel finds the appeal lacks merit, they ought to assess a penalty. > The pair will learn at least as much with an AWMW as without one. If > they have indeed learned, they'll accumulate no more warnings and will > have no need for concern. > > The criterion for being experienced enough to accept a penalty is > being experienced enough to file an appeal. However, the penalty is only appropriate if the appellants should have known that they had no case. Players with less than 100 masterpoints should not be discouraged from filing appeals against players with more than 3000 masterpoints by the threat of a penalty (whether an AWMW or a procedural penalty in matchpoints). That said, in this case, I would have imposed the AWMW in this case, because East should have known he had no case, assuming he got a decent explanation of the law from the TD. When you preempt, partner makes a penalty double, and you have a defensive trick, you should expect the opponents to go down, and the only reason you would pull is > 3. How did the TD determine that there was no LA to 4S? As the Panel's > admirably thorough poll showed 3S was a standout. The panel corrected > an injustice. I do not understand, though, why they removed the PP. > I'd have assessed a heavier one! The PP was not imposed for the infraction which led to the appeal (use of UI), but for a prior infraction which was not disputed (commenting in a live auction). Therefore, by removing the PP, the AC is saying that the comment should not have been penalized at all. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu May 15 03:54:34 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 21:54:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <200805072111.m47LB1DS005014@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200805072111.m47LB1DS005014@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <482B97DA.30906@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > In my area, defensive bidding over a 1NT opening is probably the > least standardized area of agreement; there are at least 10 different > sets of agreements in regular use at our weekly game. A hesitation > over RHO's 1NT almost always means that the hesitator is trying to > remember which set of agreements he is using with that week's > partner. While this is true in a local club game, I'm not sure it applies for a regular partnership in a national championship event. > From a hesitation followed by a pass partner can reasonably > infer that hesitator probably has a hand with which he could have bid > something playing different methods. That is certainly UI, but most > often carries no demonstrable suggestion of any particular action. This is an excellent example of a case where a brief hesitation is a lot different than a 15-s tank. The former could suggest almost anything (though not a flat zero-count, which we know from AI that partner doesn't have), while the latter suggests a hand that could well have chosen a bid rather than the actual pass. What that hand might be depends on methods. (I didn't guess the actual hand but probably should have; I expect the player at the table would do better than I did.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 15 04:19:44 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 22:19:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 May 2008 04:29:59 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Guthrie a ?crit : >> >> Hence there is a strong counter-argument for the Dutch position. >> >> There are many benefits of defining a *standard* system (as suggested >> previously). For example, the Dutch would be able to have their cake and >> eat it. >> - If you adopt the standard system, you can forget your agreements >> without penalty. That takes care of beginners and pick-up partnerships. >> - If, instead, you agree your own system, then forgetting an agreement >> is treated as misexplanation rather than misbid. >> >> >> The best of all worlds :) >> >> >> > [AG] > Except for three points : > > 1) It goes against L40A and L75B. No OB may change any article of Law. > > 2) How do you differentiate a misbid from a mispull, a psyche or not > having seen opponent's bid ? If you begin penalizing players who pulled > 2H in lieu of 2S, because partner couldn't explain the bid, you'll > rapidly end up with no players. Remember the explanation must cover what > is in the system, not in the player's hand. And if you don't penalize > mispulls, players will begin claiming they mispulled when they forgot > the system. The liars against which the Dutch federation is working with > their ruling won't shy away from this. It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to distinguish. For example, I open 1H third seat not vulnerable with Kxxx of hearts an no other HCP. The only example I know of where they are not easily distinguished is a 2C response to 1 of a major on a two-card suit (playing Standard American). It was described to me as a tactical bid, and I was not happy. In retrospect perhaps the 2C bid was Drury. But if it was meant as Drury, then there was UI from the lack of alert. To make a ruling on that, you have to make the same decision anyway as to the intended meaning of the 2C bid. Yes, it could be difficult to distinguish a mispull from other bids, but players usually claim their mispull, and then the director has to make that decision about the bidder's intention anyway. Bob From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu May 15 04:31:27 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 21:31:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <482B965A.1030608@nhcc.net> References: <200805072143.m47LhYtb010477@cfa.harvard.edu> <482B965A.1030608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0805141931s78d079aaj48f19359f39b1cdb@mail.gmail.com> Steve Willner wrote: > > What most of us Americans have been telling Nigel is that most players > follow a policy of "always ask" or "never ask." Either of those is fine. > Always ask, even when partner has been out of clubs for five tricks now? Good for a laugh, I guess. Jerry Fusselman From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu May 15 06:18:57 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 05:18:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 In-Reply-To: <482B965A.1030608@nhcc.net> References: <200805072143.m47LhYtb010477@cfa.harvard.edu> <482B965A.1030608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <482BB9B1.708@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] Senior directors and law-makers (especially Americans) have been in simple denial that unauthorised information is available to partner when you always ask "Having none?", unless you *know* from your own holding that he has none left. [Steve This is bizarre. Who has said any such thing? If you sometimes ask and sometimes don't, that is quite likely to create UI. What most of us Americans have been telling Nigel is that most players follow a policy of "always ask" or "never ask." Either of those is fine. [Nigel] The few Americans, with whom I've discussed this are unsure whether other Americans ask consistently but they suspect not. One admitted that he, himself, wouldn't always ask, if he knew from his own holding that partner could have no more. One problem, as I understand it, is that there may be an insufficient number of directors to follow pairs around long enough to establish that they always or never ask. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu May 15 06:56:31 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 05:56:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <482B97DA.30906@nhcc.net> References: <200805072111.m47LB1DS005014@cfa.harvard.edu> <482B97DA.30906@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <482BC27F.4060102@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] Last Sunday, in a county teams competition, my 15-18 notrump was followed by two passes and my RHO faced a similar problem -- except, of course, there was no unauthorised information). Opponents' partnership agreement included various distributional overcalls but no penalty double. RHO held a weak distributional hand but passed without thought. That scored well when it turned out that I had miscounted my points and 3N was cold :( This illustrates the point that Richard Hills made. It is often best to let sleeping dogs lie. Perhaps somebody has made a mistake in evaluating their hand. This is more likely to be an opponent than partner -- unless partner's demeanour has telegraphed a mountain in the earlier auction. It doesn't prove much but I gave the Detroit case 1 hand to a few of the best local players. Not only did they pass -- they also considered pass to be the sole logical alternative! From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu May 15 00:27:26 2008 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 23:27:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? References: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net><2b1e598b0805121157g34b1c336x203b8d642619710f@mail.gmail.com> <4828E55D.3070403@NTLworld.com><000101c8b5b2$56586960$93ca403e@Mildred> <482B19D0.3060007@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <42EAF198591C4216A90673BCB0809C51@david> > > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ It would be wise to read the law once more. There seems > to be an assumption in many of the comments in this thread that > the law requires the Director to determine whether (when there > is a logical alternative) the action the player took was suggested, > demonstrably, by the UI conveyed from partner. This is not so. > The judgement the law requires the Director to make is > whether, when there is a logical alternative action, the action > taken by the player "could demonstrably have been suggested" > over that alternative. It is a case of 'could it have been', not 'was > it', and it is whether it could have been that the Director must > judge to be a demonstrable possibility. 'Demonstrable' eliminates > the obscure and requires the Director to stay in the real world of > what could be so. He does not have to judge that it actually is so. > If the Director forms the opinion that an infraction of law (i.e. > that the player has selected an action that could have been > demonstrably suggested as above) and that the offender has > thereby gained an advantageous result, the Director is required > to award an adjusted score in accordance with Law 12C. > [Grattan Endicott] > > > [TNLB L16B1] > After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, > a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by > unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, > gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among > logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested > over another by the extraneous information. Can I try an example here. An auction goes 1S (P) 2S (P) 3H (P) ? 3H is a long suit trial bid made after a break in tempo. Now it is easy to demonstrate that the BIT could suggest a marginal game try and also easy to demonstrate that the BIT could suggest opener was close to a 4S bid. Does this mean the director should adjust whenever responder "guesses" right on a marginal hand irrespective of whether he chooses 3S or 4S? ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.93 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1431 - Release Date: 5/13/2008 7:55 PM From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 15 11:39:38 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 10:39:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> <482AFDBA.6050002@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <006801c8b66f$f8bc6360$67d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > Therefore, the TD needs to know the intended meaning of the IB. > What I am still not certain about is whether the TD must tell the > table ***(1)***what the intention was. Certainly if he does rule that > the SB can be made without penalty, he tells them in so many words > the intention. And more so by giving a list of the possible non-penalizable bids. And that he has to do, to let opponents see what other choices the player had. That might influence their decision to believe the replacement bid or not. > When OTOH he finds that there is no SB with a sufficiently > close meaning to the IB, he simply informs the player that he must > make a SB, and tells his partner to pass. The player may now make a > call which also tells what he had, and all three can deduce the > probable cause. The question now remains is whether the partner needs > to disclose his deductions to the opponents. I believe he must. ***(2)*** > > But of course the IBer can pass and reveal nothing about the cause of > his IB. Again, the partner has a better chance of deducing what the IB > means. After all, he knows his system and can go through the possible > meanings of the IB; and he knows which ones might have a parallel SB. > Again he needs to tell his deductions to the table.***(3)*** > > And remember a player may be told such-or-such bid may be made without penalty, and yet decide to make some other bid (I'm allowed to answer a forcing 2NT raise ? No, thanks, I'll just bid 4H). What information will opponents get in this case ? Here, the player's choice tells more than if he were barred anyway, and opponents are entitled to know it. 1H - 4H when everything you'll do bars partner could be stronger than when 2NT forcing was available. Best regards Alain +=+ [Grattan] In the above I have marked three suggestions that have surprised me: ***(1)*** 'whether the TD must tell the table' The TD must pass UI to the partner of the offender? Is this a regular practice in the writer's constituency? What law is it based on? ***(2)*** 'I believe he must.' On the basis of what law? ***(2)*** 'he needs to tell his deductions to the table' On what law is this based? Is it suggested that deductions are partnership understandings? I think some clarification of these opinions would be helpful. +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 15 13:04:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 13:04:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <482C18C3.5010106@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an > unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to > distinguish. For example, I open 1H third seat not vulnerable with Kxxx of > hearts an no other HCP. > > That's the easy example. What do you think of the following one ? South opens 2H. On request, it is explained as a Dutch (!) two-suiter. South happens to hold a weak two-bid in hearts. Would the Dutch decide there was misexplanation, even when the CC says the contrary ? Is this legal ? And how do you intend to disallow South explaining he wanted to open a Multi 2D but took the next bidding card ? Or that he missorted his 63 reds as 54 ? And, above all, do they realize this will be a bonus on lying, a lie that is very difficult to detect (contrary to the MI / MB issue, which can be settled by looking at their system notes) ? Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 15 10:59:10 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:59:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <005001c8b66a$e23bfd30$67d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement > [Hans van Staveren] > As you may know we had trouble with the Dutch NAC and their treatment of > the famous Law 75 footnotes. > > Now there is the result of some committee, and the high powers of the > Dutch Bridge Federation want to make the following change: > > Any agreement in non fixed partnerships, or any agreement less than one > year old in fixed partnerships becomes essentially a non-agreement. > Getting it wrong would automatically lead to a ruling of misinformation. > Furthermore, all agreements older than a year in fixed partnerships > would need additional documentation, not just the name on the convention > card. Directors would be forced to check for this, not just when they > are unsure of the misinformation/misbid situation. > > Just back from a holiday this all strikes me as pretty harsh, but that > is not my point of the day. The first question that strikes me: Is this > legal? > > [Nige1] > Penalising players for forgetting agreements does seem to be against the > spirit of a game where such mistakes usually harm the perpetrators. > > One problem is that many players, answer "no agreement" when they are > unsure and they are unsure a lot of the time. Another is that some > players seem to have deliberately vague agreements about Ghestem and the > like), which they use as a license to indulge in random psychs; and, in > the past, directors have tended to be lenient with these comedians. > > Hence there is a strong counter-argument for the Dutch position. > > There are many benefits of defining a *standard* system (as suggested > previously). For example, the Dutch would be able to have their cake and > eat it. > - If you adopt the standard system, you can forget your agreements > without penalty. That takes care of beginners and pick-up partnerships. > - If, instead, you agree your own system, then forgetting an agreement > is treated as misexplanation rather than misbid. > - Also, obviously, there is no problem about system cards and notes if > you adopt the standard system. > > The best of all worlds :) > [Grattan] +=+ My connections with blml have stuttered this week - probably something to do with the ISP's spam filter they say, but I did expect to pick up comments about retaining the nature of the game since this proposal looks perilously close to a denial of one of the fundamentals of the game - the right, subject to subsequent rectification if a law is violated, to make mistakes. So probably I have missed some key statement? Since the proposed policy could hardly be justified by reference to Law 40A1 and Law 75, I have looked to find some basis on which it might rest. The nearest I see to this is the phrase 'allow conditionally' in 40B2(a). However, this applies to special understandings - i.e. to understandings whose 'meaning may not readily be understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament'. The proposal would appear to be highly uncomfortable wearing this corset. I remain interested to learn the basis of regulation in due course. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 15 11:12:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 11:12:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <482AFDBA.6050002@ulb.ac.be> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> <482AFDBA.6050002@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <482BFE62.4090903@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> Therefore, the TD needs to know the intended meaning of the IB. >> What I am still not certain about is whether the TD must tell the >> table what the intention was. Certainly if he does rule that the SB >> can be made without penalty, he tells them in so many words the >> intention. > And more so by giving a list of the possible non-penalizable bids. And > that he has to do, to let opponents see what other choices the player > had. That might influence their decision to believe the replacemernt bid > or not. > I would find it strange to see more than one penalty-free bid, but of course it can happen. If the IB has more than one possible meaning, and the RB conveys the meaning of one of those, then there can indeed be more than one penalty-free bid. However, if the IB showed the hand, then the chosen RB will also show the hand, and the opponents have no use for the other possible penalty-free bids. As for "believing the RB", I think I understand what you mean. If the IB showed 5 of a suit, and the RB shows 6, the RB can be done penalty-free, but the player might be doing it with just the 5. Is this allowed, and should the opponents not be told about this? >> When OTOH he finds that there is no SB with a sufficiently >> close meaning to the IB, he simply informs the player that he must >> make a SB, and tells his partner to pass. The player may now make a >> call which also tells what he had, and all three can deduce the >> probable cause. The question now remains is whether the partner needs >> to disclose his deductions to the opponents. I believe he must. >> >> But of course the IBer can pass and reveal nothing about the cause of >> his IB. Again, the partner has a better chance of deducing what the IB >> means. After all, he knows his system and can go through the possible >> meanings of the IB; and he knows which ones might have a parallel SB. >> Again he needs to tell his deductions to the table. >> >> > And remember a player may be told such-or-such bid may be made without > penalty, and yet decide to make some other bid (I'm allowed to answer a > forcing 2NT raise ? No, thanks, I'll just bid 4H). What information will > opponents get in this case ? Here, the player's choice tells more than > if he were barred anyway, and opponents are entitled to know it. > 1H - 4H when everything you'll do bars partner could be stronger than > when 2NT forcing was available. > Which again leads me to believe that it is best to tell the table about the intent of the IBer. > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 15 11:05:42 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 10:05:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? References: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net><2b1e598b0805121157g34b1c336x203b8d642619710f@mail.gmail.com> <4828E55D.3070403@NTLworld.com><000101c8b5b2$56586960$93ca403e@Mildred> <482B19D0.3060007@NTLworld.com><000501c8b621$fbdcb2a0$97d2403e@Mildred> <482B907E.1050301@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <005101c8b66a$e3f063f0$67d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? > > [Nige1] > Thank you, Grattan, for clarifying what the law-makers intended. It > seems they were deliberately vague again. Unfortunately, with no > *practical* criterion for deciding that a call could be demonstrably > suggested, I am afraid that there will be a substantial minority of > directors, who, like Paul Lamford and Alain Gottcheiner, reject > arguments based on the balance of probability. > [Grattan] +=+ It is a matter for the RA, NBO or Zonal Authority, to impart to its TDs the standards it wishes them to apply. [Let me add that the Kaplan/Cohen-led 1997 Drafting Committee did not wish to leave the matter vague; it had a real difficulty in finding accurately descriptive terms in which to set the law. It was perhaps one of the earlier moves, in consequence, to pass power to the then sponsoring organizations (2007 RAs).] +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 15 15:37:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 15:37:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <006801c8b66f$f8bc6360$67d6403e@Mildred> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> <482AFDBA.6050002@ulb.ac.be> <006801c8b66f$f8bc6360$67d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <482C3C94.80008@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "True luck consists not in holding > the best cards at the table, > Luckiest he who knows just when > to rise and go home." [John Hay ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:56 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question > > > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> Therefore, the TD needs to know the intended meaning of the IB. >> What I am still not certain about is whether the TD must tell the >> table ***(1)***what the intention was. Certainly if he does rule that >> the SB can be made without penalty, he tells them in so many words >> the intention. > And more so by giving a list of the possible non-penalizable bids. And > that he has to do, to let opponents see what other choices the player > had. That might influence their decision to believe the replacement bid > or not. > >> When OTOH he finds that there is no SB with a sufficiently >> close meaning to the IB, he simply informs the player that he must >> make a SB, and tells his partner to pass. The player may now make a >> call which also tells what he had, and all three can deduce the >> probable cause. The question now remains is whether the partner needs >> to disclose his deductions to the opponents. I believe he must. ***(2)*** >> >> But of course the IBer can pass and reveal nothing about the cause of >> his IB. Again, the partner has a better chance of deducing what the IB >> means. After all, he knows his system and can go through the possible >> meanings of the IB; and he knows which ones might have a parallel SB. >> Again he needs to tell his deductions to the table.***(3)*** >> >> > And remember a player may be told such-or-such bid may be made without > penalty, and yet decide to make some other bid (I'm allowed to answer a > forcing 2NT raise ? No, thanks, I'll just bid 4H). What information will > opponents get in this case ? Here, the player's choice tells more than > if he were barred anyway, and opponents are entitled to know it. > 1H - 4H when everything you'll do bars partner could be stronger than > when 2NT forcing was available. > > Best regards > > Alain > > +=+ [Grattan] > In the above I have marked three suggestions that have > surprised me: > ***(1)*** 'whether the TD must tell the table' > The TD must pass UI to the partner of the offender? > Is this a regular practice in the writer's constituency? What > law is it based on? Of course it is not - it is the conclusion of everything that follows - and even then it is only the question I am asking. If you insist in misquoting me, let me add the beginning of the phrase: "What I am still not certain about is whether ..." > ***(2)*** 'I believe he must.' > On the basis of what law? please do not cut my sentences in half. > ***(2)*** 'he needs to tell his deductions to the table' > On what law is this based? Is it suggested that deductions > are partnership understandings? No, of course they are not. But I see too frequently that players cloud their conclusions in giving only the basis of their deduction, and even those only in short form. They tell one, thing, omit somethig else, and then the conclusion is the interesting thing, and they haven't told that at all. Far better to tell the conclusion at once. And yes, you are right. Only the system is importantn, not the conclusion. I have often described the puppet stayman sequence as "he has 4 of a major and it's (probably) not hearts. I feel that this is still OK. But in this case the excluded options are quite often hidden on the SC, and not immediately clear to opponents. > I think some clarification of these opinions would be helpful. +=+ > Clarified? > > _______________________________________________ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 15 15:12:02 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:12:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <003901c8b606$2a3bcbc0$3ecd403e@Mildred> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> <003901c8b606$2a3bcbc0$3ecd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <497DE2B5-5A15-425D-9CE7-FD512F2E2DC8@starpower.net> On May 14, 2008, at 5:04 PM, wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >>> On May 14, 2008, at 6:31 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> Have we settled on the following: >>>> >>>> North opens 2NT (20-21), East passes, and South bids 2Di. >>>> South tells the table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen >>>> the >>>> opening. >>>> A 2Di opening is Multi: 6-cards in H or S, or strong >>>> 3H would be transfer : having spades. >>>> >>>> The fact that the 3H bid excludes some of the possibilities of >>>> the 2Di >>>> opening (the hearts and the strong variants) is not a factor in >>>> allowing it or not. >>>> >>>> The fact that the 3H bid includes some possibilities (stronger) not >>>> present in the 2Di bid (if spades then below an opening) is also >>>> not >>>> very important. >>>> >>>> The fact that the 3H bid promises only 5 spades while the 2Di >>>> promised >>>> six of them might be enough not to allow the penalty-free >>>> correction >>>> to 3H. >>>> >>>> Is this correct? >>> >>> I'm not sure we've settled this yet. The question still on the >>> table >>> is whether the TD is to take into account that, "South tells the >>> table (or just the Director) that he hasn't seen the opening." > > +=+Even when Law 27 says that Law 16D does not > apply there is no exemption from Law 16B which > still does apply. If South tells the table how he came > to make the IB this information is UI to North. The > Director must take it into account that South has > conveyed UI to North. OK. Have we then settled that the TD must learn South's intention and base his ruling on that? But not tell the table? He is, apparently, obligated to rule as to which calls South may take without barring North: does he communicate that to the table? How do we treat North's assertion that South's intent was deducible from the TD's ruling and his knowledge of his partnership methods? Is that not AI? How do we resolve the overlap between what North knows from this AI and from whatever L16B UI he might have? Do we accept North's self-serving assertion at face value, or must we investigate his methods in detail? In theory, Grattan's reading seems correct: the explicit inapplicability of L16D should not affect the operation of L16B. But, on the practical side, an interpretation which made South's intention AI to everyone would eliminate all those tricky questions. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 15 15:42:46 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:42:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: <42EAF198591C4216A90673BCB0809C51@david> References: <482856C3.80500@NTLworld.com> <2BED381A-8E33-4B93-BDCE-7B457D4430C7@starpower.net><2b1e598b0805121157g34b1c336x203b8d642619710f@mail.gmail.com> <4828E55D.3070403@NTLworld.com><000101c8b5b2$56586960$93ca403e@Mildred> <482B19D0.3060007@NTLworld.com> <42EAF198591C4216A90673BCB0809C51@david> Message-ID: <88409BDD-4BDF-4A42-A40F-CCBBF5BE3663@starpower.net> On May 14, 2008, at 6:27 PM, David Barton wrote: >> [Grattan Endicott] >> >> [TNLB L16B1] >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information >> that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a >> question, >> a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, >> or by >> unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, >> gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from >> among >> logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested >> over another by the extraneous information. > > Can I try an example here. > An auction goes 1S (P) 2S (P) > 3H (P) ? > 3H is a long suit trial bid made after a break in tempo. > > Now it is easy to demonstrate that the BIT could suggest a marginal > game try > and also easy to demonstrate that the BIT could suggest opener was > close to > a 4S bid. Does this mean the director should adjust whenever responder > "guesses" right on a marginal hand irrespective of whether he > chooses 3S or 4S? That is precisely the example cited as the impetus behind the 1997 change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". Since either of David's possibilities is "reasonable", adjudicators were able to award an adjusted score whenever the 3H bidder "guessed right", effectively penalizing the BIT directly. The authors of T 1997 FLB considered this a misinterpretation of their intent, and made the change to clarify it as such. Current doctrine is that if either of two possibilities are "reasonable", neither is "demonstrable". Hence the "opposite adjustment" test. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu May 15 19:03:40 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 18:03:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: <88409BDD-4BDF-4A42-A40F-CCBBF5BE3663@starpower.net> Message-ID: On 15/05/2008 14:42, "Eric Landau" wrote: [EL] > That is precisely the example cited as the impetus behind the 1997 > change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". Since either of David's > possibilities is "reasonable", adjudicators were able to award an > adjusted score whenever the 3H bidder "guessed right", effectively > penalizing the BIT directly. The authors of T 1997 FLB considered > this a misinterpretation of their intent, and made the change to > clarify it as such. Current doctrine is that if either of two > possibilities are "reasonable", neither is "demonstrable". Hence the > "opposite adjustment" test. [DALB] Part of the problem is the use of the word "could", which does double duty in English as an indicative past tense ("I could run very fast when I was young") and a conditional present tense ("I could run very fast if I weren't so fat") of the verb "can". When one reads the words of the Laws, there is a tendency to become confused about what part of the verb is actually being used. Suppose the bidding goes 1NT - slow 2NT (invitational). It could be that the pause is because the bidder is thinking of passing; it could be that the pause is because the bidder is thinking of bidding game; it could be that the pause is because the bidder has temporarily forgotten the range of 1NT. And I can easily demonstrate that any of those things could be the case. In addition, I can demonstrate *in any given case* that the slowness of 2NT could suggest anything. For example, suppose that in the actual case the bidder was thinking of bidding game. It could be that this player only makes slow invitational bids when he is close to bidding game, and that his partner is aware of this and accepts on anything other than complete minimums. Suppose on the other hand that the bidder was thinking of passing: it could be that all his aggressive bids are slow. The pair may protest that this is not in fact the case - the player always bids in perfect tempo, but occasionally forgets his no trump range. But they will protest in vain. Now, it would be impractical to say to a pair who had bid 1NT-slow 2NT-3NT on a medium hand that in future we will be watching them to see whether or not they do in fact always have extras for slow invitations. Nonetheless, it is possible whenever a slow bidder's partner guesses well to adjust the score under the "demonstrable" wording of the Laws just as much as under the "reasonable" wording of the Laws, and Eric's "opposite adjustment test" is of no actual avail, although as a practical matter it appears to me to be a useful device for those who believe that the game should be played according to their own interpretation of the rules, rather than according to the actual words of the rules. The actual words of the rules, of course, should be changed to eliminate "could", or the education of bridge players and bridge administrators should be extended so that some of them know what it means. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu May 15 19:15:41 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 18:15:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <497DE2B5-5A15-425D-9CE7-FD512F2E2DC8@starpower.net> Message-ID: On 15/05/2008 14:12, "Eric Landau" wrote: > OK. Have we then settled that the TD must learn South's intention > and base his ruling on that? [DALB] I don't see why he should. Indeed, it seems to me quite sensible (insofar as any of the new Law 27 is sensible, which is not very far at all) for the bidding to go South "2NT" West "Pass" North "2D" East "Director" Director "Yes?" East "North has...[explains auction]" Director "So I see. Well, North had better... [reads Law 27]" North: "3D". Now, no one knows any more than they need to know, and the players can get on with it with North-South being fined 24 IMPs. The first part of this is what Ton wants them to be able to do, and so do I. The second part is my own personal view of what should happen, and until it is adopted bridge will be more or less completely unplayable. But I do not expect to convince you of that. David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 15 20:16:04 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:16:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <003901c8b606$2a3bcbc0$3ecd403e@Mildred> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> <003901c8b606$2a3bcbc0$3ecd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: I am called to the table for an insufficient bid, which LHO chooses not to accept. I pull the insufficient bidder away from the table, where he reveals to me that his bid was inadvertent -- a slip of the fingers. I decide not to allow a change by law 25 (because this law requires, not only that the attempt to change the bid be made without time for thought, but also that there be an attempt to change the bid.) In this case, the meaning of the insufficient bid, from the perspective of the insufficient bidder, seems to be the intended bid. So I am thinking that I can allow the change to the intended bid without barring partner. This will mean that inadvertent insufficient bids can always be replaced with the intended bid without barring partner. But the table perspective might be significantly different. For example 1C - 1H - 1H/1S. The actual example from play, about a month ago, was 1NT - 1D with 2D Cappelletti being the intended bid. Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 15 20:26:11 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:26:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 15, 2008, at 1:03 PM, David Burn wrote: > On 15/05/2008 14:42, "Eric Landau" wrote: > > [EL] > >> That is precisely the example cited as the impetus behind the 1997 >> change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". Since either of David's >> possibilities is "reasonable", adjudicators were able to award an >> adjusted score whenever the 3H bidder "guessed right", effectively >> penalizing the BIT directly. The authors of T 1997 FLB considered >> this a misinterpretation of their intent, and made the change to >> clarify it as such. Current doctrine is that if either of two >> possibilities are "reasonable", neither is "demonstrable". Hence the >> "opposite adjustment" test. > > [DALB] > > Part of the problem is the use of the word "could", which does > double duty > in English as an indicative past tense ("I could run very fast when > I was > young") and a conditional present tense ("I could run very fast if > I weren't > so fat") of the verb "can". > > When one reads the words of the Laws, there is a tendency to become > confused > about what part of the verb is actually being used. Suppose the > bidding goes > 1NT - slow 2NT (invitational). It could be that the pause is > because the > bidder is thinking of passing; it could be that the pause is > because the > bidder is thinking of bidding game; it could be that the pause is > because > the bidder has temporarily forgotten the range of 1NT. And I can > easily > demonstrate that any of those things could be the case. > > In addition, I can demonstrate *in any given case* that the > slowness of 2NT > could suggest anything. For example, suppose that in the actual > case the > bidder was thinking of bidding game. It could be that this player > only makes > slow invitational bids when he is close to bidding game, and that his > partner is aware of this and accepts on anything other than complete > minimums. Suppose on the other hand that the bidder was thinking of > passing: > it could be that all his aggressive bids are slow. The pair may > protest that > this is not in fact the case - the player always bids in perfect > tempo, but > occasionally forgets his no trump range. But they will protest in > vain. > > Now, it would be impractical to say to a pair who had bid 1NT-slow > 2NT-3NT > on a medium hand that in future we will be watching them to see > whether or > not they do in fact always have extras for slow invitations. > Nonetheless, it > is possible whenever a slow bidder's partner guesses well to adjust > the > score under the "demonstrable" wording of the Laws just as much as > under the > "reasonable" wording of the Laws, and Eric's "opposite adjustment > test" is > of no actual avail, although as a practical matter it appears to me > to be a > useful device for those who believe that the game should be played > according > to their own interpretation of the rules, rather than according to the > actual words of the rules. The actual words of the rules, of > course, should > be changed to eliminate "could", or the education of bridge players > and > bridge administrators should be extended so that some of them know > what it > means. The problem with David's interpretation is that it would be perfectly valid, and presumably correct, if L16B1 prohibited choosing an action "that could have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". I would argue that the word "demonstrably" is there for a reason; it must require a stronger test for adjustment than would be the case were it not there. "For example, suppose that in the actual case the bidder was thinking of bidding game. It could be that this player only makes slow invitational bids when he is close to bidding game, and that his partner is aware of this and accepts on anything other than complete minimums." So if the law was "could have been suggested" we would have grounds to adjust. But to adjust on the basis of "could demonstrably have been suggested" we would need some reason to think that this might actually be the case for this player, not just "it could be...". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 15 20:34:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:34:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12584430-212F-4097-8769-6D7F58C30966@starpower.net> On May 15, 2008, at 1:15 PM, David Burn wrote: > On 15/05/2008 14:12, "Eric Landau" wrote: > >> OK. Have we then settled that the TD must learn South's intention >> and base his ruling on that? > > [DALB] > > I don't see why he should. Indeed, it seems to me quite sensible > (insofar as > any of the new Law 27 is sensible, which is not very far at all) > for the > bidding to go > > South "2NT" > West "Pass" > North "2D" > East "Director" > Director "Yes?" > East "North has...[explains auction]" > Director "So I see. Well, North had better... [reads Law 27]" > North: "3D". > > Now, no one knows any more than they need to know, and the players > can get > on with it with North-South being fined 24 IMPs. The first part of > this is > what Ton wants them to be able to do, and so do I. The second part > is my own > personal view of what should happen, and until it is adopted bridge > will be > more or less completely unplayable. But I do not expect to convince > you of > that. Oh, sure, "the players can get on with it". All North has to do is figure out L27 for himself, on his own, without benefit of two months' debate on BLML or David's words of wisdom. However, a director who expected him to do so should be fired. The director's job isn't to read the law verbatim; it is to "explain all the options available" [L10C1]. North is absolutely entitled to have all his available options explained to him. How is the TD to do that without either knowing South's "intention" or allowing for any possiblility, no matter how far-fetched? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri May 16 02:52:21 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 01:52:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl><4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <482C18C3.5010106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c8b6ef$b656f410$8eca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement > That's the easy example. What do you think of the following one ? South opens 2H. On request, it is explained as a Dutch (!) two-suiter. South happens to hold a weak two-bid in hearts. Would the Dutch decide there was misexplanation, even when the CC says the contrary ? Is this legal ? [+=+ Grattan: thank you for the nudge. I knew something was gnawing at my entrails. Question: how do they propose to get around Law 85A ? +=+ ] ............................................................................................................ And how do you intend to disallow South explaining he wanted to open a Multi 2D but took the next bidding card ? Or that he missorted his 63 reds as 54 ? [+=+ Grattan: in my experience I doubt they will prevent it, more often than not. It is so easy to blurt it out (unless you are a canny Secretary Bird wise to the relevance of Law 16B). So, most of the time I expect, the Director will be explaining to the partner that he cannot use the extraneous information he has just received from partner. That's life, I would say. But, rather than leave it at that, I would like to think some more about the content of my dialogue with David Burn as to the nature of the information available to the partner that is knowledge of the game, falling - could it be? - within the meaning of Law 16A1(d). +=+] From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 16 07:22:00 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 01:22:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: <482C18C3.5010106@ulb.ac.be> References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <482C18C3.5010106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:04:35 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an >> unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to >> distinguish. For example, I open 1H third seat not vulnerable with Kxxx >> of >> hearts an no other HCP. >> >> > That's the easy example. What do you think of the following one ? > > South opens 2H. On request, it is explained as a Dutch (!) two-suiter. > South happens to hold a weak two-bid in hearts. First, I am going to be upset if I am damaged when I think it is a two-suiter and it is really a weak two. Am I supposed to choose between psyche or an unintentional misbid? In the U.S., I am positive it is a misbid. If it is common to make this psyche, then I will be upset because partner of the psycher is going to pick it up a lot easier than me. > > Would the Dutch decide there was misexplanation, even when the CC says > the contrary ? Is this legal ? Are we talking about the new Dutch laws? I think they are going to rule misexplanation. I am not the best person to ask about legality. I am guessing they are allowed to define Dutch words how they want. Also, they can probably clarify the evidence needed for judging misbid using Law 75. Otherwise, as shown on BLML, directors will vary. The ACBL feels it is entitled to define terms and state the evidence needed for a decision. > And how do you intend to disallow South explaining he wanted to open a > Multi 2D but took the next bidding card ? Or that he missorted his 63 > reds as 54 ? I can't see the harm in ruling that these are misexplanations (and hence the opps should be protected). To be more precise, I cannot see the harm in categorizing them with misbids if you want to protect opps against the damaging effects of a misleading explanation of a misbid. It should be well-accepted that the ruling of "misexplanation" can occur when there is really a misbid. This is a natural consequence of not being able to distinguish easily the two and placing the presumption on "misexplanation". > And, above all, do they realize this will be a bonus on lying, I assume the goal is to make it as difficult as possible for cheaters to prosper, while still creating good bridge for the majority of players who do not cheat. (In the U.S., players record their results on a card, often by placing the card face up in front of me on the table. So there seems to be little concern with preventing cheating here.) > a lie > that is very difficult to detect (contrary to the MI / MB issue, which > can be settled by looking at their system notes) ? My system notes are on my website, which will not be easy to consult. Not to mention my website is out-of-date. Not to mention it contains agreements that both my partner and I have forgotten. Also, the clearest sentence in the world does not establish an agreement because there could be a contradictory agreement elsewhere. Convention cards can also be out of date, but basically they will miss a lot of information. The auction was 1S - X - 3C. The 3C bid was misleadingly explained by me as a weak jump shift, when in fact it was a Bergen raise. Convention card says Bergen raise. You decide. But I think Richard Hills will not like it that you are ignoring his testimony. And then you have the bonus on lying. My testimony is that a month ago I specfically asked my partner if we were playing Bergen raises over a take-out double, and he said no. Now how do you rule? Of course, when I told the opps it was a weak-jump shift, I had a very solid idea in my mind that it could be a Bergen raise -- my first thought when I saw his bid was "That better not be a Bergen raise". My opponents do not know how easily my partners forgets agreements. He is a very good player, so they might assume he does not forget. I have seen him discuss an agreement just before game time and then forget it for the first round. Now how do you rule? Bob From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 16 12:32:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 12:32:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <482BFE62.4090903@skynet.be> References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> <482AFDBA.6050002@ulb.ac.be> <482BFE62.4090903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <482D62DA.9060903@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> Therefore, the TD needs to know the intended meaning of the IB. >>> What I am still not certain about is whether the TD must tell the >>> table what the intention was. Certainly if he does rule that the SB >>> can be made without penalty, he tells them in so many words the >>> intention. >>> >> And more so by giving a list of the possible non-penalizable bids. And >> that he has to do, to let opponents see what other choices the player >> had. That might influence their decision to believe the replacemernt bid >> or not. >> >> > > I would find it strange to see more than one penalty-free bid, but of > course it can happen. Very easy ! You open 1S, playing Acol, but partner opened 1S, and you're allowed to bid any of 2NT (Jacoby), 4C, 4D, 4H. Or you open 1C (14+, no 5-card major, nothing said about clubs, unlimited), partner had opened a Multi 2D and they allow you any of 2NT, 3C, 3D. Or you transferred (1NT-2H) but they overcalled 2S ; you may bid either 3D (rubensohl) or 3S (5 hearts + spade stopper). Enzovoort. > As for "believing the RB", I think I understand what you mean. If the > IB showed 5 of a suit, and the RB shows 6, the RB can be done > penalty-free, but the player might be doing it with just the 5. > Is this allowed, and should the opponents not be told about this? > > I'd say they shouldn't be alerted about it, because it's bridge logic, not a systemic agreement. > > > Which again leads me to believe that it is best to tell the table > about the intent of the IBer. > > Indeed. Whether it'll be AI to partner is another question. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 16 12:47:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 12:47:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> <003901c8b606$2a3bcbc0$3ecd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <482D662E.5090303@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I am called to the table for an insufficient bid, which LHO chooses not to > accept. I pull the insufficient bidder away from the table, where he > reveals to me that his bid was inadvertent -- a slip of the fingers. I > decide not to allow a change by law 25 (because this law requires, not > only that the attempt to change the bid be made without time for thought, > but also that there be an attempt to change the bid.) > I don't agree. Not everybody knows the rules. If a player doesn't know whether changing his (inadvertent) bid will be allowed or whether attempting a correction will make his case worse, he could call the TD to ask him, and this shouldn't deprive him from his right to avoid penalties. Just check whether his story is compatible with his actual hand. Here, if he holds majors and has bid 1D, the claim that "I wanted to bid 2D and pulled short" is credible. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 16 16:56:12 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:56:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <482ABF9E.2000708@skynet.be> <482AF42F.2090004@skynet.be> <003901c8b606$2a3bcbc0$3ecd403e@Mildred> <482D662E.5090303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <03bc01c8b764$fb97c7a0$1c5f9951@stefanie> Alain Gottcheiner: If a player doesn't know whether changing his (inadvertent) bid will be allowed or whether attempting a correction will make his case worse, he could call the TD to ask him, and this shouldn't deprive him from his right to avoid penalties. Just check whether his story is compatible with his actual hand. Here, if he holds majors and has bid 1D, the claim that "I wanted to bid 2D and pulled short" is credible. Stefanie Rohan: I should have thought this was obvious. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri May 16 17:10:32 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 17:10:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am called to the table for an insufficient bid, which LHO chooses not to accept. I pull the insufficient bidder away from the table, where he reveals to me that his bid was inadvertent -- a slip of the fingers. I decide not to allow a change by law 25 (because this law requires, not only that the attempt to change the bid be made without time for thought, but also that there be an attempt to change the bid.) Bob ton: It is always interesting to be educated in our laws. Please Bob tell me why I have to read L25A in such a way that there needs to 'be an attempt to change the bid' to apply this law. ton From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 16 23:16:47 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 17:16:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <000101c8b6ef$b656f410$8eca403e@Mildred> References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <482C18C3.5010106@ulb.ac.be> <000101c8b6ef$b656f410$8eca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Bob: I am called to the table for an insufficient bid, which LHO chooses not to accept. I pull the insufficient bidder away from the table, where he reveals to me that his bid was inadvertent -- a slip of the fingers. I decide not to allow a change by law 25 (because this law requires, not only that the attempt to change the bid be made without time for thought, but also that there be an attempt to change the bid.) ton: It is always interesting to be educated in our laws. Please Bob tell me why I have to read L25A in such a way that there needs to 'be an attempt to change the bid' to apply this law. Bob: L25A "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." I can't see any ambiguity on this. Are we miscommunicating somehow? I will try to answer the question anyway. To try to use a different sentence with the same underlying structure, suppose your invitation says "You may attend if you register before June 1." I think everyone would understand this as saying that you have to register. If you didn't have to register, the invitation would say "You may attend. If you register, it must be before June 1." Similarly, the law does not say "a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call. If he does so, or attempts to do so, it must be without pause for thought." So suppose LHO calls the director and explains that the player's bid is insufficient. I pull the player aside and the player explains that the bid was inadvertent. Do I offer him the choice of changing it? Do I follow standard protocol and explain his choices to him? Suppose I explain what happens if he changes his bid using 25A versus when he doesn't and then Law 27 kicks in. I still at the end have to ask him if he wants to substitute his intended call for his unintended call. If he says yes, I guess that counts as his attempt to change his call. (Then I have to decide it if was made without pause for thought. I am thinking that there was pause for thought.) But if he never answers my question, then again I am stuck with no reason to apply Law 25A. One way or another, there has to be an attempt to change the inadvertent bid. The exception would be if you as director are going to step in and unilaterally change it, but that clearly contradicts the "may" in Law 25A. From Gampas at aol.com Sat May 17 10:02:12 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 04:02:12 EDT Subject: [blml] L27 question Message-ID: In a message dated 14/05/2008 13:03:19 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: [Alain] Notice that the problem isn't very big, because responder may bid 4H or 4S, most probably reaching the normal contract, and it is unlikely that L23 will come into action. [Paul Lamford] Indeed, even the most astute director might not notice (after 2NT - 2D, corrected to 4H) that this route had been selected as the only way to play the hand (as I usually play four-level transfers as well). And even my most thick-skinned partners might be offended by a TD's suggestion that I could have known this would be to our advantage. From Gampas at aol.com Sat May 17 10:48:38 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 04:48:38 EDT Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: In a message dated 15/05/2008 06:14:30 GMT Standard Time, Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes: [Nige1] It doesn't prove much but I gave the Detroit case 1 hand to a few of the best local players. Not only did they pass -- they also considered pass to be the sole logical alternative! [paul lamford] But did you ask them whether they thought 3C was demonstrably suggested by the hesitation? And note that one can select any bid that it is not a logical alternative without penalty. The wording is quite specific: "the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." If you bid 6C and catch pard with Ax xxx AQ9xx AKx and that comes in with clubs 2-2 and the diamond finesse right, there is no adjustment as only a few inmates of Broadmoor chose 6C when polled, and they are presumably not your peers. (Your hand is xxx x JTx JT9xxx for convenience). There is an anomaly in the Laws. As nobody would regard Double as an LA (Pass and 3C were the only votes I think any poll has received), this is a permitted action. On this occasion that leads to +200 as partner passes in his sleep and the flexible "double" triumphs again. It does allow an illegal method over a strong NT, that a slow pass shows 19-21 balanced and partner can double with a hand on which nobody else would, because double is then not an LA and is therefore permitted without penalty. From Gampas at aol.com Sat May 17 12:03:00 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 06:03:00 EDT Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit Message-ID: [Adam] 1. An AWMW is a judgment about the appeal, not the appellants. If the panel finds the appeal lacks merit, they ought to assess a penalty. The pair will learn at least as much with an AWMW as without one. If they have indeed learned, they'll accumulate no more warnings and will have no need for concern. The criterion for being experienced enough to accept a penalty is being experienced enough to file an appeal. IMO, if The appeals adviser thinks you have no case, you insist on proceeding anyway, and the committee unanimously uphold the director's decision, then an AMWM may be justified, even against relative tyros. [lamford] Whilst agreeing that the AC decision was routine, I see no problem with taking into account the experience of the players in deciding on an AWMW (which I presume is equivalent to a lost deposit in the UK). [Adam] 2. I see no merit to the appeal. Yes, 4H might have gone down fewer, but laws do not give the offenders the benefit of the doubt and in any case, there was likely little or no difference between -300 and -200. [lamford] I agree with Nige1 that if the AC awards a more favourable result for the appellants, this should automically mean that the appeal is with merit. I find it worrying that someone would think differently. Is it not fundamental to any appeal system in any sport that partial success means the appeal is justified? [Adam] 3. How did the TD determine that there was no LA to 4S? As the Panel's admirably thorough poll showed 3S was a standout. The panel corrected an injustice. I do not understand, though, why they removed the PP. I'd have assessed a heavier one! North caused this problem all by himself, by speaking during the auction with no reason. 3D, being a cue-bid, did not require an alert. If North never the less wanted to call attention to the call he ought to have used the single word "Alert" and to have done so immediately after his partner's call. This is not rocket science, and ought to be well known to a player with over 1000 masterpoints. [lamford] It appears to be the case in England that a PP is not normally given when an adjusted score is awarded against the offenders, but I can see no basis in law for this, and agree with Adam that it should have stood. And I cannot understand why North signed off whatever 3D meant! [Adam] 4. The Panel improved upon the TD's ruling. All that was missing was the legal basis for their ruling, which I believe is Law 72b1. This will be made clearer in the 2007 Laws, scheduled to take effect in the ACBL in September 2008. [lamford] Yes, agree the ruling and have nothing to add to other comments. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Sat May 17 13:05:22 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 07:05:22 EDT Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 Message-ID: [Adam] 1. Not written yet. [lamford] Debated at length on here. An excellent AC decision in my view, but not in the view of others. [Adam] 2. North's testimony was useful, though perhaps not in the way he expected. He confirmed that be broke tempo, thereby making UI available. The reasons for his doing so are not relevant. The AC used a blind preview in this case and it proved effective. When given as a defensive problem, with just the authorized information, most of the AC members quickly continued with a third high diamond. Kudos to the TD and AC for a sound decision in an unusual situation. Kudos also to EW for realizing that they might have been damaged and allowing the TD to assess the situation. I see little merit to the appeal, but I don't fault the committee for failing to assess an AWMW. [lamford] I would have awarded a PP against North in addition to an AWMW, if both are permitted. He knew that South would think he was unlikely to have four diamonds, as he had not competed to 3D although he was marked with a singleton club. I would have routinely competed on his hand, and lawfully (presumably 18 total trumps as his partner would normally have five diamonds). The AC seemed to miss this point, and North's heinous delay on the second diamond was a tempo-driven defence which should have punished more severely. And as for appealing ....I would be ashamed. [Adam] 3. I'm delighted that the TDs took a poll. I'd have loved to know the result of the poll, not just the conclusion drawn. It might have affected both NS's decision to appeal and the AC's decision whether to assess an AWMW. [lamford] I would hope the result of the poll would have been unanimity. East has a sixth and seventh spade she has not shown yet. A more interesting decision might have come after a slow double of 5C as to whether to bid 5S. An AWMW for me. [Adam] 4. Kudos to the TDs for correcting their error. This appeal had no merit. [lamford] Again I disagree on an important point of principle. A TD, who is presumed to know the rules, got this wrong originally and was corrected by a senior TD. It cannot be right that the appellants are assumed to know the rules better than one of the directing staff, and therefore the appeal cannot be without merit, albeit on technical grounds. [Adam] 5. It seems to me it might be "at all probable" that East would allow South to play 3C on some auctions. I won't fault the TD or the AC decisions -- I'd say this one is too close to call. I don't understand, though, why the AC failed to issue a PP. East had a clear pass over 2S, the UI strongly suggested the pull, and East offered no reason for his 3H call. [lamford] I would agree with a PP for East, for blatant use of UI, although it looks automatic later to bid 3H over 3C . Eccentric was too polite a word to describe North's 3S bid. [Adam] 6. What did the TD and AC decide was the actual EW agreement, or did they conclude there was none? We need to know, since it affects the decision. Let's suppose that "Stayman" was the EW agreement. I'm not sure it's even at all probable that South would have doubled. He's promised 14 and he has 15 -- that doesn't sound like extra values to me. I'd want to know more about the NS agreements. This one is close between the TD and AC decisions, both of which were reasonable. [lamford] I agree it is close, but the assumption as to what the E/W agreement should be which is more likely. If it is not possible to ascertain that, then the benefit of the doubt should go to the non-offenders. Most pairs tend to play the same methods over a 1NT overcall as over a 1NT opener, although this may not be best. Here, the explanation by East that 2C is Stayman conforms with his hand, but in practice the auction might not have been discussed - I am not aware that Hallberg-Mahaffey are that regular a partnership. But as Adam says it is far from clear that South would double anyway, as he nothing particular to say at this stage. North had the correct information and elected not to double - unsurprisingly as they might well have a better spot. I prefer the original TD ruling. [Adam] 7. This one was close -- both decisions seem reasonable. The write-up seems to be missing a little something. Based on what I read I'd have strongly considered giving a split ruling, NS -620 and EW +130, per Law 72b1. [lamford] Again we are trying to decide on the balance of probabilities whether there was MI. There seems to be two factors suggesting there was, North's actual hand, and North's comment. Presumably "Nothing special" is the same as "no agreement", and therefore the bid is assumed to be natural, but bridge logic suggests it shows a fit. But there is a big difference between a fit bid, suggesting partner evaluates a double fit and might save, and a McCabe-style lead-directing bid. The latter could be made on something like AQx to get a lead through the presumed heart hand. If this is the pair's agreement and East is told about it, then double, showing four hearts, would be normal, when Four Hearts should be reached. I like Adam's suggestion of a split ruling as it seems a messy one to sort out. [Adam] 8. A don't understand either part of the TD ruling. Certainly the question made UI available, and that UI demonstrably suggested acting. Perhaps the TDs extrapolated from NABC+ case 1, which had appeared in the daily bulletin by the time this case came up. I believe such extrapolation is not justified here, but this is something committees ought to keep in mind. In close cases we should consider the message our decision will send. [lamford] I am not sure what difficulty you have in understanding either part of the TD ruling, as the English seems perfect. I would agree, however, that it is a hopeless misjudgement and the AC ruling automatic. If the original decision had been to restore the result to 2D-1, and North-South had appealed, then I would have awarded an AWAW, but as the TD got it wrong, that is clearly inappropriate. [Adam] 9. The TD ruling was reasonable, and the AC ruling improved upon it. The "In real life" comment at the end of the write-up is not relevant. EW are entitled to know the actual NS agreement whether or not North knows it himself. I agree with 4H being the likely spot, and the perfect fit 6H missing the queen of trumps is unlikely to be reached. The bit I thought wrong was the following: *The AC determined that there was a strong case for a reopening double to cater for the near-certainty that West had a penalty double of hearts* [lamford] >From East's point of view, he has been given an alert of 1H and seen North pass it; therefore North has hearts. He is not obliged to draw the inference that North's pass was based on forgetting the system. All he is entitled to is the correct explanation of the opponent's methods. [Adam] 10. A thorough job by the AC. [lamford] Agree. The director should be told to re-read 16B1a. From Gampas at aol.com Sat May 17 13:26:10 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 07:26:10 EDT Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? Message-ID: In a message dated 15/05/2008 02:24:04 GMT Standard Time, Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes: [Nige1] I am afraid that there will be a substantial minority of directors, who, like Paul Lamford and Alain Gottcheiner, reject arguments based on the balance of probability. [lamford] Not so. For a bid to be demonstrably suggested, I offered the opinion that a split view as to whether it was suggested at all made it seem improbable that it was demonstrably suggested. There is nothing much wrong with the word *demonstrably*. Let us say that LHO opens 5C and partner passes after a BIT, greater than that allowed. RHO passes. Partner must have been considering bidding or doubling. I would say that the bid that caters for the hand partner is most likely to have for a BIT is the one that is demonstrably suggested. Assuming of course that our bid is not automatic. So the balance of probability comes into the equation very strongly. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat May 17 17:30:18 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 16:30:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question References: Message-ID: <06b501c8b832$ea0b64f0$1c5f9951@stefanie> > [Paul Lamford] > Indeed, even the most astute director might not notice (after 2NT - 2D, > corrected to 4H) that this route had been selected as the only way to play > the > hand (as I usually play four-level transfers as well). And even my most > thick-skinned partners might be offended by a TD's suggestion that I > could have > known this would be to our advantage. Similarly, your thinner-skinned soon-to-be-ex partners. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat May 17 18:31:44 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 17:31:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <482F0870.1000108@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] I am afraid that there will be a substantial minority of directors, who, like Paul Lamford and Alain Gottcheiner, reject arguments based on the balance of probability. [lamford] Not so. For a bid to be demonstrably suggested, I offered the opinion that a split view as to whether it was suggested at all made it seem improbable that it was demonstrably suggested. There is nothing much wrong with the word *demonstrably*. Let us say that LHO opens 5C and partner passes after a BIT, greater than that allowed. RHO passes. Partner must have been considering bidding or doubling. I would say that the bid that caters for the hand partner is most likely to have for a BIT is the one that is demonstrably suggested. Assuming of course that our bid is not automatic. So the balance of probability comes into the equation very strongly. [Nige2] [A] Paul's view seems impractical because, in BLML and elsewhere, there is always a dispute over which action is suggested by unauthorised information. [B] I have long held that the a priori probability of the various hands that partner could hold, should be taken into account as part of the estimate of the balance of probability. [C] In another post Paul says that the law permits you to choose *illogical* alternatives; but that is against the spirit of the law. Most legal experts judge it to be illegal. For example, some BLMLers argue that a seemingly *illogical* alternative, invoked to wriggle out of the law is, in fact, quite *logical* in that *context*. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat May 17 18:43:32 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 17:43:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <482F0B34.7010203@NTLworld.com> ROSEMARY: I'm trying to remember what we decided .... After a 2-suiter auction ... e.g. 2D - 2H - ; 3C - 3D - ; ?? Up until recently the only rebids were - 3H = S & H - 3S = C & H - 3N = D & H There is a danger that partner may pass your transfer 3N reply, so we added *forcing* rebids .... - 4C = C & H asking for 6 keycards (CK & HK are keycards) - 4D = D & H asking for 6 keycards (DK & HK are keycards) [db] I thought that 3S was the only bid to show C & H, but what you put here makes sense. Similary after ... 2D - 2H - ; 3D - 3H - ; ?? But how do we respond to ... 2D - 3D - ; 3H - ?? [db] Is this a "typo"? Can 3H be anything else than the normal RKCB for Hs? In Stratford, I was 4414 and bid 3N, hoping that you would take me as that shape. I couldn't be strong and flat; with that shape I would always bid 3H. At the time, I guessed that you must have an extreme one-suiter as with say 6331 shape, you could not risk the likely 2-suiter opposite. The problem comes when there is an extreme 2-suiter opposite. I supppose opener just has to bid the lower one? [n2] It was a "typo". I was talking about simple two-suiter auctions and the minor 2-suiter starts... 2D - 2H - ; 3H - ?? or 2N - 4H ?? From john at asimere.com Sat May 17 19:43:06 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 18:43:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question References: Message-ID: <002e01c8b845$76f0dcd0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question > In a message dated 14/05/2008 13:03:19 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be > writes: > > [Alain] > Notice that the problem isn't very big, because responder may bid 4H or > 4S, most probably reaching the normal contract, and it is unlikely that > L23 will come into action. > > [Paul Lamford] > Indeed, even the most astute director might not notice (after 2NT - 2D, > corrected to 4H) that this route had been selected as the only way to play > the > hand (as I usually play four-level transfers as well). And even my most > thick-skinned partners might be offended by a TD's suggestion that I > could have > known this would be to our advantage. > > It'd be routine playing with me :) cheers john. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Sat May 17 22:54:07 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 16:54:07 EDT Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? Message-ID: [Nige1] [C] In another post Paul says that the law permits you to choose *illogical* alternatives; but that is against the spirit of the law. Most legal experts judge it to be illegal. For example, some BLMLers argue that a seemingly *illogical* alternative, invoked to wriggle out of the law is, in fact, quite *logical* in that *context*. [paul lamford] While there might be some actions which are against the spirit of the law (although I am of the Burn school that following the laws to the letter should never attract approbation, and I hope I am not misquoting him or quoting out of context), the new Laws go to great lengths to define what is a logical alternative, so there is no need for our legal eagles to venture an opinion: [16B1] ... b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. Let us say that someone opened 3NT third in hand on Axx Axxx Axx Axx after partner spent a long time as dealer before passing. Partner transpired to have a flawed pre-empt and had xxxx xxx none KQJxxx. Now virtually nobody among any class of players would give serious consideration to an opening bid of 3NT and certainly none would select it. The logical alternatives for the player might be 1C, 1D or, say, a 15-17 NT, and all polled selected the last of these which is not suggested in any way by the hesitation, let alone demonstrably. The player has clearly not "(chosen) from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.", and therefore no adjustment is appropriate. He has chosen a bid that might demonstrably have been suggested ... but he has not chosen from among logical alternatives. The wording of the law is just fatally flawed, and should read: "the partner may not choose a bid that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." Why on earth the lawmakers sought to include "logical alternative" and then define it is beyond me. It is not needed. This caters for the 3NT guesser in our above example, whom, I hope, we all feel should be legislated against to avoid bridge merging with the kitchen version. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat May 17 23:46:01 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 17:46:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DB20D3E26D4E7CB6DAD1AE1A158485@erdos> writes: > The wording of the law is just fatally flawed, and should read: > > "the partner may not choose a bid that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by the extraneous information." > > Why on earth the lawmakers sought to include "logical alternative" and then > define it is beyond me. It is not needed. "Logical alternative" is needed, but in a different place, as your proposed wording is too strong. The correct wording should be, "the partner may not choose a bid that could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information." LHO opens 1NT, and partner (who has no penalty double available) makes a slow pass, then RHO passes. Partner's slow pass demonstrably suggests bidding over passing for you. However, you have KQxxx AJTxx xx x, and passing rather than using your favorite convention to show both majors is not a logical alternative, so you are allowed to use your convention. Under your proposed wording, using the convention here would be forbidden regardless of your hand. As the rule is written now, passing would be allowed with Qxxx JTxx xxx xx because the convention itself is not a logical alternative, and that is not what we want (and not what TD's enforce). From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat May 17 23:47:56 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 23:47:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 17/05/2008 22:54, "Gampas at aol.com" wrote: >although I am of the Burn school that following the laws to the letter should never attract approbation I think this ought to read "disapprobation". David Burn London, England From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Sun May 18 00:15:13 2008 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 00:15:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25B, lead penalties? Message-ID: <001701c8b86b$7b3520f0$1810a8c0@FK27.local> case 1: North opens 1C, and replaces it with 1NT before East has made a call. The TD is called. The TD establishes that Law 25A does not apply. East does not accept, so the 1NT bid is withdrawn. Lead penalty? case 2: North opens 1C, then blurts out that he wanted to open 1NT. The TD is called. The TD establishes that Law 25A does not apply. The TD does not allow the the replacement, Is this correct? Lead penalty? From Gampas at aol.com Sun May 18 00:28:06 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 18:28:06 EDT Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? Message-ID: In a message dated 17/05/2008 22:47:03 GMT Standard Time, grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu writes: "Logical alternative" is needed, but in a different place, as your proposed wording is too strong. The correct wording should be, "the partner may not choose a bid that could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information." [paul lamford] Yes that wording will work fine and I agree it is better. An alternative wording is: "the partner may not choose a bid that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is no logical alternative." I think both have the same effect, but yours seems neater. From Gampas at aol.com Sun May 18 00:30:39 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 18:30:39 EDT Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? Message-ID: In a message dated 17/05/2008 22:49:05 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: On 17/05/2008 22:54, "Gampas at aol.com" wrote: >although I am of the Burn school that following the laws to the letter should never attract approbation I think this ought to read "disapprobation". David Burn London, England [paul lamford] My apologies. That was indeed intended. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 18 00:32:07 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 23:32:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com><482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <482C18C3.5010106@ulb.ac.be><000101c8b6ef$b656f410$8eca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <003901c8b86e$f95e4f80$26d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:16 PM Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency .................................... \x/ ............................ (Bob) So suppose LHO calls the director and explains that the player's bid is insufficient. I pull the player aside and the player explains that the bid was inadvertent. Do I offer him the choice of changing it? Do I follow standard protocol and explain his choices to him? Suppose I explain what happens if he changes his bid using 25A versus when he doesn't and then Law 27 kicks in. I still at the end have to ask him if he wants to substitute his intended call for his unintended call. If he says yes, I guess that counts as his attempt to change his call. (Then I have to decide it if was made without pause for thought. I am thinking that there was pause for thought.) > But if he never answers my question, then again I am stuck with no reason to apply Law 25A. One way or another, there has to be an attempt to change the inadvertent bid. The exception would be if you as director are going to step in and unilaterally change it, but that clearly contradicts the "may" in Law 25A. > (Grattan) +=+ I have been following this topic with interest. At this point I have a question. Stipulate that there was a pause for thought. So the change cannot be permitted. We have an IB to handle. How do we determine the meaning of the unintended and insufficient bid? +=+ From adam at tameware.com Sun May 18 08:35:22 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 02:35:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:03 AM -0400 5/17/08, Gampas at aol.com wrote: >Whilst agreeing that the AC decision was routine, I see no problem with >taking into account the experience of the players in deciding on an >AWMW (which I >presume is equivalent to a lost deposit in the UK). It is not quite the same. It is only a warning -- there are no financial consequences. If a player amasses three of these warnings within a certain span of time then he will be called upon to account for his actions before the Appeals and Charges Committee, which may choose to assess a penalty. I don't know what kind of penalty might be assessed, since as far as I know it has never happened. I never worry when I receive an AWMW. It's invariably a case where I think my side ought to have prevailed, and I'm always delighted to have the chance to tell my sad story to a new audience. In the English system I would think anyone who posts a deposit must be prepared to lose it, so I would again base the decision solely on the merit, if any. of the appeal. -- Adam Wildavsky adam at tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 18 10:33:50 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 09:33:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <002301c8b8c1$fde5e4c0$30cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott [paul lamford] And note that one can select any bid that it is not a logical alternative without penalty. The wording is quite specific: < +=+ This is a very bold assertion. It overlooks the fact that Law 73C may be adjudged to apply. Law 73C is not limited to choices between logical alternatives. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 18 10:37:59 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 09:37:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: L27 question w/ inadvertency Message-ID: <003301c8b8c2$881b35f0$30cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "True luck consists not in holding > the best cards at the table, > Luckiest he who knows just when > to rise and go home." [John Hay ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:16 PM > Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency > > > .................................... \x/ ............................ > > (Bob) > So suppose LHO calls the director and explains that the player's bid is > insufficient. I pull the player aside and the player explains that the bid > was inadvertent. Do I offer him the choice of changing it? Do I follow > standard protocol and explain his choices to him? Suppose I explain what > happens if he changes his bid using 25A versus when he doesn't and then > Law 27 kicks in. I still at the end have to ask him if he wants to > substitute his intended call for his unintended call. If he says yes, I > guess that counts as his attempt to change his call. (Then I have to > decide it if was made without pause for thought. I am thinking that there > was pause for thought.) >> > But if he never answers my question, then again I am stuck with no reason > to apply Law 25A. One way or another, there has to be an attempt to change > the inadvertent bid. The exception would be if you as director are going > to step in and unilaterally change it, but that clearly contradicts the > "may" in Law 25A. >> > (Grattan) > +=+ I have been following this topic with interest. At this point > I have a question. Stipulate that there was a pause for thought. > So the change cannot be permitted. We have an IB to handle. > How do we determine the meaning of the unintended and > insufficient bid? +=+ > > > From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Sun May 18 10:48:57 2008 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 10:48:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] How about UI and lead penalties in the new Law 25? Message-ID: case 1: North opens 1C, and replaces it with 1NT before East has made a call. The TD is called. The TD establishes that Law 25A does not apply. East does not accept, so the 1NT bid is withdrawn. Correct procedure? Lead penalty? case 2: North opens 1C, then blurts out that he wanted to open 1NT. The TD is called. The TD establishes that Law 25A does not apply. The TD does not allow the the replacement. Correct procedure? Lead penalty? If your answer concerning the lead penalties is different, how do you feel about that (apart from lex dura, sed lex)? From Gampas at aol.com Sun May 18 11:07:31 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 05:07:31 EDT Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: In a message dated 18/05/2008 09:34:27 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: [paul lamford] And note that one can select any bid that it is not a logical alternative without penalty. The wording is quite specific: [grattan] +=+ This is a very bold assertion. It overlooks the fact that Law 73C may be adjudged to apply. Law 73C is not limited to choices between logical alternatives. [paul lamford] Surely Law 16B, which precisely defines what action one must take during the auction when one has extraneous information from partner, is to be used for interpreting breaches of Law 73C which apply to the auction. Your suggestion that someone who conforms during the auction exactly with the detailed Law 16B could then be punished under the more general 73C, because you or another TD do not like the way he is has used the Law, is contrary to the way law normally works. You are saying, in effect, "Oh it doesn't matter that Law 16B is wrongly worded, as we will use 73C to get round it." Why have 16B there at all if it is not to define the partner's obligations during the auction? For example, there will be a general law which states that robbery is an offence. There will, no doubt, be further laws which define what constitutes robbery. If someone, for example, stole something which happened to belong to himself although he did not know it, it would be wrong to decide that this constituted robbery if the definition of robbery specifically excluded such an occurrence. From sater at xs4all.nl Sun May 18 12:12:58 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 12:12:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze Message-ID: <00cd01c8b8cf$bf3b1340$3db139c0$@nl> You know the poem by David Burn, but I cannot find it anymore. Does anyone have a copy or a URL? Hans From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 18 13:54:29 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 12:54:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: <002101c8b8dd$f46370e0$7cce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "True luck consists not in holding > the best cards at the table, > Luckiest he who knows just when > to rise and go home." [John Hay ] > "************************* >> > [paul lamford] > And note that one can select any bid that it is not a logical > alternative without penalty. The wording is quite specific: > < > +=+ This is a very bold assertion. It overlooks the fact > that Law 73C may be adjudged to apply. Law 73C is > not limited to choices between logical alternatives. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 18 13:54:29 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 12:54:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: <002101c8b8dd$f46370e0$7cce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "True luck consists not in holding > the best cards at the table, > Luckiest he who knows just when > to rise and go home." [John Hay ] > "************************* >> > [paul lamford] > And note that one can select any bid that it is not a logical > alternative without penalty. The wording is quite specific: > < > +=+ This is a very bold assertion. It overlooks the fact > that Law 73C may be adjudged to apply. Law 73C is > not limited to choices between logical alternatives. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun May 18 14:14:04 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 14:14:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze In-Reply-To: <00cd01c8b8cf$bf3b1340$3db139c0$@nl> Message-ID: On 18/05/2008 12:12, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: > You know the poem by David Burn, but I cannot find it anymore. > Does anyone have a copy or a URL? I can just about remember it. Playing against a Belgian side I reached a dodgy contract, where Although to beat me hard they tried, They hadn't any cards to spare. Instead of merely sitting there And waiting for all Hell to freeze, I rose politely in my chair And claimed it on a double squeeze. Directors came from far and wide Out of some dark infernal lair. "He can't do that!" the Belgians cried, "It's not allowed! It isn't fair!" Bill Schoder fixed me with a glare: "What were you doing, if you please?" "It's quite all right - don't lose your hair - I claimed it on a double squeeze." They called Committees to decide If I was mad, or took no care. "And are you normal?" I replied "I try to be, when I declare." "Are you inferior?" "What! You dare To ask me questions such as these? The end position wasn't rare - I claimed it on a double squeeze." Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air And made for sheep by chimpanzees. But that is scarcely my affair - I claimed it on a double squeeze. David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Sat May 17 13:46:12 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 07:46:12 EDT Subject: [blml] L27 question Message-ID: [Eric Landau] The director's job isn't to read the law verbatim; it is to "explain all the options available" [L10C1] I would agree that the Director needs to spell out Law 27B in terms the player will understand, but that does not include any statement about which bids will conform and which will not. That is for the player to work out, and the director will ask to see the card and system notes, as well as asking the offending player (or his partner) in order to decide whether the bid had the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than. If either: a) the intention of the insufficient bidder should be revealed to the table, or b) the permitted bids should be advised to the player and/or table had been the intention of the lawmakers, then these simple clauses would have been in the laws. Therefore they are not. From Gampas at aol.com Sun May 18 00:29:16 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 18:29:16 EDT Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? Message-ID: In a message dated 17/05/2008 22:49:05 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: On 17/05/2008 22:54, "Gampas at aol.com" wrote: >although I am of the Burn school that following the laws to the letter should never attract approbation I think this ought to read "disapprobation". David Burn London, England -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080517/97323c7f/attachment.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun May 18 21:59:55 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 20:59:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze References: Message-ID: <017a01c8b921$be2b30a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Here's another challenge, David -- can you recall the hand? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze > On 18/05/2008 12:12, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: > >> You know the poem by David Burn, but I cannot find it anymore. >> Does anyone have a copy or a URL? > > I can just about remember it. > > Playing against a Belgian side > I reached a dodgy contract, where > Although to beat me hard they tried, > They hadn't any cards to spare. > Instead of merely sitting there > And waiting for all Hell to freeze, > I rose politely in my chair > And claimed it on a double squeeze. > > Directors came from far and wide > Out of some dark infernal lair. > "He can't do that!" the Belgians cried, > "It's not allowed! It isn't fair!" > Bill Schoder fixed me with a glare: > "What were you doing, if you please?" > "It's quite all right - don't lose your hair - > I claimed it on a double squeeze." > > They called Committees to decide > If I was mad, or took no care. > "And are you normal?" I replied > "I try to be, when I declare." > "Are you inferior?" "What! You dare > To ask me questions such as these? > The end position wasn't rare - > I claimed it on a double squeeze." > > Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air > And made for sheep by chimpanzees. > But that is scarcely my affair - > I claimed it on a double squeeze. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jrmayne at mindspring.com Mon May 19 01:04:38 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 19:04:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze Message-ID: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I know we're drifting.... but at a sectional in Bakersfield, California 16, I had a double squeeze in a slam - and at trick six, the following occurred: RHO: Double squeeze? I'm ready to give in. JRM: Ungh. LHO: Yep. JRM: OK. Obligatory BLML content: I think claiming on a double squeeze is fine in the right environment. I wouldn't give up a syllable of David Burn's writing for anything, but I would not like a Burnian claim system at all. (The sheep and chimpanzees line is priceless, but I actually think the law writers do a fine job; a little more public input before publication would doubtless do some good.) --JRM -----Original Message----- >From: Stefanie Rohan >Sent: May 18, 2008 3:59 PM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze > >Here's another challenge, David -- can you recall the hand? > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:14 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze > > >> On 18/05/2008 12:12, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: >> >>> You know the poem by David Burn, but I cannot find it anymore. >>> Does anyone have a copy or a URL? >> >> I can just about remember it. >> >> Playing against a Belgian side >> I reached a dodgy contract, where >> Although to beat me hard they tried, >> They hadn't any cards to spare. >> Instead of merely sitting there >> And waiting for all Hell to freeze, >> I rose politely in my chair >> And claimed it on a double squeeze. >> >> Directors came from far and wide >> Out of some dark infernal lair. >> "He can't do that!" the Belgians cried, >> "It's not allowed! It isn't fair!" >> Bill Schoder fixed me with a glare: >> "What were you doing, if you please?" >> "It's quite all right - don't lose your hair - >> I claimed it on a double squeeze." >> >> They called Committees to decide >> If I was mad, or took no care. >> "And are you normal?" I replied >> "I try to be, when I declare." >> "Are you inferior?" "What! You dare >> To ask me questions such as these? >> The end position wasn't rare - >> I claimed it on a double squeeze." >> >> Prince, all the Laws are pure hot air >> And made for sheep by chimpanzees. >> But that is scarcely my affair - >> I claimed it on a double squeeze. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at tameware.com Mon May 19 07:12:31 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 01:12:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805182203u3c992232y4e681d3f4943d055@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805182203u3c992232y4e681d3f4943d055@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40805182212y37b2d901h63e519e8c0ad29c4@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:48 AM, wrote: > There is an anomaly in the Laws. As nobody would regard Double as an LA > (Pass and 3C were the only votes I think any poll has received), this is a > permitted action. Not so. This chimera has been spotted many a time on BLML, and apparently never dispatched successfully. There are several methods whereby one can come to a sensible conclusion on that matter, since as you point out your reading would leads to foolish outcomes. One is that the phrase "may not choose from among logical alternatives" means "alternatives to the action chosen at the table." If you don't buy that another is to look at the 2007 Laws' definition of LA as one that "would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Since a player must be his own ultimate peer, any action he chooses is ipso facto a LA. Another way is to consider what the lawmakers were trying to accomplish. Surely L16 was intended to mean something like "May not choose an action that could demonstrably have been suggested over another, logical action." You may believe that the law is worded poorly, but that's no reason to interpret it perversely. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon May 19 08:56:18 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 07:56:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie> JRM: > Obligatory BLML content: I think claiming on a double squeeze is fine in > the right environment. I wouldn't give up a syllable of David Burn's > writing for anything, but I would not like a Burnian claim system at all. > (The sheep and chimpanzees line is priceless, but I actually think the law > writers do a fine job; a little more public input before publication would > doubtless do some good.) SLR: I believe that the environment in question was a World or European Championships. The claimer was, I believe, Helgemo. But with luck DALB can furnish the details. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 19 09:30:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 17:30:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 25B, lead penalties? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c8b86b$7b3520f0$1810a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: Andre Steffens: >case 1: >North opens 1C, and replaces it with 1NT before East has made a call. >The TD is called. >The TD establishes that Law 25A does not apply. >East does not accept, so the 1NT bid is withdrawn. > >Lead penalty? Richard Hills: A 2007 Law 26B lead rectification, not a 1997 Law 26 lead penalty. And, of course, Law 26B is only relevant if East or West declare the hand. The 2007 Law 25B2 says the call is "cancelled". The 2007 Definitions say that "cancelled" is a subset of "withdrawn". So the 2007 Law 16D2 will be applicable to South during the auction period. (A shortcut is to read the 2007 Law 25B3.) And if South becomes a defender, South will be constrained by both the 2007 Law 16D2 and also the 2007 Law 26B (since Law 26 applies to "withdrawn" calls). Andre Steffens: >case 2: >North opens 1C, then blurts out that he wanted to open 1NT. >The TD is called. >The TD establishes that Law 25A does not apply. >The TD does not allow the replacement, > >Is this correct? Richard Hills: Yes. The TD cannot allow North to freely commit an infraction of the 2007 Law 17C, due to the requirements of the 2007 Law 72B1 and the 2007 Law 81C1. Andre Steffens: >Lead penalty? Richard Hills: Not even a lead rectification. South is merely constrained by the 2007 Law 16B. This anomaly, in my opinion, justifies the abolition of Law 26 in the 2018 Lawbook. 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 Gampas at aol.com Mon May 19 09:44:59 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 03:44:59 EDT Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: In a message dated 19/05/2008 06:13:58 GMT Standard Time, adam at tameware.com writes: [Adam] Not so. This chimera has been spotted many a time on BLML, and apparently never dispatched successfully. There are several methods whereby one can come to a sensible conclusion on that matter, since as you point out your reading would leads to foolish outcomes. One is that the phrase "may not choose from among logical alternatives" means "alternatives to the action chosen at the table." [paul lamford] There is no need to decide what logical alternative means as it is defined. [Adam] If you don't buy that another is to look at the 2007 Laws' definition of LA as one that "would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Since a player must be his own ultimate peer, any action he chooses is ipso facto a LA. [paul lamford] This is not an interpretation that anyone I asked made of the "player's peers". And I can find no usage in English where "peers" includes the person himself and that suggestion is just a corruption of the English language. [Adam] Another way is to consider what the lawmakers were trying to accomplish. Surely L16 was intended to mean something like "May not choose an action that could demonstrably have been suggested over another, logical action." You may believe that the law is worded poorly, but that's no reason to interpret it perversely. [paul lamford] It is not worded poorly; it is just wrong, let's face it. But I completely agree that the intended meaning is what you suggest. And is not the purpose of this forum to try to correct the Laws so that they mean what they are intended to mean, nothing more, nothing less? From Gampas at aol.com Mon May 19 09:44:59 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 03:44:59 EDT Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: In a message dated 19/05/2008 06:13:58 GMT Standard Time, adam at tameware.com writes: [Adam] Not so. This chimera has been spotted many a time on BLML, and apparently never dispatched successfully. There are several methods whereby one can come to a sensible conclusion on that matter, since as you point out your reading would leads to foolish outcomes. One is that the phrase "may not choose from among logical alternatives" means "alternatives to the action chosen at the table." [paul lamford] There is no need to decide what logical alternative means as it is defined. [Adam] If you don't buy that another is to look at the 2007 Laws' definition of LA as one that "would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Since a player must be his own ultimate peer, any action he chooses is ipso facto a LA. [paul lamford] This is not an interpretation that anyone I asked made of the "player's peers". And I can find no usage in English where "peers" includes the person himself and that suggestion is just a corruption of the English language. [Adam] Another way is to consider what the lawmakers were trying to accomplish. Surely L16 was intended to mean something like "May not choose an action that could demonstrably have been suggested over another, logical action." You may believe that the law is worded poorly, but that's no reason to interpret it perversely. [paul lamford] It is not worded poorly; it is just wrong, let's face it. But I completely agree that the intended meaning is what you suggest. And is not the purpose of this forum to try to correct the Laws so that they mean what they are intended to mean, nothing more, nothing less? From fab.maillist at unetmail.nl Mon May 19 09:44:37 2008 From: fab.maillist at unetmail.nl (Frans Buijsen) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:44:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze In-Reply-To: <00cd01c8b8cf$bf3b1340$3db139c0$@nl> References: <00cd01c8b8cf$bf3b1340$3db139c0$@nl> Message-ID: <48312FE5.2080807@unetmail.nl> Hans van Staveren wrote: > You know the poem by David Burn, but I cannot find it anymore. > Does anyone have a copy or a URL? > > Hans http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.bridge/msg/14889d566e05c582 -- ________________________________________________________________________ Frans Buijsen e-mail: fab.maillist at unetmail.nl Haarlem, The Netherlands ________________________________________________________________________ From Gampas at aol.com Mon May 19 09:46:13 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 03:46:13 EDT Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze Message-ID: In a message dated 19/05/2008 08:04:33 GMT Standard Time, daisy_duck at btopenworld.com writes: I believe that the environment in question was a World or European Championships. The claimer was, I believe, Helgemo. But with luck DALB can furnish the details. [paul lamford] I thought the claimer was Hallberg, but I have no further information. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 19 10:38:08 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:38:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48313C70.20304@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 15/05/2008 02:24:04 GMT Standard Time, > Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes: > > [Nige1] > I am afraid that there will be a substantial minority of > directors, who, like Paul Lamford and Alain Gottcheiner, reject > arguments based on the balance of probability. > > [lamford] Not so. For a bid to be demonstrably suggested, I offered the > opinion that a split view as to whether it was suggested at all made it seem > improbable that it was demonstrably suggested. There is nothing much wrong with > the word *demonstrably*. Let us say that LHO opens 5C and partner passes after > a BIT, greater than that allowed. RHO passes. Partner must have been > considering bidding or doubling. I would say that the bid that caters for the hand > partner is most likely to have for a BIT is the one that is demonstrably > suggested. Assuming of course that our bid is not automatic. So the balance of > probability comes into the equation very strongly. > I never said probability wasn't to be used - or tell me where. I said that possibility alone doesn't suffice and that what some called obvious suggestions were not. For example, if partner hesistates before answering 1NT (NF) to your 1S opening bid, it is possible that he has quite a weak hand, or that he has a near-2/1, or that he didn't want to bid 2S on 3(334) pattern. All of these are possible. If RHO overcalls 2D, they suggest different actions (pass / double / 2S), but none should be disallowed, because none is demonstrably suggested. What I opposed to is the claim that the underbid is nearly always the most probable explanation, whence demonstrably suggested, leading to disallowing action. This looked to me like the argument of somebody who wanted to disallow bidding on principle. I claimed that, when the bidding goes 1S - 3S (limit) after BIT, you can't tell whether it meant 2? or 3?. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 19 10:57:57 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:57:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <000e01c8b98e$711279f0$eec9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > In a message dated 18/05/2008 09:34:27 GMT Standard Time, > gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: > > [paul lamford] > And note that one can select any bid that it is not a logical > alternative without penalty. The wording is quite specific: > > [grattan] > +=+ This is a very bold assertion. It overlooks the fact > that Law 73C may be adjudged to apply. Law 73C is > not limited to choices between logical alternatives. > > [paul lamford] > Surely Law 16B, which precisely defines what action one must take during > the > auction when one has extraneous information from partner, is to be used > for > interpreting breaches of Law 73C which apply to the auction. Your > suggestion > that someone who conforms during the auction exactly with the detailed > Law > 16B could then be punished under the more general 73C, because you or > another > TD do not like the way he is has used the Law, is contrary to the way law > normally works. You are saying, in effect, "Oh it doesn't matter that Law > 16B is > wrongly worded, as we will use 73C to get round it." Why have 16B there > at > all if it is not to define the partner's obligations during the auction? > > For example, there will be a general law which states that robbery is an > offence. There will, no doubt, be further laws which define what > constitutes > robbery. If someone, for example, stole something which happened to belong > to > himself although he did not know it, it would be wrong to decide that this > constituted robbery if the definition of robbery specifically excluded > such an > occurrence. > +=+ Law 73C is a general prohibition in the strongest terms of taking advantage in any way from unauthorized information received from partner. Law 16B is not a qualification or limitation of that prohibition; it deals with the specific question within that field of choices among logical alternatives. 73C is enough on its own to deny what 16B denies but this aspect of the subject is sufficiently complex and of a frequency to justify , in the legislator's opinion, the additional attention given to it in the laws now and in the past. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 19 11:25:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:25:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit References: Message-ID: <002c01c8b994$4cab4410$eec9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit At 6:03 AM -0400 5/17/08, Gampas at aol.com wrote: Whilst agreeing that the AC decision was routine, I see no problem with taking into account the experience of the players in deciding on an AWMW (which I presume is equivalent to a lost deposit in the UK). > It is not quite the same. It is only a warning -- there are no financial consequences. If a player amasses three of these warnings within a certain span of time then he will be called upon to account for his actions before the Appeals and Charges Committee, which may choose to assess a penalty. I don't know what kind of penalty might be assessed, since as far as I know it has never happened. > I never worry when I receive an AWMW. It's invariably a case where I think my side ought to have prevailed, and I'm always delighted to have the chance to tell my sad story to a new audience. > In the English system I would think anyone who posts a deposit must be prepared to lose it, so I would again base the decision solely on the merit, if any. of the appeal. > +=+ I believe these regional variations of practice reflect variations of bridge culture. The terms in which the 2007 Law 92A is set could enable such variations to flourish. A 'sanction' may evidently be a warning, a monetary fine, or a penalty in the final scoring of the event. Less obviously a Regulating Authority could determine, for example, that if a contestant makes an appeal that in the opinion of the TAC lacks merit in the extreme, any further appeal during the tournament from the same contestant shall be heard summarily by the Director in charge. It would be within the power of the ACBL to say that such a sanction may be applied to a contestant to whom an AWMW is awarded, or the EBU could open up the possibility of such a decision by a TAC when retaining a deposit. (My object here is exposure of the law, not advocacy.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 19 15:10:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 09:10:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 17, 2008, at 6:03 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Adam] > 1. An AWMW is a judgment about the appeal, not the appellants. If the > panel finds the appeal lacks merit, they ought to assess a penalty. > The pair will learn at least as much with an AWMW as without one. If > they have indeed learned, they'll accumulate no more warnings and > will > have no need for concern. The criterion for being experienced > enough to > accept a penalty is being experienced enough to file an appeal. > > IMO, if The appeals adviser thinks you have no case, you insist on > proceeding anyway, and the committee unanimously uphold the > director's > decision, then an AMWM may be justified, even against relative tyros. > > [lamford] > Whilst agreeing that the AC decision was routine, I see no problem > with > taking into account the experience of the players in deciding on > an AWMW (which I > presume is equivalent to a lost deposit in the UK). And the converse: If the appeals advisor thinks you have a case and advises you to proceed, that should provide immunity from an appeal without merit finding. > [Adam] > 2. I see no merit to the appeal. Yes, 4H might have gone down fewer, > but laws do not give the offenders the benefit of the doubt and in > any > case, there was likely little or no difference between -300 and -200. > > [lamford] > I agree with Nige1 that if the AC awards a more favourable result > for the > appellants, this should automically mean that the appeal is with > merit. I find > it worrying that someone would think differently. Is it not > fundamental to > any appeal system in any sport that partial success means the > appeal is > justified? There should be no appeal without merit finding any time the committee finds fault with the director's ruling, even if the adjustment is not in the appelant's favor. An appeals committee should not hold a player to a higher standard of knowledge of the laws than that required of the least knowledgeable member of the directing staff. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon May 19 15:18:09 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 14:18:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: <48313C70.20304@ulb.ac.be> References: <48313C70.20304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48317E11.6000302@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I said that possibility alone doesn't suffice and that what some called obvious suggestions were not. For example, if partner hesistates before answering 1NT (NF) to your 1S opening bid, it is possible that he has quite a weak hand, or that he has a near-2/1, or that he didn't want to bid 2S on 3(334) pattern. All of these are possible. If RHO overcalls 2D, they suggest different actions (pass / double / 2S), but none should be disallowed, because none is demonstrably suggested. What I opposed to is the claim that the underbid is nearly always the most probable explanation, whence demonstrably suggested, leading to disallowing action. This looked to me like the argument of somebody who wanted to disallow bidding on principle. I claimed that, when the bidding goes 1S - 3S (limit) after BIT, you can't tell whether it meant 2? or 3?. [Nige1] I seem to remember an argument that, in Bridge Law, "provably" is a near synonym for "demonstrably. But I would rather move on to the current more interesting argument... As usual, let us make the (sensible but usually unwarranted) assumption: that the director asks peers of the alleged offender to judge what the unauthorised information suggests, *without* telling them what action was chosen or would be successful. In a seemingly 50-50 case, when the peers of the AO (alleged offender) are considering what was suggested, may they use knowledge of the AO's idiosyncracies? Take Alain's example 1S - 3S (limit) after hesitation. Opener now has a borderline decision between passing 3S and bidding 4S. Suppose that: [A] AO is a notorious overbidder. If he tanks then bids 3S, his hand is probably worth 2?S. Hence the BIT suggests that opener passes. [B] AO is a notorious underbidder. If he tanks then bids 3S, he probably has a hand worth 3?S or more. Hence the BIT clearly suggests 4S. Controversially, If the AO is an expert, you may take this argument further -- even without any other knowledge of the player. An expert, after lengthy contemplation of a decision will realise that his hesitation may compromise his ethical partner, so he is likely to resolve his dilemma by taking action himself. Arguably, if he passes, instead, the inference is that game is unlikely. The unpalatable truth is that in an experienced partnership, the AO will be able to guess the reason for partner's BIT better than another player or director. Put him out of his misery. Shoot him! :) From Gampas at aol.com Mon May 19 16:37:23 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:37:23 EDT Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: In a message dated 19/05/2008 09:58:42 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: +=+ Law 73C is a general prohibition in the strongest terms of taking advantage in any way from unauthorized information received from partner. Law 16B is not a qualification or limitation of that prohibition; it deals with the specific question within that field of choices among logical alternatives. 73C is enough on its own to deny what 16B denies but this aspect of the subject is sufficiently complex and of a frequency to justify , in the legislator's opinion, the additional attention given to it in the laws now and in the past. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [paul lamford] Law 73C can be used to address the deficiency in Law 16B, and I am also happy that the intended meaning of Law16B is that any selected bid has to meet the requirements of not taking advantage of unauthorised information. But a better solution is to correct Law 16B. This is the most likely place for a TD to start as the section does have the heading LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION. If the wrong wording is corrected the TD would get the right answer without having to turn to 73C which is not referred to in the usual way, such as "but see 73C". There is also an illogical conflict between 16B1 and 16A2: [16B1] the partner shall may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. [16A2] When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. In one case we have the obligation on the player only not to choose among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information, but the director gets called whenever he chooses any action (whether a logical alternative or not) which could have been suggested by such information. And necessarily as well, as the TD may indeed need to use 73C to address the deficiency of 16B1. For consistency the wording of 16B1 should conform with 16A2. And we all know what is intended. I fail to see the problem with correcting the wording to something along the lines of that suggested by [grabiner]: The correct wording should be, "the partner may not choose a bid that could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information." _________________________________________________________________ Rating Report Ltd 51 Kynaston Road London N16 0EB Tel: 0207 249 7795/7575 Fax: 0207 249 8825 Email: ratingreport at aol.com Web: www.ratingreport.com Registered in England. Registered number 4367893 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 20 02:01:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 10:01:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] L27 question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>OK. Have we then settled that the TD must learn South's intention >>and base his ruling on that? David Burn: >I don't see why he should. Sherlock Holmes (in "A Scandal in Bohemia"): "You see, but you do not observe." David Burn: >Indeed, it seems to me quite sensible (insofar as any of the new Law >27 is sensible, which is not very far at all) for the bidding to go > >South "2NT" >West "Pass" >North "2D" >East "Director" >Director "Yes?" >East "North has...[explains auction]" >Director "So I see. Well, North had better... [reads Law 27]" >North: "3D". > >Now, no one knows any more than they need to know, [snip] Richard Hills: The not-quite-sensible flaw in David's argument is that the Director knows _less_ than she needs to know. The Director does not know whether to rule that South must pass for the rest of the auction (Law 27B2), or whether to rule that South may bid (Law 27B1). 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 Tue May 20 03:46:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 02:46:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <003a01c8ba1b$6e5de630$f6c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > In a message dated 19/05/2008 09:58:42 GMT Standard Time, > gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: > > +=+ Law 73C is a general prohibition in the strongest > terms of taking advantage in any way from unauthorized > information received from partner. Law 16B is not a > qualification or limitation of that prohibition; it deals with > the specific question within that field of choices among > logical alternatives. 73C is enough on its own to deny > what 16B denies but this aspect of the subject is > sufficiently complex and of a frequency to justify , in the > legislator's opinion, the additional attention given to it in > the laws now and in the past. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > [paul lamford] > Law 73C can be used to address the deficiency in Law 16B, and I am also > happy that the intended meaning of Law16B is that any selected bid has to > meet > the requirements of not taking advantage of unauthorised information. But > a > better solution is to correct Law 16B. This is the most likely place for > a TD to > start as the section does have the heading LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND > UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION. If the wrong wording is corrected the TD would > get the right > answer without having to turn to 73C which is not referred to in the > usual > way, such as "but see 73C". > > There is also an illogical conflict between 16B1 and 16A2: > > [16B1] the partner shall may not choose from among logical > alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > by the > extraneous information. > > [16A2] When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent > who > had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been > suggested > by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. > > In one case we have the obligation on the player only not to choose among > logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over > another by the extraneous information, but the director gets called > whenever he > chooses any action (whether a logical alternative or not) which could > have been > suggested by such information. And necessarily as well, as the TD may > indeed > need to use 73C to address the deficiency of 16B1. > > For consistency the wording of 16B1 should conform with 16A2. And we all > know what is intended. I fail to see the problem with correcting the > wording to > something along the lines of that suggested by [grabiner]: > > The correct wording should be, "the partner may not choose a bid that > could > demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the > extraneous > information." > +=+ The ban is on use of a logical alternative that could demonstrably have been... etc" and this is a judgement for the Director/TAC. A player who has substantial reason to believe etc... should summon the Director. Whether he has 'substantial reason to believe' is something the player must judge and his belief may turn out to be an erroneous belief. The distinction was deliberate. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 20 03:46:20 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:46:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] The House of Peers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >>If you don't buy that another is to look at the 2007 Laws' >>definition of LA as one that "would be given serious >>consideration by a significant proportion of such players, >>of whom it is judged some might select it." Since a >>player must be his own ultimate peer, any action he >>chooses is ipso facto a LA. Paul Lamford: >This is not an interpretation that anyone I asked made of >the "player's peers". And I can find no usage in English >where "peers" includes the person himself and that >suggestion is just a corruption of the English language. W.S. Gilbert, "Iolanthe": The House of Peers, throughout the war, Did nothing in particular, And did it very well. Richard Hills: Paul is arguing on a false premise, since the word "peers" is absent from the 2007 Law 16B1(b). Instead the phrase, "class of players in question" is used. And even Bertrand Russell would agree that a player belongs to their own class of players. Ergo, the actual call chosen by the player would be chosen by at least one member of their class of players, which provides significant Law 85A1 evidence towards a Law 16B1(b) ruling that "judged some might select it". 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 May 20 04:01:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:01:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48313C70.20304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >I claimed that, when the bidding goes 1S - 3S (limit) after >BIT, you can't tell whether it meant 2? or 3?. Richard Hills: While an external observer may not be able to tell, if my partner Dorothy was the hesitator it would demonstrably suggest 3?, while if I was instead partnering Klavs the hesitation would demonstrably suggest 2?. (Dorothy is terrified that she will further enthuse my already wildly optimistic temperament, while I have parallel fears about Klavs' optimism.) So partnering Dorothy Law 73C requires me to pass 3S, scoring +230, but partnering Klavs Law 73C means that I must raise to 4S, scoring -300. 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 Tue May 20 04:42:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 03:42:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <005f01c8ba23$1cdac460$f6c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott [paul lamford] > It is not worded poorly; it is just wrong, let's face it. > But I completely agree that the intended meaning is > what you suggest. And is not the purpose of this > forum to try to correct the Laws so that they mean > what they are intended to mean, nothing more, > nothing less? > (and previously) > Surely Law 16B, which precisely defines what > action one must take during the auction when one > has extraneous information from partner, is to be > used for interpreting breaches of Law 73C which > apply to the auction. Your suggestion that someone > who conforms during the auction exactly with the > detailed Law 16B could then be punished under > the more general 73C, < +=+ Your understanding of the Law is not correct. Law 16B tells you that you may not do a certain thing. There is no precise definition of what action you must take. To say that you comply exactly with the detailed Law is merely to say that you have avoided a violation of this specific ban. Your responsibility and the full requirement laid upon you is to "avoid carefully taking *any* advantage" from the UI conveyed by partner. And , no, it is not a function of this forum to try to correct the laws so that they mean what they are intended to mean. This forum has no such status. It may be observed, however, that in Law 16B1(a), sixth line, 'from among logical alternatives' refers back to 'call or play' in line two. (The basic statement of the law may be perceived by omitting 'from example' etc. through to 'or mannerism'.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 20 04:42:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 03:42:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <005f01c8ba23$1cdac460$f6c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott [paul lamford] > It is not worded poorly; it is just wrong, let's face it. > But I completely agree that the intended meaning is > what you suggest. And is not the purpose of this > forum to try to correct the Laws so that they mean > what they are intended to mean, nothing more, > nothing less? > (and previously) > Surely Law 16B, which precisely defines what > action one must take during the auction when one > has extraneous information from partner, is to be > used for interpreting breaches of Law 73C which > apply to the auction. Your suggestion that someone > who conforms during the auction exactly with the > detailed Law 16B could then be punished under > the more general 73C, < +=+ Your understanding of the Law is not correct. Law 16B tells you that you may not do a certain thing. There is no precise definition of what action you must take. To say that you comply exactly with the detailed Law is merely to say that you have avoided a violation of this specific ban. Your responsibility and the full requirement laid upon you is to "avoid carefully taking *any* advantage" from the UI conveyed by partner. And , no, it is not a function of this forum to try to correct the laws so that they mean what they are intended to mean. This forum has no such status. It may be observed, however, that in Law 16B1(a), sixth line, 'from among logical alternatives' refers back to 'call or play' in line two. (The basic statement of the law may be perceived by omitting 'from example' etc. through to 'or mannerism'.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 20 07:40:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:40:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Said cunning old Fury [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002c01c8b994$4cab4410$eec9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I believe these regional variations of practice reflect >variations of bridge culture. The terms in which the 2007 Law 92A is >set could enable such variations to flourish. A 'sanction' may >evidently be a warning, a monetary fine, or a penalty in the final >scoring of the event. > >Less obviously a Regulating Authority could determine, for example, >that if a contestant makes an appeal that in the opinion of the TAC >lacks merit in the extreme, any further appeal during the tournament >from the same contestant shall be heard summarily by the Director in >charge. It would be within the power of the ACBL to say that such >a sanction may be applied to a contestant to whom an AWMW is >awarded, or the EBU could open up the possibility of such a decision >by a TAC when retaining a deposit. (My object here is exposure of >the law, not advocacy.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: In my opinion, "less obviously" is an understatement. Once a 2007 Law 92A "sanction" becomes a modification of all future appeals processes for that player for the rest of the tournament, it seems to me that that appeals process modification means that the 2007 Law 92A ceases to apply, with the relevant Law now the 2007 Law 93C3(b): "With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws.* * The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action." It also seems to me that if the ABF Regulating Authority decided to hypothetically require that an appeal from the Director in charge's ruling was to be summarily heard by the Director in charge, then such a hypothetical ABF regulation may fail to comply with Aussie national laws. (Such as those Aussie laws defining "natural justice" as including due process, and also avoidance of conflict of interest.) Lewis Carroll: "I'll be judge, I'll be jury" Said cunning old Fury: "I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death." 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 Tue May 20 08:58:27 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 08:58:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19/05/2008, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 19/05/2008 08:04:33 GMT Standard Time, > daisy_duck at btopenworld.com writes: > > I believe that the environment in question was a World or European > Championships. The claimer was, I believe, Helgemo. But with luck DALB can > furnish the details. > > [paul lamford] > I thought the claimer was Hallberg, but I have no further information. > It was indeed Hallberg, playing for England in the Maastricht Olympid. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue May 20 09:02:40 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:02:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: <48317E11.6000302@NTLworld.com> References: <48313C70.20304@ulb.ac.be> <48317E11.6000302@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On 19/05/2008, Guthrie wrote: > [Alain Gottcheiner] > I said that possibility alone doesn't suffice and that what some called > obvious suggestions were not. For example, if partner hesistates before > answering 1NT (NF) to your 1S opening bid, it is possible that he has > quite a weak hand, or that he has a near-2/1, or that he didn't want to > bid 2S on 3(334) pattern. All of these are possible. If RHO overcalls > 2D, they suggest different actions (pass / double / 2S), but none should > be disallowed, because none is demonstrably suggested. > > What I opposed to is the claim that the underbid is nearly always the > most probable explanation, whence demonstrably suggested, leading to > disallowing action. This looked to me like the argument of somebody who > wanted to disallow bidding on principle. I claimed that, when the > bidding goes 1S - 3S (limit) after BIT, you can't tell whether it meant > 2? or 3?. > > [Nige1] > I seem to remember an argument that, in Bridge Law, "provably" is a near > synonym for "demonstrably. But I would rather move on to the current > more interesting argument... > > As usual, let us make the (sensible but usually unwarranted) assumption: > that the director asks peers of the alleged offender to judge what the > unauthorised information suggests, *without* telling them what action > was chosen or would be successful. > > In a seemingly 50-50 case, when the peers of the AO (alleged offender) > are considering what was suggested, may they use knowledge of the AO's > idiosyncracies? > > Take Alain's example 1S - 3S (limit) after hesitation. Opener now has a > borderline decision between passing 3S and bidding 4S. Suppose that: > > [A] AO is a notorious overbidder. If he tanks then bids 3S, his hand is > probably worth 2?S. Hence the BIT suggests that opener passes. > > [B] AO is a notorious underbidder. If he tanks then bids 3S, he probably > has a hand worth 3?S or more. Hence the BIT clearly suggests 4S. > Huh? I'd neither expect a notorious overbidder to tank before doing what he normally does, nor a notorious underbidder to tank before doing what he normally does..... I don't think you can reason like that. > Controversially, If the AO is an expert, you may take this argument > further -- even without any other knowledge of the player. An expert, > after lengthy contemplation of a decision will realise that his > hesitation may compromise his ethical partner, so he is likely to > resolve his dilemma by taking action himself. Arguably, if he passes, > instead, the inference is that game is unlikely. > > The unpalatable truth is that in an experienced partnership, the AO will > be able to guess the reason for partner's BIT better than another player > or director. > > Put him out of his misery. Shoot him! :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue May 20 09:28:01 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 08:28:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze References: Message-ID: <05e801c8ba4b$094a7fd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Harald Skj?ran" > On 19/05/2008, Gampas at aol.com wrote: >> In a message dated 19/05/2008 08:04:33 GMT Standard Time, >> daisy_duck at btopenworld.com writes: >> >> I believe that the environment in question was a World or European >> Championships. The claimer was, I believe, Helgemo. But with luck DALB >> can >> furnish the details. >> >> [paul lamford] >> I thought the claimer was Hallberg, but I have no further information. >> > > It was indeed Hallberg, playing for England in the Maastricht Olympid. Yes, of course it was Hallberg; it would have been someone playing for England. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 20 10:32:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 10:32:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: References: <48313C70.20304@ulb.ac.be> <48317E11.6000302@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48328CB0.8010406@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : (Nigel) >> Take Alain's example 1S - 3S (limit) after hesitation. Opener now has a >> borderline decision between passing 3S and bidding 4S. Suppose that: >> >> [A] AO is a notorious overbidder. If he tanks then bids 3S, his hand is >> probably worth 2?S. Hence the BIT suggests that opener passes. >> >> [B] AO is a notorious underbidder. If he tanks then bids 3S, he probably >> has a hand worth 3?S or more. Hence the BIT clearly suggests 4S. >> >> (Harald) > Huh? I'd neither expect a notorious overbidder to tank before doing > what he normally does, nor a notorious underbidder to tank before > doing what he normally does..... > > I don't think you can reason like that. > (AG) And here I am again, insisting that, if two trained directors and clever guys don't agree, even knowing about the player's tendencies, what his hesitation could suggest, then neither could his partner know, which means no UI. Whatever the exact sense of "demonstrably", surely you can't demonstrate two opposite things from the same starting point. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 20 12:00:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:00:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze In-Reply-To: <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4832A126.2050404@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > JRM: > >> Obligatory BLML content: I think claiming on a double squeeze is fine in >> the right environment. I wouldn't give up a syllable of David Burn's >> writing for anything, but I would not like a Burnian claim system at all. >> (The sheep and chimpanzees line is priceless, but I actually think the law >> writers do a fine job; a little more public input before publication would >> doubtless do some good.) > > SLR: > > I believe that the environment in question was a World or European > Championships. The claimer was, I believe, Helgemo. But with luck DALB can > furnish the details. > It was the Maastricht Olympiad - 2000. Quarter final England (with Gunnar Hallberg as claimer and David Burn at the other table) against Belgium. The silly Belgian asked to play on, rather than call the TD immediately. Then Hallberg misplayed it and the TD and AC took great pride in showing that it is possible to award a claim even after the claimer has shown he could still go down. I doubt if the same outcome had been reached if the TD had been called before the play proceeded. Anyway, the nationality of the appellants prevented me from being present at the AC hearing - it's one of two of the MOST interesting appeals of the past eight years that I was forced to miss because of the silly Belgians (well, they were all francophone, so that might explain a little). > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue May 20 13:55:38 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:55:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze In-Reply-To: <4832A126.2050404@skynet.be> References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4832A126.2050404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c8ba70$6c9ed070$45dc7150$@com> [HdW] It was the Maastricht Olympiad - 2000. Quarter final England (with Gunnar Hallberg as claimer and David Burn at the other table) [DALB] It was in fact the round of sixteen, not the quarter-final. I was not in fact at the other table but in the Vugraph audience, my captain having decided correctly that Callaghan and I had done enough damage to the English cause by playing the first segment. The board in question was the last of the second segment, and the table was under some time pressure, which was why Hallberg sought to speed up proceedings by claiming in a complex ending. His claim was perfectly valid, but the Belgian players (understandably) asked him to play on, so he did and in the general confusion pulled a wrong card. The eventual decision was that the play after the claim should be annulled and the result awarded on the basis of the original claim statement. The contract was four spades, not reached at the other table, and the upshot of the ruling was that England gained seven IMPs in a match that they eventually won by six. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 20 14:39:33 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:39:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <003e01c8ba78$85b0fdb0$c9d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze The sheep and chimpanzees line is priceless, but I actually think the law writers do a fine job; a little more public input before publication would doubtless do some good. > +=+ Kind. Thank you in behalf of my colleagues. The language as it is written is the consensus position. There is a massive difficulty in throwing the consultation process open to the world at large and we eventually settled on filtering public opinion through the NBOs. (Even at that there was dissent, split, but in the main not inclined toward throwing the door open more widely.) A certain amount of historical comment on blml had been retained and was put to the drafting committee. Some fourteen NBOs responded to our invitations for their input, plus the Portland Club, the ACBL, and two other Zonal representatives. We had the benefit, in my opinion, of the 'interested' parties and some of the input was very detailed. There were conflicts of opinion in the comments received, and anyway some of the opinion did not find favour among the majority of the drafting committee. In a practical sense, although I - and others - did not get our way severally in certain aspects of the final text, I do believe we can work with it. Even more practically we must face the fact that it ain't now gonna change, so we had better get on with it. I am greatly encouraged to learn that one of our English officials is currently in Botswana responding to a request for assistance in setting up TD training in the new laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 20 14:39:33 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:39:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <003e01c8ba78$85b0fdb0$c9d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze The sheep and chimpanzees line is priceless, but I actually think the law writers do a fine job; a little more public input before publication would doubtless do some good. > +=+ Kind. Thank you in behalf of my colleagues. The language as it is written is the consensus position. There is a massive difficulty in throwing the consultation process open to the world at large and we eventually settled on filtering public opinion through the NBOs. (Even at that there was dissent, split, but in the main not inclined toward throwing the door open more widely.) A certain amount of historical comment on blml had been retained and was put to the drafting committee. Some fourteen NBOs responded to our invitations for their input, plus the Portland Club, the ACBL, and two other Zonal representatives. We had the benefit, in my opinion, of the 'interested' parties and some of the input was very detailed. There were conflicts of opinion in the comments received, and anyway some of the opinion did not find favour among the majority of the drafting committee. In a practical sense, although I - and others - did not get our way severally in certain aspects of the final text, I do believe we can work with it. Even more practically we must face the fact that it ain't now gonna change, so we had better get on with it. I am greatly encouraged to learn that one of our English officials is currently in Botswana responding to a request for assistance in setting up TD training in the new laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Tue May 20 16:00:44 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 10:00:44 EDT Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: > [paul lamford] > It is not worded poorly; it is just wrong, let's face it. > But I completely agree that the intended meaning is > what you suggest. And is not the purpose of this > forum to try to correct the Laws so that they mean > what they are intended to mean, nothing more, > nothing less? > (and previously) > Surely Law 16B, which precisely defines what > action one must take during the auction when one > has extraneous information from partner, is to be > used for interpreting breaches of Law 73C which > apply to the auction. Your suggestion that someone > who conforms during the auction exactly with the > detailed Law 16B could then be punished under > the more general 73C, < [gesta] +=+ Your understanding of the Law is not correct. Law 16B tells you that you may not do a certain thing. There is no precise definition of what action you must take. To say that you comply exactly with the detailed Law is merely to say that you have avoided a violation of this specific ban. [lamford There is often an assumption in Law that indicating that you must do a certain thing in certain circumstances implies that you do not need to do so if those circumstances are not present. I once parked near Arsenal stadium in a bay marked "Street Trader's Pitch. No Parking on Match Days". I successfully argued that there was an implication that parking was allowed on other days, and won my appeal against a ticket in the Parking Tribunal against Islington Council. I do not accept your interpretation in the last sentence. Richard Hills argues that the class of players includes the player making the call. There is an implication surely that the benchmark is players not receiving the UI, which does not include the player. In addition, "some" in the last sentence must mean more than one. Therefore if no other person selects the bid, as in our example of Axx Axxx Axx Axx opening 3NT third in hand, this argument fails. [gesta] Your responsibility and the full requirement laid upon you is to "avoid carefully taking *any* advantage" from the UI conveyed by partner. [lamford] This is agreed. My main point however, is that the wording of 16b1 can be bettter, should be better, and objections to making it better are contrived. [gesta] And , no, it is not a function of this forum to try to correct the laws so that they mean what they are intended to mean. This forum has no such status. [lamford] I agree that the forum has no official status at all. I would hope however, that errors in the laws pointed out by members of the forum can lead to better wording in future. I accept that all views on this forum can be ignored if desired. [gesta] It may be observed, however, that in Law 16B1(a), sixth line, 'from among logical alternatives' refers back to 'call or play' in line two. (The basic statement of the law may be perceived by omitting 'from example' etc. through to 'or mannerism'.) [lamford] It still means exactly the same, as omitting a correctly placed expkanatory clause normally does. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Tue May 20 16:09:07 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 10:09:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie><4832A126.2050404@skynet.be> <000001c8ba70$6c9ed070$45dc7150$@com> Message-ID: Thank you, David, for the facts as they really occurred. There was nothing "silly" about the defender's demand that play continue nor of any other aspect of this ruling --- but since that was posted by Herman it is no surprise. As we all know (or should know) the law has been changed so that the TD may take into account play after the claim in violation of Law 68D. In this instance the defender was aware of the validity of the claim at the time it was made, and there was no reason to continue play except that the declarer might make a mistake in executing the claim -- possibly a spurious reason according to the law to hope for a mistake or revoke. That principle still exists, but is ameliorated by the new law provision when both sides violate the law by not calling the TD at the mandated time. (Law 70D3). What would have happened had the TD been properly called and had no further action taken place, is that the TD would have tasked the declarer to fully explain the claim, and also find that the defender was in agreement with the validity of the claim. I agree, with what since then has been loudly trumpeted, that in the case of a complex situation a form of "play continues" is most desirable. However with World Level Players in a World Championship as opposed to much lower level of play I continue to believe that strict adherence to the laws is required. "Complex" remains in the 'mind' of the beholder. Please note, particularly TDs who aspire to or direct international competitions, that players' nationality is mostly extraneous, serves to muddy the waters with "facts", and rarely an involved consideration. However, I also know there are those who feel the need to interject historic animosities at any and all opportunities to give weight to their arguments. Winning, ranking, accolades, etc., are proper 'national' rights in international play; treating the contestants as players, defenders, declarers, and often dummies has the good effect of focusing on the facts of the game at the table concerned. I'm certain that in this case, had the nationalities been reversed, the TD ruling would have been the same, and offended that anyone would even consider otherwise. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze > [HdW] > > It was the Maastricht Olympiad - 2000. Quarter final England (with Gunnar > Hallberg as claimer and David Burn at the other table) > > [DALB] > > It was in fact the round of sixteen, not the quarter-final. I was not in > fact at the other table but in the Vugraph audience, my captain having > decided correctly that Callaghan and I had done enough damage to the > English > cause by playing the first segment. The board in question was the last of > the second segment, and the table was under some time pressure, which was > why Hallberg sought to speed up proceedings by claiming in a complex > ending. > His claim was perfectly valid, but the Belgian players (understandably) > asked him to play on, so he did and in the general confusion pulled a > wrong > card. > > The eventual decision was that the play after the claim should be annulled > and the result awarded on the basis of the original claim statement. The > contract was four spades, not reached at the other table, and the upshot > of > the ruling was that England gained seven IMPs in a match that they > eventually won by six. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue May 20 16:23:16 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:23:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] enquiry spring national, Detroit, commentaries Message-ID: <4832DED4.1040409@aol.com> Hola blmlers! Does anyone out there know when the commentaries of the expert panel will finally be published? (Or why it is taking so long?) And, when they are available it would be most appreciated (at least by me) if that could be noted in a blml posting with coordinates of the site where they can be found. Or have they already appeared? I may have misunderstood but a posting by Eric (I think it was from him) semed to me to imply that they were already available. Ahoy, JE From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue May 20 16:48:19 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:48:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze In-Reply-To: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie><4832A126.2050404@skynet.be> <000001c8ba70$6c9ed070$45dc7150$@com> References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie><4832A126.2050404@skynet.be> <000001c8ba70$6c9ed070$45dc7150$@com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "David Burn" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 06:55 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze > [HdW] > > It was the Maastricht Olympiad - 2000. Quarter final England (with Gunnar > Hallberg as claimer and David Burn at the other table) > > [DALB] > > It was in fact the round of sixteen, not the quarter-final. I was not in > fact at the other table but in the Vugraph audience, my captain having > decided correctly that Callaghan and I had done enough damage to the > English > cause by playing the first segment. The board in question was the last of > the second segment, and the table was under some time pressure, which was > why Hallberg sought to speed up proceedings by claiming in a complex > ending. > His claim was perfectly valid, If my recollection of the analysis is correct it was claimed [among other things] that if** E held the black suits a Double Squeeze*** would operate. So on that basis, after the last 2 H, and 2 C, and the SAK E will be holding the master S and C while N will ostensibly come down to DA Cx While W will hold the D guard. imo that sheds a dubious light upon [a] the validity of the claim (either in fact or in law) and [b] claimer's class of player on this hand- there being disavowed corroboration. ** placing a conditional qualification whereby a fact not in evidence [ref L70E] is the basis of assuming [as distinct from knowing] claimer has been and will pay perfect attention and is assumed [as distinct from knowing] to have perfect recall, as well as the skill to use the information. *** as follows [quote claimer AFTER he saw all the cards] The two top spades would then force West to unguard one of the minors, after which North would pitch the minor West kept. regards roger pewick > but the Belgian players (understandably) > asked him to play on, so he did and in the general confusion pulled a > wrong > card. > The eventual decision was that the play after the claim should be annulled > and the result awarded on the basis of the original claim statement. The > contract was four spades, not reached at the other table, and the upshot > of > the ruling was that England gained seven IMPs in a match that they > eventually won by six. > > David Burn > London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 20 17:18:08 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:18:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze In-Reply-To: References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie><4832A126.2050404@skynet.be> <000001c8ba70$6c9ed070$45dc7150$@com> Message-ID: <4832EBB0.2070206@ulb.ac.be> Roger Pewick a ?crit : > If my recollection of the analysis is correct it was claimed [among other > things] that if** E held the black suits a Double Squeeze*** would operate. > So on that basis, after the last 2 H, and 2 C, and the SAK E will be holding > the master S and C while N will ostensibly come down to DA Cx While W will > hold the D guard. > > I don't know the case in detail, but how can a squeeze operate on somebody who holds master cards in both suits ? > imo that sheds a dubious light upon [a] the validity of the claim (either in > fact or in law) and [b] claimer's class of player on this hand- there being > disavowed corroboration. > > > ** placing a conditional qualification whereby a fact not in evidence [ref > L70E] is the basis of assuming [as distinct from knowing] claimer has been > and will pay perfect attention and is assumed [as distinct from knowing] to > have perfect recall, as well as the skill to use the information. > > *** as follows [quote claimer AFTER he saw all the cards] The two top spades > would then force West to unguard one of the minors, after which North would > pitch the minor West kept. > That's what makes the claim suspect. How can declarer know how many cards West held in those two suits ? Has he a complete count ? From all he said, it seems that he hadn't ("if E holds both black suites").. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 20 17:24:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:24:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim Message-ID: <4832ED15.4000005@ulb.ac.be> Matchpoints, these are the declares's side's hands : x Axxx x 10xxxx AKQJxxxx x QJx AKxx West opens 3NT and plays there. After the spade lead, West says : "I take all my diamonds, then 4 club tricks, and you may have the last one". The problem is, after taking a spade, eight diamonds and one club, there is no trick to be given. a) Did declarer concede a trick ? b) If he did, does his description of the play take precedence over the number of tricks claimed ? c) Do we have to understand "when a trick can't be lost by any normal play" as "... any normal play compatible with the description given" ? Thank you for your help. Alain From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Tue May 20 17:35:17 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:35:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie><4832A126.2050404@skynet.be><000001c8ba70$6c9ed070$45dc7150$@com> Message-ID: <001501c8ba8f$1eb69130$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Thanks to the Suisse federation the hand can be seen in Appeal 16 here. http://www.bridgefederation.ch/maastrict.htm Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Pewick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "David Burn" > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 06:55 > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze > >> [HdW] >> >> It was the Maastricht Olympiad - 2000. Quarter final England (with Gunnar >> Hallberg as claimer and David Burn at the other table) >> >> [DALB] >> >> It was in fact the round of sixteen, not the quarter-final. I was not in >> fact at the other table but in the Vugraph audience, my captain having >> decided correctly that Callaghan and I had done enough damage to the >> English >> cause by playing the first segment. The board in question was the last of >> the second segment, and the table was under some time pressure, which was >> why Hallberg sought to speed up proceedings by claiming in a complex >> ending. > >> His claim was perfectly valid, > > If my recollection of the analysis is correct it was claimed [among other > things] that if** E held the black suits a Double Squeeze*** would > operate. > So on that basis, after the last 2 H, and 2 C, and the SAK E will be > holding > the master S and C while N will ostensibly come down to DA Cx While W will > hold the D guard. > > imo that sheds a dubious light upon [a] the validity of the claim (either > in > fact or in law) and [b] claimer's class of player on this hand- there > being > disavowed corroboration. > > > ** placing a conditional qualification whereby a fact not in evidence [ref > L70E] is the basis of assuming [as distinct from knowing] claimer has > been > and will pay perfect attention and is assumed [as distinct from knowing] > to > have perfect recall, as well as the skill to use the information. > > *** as follows [quote claimer AFTER he saw all the cards] The two top > spades > would then force West to unguard one of the minors, after which North > would > pitch the minor West kept. > > regards > roger pewick > >> but the Belgian players (understandably) >> asked him to play on, so he did and in the general confusion pulled a >> wrong >> card. > >> The eventual decision was that the play after the claim should be >> annulled >> and the result awarded on the basis of the original claim statement. The >> contract was four spades, not reached at the other table, and the upshot >> of >> the ruling was that England gained seven IMPs in a match that they >> eventually won by six. >> >> David Burn >> London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date: 19/05/2008 17:04 From jrmayne at mindspring.com Tue May 20 18:04:07 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:04:07 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim Message-ID: <18406100.1211299447190.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Sent: May 20, 2008 8:24 AM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim > >Matchpoints, these are the declares's side's hands : > > >x Axxx >x 10xxxx >AKQJxxxx x >QJx AKxx > >West opens 3NT and plays there. After the spade lead, West says : "I >take all my diamonds, then 4 club tricks, and you may have the last one". > >The problem is, after taking a spade, eight diamonds and one club, there >is no trick to be given. > >a) Did declarer concede a trick ? Yes. > >b) If he did, does his description of the play take precedence over the >number of tricks claimed ? Yes. Or maybe not. But it doesn't matter; see below. > >c) Do we have to understand "when a trick can't be lost by any normal >play" as "... any normal play compatible with the description given" ? > This a question we've handled before, but I'm not sure there's a satisfactory answer. The Bridge World had a hand where declarer had to play close to this suit combo: JT9873 AQ6542 for no losers. Declarer led the jack, saw the outshow, and conceded a trick to the SK. Enmity ensued all around; dummy called the director and the director said declarer got to keep his well earned down one. The committee ruled that the spade king could not be lost by normal play. The author of the piece thought this was the worst ruling in recorded history; I submit that the law is fatally flawed on this. I think that the "compatible with the description given" should be in the laws, but its failure of inclusion appears deliberate. (I sent Jeff Rubens a note on this; he said he'd never considered the issue and would forward my note to the author.) In this case, declarer's claim statement will result in 13 tricks either way - both his claim statement and normal play get 13. But the issue of not forcing declarer to play according to his claim statement results in unnecessarily goofy rulings. --JRM >Thank you for your help. > > Alain > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 20 18:04:59 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:04:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Consult the people. Message-ID: <001401c8ba94$56e1bda0$01ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <001101c8ba9b$3ed93a60$35ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The House of Peers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > Paul is arguing on a false premise, since the word "peers" > is absent from the 2007 Law 16B1(b). Instead the phrase, > "class of players in question" is used. And even Bertrand > Russell would agree that a player belongs to their own > class of players. > +=+ Or not, as the case may be. (Russell's Paradox (1901) represents either of two interrelated logical antinomies. The most commonly discussed form is a contradiction arising in the logic of sets or classes. Some classes (or sets) seem to be members of themselves, while some do not. The class of all classes is itself a class, and so it seems to be in itself. The null or empty class, however, must not be a member of itself. However, suppose that we can form a class of all classes (or sets) that, like the null class, are not included in themselves. The paradox arises from asking the question of whether this class is in itself. It is if and only if it is not. The other form is a contradiction involving properties. Some properties seem to apply to themselves, while others do not. The property of being a property is itself a property, while the property of being a cat is not itself a cat. Consider the property that something has just in case it is a property (like that of being a cat) that does not apply to itself. Does this property apply to itself? Once again, from either assumption, the opposite follows. +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 20 19:02:08 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:02:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] The House of Peers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001101c8ba9b$3ed93a60$35ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The House of Peers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > Paul is arguing on a false premise, since the word "peers" > is absent from the 2007 Law 16B1(b). Instead the phrase, > "class of players in question" is used. And even Bertrand > Russell would agree that a player belongs to their own > class of players. > +=+ Or not, as the case may be. (Russell's Paradox (1901) represents either of two interrelated logical antinomies. The most commonly discussed form is a contradiction arising in the logic of sets or classes. Some classes (or sets) seem to be members of themselves, while some do not. The class of all classes is itself a class, and so it seems to be in itself. The null or empty class, however, must not be a member of itself. However, suppose that we can form a class of all classes (or sets) that, like the null class, are not included in themselves. The paradox arises from asking the question of whether this class is in itself. It is if and only if it is not. The other form is a contradiction involving properties. Some properties seem to apply to themselves, while others do not. The property of being a property is itself a property, while the property of being a cat is not itself a cat. Consider the property that something has just in case it is a property (like that of being a cat) that does not apply to itself. Does this property apply to itself? Once again, from either assumption, the opposite follows. +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 20 19:12:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:12:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim In-Reply-To: <4832ED15.4000005@ulb.ac.be> References: <4832ED15.4000005@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On May 20, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Matchpoints, these are the declares's side's hands : > > > x Axxx > x 10xxxx > AKQJxxxx x > QJx AKxx > > West opens 3NT and plays there. After the spade lead, West says : "I > take all my diamonds, then 4 club tricks, and you may have the last > one". > > The problem is, after taking a spade, eight diamonds and one club, > there > is no trick to be given. > > a) Did declarer concede a trick ? Probably, theoretically, but if so it is cancelled (L71). > b) If he did, does his description of the play take precedence over > the > number of tricks claimed ? Yes. It obviously does when he overclaims, so it must, similarly, when he underclaims. > c) Do we have to understand "when a trick can't be lost by any normal > play" as "... any normal play compatible with the description given" ? Yes. Otherwise the fact that a claimer made a claim statement would not be relevant to the (L71.2) ruling, which can't be right. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 20 19:57:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:57:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Consult the people. In-Reply-To: <001401c8ba94$56e1bda0$01ca403e@Mildred> References: <001401c8ba94$56e1bda0$01ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On May 20, 2008, at 12:04 PM, wrote: > 7. To complete this scenario I need to find an example case > in which it transpires that the additional (lawful) information > actually proves beneficial to the offending side to the extent > that they are able to obtain a result which (probably/possibly) > could not have been obtained without such assistance (as > distinct from blind luck). In other words I am seeking an > example adjustment under Law 27D, and to what more fertile > population than inhabits this place could I address an invitation > to produce one? Player holding 3-4-3-3 with opening values attempts to open 1H (promising 4+), and is informed that the auction has gone 1S-P-. 1H is not accepted, and he chooses to bid a non-systemic 2H, which shows a game force with 5+ hearts. The auction (opponents silent) proceeds 1S-2H-3H-3S-4H-P. IBer's normal call over 1S would be 2C (game force with 4+ clubs or exactly 3-4-3-3), in which case the (systemic) auction would most likely have been 1S-2C-2D-2S-4S, but IBer could not bid 2C here, as his partner would have been barred. 4H, in the 4-3 fit, turns out to be a superior contract to 4S in the 5-3 fit due, and duly makes an extra trick. L27D would have us adjust the contract to the normal 4S, with the normal (one trick less than 4H) result. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed May 21 04:10:36 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 22:10:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim In-Reply-To: <4832ED15.4000005@ulb.ac.be> References: <4832ED15.4000005@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4534294F4F5F4D7C84E47B38B059000D@erdos> Alain Gottcheiner" writes: > Matchpoints, these are the declares's side's hands : > > > x Axxx > x 10xxxx > AKQJxxxx x > QJx AKxx > > West opens 3NT and plays there. After the spade lead, West says : "I > take all my diamonds, then 4 club tricks, and you may have the last one". > > The problem is, after taking a spade, eight diamonds and one club, there > is no trick to be given. > > a) Did declarer concede a trick ? > > b) If he did, does his description of the play take precedence over the > number of tricks claimed ? > > c) Do we have to understand "when a trick can't be lost by any normal > play" as "... any normal play compatible with the description given" ? Whenever declarer makes a claim statement, he is required to follow that statement (unless something breaks down subsequent to the claim which makes following the statement abnormal). He gets the worst result of any normal play consistent with the statement given; this may work to his advantage if the statement restricts the normal lines ("I'll play the AQ giving up the king and then take the jack" when the king drops singleton offside) or to his disadvantage if the statement is an abnormal line ("I'll concede the high trump" when the trump is not high and can ruff something). In this case, there is no normal line of play consistent with the statement (or, for that matter, consistent with no statement, as it is not normal to throw a good club on the diamonds or vice versa) that will take fewer than 13 tricks, so declarer gets all 13. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 21 04:58:30 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 03:58:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <000201c8baee$b39ca730$93cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > [gesta] > +=+ Your understanding of the Law is not correct. > Law 16B tells you that you may not do a certain thing. > There is no precise definition of what action you must > take. To say that you comply exactly with the detailed > Law is merely to say that you have avoided a violation > of this specific ban. > > [lamford > There is often an assumption in Law that indicating that you must do a > certain thing in certain circumstances implies that you do not need to do > so if > those circumstances are not present. +++ +=+ But this device does not apply when there is a parallel law that says otherwise. +=+ +++ > > [gesta] > Your responsibility and the full requirement laid upon you is to "avoid > carefully taking *any* advantage" from the UI conveyed by partner. > > [lamford] > This is agreed. My main point however, is that the wording of 16b1 can be > bettter, should be better, and objections to making it better are > contrived. > +++ +=+ You think them contrived. The Drafting Committee made a positive decision to reject alternative wording offered to it and to retain this wording, considering it to express a prohibition it desired They also decided to retain 73C in parallel to express a more general prohibition. The player is deemed to be aware of both laws (as the car driver would be aware of two notices in the street, one saying 'No Parking on Sundays' and the other 'No cars may be left unattended in this area at any time') +=+ +++ > > [lamford] > It still means exactly the same, as omitting a correctly > placed explanatory clause normally does. > +++ +=+ And it is written in plain language. I do not understand why you should think it does not say what it intends to say. +++ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 21 03:05:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 02:05:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie><4832A126.2050404@skynet.be> <000001c8ba70$6c9ed070$45dc7150$@com> <4832EBB0.2070206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000b01c8bade$ddc04310$93cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze Roger Pewick a ?crit : > If my recollection of the analysis is correct it was claimed [among other > things] that if** E held the black suits a Double Squeeze*** would > operate. > So on that basis, after the last 2 H, and 2 C, and the SAK E will be > holding > the master S and C while N will ostensibly come down to DA Cx While W will > hold the D guard. > > I don't know the case in detail, but how can a squeeze operate on somebody who holds master cards in both suits ? > imo that sheds a dubious light upon [a] the validity of the claim (either > in > fact or in law) and [b] claimer's class of player on this hand- there > being > disavowed corroboration. > > > ** placing a conditional qualification whereby a fact not in evidence [ref > L70E] is the basis of assuming [as distinct from knowing] claimer has > been > and will pay perfect attention and is assumed [as distinct from knowing] > to > have perfect recall, as well as the skill to use the information. > > *** as follows [quote claimer AFTER he saw all the cards] The two top > spades > would then force West to unguard one of the minors, after which North > would > pitch the minor West kept. > That's what makes the claim suspect. How can declarer know how many cards West held in those two suits ? Has he a complete count ? From all he said, it seems that he hadn't ("if E holds both black suites").. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Subject: MindZine - Bridge - Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 02:02:57 +0100 Size: 59492 Url: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080521/b0ad1cc1/attachment-0001.mht From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed May 21 09:25:23 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:25:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim In-Reply-To: <4832ED15.4000005@ulb.ac.be> References: <4832ED15.4000005@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4833CE63.4080704@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Matchpoints, these are the declares's side's hands : > > > x Axxx > x 10xxxx > AKQJxxxx x > QJx AKxx > > West opens 3NT and plays there. After the spade lead, West says : "I > take all my diamonds, then 4 club tricks, and you may have the last one". > > The problem is, after taking a spade, eight diamonds and one club, there > is no trick to be given. no trick to be given? after the 13 fist ones, the lead is in dummy who has still a losing card. 14th trick to the defense. what is the problem. jpr > > a) Did declarer concede a trick ? > > b) If he did, does his description of the play take precedence over the > number of tricks claimed ? > > c) Do we have to understand "when a trick can't be lost by any normal > play" as "... any normal play compatible with the description given" ? > > Thank you for your help. > > Alain > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 21 11:44:16 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 10:44:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Consult the people. References: <001401c8ba94$56e1bda0$01ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <003a01c8bb27$68742560$2bcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Consult the people. > On May 20, 2008, at 12:04 PM, > wrote: > >> I need to find an example case in which it transpires that the >> additional (lawful) information actually proves beneficial to the >> offending side to the extent that they are able to obtain a result >> which (probably/possibly) could not have been obtained >> without such assistance (as distinct from blind luck). In other >> words I am seeking an example adjustment under Law 27D, >> and to what more fertile population than inhabits this place >> could I address an invitation to produce one? > ................................................................................................... > Player holding 3-4-3-3 with opening values attempts to open 1H > (promising 4+), and is informed that the auction has gone 1S-P-. 1H > is not accepted, and he chooses to bid a non-systemic 2H, which shows > a game force with 5+ hearts. The auction (opponents silent) proceeds > 1S-2H-3H-3S-4H-P. IBer's normal call over 1S would be 2C (game force > with 4+ clubs or exactly 3-4-3-3), in which case the (systemic) > auction would most likely have been 1S-2C-2D-2S-4S, but IBer could > not bid 2C here, as his partner would have been barred. 4H, in the > 4-3 fit, turns out to be a superior contract to 4S in the 5-3 fit > due, and duly makes an extra trick. L27D would have us adjust the > contract to the normal 4S, with the normal (one trick less than 4H) > result. > +=+ Thank you, Eric; I will offer any examples that appear for possible discussion in the European Bridge League Seminar. This is for NBO officials who set up training courses for TDs in their NBOs. It is to take place at the end of the month. In the EBL the Director might decide that the pair has a mechanism available that could lead to the better contract some of the time; the assigned adjusted score could perhaps be weighted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Wed May 21 11:47:12 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 05:47:12 EDT Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze Message-ID: [alain] That's what makes the claim suspect. How can declarer know how many cards West held in those two suits ? Has he a complete count ? From all he said, it seems that he hadn't ("if E holds both black suites"). [paul lamford] ..........3 ..........Q 9 ... .......A 5 ...........K J 5 4 ..............................Q J 9 8 None...........................None K Q 8..........................7 6 2 9 7 6 3........................10 ..........A K 10 7 6 2 ..........None ..........9 ..........2 When North cashes the two top hearts and two top clubs the complete distribution will become known, and indeed the declarer can claim in this ending, assuming East has five spades and a four-card minor. However, when playing it out he discarded the wrong card from North. This was irrational, although some would regard it as careless, but that does not matter, as North is forced to play in accordance with his claim, which is, having squeezed East, to then discard in a different suit to that which West discards (otherwise he has not executed a double squeeze, which is what he stated he would do). Even though North actually pulled the wrong card, I would regard that play as irrational for a player of his calibre. One would not disallow any other claim on the basis that declarer might pull the wrong card, so why should one do so here? I agree 100% with the AC decision. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 21 11:55:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 10:55:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 scenario Message-ID: <005a01c8bb29$64e8c9d0$2bcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <4534294F4F5F4D7C84E47B38B059000D@erdos> Message-ID: <005b01c8bb29$65b5ddd0$2bcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] more-than-complete claim > > Whenever declarer makes a claim statement, he is required to follow that > statement (unless something breaks down subsequent to the claim which > makes > following the statement abnormal). He gets the worst result of any normal > play > consistent with the statement given; this may work to his advantage if the > statement restricts the normal lines ("I'll play the AQ giving up the king > and > then take the jack" when the king drops singleton offside) or to his > disadvantage if the statement is an abnormal line ("I'll concede the high > trump" > when the trump is not high and can ruff something). > > In this case, there is no normal line of play consistent with the > statement (or, > for that matter, consistent with no statement, as it is not normal to > throw a > good club on the diamonds or vice versa) that will take fewer than 13 > tricks, so > declarer gets all 13. > +=+ Also I would say that the statement by declarer specifies that he is retaining four clubs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 21 11:55:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 10:55:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 scenario Message-ID: <005a01c8bb29$64e8c9d0$2bcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott In a message dated 21/05/2008 04:00:04 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: The player is deemed to be aware of both laws (as the car driver would be aware of two notices in the street, one saying 'No Parking on Sundays' and the other 'No cars may be left unattended in this area at any time') [paul lamford] In the example I quoted, there was a general restriction on parking between 8 am and 6.30 pm, but the Parking Appeal Tribunal decided that the sign "Street Trader's Pitch, No Parking on Matchdays" was worded such as to indicate that parking on other days was permitted. Islington Council was forced to change the sign and cancel my ticket. The reasonable man seeing "No Parking on Sundays" would conclude that Parking would be allowed on other days, and I would back myself to win an appeal if such a sign was displayed and I received a ticket on a Sunday. If there was a sign which indicated "Disabled Drivers Only", would you conclude that the general prohibition on parking in the area took priority, and this really meant "Disabled Drivers outside the hours of 8 am and 6 30 pm". You would be alone in that view if you did. Your example is, at the very least, sloppy signage. Law 16B implies (to everyone I have consulted) that selecting any bid which is not a logical alternative is permitted. And I found the discussions about class of players and the empty class interesting, but I disagree with the idea that a person making the bid is part of that class for another reason; because it is implied that the law refers to players without the UI. If you think it means players with UI it would seem to be nonsense. I have no problem with 37C being used to correct the deficiency of this Law (although there are always problems when two laws contradict each other), but that is not how Laws should be written. You can choose to differ, but perhaps you might indicate why the Drafting Committee, which rejected other wordings, declined a wording such as the obviously better: (grabiner @alumni.princeton.edu 17/05/2008 22:47:03 GMT) The correct wording should be, "the partner may not choose a bid that could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information." I am happy that the Drafting Committee do not agree, and are content that the wording is exemplary. It is not the view of strong players I recently canvassed, but I regard further discussion as pointless. From Gampas at aol.com Wed May 21 11:53:09 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 05:53:09 EDT Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: In a message dated 21/05/2008 04:00:04 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: as the car driver would be aware of two notices in the street, one saying 'No Parking on Sundays' and the other 'No cars may be left unattended in this area at any time' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080521/c7b32f0b/attachment.htm From Gampas at aol.com Wed May 21 12:34:39 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 06:34:39 EDT Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? Message-ID: In a message dated 21/05/2008 04:00:04 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: The player is deemed to be aware of both laws (as the car driver would be aware of two notices in the street, one saying 'No Parking on Sundays' and the other 'No cars may be left unattended in this area at any time') [paul lamford] In the example I quoted, there was a general restriction on parking between 8 am and 6.30 pm, but the Parking Appeal Tribunal decided that the sign "Street Trader's Pitch, No Parking on Matchdays" was worded such as to indicate that parking on other days was permitted. Islington Council was forced to change the sign and cancel my ticket. The reasonable man seeing "No Parking on Sundays" would conclude that Parking would be allowed on other days, and I would back myself to win an appeal if such a sign was displayed and I received a ticket on a Sunday. If there was a sign which indicated "Disabled Drivers Only", would you conclude that the general prohibition on parking in the area took priority, and this really meant "Disabled Drivers outside the hours of 8 am and 6 30 pm". You would be alone in that view if you did. Your example is, at the very least, sloppy signage. Law 16B implies (to everyone I have consulted) that selecting any bid which is not a logical alternative is permitted. And I found the discussions about class of players and the empty class interesting, but I disagree with the idea that a person making the bid is part of that class for another reason; because it is implied that the law refers to players without the UI. If you think it means players with UI it would seem to be nonsense. I have no problem with 37C being used to correct the deficiency of this Law (although there are always problems when two laws contradict each other), but that is not how Laws should be written. You can choose to differ, but perhaps you might indicate why the Drafting Committee, which rejected other wordings, declined a wording such as the obviously better: (grabiner @alumni.princeton.edu 17/05/2008 22:47:03 GMT) The correct wording should be, "the partner may not choose a bid that could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information." Maybe the Drafting Committee do not agree, and they are content that the wording is exemplary. It is not the view of strong players I recently canvassed, but it seems further discussion as pointless as we have reached a dead end. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080521/0d45f775/attachment.htm From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed May 21 14:29:38 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:29:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8bb3e$5822a0d0$0867e270$@com> [PL] The correct wording should be "the partner may not choose a bid that could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information." [DALB] Actually, it should be "the partner may not choose a call or play that could...". David Burn London, England From webmaster at bridgefederation.ch Wed May 21 16:11:30 2008 From: webmaster at bridgefederation.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:11:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze In-Reply-To: <000001c8ba70$6c9ed070$45dc7150$@com> References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4832A126.2050404@skynet.be> <000001c8ba70$6c9ed070$45dc7150$@com> Message-ID: <48342D92.5080709@bridgefederation.ch> David Burn a ?crit : > It was in fact the round of sixteen, not the quarter-final. The appeal can be found at: http://www.bridgefederation.ch/maastrict.htm (appeal 16) Yvan Calame From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed May 21 16:20:50 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:20:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Consult the people. In-Reply-To: <003a01c8bb27$68742560$2bcb403e@Mildred> References: <001401c8ba94$56e1bda0$01ca403e@Mildred> <003a01c8bb27$68742560$2bcb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48342FC2.4020805@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Player holding 3-4-3-3 with opening values attempts to open 1H (promising 4+), and is informed that the auction has gone 1S-P-. 1H is not accepted, and he chooses to bid a non-systemic 2H, which shows a game force with 5+ hearts. The auction (opponents silent) proceeds 1S-2H-3H-3S-4H-P. IBer's normal call over 1S would be 2C (game force with 4+ clubs or exactly 3-4-3-3), in which case the (systemic) auction would most likely have been 1S-2C-2D-2S-4S, but IBer could not bid 2C here, as his partner would have been barred. 4H, in the 4-3 fit, turns out to be a superior contract to 4S in the 5-3 fit due, and duly makes an extra trick. L27D would have us adjust the contract to the normal 4S, with the normal (one trick less than 4H) result. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Thank you, Eric; I will offer any examples that appear for possible discussion in the European Bridge League Seminar. This is for NBO officials who set up training courses for TDs in their NBOs. It is to take place at the end of the month. In the EBL the Director might decide that the pair has a mechanism available that could lead to the better contract some of the time; the assigned adjusted score could perhaps be weighted. [Nigel] Great new law :) The insufficient bidder blesses the the new law that seems to allow him to beat par after an inauspicious drive, inspired recovery play, and a benign rub of the green. But not for long. The director is ecstatic -- not only cancelling the table result - but also imposing his own meld of imaginary results as an adjusted score. While the players gasp in puzzled awe :) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 21 16:54:30 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:54:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? References: <48313C70.20304@ulb.ac.be> <48317E11.6000302@NTLworld.com> <48328CB0.8010406@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801c8bb59$9420a530$77c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? >> > (Harald) >> Huh? I'd neither expect a notorious overbidder to tank before doing >> what he normally does, nor a notorious underbidder to tank before >> doing what he normally does..... >> >> I don't think you can reason like that. >> > (AG) > > And here I am again, insisting that, if two trained > Directors and clever > guys don't agree, even knowing about the player's tendencies, what his > hesitation could suggest, then neither could his partner know, which > means no UI. > Whatever the exact sense of "demonstrably", surely you can't demonstrate > two opposite things from the same starting point. > +=+ Oh dear! Tilting at windmills again, my dear Don. If the finding is that, of the class (whatever this is), 40% of players would think A, 40% B, and 20% C, any one of A, B, or C "could demonstrably have been suggested" (sic). Somewhere below 20% - probably a long way below - the Director/TAC will judge an insufficiency of suggestibility and will determine that 'at this level it is not demonstrable that it could be suggested'. We must keep in mind that a Director's judgement is not addressed to whether the action was suggested but to the question whether it could have been, and to the subsidiary question as to whether he believes the power to suggest adequate for him to believe it demonstrable. ~ G ~ +=+ From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Wed May 21 20:39:50 2008 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Steffens?=) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 20:39:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question In-Reply-To: <4FAC66C997A74C9FA68CADF46BA9EA51@FK27.local> References: <4FAC66C997A74C9FA68CADF46BA9EA51@FK27.local> Message-ID: <001001c8bb72$0e2041c0$1810a8c0@FK27.local> [Eric Landau] The director's job isn't to read the law verbatim; it is to "explain all the options available" [L10C1] I would agree that the Director needs to spell out Law 27B in terms the player will understand, but that does not include any statement about which bids will conform and which will not. That is for the player to work out, and the director will ask to see the card and system notes, as well as asking the offending player (or his partner) in order to decide whether the bid had the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than. If either: a) the intention of the insufficient bidder should be revealed to the table, or b) the permitted bids should be advised to the player and/or table had been the intention of the lawmakers, then these simple clauses would have been in the laws. Therefore they are not. [Andr? Steffens] I would like to read Law 10C as telling the TD to do as b) says. At least in Holland we used to tell offender if he could make a penalty free bid in the same denomination at the lowest sufficient level under the 1997 Laws. At the very least the player should be advised about whether his intended correction will bar partner. An example: 1NT 1S (did not see partner's 1NT) Offender thinks (mistakenly) that he can choose for 2H as a replacement that will not bar partner. Do you warn him off this call, or do you let him play 2H int the 2-2 fit? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 21 23:29:48 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:29:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Consult the people. In-Reply-To: References: <001401c8ba94$56e1bda0$01ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:57:42 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 20, 2008, at 12:04 PM, > wrote: > >> 7. To complete this scenario I need to find an example case >> in which it transpires that the additional (lawful) information >> actually proves beneficial to the offending side to the extent >> that they are able to obtain a result which (probably/possibly) >> could not have been obtained without such assistance (as >> distinct from blind luck). In other words I am seeking an >> example adjustment under Law 27D, and to what more fertile >> population than inhabits this place could I address an invitation >> to produce one? > > Player holding 3-4-3-3 with opening values attempts to open 1H > (promising 4+), and is informed that the auction has gone 1S-P-. 1H > is not accepted, and he chooses to bid a non-systemic 2H, which shows > a game force with 5+ hearts. The auction (opponents silent) proceeds > 1S-2H-3H-3S-4H-P. IBer's normal call over 1S would be 2C (game force > with 4+ clubs or exactly 3-4-3-3), in which case the (systemic) > auction would most likely have been 1S-2C-2D-2S-4S, but IBer could > not bid 2C here, as his partner would have been barred. 4H, in the > 4-3 fit, turns out to be a superior contract to 4S in the 5-3 fit > due, and duly makes an extra trick. L27D would have us adjust the > contract to the normal 4S, with the normal (one trick less than 4H) > result. Is this an example? It seems to be that if they thought they were getting to a 5-3 fit, but ended up in a 4-3 fit that just happened to work better, that seems to be rub of the green. (If the insufficient bid allowed them to intelligently find the 4-3 fit, that would probably be different.) To return to the old example of 1C - P - 1C/3NT, missing a 4-4 spade fit, I thought the consensus was to allow rub of the green if 4S did worse because of a bad spade break. Wouldn't it also be rub of the green if it just happened to be one of those hands where 3NT played better than 4S for a different reason, like duplicate distribution? I thought 27D would kick in only when there was use of AI from the insufficient bid. This would be easy if anyone was allowed to construct conventions following an insufficient bid. Perhaps other examples can be constructed starting with the 1S - 1C/2C auction, where partner of the insufficient bidder knows that the insufficient bidder has at least an opening hand and may not have clubs. Maybe partner will be more likely to shoot out a 2NT contract. Maybe no action would have been possible over 1S without the insufficient bid. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 21 20:43:22 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 19:43:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: Message-ID: <000401c8bb8e$19b74350$f1d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > > I have no problem with 37C being used to correct the deficiency > of this Law (although there are always problems when two laws > contradict each other), but that is not how Laws should be written. > You can choose to differ, but perhaps you might indicate why the > Drafting Committee, which rejected other wordings, declined a > wording such as the obviously better: > +=+ It is always dangerous to say what the opinions of other people are. However, there were two aspects that I thought apparent: - The wording now in 16B had worked well enough in the past; colleagues were comfortable with it and saw no reason to change. - It is desirable to have a safety net like 73C for players who seek unscrupulously to circumvent the spirit of the law by slipping past the letter of the law. Yes, 73C could have been synthesized into Law 16 but we came to it after the ACBL had opposed renumbering the laws. Even then it could have been changed, as we had done in some other cases, but the motivation to do it was reduced. However, these two laws are not mutually contradictory. One deals with a specific requirement, the other with general requirements. One amplifies the other by dealing in detail with the most prolific kind of abuse that is experienced. I see them as complementary. ~ G ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Thu May 22 01:41:40 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 00:41:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim References: <4832ED15.4000005@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <009901c8bb9c$3833cbb0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:24 PM Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim I award the opponents the 14th trick. John > Matchpoints, these are the declares's side's hands : > > > x Axxx > x 10xxxx > AKQJxxxx x > QJx AKxx > > West opens 3NT and plays there. After the spade lead, West says : "I > take all my diamonds, then 4 club tricks, and you may have the last one". > > The problem is, after taking a spade, eight diamonds and one club, there > is no trick to be given. > > a) Did declarer concede a trick ? > > b) If he did, does his description of the play take precedence over the > number of tricks claimed ? > > c) Do we have to understand "when a trick can't be lost by any normal > play" as "... any normal play compatible with the description given" ? > > Thank you for your help. > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu May 22 01:52:40 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 00:52:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze References: <23837561.1211151878293.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <029b01c8b97d$7092d260$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4832A126.2050404@skynet.be><000001c8ba70$6c9ed070$45dc7150$@com> <48342D92.5080709@bridgefederation.ch> Message-ID: <00d301c8bb9d$c108d420$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yvan Calame" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I claim it on a double squeeze David Burn a ?crit : > It was in fact the round of sixteen, not the quarter-final. The appeal can be found at: http://www.bridgefederation.ch/maastrict.htm (appeal 16) Yvan Calame Shortly after the incident I was chatting to gunnar, and have no reason to believe he would be attempting a hindsight rationalisation. he said to the effect: You know how it is John; you play 16 hands an hour for 7 or 8 hours a day at upwards of a hundred quid a hundred (2 dollar point for the yanks) and after you've claimed you just get on with the next hand. I never remember a hand I've played. I'm confident gunnar had almost no recollection of the cards played after his claim - he would be in a most unusual position, as a claim, played at that sort of rate, wouldn't be disputed for more than a couple of seconds, and by then someone else would be dealing. the AC was right, IMO. John _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu May 22 09:07:59 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 09:07:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? In-Reply-To: <000801c8bb59$9420a530$77c8403e@Mildred> References: <48313C70.20304@ulb.ac.be> <48317E11.6000302@NTLworld.com> <48328CB0.8010406@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8bb59$9420a530$77c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On 21/05/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "He shot an arrow in the air > Towards the highway in Adare; > Apparently it struck a nerve > And caused that ten-ton truck to > swerve. " > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:32 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? > >> > > (Harald) > >> Huh? I'd neither expect a notorious overbidder to tank before doing > >> what he normally does, nor a notorious underbidder to tank before > >> doing what he normally does..... > >> > >> I don't think you can reason like that. > >> > > (AG) > > > > And here I am again, insisting that, if two trained > > Directors and clever > > guys don't agree, even knowing about the player's tendencies, what his > > hesitation could suggest, then neither could his partner know, which > > means no UI. > > Whatever the exact sense of "demonstrably", surely you can't demonstrate > > two opposite things from the same starting point. > > > +=+ Oh dear! Tilting at windmills again, my dear Don. > If the finding is that, of the class (whatever this is), > 40% of players would think A, 40% B, and 20% C, > any one of A, B, or C "could demonstrably have been > suggested" (sic). > Somewhere below 20% - probably a long way > below - the Director/TAC will judge an insufficiency > of suggestibility and will determine that 'at this level it > is not demonstrable that it could be suggested'. > We must keep in mind that a Director's judgement > is not addressed to whether the action was suggested > but to the question whether it could have been, and to > the subsidiary question as to whether he believes the > power to suggest adequate for him to believe it > demonstrable. > ~ G ~ +=+ Well, Grattan, that doesn't help much in the scenario where partner invited to game after a BIT. If both accepting the game or not is suggested, what's you choice - bid slam? Or are you suggesting that both acctions (declining and accepting the invite) are OK? :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu May 22 11:21:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:21:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question References: <4FAC66C997A74C9FA68CADF46BA9EA51@FK27.local> <001001c8bb72$0e2041c0$1810a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <009501c8bbf0$4c350f30$09d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question < [Andr? Steffens] I would like to read Law 10C as telling the TD to do as b) says. At least in Holland we used to tell offender if he could make a penalty free bid in the same denomination at the lowest sufficient level under the 1997 Laws. At the very least the player should be advised about whether his intended correction will bar partner. An example: 1NT 1S (did not see partner's 1NT) Offender thinks (mistakenly) that he can choose for 2H as a replacement that will not bar partner. Do you warn him off this call, or do you let him play 2H in the 2-2 fit? <<< +=+ I learn that the guidance to be given at the EBL seminar is likely to be close to the following. Not until we see the papers for the seminar will we know exactly what they will say, so watch this space after June 1st. """Law 27: Every player is entitled to the information he brings to the table with him. [Law 16A1(d)]. In theory at least this includes the text of the law. When the Director arrives at the table the only options are with LHO of the offender. The Director will explain these and will clarify the meaning of the law if the LHO is uncertain of it. Only after the LHO rejects the IB does the offender have any options. The other 3 players at the table are entitled to know what the RC means and the Director's ruling in relation to it. They are not entitled to know what led to the IB and if the offender discloses what he thought he was doing Law 16B applies to that information. If anyone is in doubt about the meaning of the law the Director will clarify. The Director may take the offender away from the table to obtain information the other players should not have. (If the offender has already said openly what caused the infraction - "I thought I was making an overcall" - the Director will explain the application of Law 16B to this information.) As a matter of bridge knowledge (again 16C1(d) refers) the players have the information that the IB will have arisen from one of a number of possible circumstances. The offender's partner, with an appropriate hand, may explore within these possibilities (in some circumstances it is possible the offender's partner may know from the information lawfully available to him that they have - or do not have - the combined values for game etc.). ....................................................................... Director's procedure accordingly: 1. He should ask the offender to say nothing, explaining that anything he says or indicates may create UI for his partner. 2. He should tell the LHO that he may accept or reject the IB, going on to tell him that if he rejects the IB the offender will have options: If the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same denomination (and neither call has an artificial meaning) the auction will continue. If the offender makes a call that conveys no information outside of the information from the IB the auction will continue. If he selects any other call it will silence his partner for the remainder of the auction. 3. He should answer any question the LHO raises but should maintain the stance that he does not know what the offender thought he was doing when he made the IB and should not discuss options the offender may have if the IB is rejected. The LHO may examine his opponent's system card or make enquiries about opponent's system before choosing his option. 4. If the IB is rejected the Director needs to ascertain what the offender was thinking when he made the IB. The other three players are not entitled to know this, so he should be asked away from the table. If the offender has already volunteered this information at the table the Director cites Law 16B. 5. The Director should amplify the explanation of Law 27B without disclosing the basis of the offence. The IB is not part of the legal auction. 6. The AI is twofold (i) the meaning of the replacement call (LHO may ask, or RHO may at his turn); (ii) the knowledge, lawful under Law 16A1(d), that the offender may have been responding to a call from partner, overcalling a bid by opponent, or opening the bidding. The offender's partner may use this information and in the subsequent auction may explore, to the extent that his hand justifies it, the possibilities of the hand. He is not entitled to 'guess' and act upon his guess. (In some situations one - ? more than one - of the said possible causes of the IB may be eliminated by circumstances.) ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Concerning the question Andre puts, my personal opinion is that when explaining the law to the offender away from the table, the player may have an answer to a question that asks "So if I bid ..... the auction will be allowed to continue under Law 27B1?". I shall look to see what the Seminar papers say about this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 22 11:36:27 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:36:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Consult the people. References: <001401c8ba94$56e1bda0$01ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <009601c8bbf0$4d8a17e0$09d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Consult the people. > On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:57:42 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: >> >> Player holding 3-4-3-3 with opening values attempts to open 1H >> (promising 4+), and is informed that the auction has gone 1S-P-. 1H >> is not accepted, and he chooses to bid a non-systemic 2H, which shows >> a game force with 5+ hearts. The auction (opponents silent) proceeds >> 1S-2H-3H-3S-4H-P. IBer's normal call over 1S would be 2C (game force >> with 4+ clubs or exactly 3-4-3-3), in which case the (systemic) >> auction would most likely have been 1S-2C-2D-2S-4S, but IBer could >> not bid 2C here, as his partner would have been barred. 4H, in the >> 4-3 fit, turns out to be a superior contract to 4S in the 5-3 fit >> due, and duly makes an extra trick. L27D would have us adjust the >> contract to the normal 4S, with the normal (one trick less than 4H) >> result. > > Is this an example? It seems to be that if they thought they were getting > to a 5-3 fit, but ended up in a 4-3 fit that just happened to work better, > that seems to be rub of the green. (If the insufficient bid allowed them > to intelligently find the 4-3 fit, that would probably be different.) > > To return to the old example of 1C - P - 1C/3NT, missing a 4-4 spade fit, > I thought the consensus was to allow rub of the green if 4S did worse > because of a bad spade break. Wouldn't it also be rub of the green if it > just happened to be one of those hands where 3NT played better than 4S for > a different reason, like duplicate distribution? > > I thought 27D would kick in only when there was use of AI from the > insufficient bid. This would be easy if anyone was allowed to construct > conventions following an insufficient bid. > > Perhaps other examples can be constructed starting with the 1S - 1C/2C > auction, where partner of the insufficient bidder knows that the > insufficient bidder has at least an opening hand and may not have clubs. > Maybe partner will be more likely to shoot out a 2NT contract. Maybe no > action would have been possible over 1S without the insufficient bid. > +=+ The opinion that has been expressed to me is that the example we are seeking is one where the opener fields the misbid. My personal view is that the key is whether the IB helps the pair to reach a contract that their normal methods will perhaps not reach. This could be higher or lower than the norm, to the advantage of the partnership. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 22 12:15:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 12:15:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Consult the people. In-Reply-To: <001401c8ba94$56e1bda0$01ca403e@Mildred> References: <001401c8ba94$56e1bda0$01ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <483547DD.3030508@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "True luck consists not in holding > the best cards at the table, > Luckiest he who knows just when > to rise and go home." [John Hay ] > "************************* > Law 27 - Scenario: > +=+ Every player is entitled to the information > he brings to the table with him. [Law 16A1(d)]. > In theory at least this includes the text of the law. I fail to see why this should be "in theory". I believe that the TD has the duty of explaining every piece of relevant law text to the table. > When the Director arrives at the table the only > options are with LHO of the offender. The > Director will explain these and will clarify the > meaning of the law if the LHO is uncertain of it. > Only after the LHO rejects the IB does > the offender have any options. The other 3 players > at the table are entitled to know what the RC means > and the Director's ruling in relation to it. They are > not entitled to know what led to the IB and if > the offender discloses what he thought he was doing > Law 16B applies to that information. If anyone is > in doubt about the meaning of the law the Director > will clarify. The Director may take the offender > away from the table to obtain information the other > players should not have. (If the offender has already > said openly what caused the infraction - "I thought I > was making an overcall" - the Director will explain > the application of Law 16B to this information.) It is clear that the things the IBer says are UI to the partner. It is also clear that the things the partner can deduce from the bid actually made, from the substituted bid, and from the law text, is AI. What is less clear is if the AI leads to the UI being no longer present. Example1: 2NT pass 2Di. The player says nothing. The TD allows the correction to 3Di (transfer). Everyone knows 2Di was intended as over 1NT (transfer). Example2: 2NT pass 2Di. The player says nothing. The TD allows no correction. The player chooses to bid 4Sp. Everyone knows the IBer intended to open 2Di Multi with a weak 2 in spades. Is this knowledge AI to the partner? I think it is. And I don't thing there is any difference if the IBer in addition says "I thought you opened 1NT" (Ex1) or "I thought I was dealer" (Ex2). Those expressions are UI, but the deduction makes them AI. I believe. > As a matter of bridge knowledge (again > 16C1(d) refers) the players have the information > that the IB will have arisen from one of a number > of possible circumstances. The offender's partner, > with an appropriate hand, may explore within > these possibilities (in some circumstances it is > possible the offender's partner may know from > the information lawfully available to him that they > have - or do not have - the combined values for > game etc.). > ....................................................................... > Director's procedure accordingly: > > 1. He should ask the offender to say nothing, explaining that > anything he says or indicates may create UI for his partner. I would add to this that he should ask the table if the offender has already said something. No need to take a player off the table in order to not reveal something that has been said already. > 2. He should tell the LHO that he may accept or reject the IB, > going on to tell him that if he rejects the IB the offender will > have options: > If the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same > denomination the auction will continue. If the offender makes > a call that conveys no information outside of the information > from the IB the auction will continue. If he selects any other > call it will silence his partner for the remainder of the auction. OK > 3. He should answer any question the LHO raises but should > maintain the stance that he does not know what the offender > thought he was doing when he made the IB and should not > discuss options the offender may have if the IB is rejected. > The LHO may examine his opponent's system card or make > enquiries about opponent's system before choosing his option. I'm not certain about this. I think the LHO is entitled to know if there is present or not some RB that can be done without penalty. That is the way we've been doing it under the 1997 laws. After all, the LHO can guess at the original meaning, and can deduce from opponents' SC if there will be such a RB available. > 4. If the IB is rejected the Director needs to ascertain what > the offender was thinking when he made the IB. The other > three players are not entitled to know this, in my opinion, so > he should be asked away from the table. If the offender has > already volunteered this information at the table the Director > cites Law 16B. See above. > 5. The Director should amplify the explanation of Law 27B > without disclosing the basis of the offence. The IB is not part > of the legal auction. I don't understand this bit. > 6. The AI is twofold > (i) the meaning of the replacement call (LHO may ask, or > RHO may at his turn); > (ii) the knowledge, lawful under Law 16A1(d), that the > offender may have been responding to a call from partner, > overcalling a bid by opponent, or opening the bidding. The > offender's partner may use this information and in the > subsequent auction may explore, to the extent that his hand > justifies it, the possibilities of the hand. He is not entitled to > 'guess' and act upon his guess. (In some situations one > - ? more than one - of the said possible causes of the IB > may be eliminated by circumstances.) This is what I was saying higher. Grattan agrees that the deductions are AI. I maintain that it is so often the case that the original intent can be deduced, that I would be inclined to always reveal it to the table and let it be UI unless the partner can show how he can deduce it, in which case it is AI. The cost in terms of additional UI is offset by the benefit of having opponents receive every bit of information, including those parts partner has deduced from detailed knowledge of system and lawbook. Sometimes opponents don't realize that the original intent could be deduced, so they don't ask enough questions to make the deduction. All the while, partner has made the deduction, has the correct information, which is AI to him. > ....................................................................................... > 7. To complete this scenario I need to find an example case > in which it transpires that the additional (lawful) information > actually proves beneficial to the offending side to the extent > that they are able to obtain a result which (probably/possibly) > could not have been obtained without such assistance (as > distinct from blind luck). In other words I am seeking an > example adjustment under Law 27D, and to what more fertile > population than inhabits this place could I address an invitation > to produce one? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 22 13:12:41 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 12:12:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning? References: <48313C70.20304@ulb.ac.be><48317E11.6000302@NTLworld.com><48328CB0.8010406@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8bb59$9420a530$77c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000201c8bbfc$f8eaa8a0$9cd2403e@Mildred> >> +=+ Oh dear! Tilting at windmills again, my dear Don. >> If the finding is that, of the class (whatever this is), >> 40% of players would think A, 40% B, and 20% C, >> any one of A, B, or C "could demonstrably have been >> suggested" (sic). >> Somewhere below 20% - probably a long way >> below - the Director/TAC will judge an insufficiency >> of suggestibility and will determine that 'at this level it >> is not demonstrable that it could be suggested'. >> We must keep in mind that a Director's judgement >> is not addressed to whether the action was suggested >> but to the question whether it could have been, and to >> the subsidiary question as to whether he believes the >> power to suggest adequate for him to believe it >> demonstrable. >> ~ G ~ +=+ > (Harald) > Well, Grattan, that doesn't help much in the scenario > where partner invited to game after a BIT. If both > accepting the game or not is suggested, what's your > choice - bid slam? Or are you suggesting that > both acctions (declining and accepting the invite) > are OK? :-) >> +=+ I have dug into my files of intra-committee discussion. I can quote a colleague who expressed the desired aim to "assure that our law read clearly that any actions that can be based on my partner's actions which may become illegal are subject to rectification" and to defeat "the bridge-lawyers who think that as long as they escape 'logical alternatives' they can't be held to account " Our intention is that the Director shall have power to adjust the score if he thinks the call under examination may have been suggested over another logical alternative by UI from partner . I stress *may have been* not 'was'. At one stage we appeared to have a consensus that we would use my suggested wording: (viz. "..... the partner shall not choose an action for which there is a logical alternative action less suggested by the extraneous information.") however, when we met there was a move in the meeting to go back to the former wording since it was argued 'if the law ain't broke don't fix it.". This returned us to the safety net of Law 73C if there is perceived abuse not covered by this ('unbroken') wording. My personal opinion was, and is, that Kaplan's wording is clumsy but that it is adequate. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 22 16:25:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 15:25:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. Message-ID: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott References: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48358B37.8050005@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > +=+ Where the basis of the IBer's bid has alternative > possibilities the partner is not entitled to guess which > of them is the true explanation. His knowledge of the > game will tell him what the alternative possibilities are > and this is Law 16A1(d) information. If he is told > that he is free to participate in the auction following > the offender's choice of RC, and it is not the minimum > legal bid in the same denomination as the IB he will > know that the meaning of the RC is contained within > the meaning of the IB and the auction continues under > 27B1(b). If the denomination of the RC is the same > as that of the IB at the lowest sufficient level he knows > that the auction is continuing under Law 27B1(a). > This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the > information he derives from knowledge *which* of the > alternative possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. > True, but if L27B1(b) was correctly applied, this knowledge doesn't bring any more information than the bid itself brings, whence there will be no suspicion of UI use. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 22 17:03:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 17:03:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. In-Reply-To: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> References: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48358B37.8050005@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > +=+ Where the basis of the IBer's bid has alternative > possibilities the partner is not entitled to guess which > of them is the true explanation. His knowledge of the > game will tell him what the alternative possibilities are > and this is Law 16A1(d) information. If he is told > that he is free to participate in the auction following > the offender's choice of RC, and it is not the minimum > legal bid in the same denomination as the IB he will > know that the meaning of the RC is contained within > the meaning of the IB and the auction continues under > 27B1(b). If the denomination of the RC is the same > as that of the IB at the lowest sufficient level he knows > that the auction is continuing under Law 27B1(a). > This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the > information he derives from knowledge *which* of the > alternative possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. > True, but if L27B1(b) was correctly applied, this knowledge doesn't bring any more information than the bid itself brings, whence there will be no suspicion of UI use. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu May 22 18:26:20 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 17:26:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. In-Reply-To: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> References: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48359EAC.9040609@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael) It is clear that the things the IBer says are UI to the partner. It is also clear that the things the partner can deduce from the bid actually made, from the substituted bid, and from the law text, is AI. What is less clear is if the AI leads to the UI being no longer present. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Where the basis of the IBer's bid has alternative possibilities the partner is not entitled to guess which of them is the true explanation. His knowledge of the game will tell him what the alternative possibilities are and this is Law 16A1(d) information. If he is told that he is free to participate in the auction following the offender's choice of RC, and it is not the minimum legal bid in the same denomination as the IB he will know that the meaning of the RC is contained within the meaning of the IB and the auction continues under 27B1(b). If the denomination of the RC is the same as that of the IB at the lowest sufficient level he knows that the auction is continuing under Law 27B1(a). This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the information he derives from knowledge *which* of the alternative possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. Only if there can be no alternative possibility, given the bridge situation, is this knowledge AI. The basic example is 1H - P - 1H: this may be one of three possibilities, response, overcall, opening, depending whether offender thought no-one had bid or thought that a prior bid was in a minor suit. But if the IB is 1C this can only have been an intended opening; it is knowledge the partner brought to the table that 1C can only be an opening bid. [Nige1] Is the aim of Bridge law to keep directors busy. no matter how much it spoils player's enjoyment of the game? It is an indictment of the apathy of players that they do not rise up in protest against current legal trends. Law 27 is typical. Some of its flaws ... [A] It is ridiculous to expect most directors, who can't grasp simpler ideas, to understand sophisticated rules about which bits of information are authorised by law 27. Players are unlikely even to try. Even if some masochistic player manages to understand the *UI* rules, he is unlikely to perform the gymnastics of imagination required to conform to them. [B] Law 27 provides sets of *options* that each side may exercise. IMO this is unnecessary and stupid. What kinds of convention you may agree, contingent on which option you choose, will be another source of endless controversy about interpretation. [C] Under law 27, the offending side sometimes achieves a *lucky outcome* after a replacement bid. When may the director cancel this table result and substitute a worse score or - Heaven forbid - a weighted mix of imaginary scores? This is another bone of contention, unlikely to be resolved. All this provides entertainment and employment for directors. It also empowers them to impose almost any result that they feel like. Secretary bird players may also benefit. But what about the vast majority of players? Law 27 could be simplified. For example ... If a player makes an insufficient (or out-of-turn or illegal) call then the call is cancelled and the information is unauthorised to his partner, who is silenced for the rest of the auction. The offender, at each of his legitimate turns to call, may make any legal call. The director ratifies the actual result achieved unless he judges that the offender could have silenced his partner deliberately. Notice that an attempt to "condone" the illegal call is likely to be another infraction. Exceptionally, for example, against a handicapped offender, the non-offenders may ask the director to waive their rights. A few advantages ... - No options for anybody. - Simple UI restrictions. - the actual result will usually be upheld. - Some directors and players may be able to understand this rule. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 22 21:20:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 20:20:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. References: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> <48358B37.8050005@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001c01c8bc40$fde6cf70$aed0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > +=+ Where the basis of the IBer's bid has alternative > possibilities the partner is not entitled to guess which > of them is the true explanation. His knowledge of the > game will tell him what the alternative possibilities are > and this is Law 16A1(d) information. If he is told > that he is free to participate in the auction following > the offender's choice of RC, and it is not the minimum > legal bid in the same denomination as the IB he will > know that the meaning of the RC is contained within > the meaning of the IB and the auction continues under > 27B1(b). If the denomination of the RC is the same > as that of the IB at the lowest sufficient level he knows > that the auction is continuing under Law 27B1(a). > This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the > information he derives from knowledge *which* of the > alternative possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. > True, but if L27B1(b) was correctly applied, this knowledge doesn't bring any more information than the bid itself brings, whence there will be no suspicion of UI use. >> +=+True However, it may matter if 27B1(a) applied. +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 22 21:20:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 20:20:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. References: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> <48358B37.8050005@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001c01c8bc40$fde6cf70$aed0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > +=+ Where the basis of the IBer's bid has alternative > possibilities the partner is not entitled to guess which > of them is the true explanation. His knowledge of the > game will tell him what the alternative possibilities are > and this is Law 16A1(d) information. If he is told > that he is free to participate in the auction following > the offender's choice of RC, and it is not the minimum > legal bid in the same denomination as the IB he will > know that the meaning of the RC is contained within > the meaning of the IB and the auction continues under > 27B1(b). If the denomination of the RC is the same > as that of the IB at the lowest sufficient level he knows > that the auction is continuing under Law 27B1(a). > This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the > information he derives from knowledge *which* of the > alternative possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. > True, but if L27B1(b) was correctly applied, this knowledge doesn't bring any more information than the bid itself brings, whence there will be no suspicion of UI use. >> +=+True However, it may matter if 27B1(a) applied. +=+ From john at asimere.com Thu May 22 21:21:57 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 20:21:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. References: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> <48359EAC.9040609@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001101c8bc41$19c7cdc0$0901a8c0@JOHN> > bird players may also benefit. But what about the vast majority of > players? > > Law 27 could be simplified. For example ... > > If a player makes an insufficient (or out-of-turn or illegal) call then > the call is cancelled and the information is unauthorised to his > partner, who is silenced for the rest of the auction. The offender, at > each of his legitimate turns to call, may make any legal call. The > director ratifies the actual result achieved unless he judges that the > offender could have silenced his partner deliberately. > > Notice that an attempt to "condone" the illegal call is likely to be > another infraction. Exceptionally, for example, against a handicapped > offender, the non-offenders may ask the director to waive their rights. > > A few advantages ... > - No options for anybody. > - Simple UI restrictions. > - the actual result will usually be upheld. > - Some directors and players may be able to understand this rule. > My mother's "make it good dearie" has worked for years, perfectly adequately. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater.? The new L27 is an attempt to extend what is ok and if it produces bridge results more often (which your method manifestly doesn't) then it's probably a good thing. I share your concern about the interpretations, but club bridge is hardly played according to law at best, and Tournaments tend to have a degree of competence in the TD staff. Plus ca change! John > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 22 23:05:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 22:05:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. References: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> <48359EAC.9040609@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002401c8bc4f$9e869ec0$e7d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. > Law 27 could be simplified. For example ... > > If a player makes an insufficient (or out-of-turn or illegal) call then > the call is cancelled and the information is unauthorised to his > partner, who is silenced for the rest of the auction. The offender, at > each of his legitimate turns to call, may make any legal call. The > director ratifies the actual result achieved unless he judges that the > offender could have silenced his partner deliberately. > > Notice that an attempt to "condone" the illegal call is likely to be > another infraction. Exceptionally, for example, against a handicapped > offender, the non-offenders may ask the director to waive their rights. > > A few advantages ... > - No options for anybody. > - Simple UI restrictions. > - the actual result will usually be upheld. > - Some directors and players may be able to understand this rule. > +=+ Your views, Nigel, on the way the laws should go are well known. However, the remit the DSC set itself was to increase the number of occasions when the board could be played and a result obtained. It was agreed that less priority be given to the convenience of the Director. So I see more advantage now in dealing with what we have, with procedures under the 2007 laws, as against a discussion of what might be the law perhaps in ten years' time. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Fri May 23 00:31:35 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 18:31:35 EDT Subject: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. Message-ID: In a message dated 22/05/2008 15:45:23 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: But if the IB is 1C this can only have been an intended opening; it is knowledge the partner brought to the table that 1C can only be an opening bid. Get into the real world. At my classes at a London Adult Education College players often made insufficient bids because they temporarily forgot the order of the suits, or for reasons best known to themselves. And that was after attending the same course for two years previously. Yes, I know, I must have been a hopeless teacher. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri May 23 08:44:07 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:44:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. In-Reply-To: <002401c8bc4f$9e869ec0$e7d6403e@Mildred> References: <000c01c8bc1a$6e5b54f0$28cd403e@Mildred> <48359EAC.9040609@NTLworld.com> <002401c8bc4f$9e869ec0$e7d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On 22/05/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:26 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. > > > > Law 27 could be simplified. For example ... > > > > If a player makes an insufficient (or out-of-turn or illegal) call then > > the call is cancelled and the information is unauthorised to his > > partner, who is silenced for the rest of the auction. The offender, at > > each of his legitimate turns to call, may make any legal call. The > > director ratifies the actual result achieved unless he judges that the > > offender could have silenced his partner deliberately. > > > > Notice that an attempt to "condone" the illegal call is likely to be > > another infraction. Exceptionally, for example, against a handicapped > > offender, the non-offenders may ask the director to waive their rights. > > > > A few advantages ... > > - No options for anybody. > > - Simple UI restrictions. > > - the actual result will usually be upheld. > > - Some directors and players may be able to understand this rule. > > > +=+ Your views, Nigel, on the way the laws should go are > well known. However, the remit the DSC set itself was to > increase the number of occasions when the board could be > played and a result obtained. It was agreed that less priority > be given to the convenience of the Director. > So I see more advantage now in dealing with what we > have, with procedures under the 2007 laws, as against a > discussion of what might be the law perhaps in ten years' > time. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I agree, the new law 27 is clearly a step in the right direction. It most probably could have been worded better that it is now - we'll probably see an improvement in that regard in ten years time. Now we need to get used to applying it. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 23 09:16:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 17:16:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01c8bc40$fde6cf70$aed0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>> This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the >>>information he derives from knowledge *which* of the >>>alternative possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. Richard Hills: True. Alain Gottcheiner: >>True, but if L27B1(b) was correctly applied, this >>knowledge doesn't bring any more information than the bid >>itself brings, whence there will be no suspicion of UI use. Richard Hills: False. Grattan Endicott: >+=+True However, it may matter if 27B1(a) applied. +=+ Richard Hills: Is it True or False that Law 27B1(b) actually says -> "if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following." ??? False. Therefore, after a correct application of Law 27B1(b) there may be some residual UI that the insufficient bid itself brings. 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 Fri May 23 11:47:49 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:47:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction to procedure statement - Law 27B1 Message-ID: <001001c8bcba$20caa6f0$11d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <001501c8bcba$874d7b00$11d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. > In a message dated 22/05/2008 15:45:23 GMT Standard Time, > gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: > > But if the IB is 1C this can only have > been an intended opening; it is knowledge the partner > brought to the table that 1C can only be an opening bid. > > Get into the real world. At my classes at a London Adult Education > College > players often made insufficient bids because they temporarily forgot the > order > of the suits, or for reasons best known to themselves. And that was after > attending the same course for two years previously. > > Yes, I know, I must have been a hopeless teacher. > +=+ Ah, that's where all these insufficient 1C bids are coming from. That's why we say that in theory players come to the table with a knowledge of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 23 12:26:33 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:26:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <055001c8bcbf$78eecaf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> richard.hills: > Eric Landau: > >>>OK. Have we then settled that the TD must learn South's intention >>>and base his ruling on that? > > David Burn: > >>I don't see why he should. > > Sherlock Holmes (in "A Scandal in Bohemia"): > > "You see, but you do not observe." > > David Burn: > >>Indeed, it seems to me quite sensible (insofar as any of the new Law >>27 is sensible, which is not very far at all) for the bidding to go >> >>South "2NT" >>West "Pass" >>North "2D" >>East "Director" >>Director "Yes?" >>East "North has...[explains auction]" >>Director "So I see. Well, North had better... [reads Law 27]" >>North: "3D". >> >>Now, no one knows any more than they need to know, > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > The not-quite-sensible flaw in David's argument is that the Director > knows _less_ than she needs to know. > > The Director does not know whether to rule that South must pass for > the rest of the auction (Law 27B2), or whether to rule that South may > bid (Law 27B1). Perhaps not. But it is impossible to see how learning North's intention in an auction that is in the past and has also been cancelled can help in this regard. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 23 12:27:25 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:27:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com><482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <055201c8bcbf$97fdfec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement On Wed, 14 May 2008 04:29:59 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Guthrie a ?crit : >> >> Hence there is a strong counter-argument for the Dutch position. >> >> There are many benefits of defining a *standard* system (as suggested >> previously). For example, the Dutch would be able to have their cake and >> eat it. >> - If you adopt the standard system, you can forget your agreements >> without penalty. That takes care of beginners and pick-up partnerships. >> - If, instead, you agree your own system, then forgetting an agreement >> is treated as misexplanation rather than misbid. >> >> >> The best of all worlds :) >> >> >> > [AG] > Except for three points : > > 1) It goes against L40A and L75B. No OB may change any article of Law. > > 2) How do you differentiate a misbid from a mispull, a psyche or not > having seen opponent's bid ? If you begin penalizing players who pulled > 2H in lieu of 2S, because partner couldn't explain the bid, you'll > rapidly end up with no players. Remember the explanation must cover what > is in the system, not in the player's hand. And if you don't penalize > mispulls, players will begin claiming they mispulled when they forgot > the system. The liars against which the Dutch federation is working with > their ruling won't shy away from this. It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to distinguish. For example, I open 1H third seat not vulnerable with Kxxx of hearts an no other HCP. The only example I know of where they are not easily distinguished is a 2C response to 1 of a major on a two-card suit (playing Standard American). It was described to me as a tactical bid, and I was not happy. In retrospect perhaps the 2C bid was Drury. But if it was meant as Drury, then there was UI from the lack of alert. To make a ruling on that, you have to make the same decision anyway as to the intended meaning of the 2C bid. Yes, it could be difficult to distinguish a mispull from other bids, but players usually claim their mispull, and then the director has to make that decision about the bidder's intention anyway. Bob _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 23 12:36:03 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:36:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Consult the people. References: <001401c8ba94$56e1bda0$01ca403e@Mildred> <003a01c8bb27$68742560$2bcb403e@Mildred> <48342FC2.4020805@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <055401c8bcc0$cd3cdd80$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [Nigel] > Great new law :) The insufficient bidder blesses the the new law that > seems to allow him to beat par after an inauspicious drive, inspired > recovery play, and a benign rub of the green. But not for long. The > director is ecstatic -- not only cancelling the table result - but also > imposing his own meld of imaginary results as an adjusted score. While > the players gasp in puzzled awe :) One of the more disturbing aspects of this law is that when a pair is deemed to have reached a contract they would not have reached without the insufficient bid, they are awarded the "par contract", which they would have reached without the insufficient bid, even if this were a contract which they could not have reached after the insufficient bid. I wonder if the new L27 is just a practical joke? The DSC may be ROFL at us, taking it all so seriously! Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri May 23 12:40:20 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:40:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question References: <4FAC66C997A74C9FA68CADF46BA9EA51@FK27.local><001001c8bb72$0e2041c0$1810a8c0@FK27.local> <009501c8bbf0$4c350f30$09d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <055801c8bcc1$663c5880$0100a8c0@stefanie> Grattan: 6. The AI is twofold (i) the meaning of the replacement call (LHO may ask, or RHO may at his turn); (ii) the knowledge, lawful under Law 16A1(d), that the offender may have been responding to a call from partner, overcalling a bid by opponent, or opening the bidding. The offender's partner may use this information and in the subsequent auction may explore, to the extent that his hand justifies it, the possibilities of the hand. He is not entitled to 'guess' and act upon his guess. (In some situations one - ? more than one - of the said possible causes of the IB may be eliminated by circumstances.) SR: I should have thought that the new EBU position, which you attached in an earlier post, would have eliminated the possibiliby of exploring any "possibilities of the hand" not included in the systemic meaning of the RC. Stefanie Rohan London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Fri May 23 13:19:32 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 07:19:32 EDT Subject: [blml] De Wael comments on 27 procedure. Message-ID: In a message dated 23/05/2008 10:50:44 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: That's why we say that in theory players come to the table with a knowledge of the laws. [paul lamford] There is a difference between knowledge and application. The person responding to 4NT with 4D usually knows that no-trumps ranks above diamonds. The person who thinks he is responding to Gerber with 4D also, presumably, knows the laws. You are extending the theory that players come to the table with a knowledge of the laws to a theory that their misapplication of the laws is never of a particular type. Specifically, you conclude that they will never intentionally respond 1C to 1H, therefore they must have been attempting to open the bidding. If our partner overcalls 1NT with 1C we are allowed to guess that he intended to open 1C but if he overcalls 1NT with 1D we are not as he might have thought the opening bid was 1C. Let's play Mastermind instead of Bridge. Our new deductive practice should be useful there. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 23 14:14:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:14:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4836B517.30101@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > >>>> This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the >>>> information he derives from knowledge *which* of the >>>> alternative possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. > > Richard Hills: > > True. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >>> True, but if L27B1(b) was correctly applied, this >>> knowledge doesn't bring any more information than the bid >>> itself brings, whence there will be no suspicion of UI use. > > Richard Hills: > > False. > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+True However, it may matter if 27B1(a) applied. +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Is it True or False that Law 27B1(b) actually says -> > > "if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with > a legal call that has the same meaning* as, or a more precise > meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully > contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient > bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but > see D following." ??? > > False. > > Therefore, after a correct application of Law 27B1(b) there > may be some residual UI that the insufficient bid itself > brings. > Not if the hand suits the replacement bid. But of course that is not necessarily so. Do we allow this: 1S - 1H (Acol, 4 cards, 13+) replaced by 1S - 2H (5 cards, 13+ ;supposing that is what they play) if it is done with only 4 cards? > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 23 15:51:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 09:51:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63879EFA-551C-4696-A760-594E745CD767@starpower.net> On May 23, 2008, at 3:16 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > >>>> This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the >>>> information he derives from knowledge *which* of the >>>> alternative possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. > > Richard Hills: > > True. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >>> True, but if L27B1(b) was correctly applied, this >>> knowledge doesn't bring any more information than the bid >>> itself brings, whence there will be no suspicion of UI use. > > Richard Hills: > > False. > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+True However, it may matter if 27B1(a) applied. +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Is it True or False that Law 27B1(b) actually says -> > > "if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with > a legal call that has the same meaning* as, or a more precise > meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully > contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient > bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but > see D following." ??? > > False. > > Therefore, after a correct application of Law 27B1(b) there > may be some residual UI that the insufficient bid itself > brings. I think Alain is right that if L27B1(b) is correctly applied, there can be no "residual UI". L27D, however, makes no reference to UI; it is triggered by "assistance gained through the infraction". That leaves room for L27D to apply even though there is no UI issue. As I read L27, L27D cannot result in an adjustment after a L27B1(b) correction *if* the IBer's RC is a systemically correct description of his hand. It is needed, however, for those cases in which the IBer's normal systemic call would bar his partner, and so he has been "assisted by the infraction" to substitute a non-systemic, but "L27B1- legal" call. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 23 16:00:02 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:00:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. In-Reply-To: <4836B517.30101@skynet.be> References: <4836B517.30101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <414ECBC7-887A-45C7-9D72-C4B77943FF36@starpower.net> On May 23, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Therefore, after a correct application of Law 27B1(b) there >> may be some residual UI that the insufficient bid itself >> brings. > > Not if the hand suits the replacement bid. > But of course that is not necessarily so. > > Do we allow this: > > 1S - 1H (Acol, 4 cards, 13+) > replaced by > 1S - 2H (5 cards, 13+ ;supposing that is what they play) > if it is done with only 4 cards? Of course we do. We always have. And L27D does indeed apply. Just as previous versions (e.g. 1997 L27B1(b)) did. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Fri May 23 17:15:49 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:15:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. References: <4836B517.30101@skynet.be> <414ECBC7-887A-45C7-9D72-C4B77943FF36@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000a01c8bce7$e213e100$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. > On May 23, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> Therefore, after a correct application of Law 27B1(b) there >>> may be some residual UI that the insufficient bid itself >>> brings. >> >> Not if the hand suits the replacement bid. >> But of course that is not necessarily so. >> >> Do we allow this: >> >> 1S - 1H (Acol, 4 cards, 13+) >> replaced by >> 1S - 2H (5 cards, 13+ ;supposing that is what they play) >> if it is done with only 4 cards? > > Of course we do. We always have. And L27D does indeed apply. Just > as previous versions (e.g. 1997 L27B1(b)) did. > Yes I think this is a good case for 27D if, for example, they play a Moysian game when the "normal" auction might well have led to 3N down 1. I'd adjust in this case. Can I get to 12C3, I wonder? i think i can. john > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 23 17:48:52 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 17:48:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. In-Reply-To: <000a01c8bce7$e213e100$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <4836B517.30101@skynet.be> <414ECBC7-887A-45C7-9D72-C4B77943FF36@starpower.net> <000a01c8bce7$e213e100$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4836E764.6000201@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:00 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. > > > >> On May 23, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Therefore, after a correct application of Law 27B1(b) there >>>> may be some residual UI that the insufficient bid itself >>>> brings. >>>> >>> Not if the hand suits the replacement bid. >>> But of course that is not necessarily so. >>> >>> Do we allow this: >>> >>> 1S - 1H (Acol, 4 cards, 13+) >>> replaced by >>> 1S - 2H (5 cards, 13+ ;supposing that is what they play) >>> if it is done with only 4 cards? >>> >> Of course we do. We always have. And L27D does indeed apply. Just >> as previous versions (e.g. 1997 L27B1(b)) did. >> >> > > Yes I think this is a good case for 27D if, for example, they play a Moysian > game when the "normal" auction might well have led to 3N down 1. I'd adjust > in this case. Can I get to 12C3, I wonder? i think i can. john > AG : I wouldn't adjust. The provision of L27D is for avoiding the creation of an otherwise "impossible" bid, not for disallowing players being lucky (and opener to be perfectly correct in bidding as if partner had 5 hearts). When a player is badly placed as a sequel of his infraction, and this results in a good score for him for some serendipitous reason, don't shoot him. Best regards lain. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri May 23 20:08:22 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 20:08:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Correction to procedure statement - Law 27B1 In-Reply-To: <001001c8bcba$20caa6f0$11d5403e@Mildred> References: <001001c8bcba$20caa6f0$11d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48370816.3060104@aol.com> Hola Grattan! I don't know if you are already aware of this or if it interests you. Almost all of your blml postings arrive doubly. That is, one is dated (the time) usually a minute or two after the other. That was true of the posting below as well. May be a problem with your PC or you may be clicking "send" twice. The same thing happens occasionally to others; there are occasional postings from others that arrive twice but yours have been doing so for at least the last month or two. In this case the times given were 11:47 and 11:48. Otherwise, greetings and I (as well as all others I amsure) do appreciate what you do in serving as liaison and source of info. Thanks, JE gesta at tiscali.co.uk schrieb: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > > +=+ Apology. > Law 27B1(b) > In my 'procedure' statement the correct statement > is that the information from the replacement call > must be identical to or more precise than the > information from the IB. The information from > the former may thus be greater. It is the meaning > of the call that must be fully contained within the > meaning of the IB. It is so very easy to get the > terminology wrong. Extra definition conveys > more information. > Thankyou to the correspondent who nudged me. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Corrected version: > Director's suggested procedure: > 1. He should ask the offender to say nothing, explaining that > anything he says or indicates may create UI for his partner. > 2. He should tell the LHO that he may accept or reject the IB, > going on to tell him that if he rejects the IB the offender will > have options: > If the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same > denomination (and neither bid is artificial) the auction will > continue. If the offender makes a call that conveys no meaning > outside of the meaning of the IB the auction will continue. (A > more precise call conveys, of course, more information since > it defines the hand more closely. ) If he selects any other call > it will silence his partner for the remainder of the auction. > 3. He should answer any question the LHO raises but should > maintain the stance that he does not know what the offender > thought he was doing when he made the IB and should not > discuss options the offender may have if the IB is rejected. > The LHO may examine his opponent's system card or make > enquiries about opponent's system before choosing his option. > 4. If the IB is rejected the Director needs to ascertain what > the offender was thinking when he made the IB. The other > three players are not entitled to know this so he should be > asked away from the table. > 5. The Director should amplify the explanation of Law 27B > without disclosing the basis of the offence. The IB is not part > of the legal auction. > 6. The AI is twofold > (i) the meaning of the replacement call (LHO may ask, or > RHO may at his turn); > (ii) the knowledge, lawful under Law 16A1(d), that the > offender may have been responding to a call from partner, > overcalling a bid by opponent, or opening the bidding. The > offender's partner may use this information and in the > subsequent auction may explore, to the extent that his hand > justifies it, the possibilities of the hand. He is not entitled to > 'guess' and act upon his guess. (In some situations one > - ? more than one - of the said possible causes of the IB > may be eliminated by circumstances.) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 24 01:02:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 00:02:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction to procedure statement - Law 27B1 References: <001001c8bcba$20caa6f0$11d5403e@Mildred> <48370816.3060104@aol.com> Message-ID: <000501c8bd2f$cb8df590$dfc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Correction to procedure statement - Law 27B1 > Hola Grattan! I don't know if you are already aware of this or if it > interests you. Almost all of your blml postings arrive doubly. That > is, one is dated (the time) usually a minute or two after the other. > That was true of the posting below as well. May be a problem with your > PC or you may be clicking "send" twice. The same thing happens > occasionally to others; there are occasional postings from others that > arrive twice but yours have been doing so for at least the last month or > two. > In this case the times given were 11:47 and 11:48. Otherwise, greetings > and I (as well as all others I amsure) do appreciate what you do in > serving as liaison and source of info. Thanks, JE > > gesta at tiscali.co.uk schrieb: >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "A full cup must be carried steadily." >> [English proverb ] >> "************************* >> >> +=+ Apology. >> Law 27B1(b) >> In my 'procedure' statement the correct statement >> is that the information from the replacement call >> must be identical to or more precise than the >> information from the IB. The information from >> the former may thus be greater. It is the meaning >> of the call that must be fully contained within the >> meaning of the IB. It is so very easy to get the >> terminology wrong. Extra definition conveys >> more information. >> Thankyou to the correspondent who nudged me. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> Corrected version: >> Director's suggested procedure: >> 1. He should ask the offender to say nothing, explaining that >> anything he says or indicates may create UI for his partner. >> 2. He should tell the LHO that he may accept or reject the IB, >> going on to tell him that if he rejects the IB the offender will >> have options: >> If the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same >> denomination (and neither bid is artificial) the auction will >> continue. If the offender makes a call that conveys no meaning >> outside of the meaning of the IB the auction will continue. (A >> more precise call conveys, of course, more information since >> it defines the hand more closely. ) If he selects any other call >> it will silence his partner for the remainder of the auction. >> 3. He should answer any question the LHO raises but should >> maintain the stance that he does not know what the offender >> thought he was doing when he made the IB and should not >> discuss options the offender may have if the IB is rejected. >> The LHO may examine his opponent's system card or make >> enquiries about opponent's system before choosing his option. >> 4. If the IB is rejected the Director needs to ascertain what >> the offender was thinking when he made the IB. The other >> three players are not entitled to know this so he should be >> asked away from the table. >> 5. The Director should amplify the explanation of Law 27B >> without disclosing the basis of the offence. The IB is not part >> of the legal auction. >> 6. The AI is twofold >> (i) the meaning of the replacement call (LHO may ask, or >> RHO may at his turn); >> (ii) the knowledge, lawful under Law 16A1(d), that the >> offender may have been responding to a call from partner, >> overcalling a bid by opponent, or opening the bidding. The >> offender's partner may use this information and in the >> subsequent auction may explore, to the extent that his hand >> justifies it, the possibilities of the hand. He is not entitled to >> 'guess' and act upon his guess. (In some situations one >> - ? more than one - of the said possible causes of the IB >> may be eliminated by circumstances.) >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 24 01:14:52 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 00:14:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. References: <4836B517.30101@skynet.be> <414ECBC7-887A-45C7-9D72-C4B77943FF36@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000701c8bd2f$cd9f2250$dfc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. > On May 23, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> Therefore, after a correct application of Law 27B1(b) there >>> may be some residual UI that the insufficient bid itself >>> brings. >> >> Not if the hand suits the replacement bid. >> But of course that is not necessarily so. >> >> Do we allow this: >> >> 1S - 1H (Acol, 4 cards, 13+) >> replaced by >> 1S - 2H (5 cards, 13+ ;supposing that is what they play) >> if it is done with only 4 cards? > > Of course we do. We always have. And L27D does indeed apply. Just > as previous versions (e.g. 1997 L27B1(b)) did. > +=+ The point should be taken that the Acol bid is 4+ Hearts and so includes a possible five card opener. +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat May 24 01:25:46 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 00:25:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. References: <63879EFA-551C-4696-A760-594E745CD767@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c8bd2f$ce75d340$dfc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hills comments on 27 procedure. > On May 23, 2008, at 3:16 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott: >> >> [snip] >> >>>>> This is all AI for the partner. What is not AI is the >>>>> information he derives from knowledge *which* of the >>>>> alternative possibilities was the basis of offender's IB. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> True. >> >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>>> True, but if L27B1(b) was correctly applied, this >>>> knowledge doesn't bring any more information than the bid >>>> itself brings, whence there will be no suspicion of UI use. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> False. >> >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>> +=+True However, it may matter if 27B1(a) applied. +=+ >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Is it True or False that Law 27B1(b) actually says -> >> >> "if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with >> a legal call that has the same meaning* as, or a more precise >> meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully >> contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient >> bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but >> see D following." ??? >> >> False. >> >> Therefore, after a correct application of Law 27B1(b) there >> may be some residual UI that the insufficient bid itself >> brings. > > I think Alain is right that if L27B1(b) is correctly applied, there > can be no "residual UI". L27D, however, makes no reference to UI; it > is triggered by "assistance gained through the infraction". That > leaves room for L27D to apply even though there is no UI issue. > > As I read L27, L27D cannot result in an adjustment after a L27B1(b) > correction *if* the IBer's RC is a systemically correct description > of his hand. It is needed, however, for those cases in which the > IBer's normal systemic call would bar his partner, and so he has been > "assisted by the infraction" to substitute a non-systemic, but "L27B1- > legal" call. > +=+ I agree that 27D says nothing about UI and was not intended to do so. The principle advantage to be countered is that of reaching an advantageous contract in which declarer would not or might not land absent the irregularity. It seems highly possible to me, for example, that he could stop at a lower level on some hands to advantage. I have been in dialogue with the colleague who is to present the subject to the seminar at the week-end and I shall read his lecture notes with interest. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat May 24 10:05:25 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 09:05:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl><4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com><482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <055201c8bcbf$97fdfec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <03af01c8bd74$ec2f06a0$36709951@stefanie> Looks like I sent a blank reply earlier. Robert Frick: It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to distinguish. SR: How? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 25 04:04:36 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 03:04:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl><4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com><482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be><055201c8bcbf$97fdfec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <03af01c8bd74$ec2f06a0$36709951@stefanie> Message-ID: <000301c8be0b$dbb689f0$39d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement > Looks like I sent a blank reply earlier. > > Robert Frick: > > > It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an > unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to > distinguish. > > SR: > > How? > +=+ Interesting question. A misbid, misexplanation, psyche, all come the same to an opponent, do they not? They mislead. Now if the partner is not misled, caters for the actual holding, is the RA not entitled to say "We don't care how it happened, the partner's action is to be deemed evidence of an partnership understanding" ? Just throwing a pebble intro the pool, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 25 06:49:33 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 00:49:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: <000301c8be0b$dbb689f0$39d6403e@Mildred> References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <055201c8bcbf$97fdfec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <03af01c8bd74$ec2f06a0$36709951@stefanie> <000301c8be0b$dbb689f0$39d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:04:36 -0400, wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 9:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement > > >> Looks like I sent a blank reply earlier. >> >> Robert Frick: >> >> >> It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an >> unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to >> distinguish. >> >> SR: >> >> How? >> > +=+ Interesting question. A misbid, misexplanation, psyche, all > come the same to an opponent, do they not? They mislead. > Now if the partner is not misled, caters for the actual holding, > is the RA not entitled to say "We don't care how it happened, > the partner's action is to be deemed evidence of an partnership > understanding" ? > Just throwing a pebble intro the pool, > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Thanks. A very useful start, except that I think the issue is when partner is misled as well as the opponents. When I psych, the opps do not like it when they get a bad board. If I run a squeeze for a top against them, they go "oh well", but when I psych, they are unhappy. I know this because I psyched last Monday, got a good score, and my opponent complained more than once to the director. (I was the director.) He knew he had no reason to complain, but he was unhappy. Nonetheless, psychs (and any intentional misbids made for tactical reasons) are a nice part of bridge. They take skill, and creativity. I like that the laws protect them. Many people don't, and there is a problem with people psyching too much and the fact that partner can pick these up faster than the opps. But it's fine to protect them. But when I forget or imagine a convention, or my partner and I have a misunderstanding or no understanding, there is no skill involved. I do not appreciate that the laws protect me. I don't want to be protected. I want the opps to know the intended meaning of my bid. Misleading explanations of conventional confusions are not popular with my opponents either. So I do not know why anyone is writing laws to try to protect my right to make conventional confusions and deceive my opponents, or why they work hard to interpret the current laws that way. If you couldn't distinguish the two, then I can see trying to protect them both. But they seem relatively easy to distinguish. In theory it sounds hard, but in practice, there is usually a tactical reason for the psych and no possibility of confusion about conventions. For the conventional confusion misbid, there is usually no tactical reason for the bid and an obvious confusion about conventions. Bob From sater at xs4all.nl Sun May 25 11:34:02 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:34:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <055201c8bcbf$97fdfec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <03af01c8bd74$ec2f06a0$36709951@stefanie> <000301c8be0b$dbb689f0$39d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <006301c8be4a$780e7590$682b60b0$@nl> If you miscount your points, and bid a 28 point balanced 6NT making on four out of four finesses there is no skill involved either. Yet you keep your score. And the reason is simple: when you bid like this you stand a very good chance of getting a bad score. Your expectation is negative. The laws just do not punish you in the exceptional circumstance that it happens to work. Bad luck for opps. Bridge was never meant to be a fair game(in the short run). Exactly the same goes for misbids. Your expectation is negative(if not it would be a great convention). But if you are in luck, you keep your score. Bad luck for opps. Bridge was never meant to be a fair game(in the short run). Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: zondag 25 mei 2008 6:50 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:04:36 -0400, wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 9:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement > > >> Looks like I sent a blank reply earlier. >> >> Robert Frick: >> >> >> It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an >> unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to >> distinguish. >> >> SR: >> >> How? >> > +=+ Interesting question. A misbid, misexplanation, psyche, all > come the same to an opponent, do they not? They mislead. > Now if the partner is not misled, caters for the actual holding, > is the RA not entitled to say "We don't care how it happened, > the partner's action is to be deemed evidence of an partnership > understanding" ? > Just throwing a pebble intro the pool, > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Thanks. A very useful start, except that I think the issue is when partner is misled as well as the opponents. When I psych, the opps do not like it when they get a bad board. If I run a squeeze for a top against them, they go "oh well", but when I psych, they are unhappy. I know this because I psyched last Monday, got a good score, and my opponent complained more than once to the director. (I was the director.) He knew he had no reason to complain, but he was unhappy. Nonetheless, psychs (and any intentional misbids made for tactical reasons) are a nice part of bridge. They take skill, and creativity. I like that the laws protect them. Many people don't, and there is a problem with people psyching too much and the fact that partner can pick these up faster than the opps. But it's fine to protect them. But when I forget or imagine a convention, or my partner and I have a misunderstanding or no understanding, there is no skill involved. I do not appreciate that the laws protect me. I don't want to be protected. I want the opps to know the intended meaning of my bid. Misleading explanations of conventional confusions are not popular with my opponents either. So I do not know why anyone is writing laws to try to protect my right to make conventional confusions and deceive my opponents, or why they work hard to interpret the current laws that way. If you couldn't distinguish the two, then I can see trying to protect them both. But they seem relatively easy to distinguish. In theory it sounds hard, but in practice, there is usually a tactical reason for the psych and no possibility of confusion about conventions. For the conventional confusion misbid, there is usually no tactical reason for the bid and an obvious confusion about conventions. Bob _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 25 12:42:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:42:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com><482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <055201c8bcbf$97fdfec0$0100a8c0@stefanie><03af01c8bd74$ec2f06a0$36709951@stefanie><000301c8be0b$dbb689f0$39d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001701c8be55$3ce88c70$b2ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement Robert Frick: It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to distinguish. SR: How? +=+ Interesting question. A misbid, misexplanation, psyche, all come the same to an opponent, do they not? They mislead. Now if the partner is not misled, caters for the actual holding, is the RA not entitled to say "We don't care how it happened, the partner's action is to be deemed evidence of a partnership understanding" ? Just throwing a pebble intro the pool, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Thanks. A very useful start, except that I think the issue is when partner is misled as well as the opponents. When I psych, the opps do not like it when they get a bad board. If I run a squeeze for a top against them, they go "oh well", but when I psych, they are unhappy. I know this because I psyched last Monday, got a good score, and my opponent complained more than once to the director. (I was the director.) He knew he had no reason to complain, but he was unhappy. Nonetheless, psychs (and any intentional misbids made for tactical reasons) are a nice part of bridge. They take skill, and creativity. I like that the laws protect them. Many people don't, and there is a problem with people psyching too much and the fact that partner can pick these up faster than the opps. But it's fine to protect them. But when I forget or imagine a convention, or my partner and I have a misunderstanding or no understanding, there is no skill involved. I do not appreciate that the laws protect me. I don't want to be protected. I want the opps to know the intended meaning of my bid. Misleading explanations of conventional confusions are not popular with my opponents either. So I do not know why anyone is writing laws to try to protect my right to make conventional confusions and deceive my opponents, or why they work hard to interpret the current laws that way. If you couldn't distinguish the two, then I can see trying to protect them both. But they seem relatively easy to distinguish. In theory it sounds hard, but in practice, there is usually a tactical reason for the psych and no possibility of confusion about conventions. For the conventional confusion misbid, there is usually no tactical reason for the bid and an obvious confusion about conventions. ................................................................................................. +=+ The first issue, of course, is whether the partner is misled equally with opponents [Law 40C1]. It may be noted that 40C1 refers to deviation in general and makes no distinction between the inadvertent and the purposeful. Law 40C1 does express the right to psych or misbid very clearly and it incorporates language Kaplan formerly used in stating the conditions for doing so. Law 75 amplifies the subject. (and in passing draws attention to Law 73C). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 25 16:07:18 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 10:07:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: <006301c8be4a$780e7590$682b60b0$@nl> References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <055201c8bcbf$97fdfec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <03af01c8bd74$ec2f06a0$36709951@stefanie> <000301c8be0b$dbb689f0$39d6403e@Mildred> <006301c8be4a$780e7590$682b60b0$@nl> Message-ID: Hi. I don't particularly like it when I bid a 20% slam and it makes. I apologize to the opps. But there is no proposal to change the situation, and I can't think of one that would make the game of bridge more enjoyable. Luck and evaluation by outcome are probably critical parts of making a game fun. It doesn't seem fair or logical to say that if I unwilling to make changes in the fundamental nature of bridge as a game, I should also be unwilling to make changes about things that make bridge less of a game and less enjoyable. Also, it seems that your argument would apply equally well to mistaken explanations, which I am guessing you in fact do not want to protect. (Although, at the moment, I cannot think of any reason other than tradition why anyone would want, when there is a conventional confusion, to protect misbids and not mistaken explanations.) Bob > If you miscount your points, and bid a 28 point balanced 6NT making on > four > out of four finesses there is no skill involved either. Yet you keep your > score. > > And the reason is simple: when you bid like this you stand a very good > chance of getting a bad score. Your expectation is negative. The laws > just > do not punish you in the exceptional circumstance that it happens to > work. > Bad luck for opps. Bridge was never meant to be a fair game(in the short > run). > > Exactly the same goes for misbids. Your expectation is negative(if not it > would be a great convention). But if you are in luck, you keep your > score. > Bad luck for opps. Bridge was never meant to be a fair game(in the short > run). > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Sent: zondag 25 mei 2008 6:50 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement > > On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:04:36 -0400, wrote: > >> >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "A full cup must be carried steadily." >> [English proverb ] >> "************************* >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Stefanie Rohan" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 9:05 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement >> >> >>> Looks like I sent a blank reply earlier. >>> >>> Robert Frick: >>> >>> >>> It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an >>> unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to >>> distinguish. >>> >>> SR: >>> >>> How? >>> >> +=+ Interesting question. A misbid, misexplanation, psyche, all >> come the same to an opponent, do they not? They mislead. >> Now if the partner is not misled, caters for the actual holding, >> is the RA not entitled to say "We don't care how it happened, >> the partner's action is to be deemed evidence of an partnership >> understanding" ? >> Just throwing a pebble intro the pool, >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Thanks. A very useful start, except that I think the issue is when > partner > is misled as well as the opponents. > > When I psych, the opps do not like it when they get a bad board. If I run > a squeeze for a top against them, they go "oh well", but when I psych, > they are unhappy. I know this because I psyched last Monday, got a good > score, and my opponent complained more than once to the director. (I was > the director.) He knew he had no reason to complain, but he was unhappy. > > Nonetheless, psychs (and any intentional misbids made for tactical > reasons) are a nice part of bridge. They take skill, and creativity. I > like that the laws protect them. Many people don't, and there is a > problem > with people psyching too much and the fact that partner can pick these up > faster than the opps. But it's fine to protect them. > > But when I forget or imagine a convention, or my partner and I have a > misunderstanding or no understanding, there is no skill involved. I do > not > appreciate that the laws protect me. I don't want to be protected. I want > the opps to know the intended meaning of my bid. Misleading explanations > of conventional confusions are not popular with my opponents either. So I > do not know why anyone is writing laws to try to protect my right to make > conventional confusions and deceive my opponents, or why they work hard > to > interpret the current laws that way. > > If you couldn't distinguish the two, then I can see trying to protect > them > both. But they seem relatively easy to distinguish. In theory it sounds > hard, but in practice, there is usually a tactical reason for the psych > and no possibility of confusion about conventions. For the conventional > confusion misbid, there is usually no tactical reason for the bid and an > obvious confusion about conventions. > > Bob > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 geller at nifty.com Sun May 25 16:47:13 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 23:47:13 +0900 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200805251447.AA13836@geller204.nifty.com> If the Dutch dederation (or any other) really wants to sort this out the solution is simple (but a lot of work!): they need to keep a database of ALL forgets, misexplanations, misbids, etc. In the event that a pattern emerges (an implicit or intentional CPU) strong measures should be taken, but otherwise I don't see how they can eliminate "the rub of the green" without fundamentally changing the rules of the game. -Bob Robert Frick writes: >Hi. I don't particularly like it when I bid a 20% slam and it makes. I >apologize to the opps. But there is no proposal to change the situation, >and I can't think of one that would make the game of bridge more >enjoyable. Luck and evaluation by outcome are probably critical parts of >making a game fun. > >It doesn't seem fair or logical to say that if I unwilling to make changes >in the fundamental nature of bridge as a game, I should also be unwilling >to make changes about things that make bridge less of a game and less >enjoyable. > >Also, it seems that your argument would apply equally well to mistaken >explanations, which I am guessing you in fact do not want to protect. >(Although, at the moment, I cannot think of any reason other than >tradition why anyone would want, when there is a conventional confusion, >to protect misbids and not mistaken explanations.) > >Bob > > > > > > > >> If you miscount your points, and bid a 28 point balanced 6NT making on >> four >> out of four finesses there is no skill involved either. Yet you keep your >> score. >> >> And the reason is simple: when you bid like this you stand a very good >> chance of getting a bad score. Your expectation is negative. The laws >> just >> do not punish you in the exceptional circumstance that it happens to >> work. >> Bad luck for opps. Bridge was never meant to be a fair game(in the short >> run). >> >> Exactly the same goes for misbids. Your expectation is negative(if not it >> would be a great convention). But if you are in luck, you keep your >> score. >> Bad luck for opps. Bridge was never meant to be a fair game(in the short >> run). >> >> Hans >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> Sent: zondag 25 mei 2008 6:50 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement >> >> On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:04:36 -0400, wrote: >> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> [following address discontinued: >>> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >>> ************************* >>> "A full cup must be carried steadily." >>> [English proverb ] >>> "************************* >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Stefanie Rohan" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 9:05 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement >>> >>> >>>> Looks like I sent a blank reply earlier. >>>> >>>> Robert Frick: >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an >>>> unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to >>>> distinguish. >>>> >>>> SR: >>>> >>>> How? >>>> >>> +=+ Interesting question. A misbid, misexplanation, psyche, all >>> come the same to an opponent, do they not? They mislead. >>> Now if the partner is not misled, caters for the actual holding, >>> is the RA not entitled to say "We don't care how it happened, >>> the partner's action is to be deemed evidence of an partnership >>> understanding" ? >>> Just throwing a pebble intro the pool, >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Thanks. A very useful start, except that I think the issue is when >> partner >> is misled as well as the opponents. >> >> When I psych, the opps do not like it when they get a bad board. If I run >> a squeeze for a top against them, they go "oh well", but when I psych, >> they are unhappy. I know this because I psyched last Monday, got a good >> score, and my opponent complained more than once to the director. (I was >> the director.) He knew he had no reason to complain, but he was unhappy. >> >> Nonetheless, psychs (and any intentional misbids made for tactical >> reasons) are a nice part of bridge. They take skill, and creativity. I >> like that the laws protect them. Many people don't, and there is a >> problem >> with people psyching too much and the fact that partner can pick these up >> faster than the opps. But it's fine to protect them. >> >> But when I forget or imagine a convention, or my partner and I have a >> misunderstanding or no understanding, there is no skill involved. I do >> not >> appreciate that the laws protect me. I don't want to be protected. I want >> the opps to know the intended meaning of my bid. Misleading explanations >> of conventional confusions are not popular with my opponents either. So I >> do not know why anyone is writing laws to try to protect my right to make >> conventional confusions and deceive my opponents, or why they work hard >> to >> interpret the current laws that way. >> >> If you couldn't distinguish the two, then I can see trying to protect >> them >> both. But they seem relatively easy to distinguish. In theory it sounds >> hard, but in practice, there is usually a tactical reason for the psych >> and no possibility of confusion about conventions. For the conventional >> confusion misbid, there is usually no tactical reason for the bid and an >> obvious confusion about conventions. >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From adam at tameware.com Sun May 25 17:24:28 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:24:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805250816q2b97aa1fh2e55f4a79fcc1737@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805250816q2b97aa1fh2e55f4a79fcc1737@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40805250824r479a6e8cje2f65547c996a384@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:05 AM, wrote: > [Adam] > 4. Kudos to the TDs for correcting their error. This appeal had no merit. > > [lamford] > Again I disagree on an important point of principle. A TD, who is presumed > to know the rules, got this wrong originally and was corrected by a senior TD. > It cannot be right that the appellants are assumed to know the rules better > than one of the directing staff, and therefore the appeal cannot be without > merit, albeit on technical grounds. The appellants had the law explained to them thoroughly both before they appealed and in the appeal screening. They ought to have known they had no case. Getting two different rulings does not give a pair a free shot at an appeal, though many act as if it did. The failure to issue an AWMW here only reinforces this erroneous notion. I'll update my comment to say as much. > [Adam] > 8. A don't understand either part of the TD ruling. Certainly the > question made UI available, and that UI demonstrably suggested acting. > Perhaps the TDs extrapolated from NABC+ case 1, which had appeared in > the daily bulletin by the time this case came up. I believe such > extrapolation is not justified here, but this is something committees > ought to keep in mind. In close cases we should consider the message > our decision will send. > > [lamford] I am not sure what difficulty you have in understanding either > part of the TD ruling, as the English seems perfect. I would agree, however, > that it is a hopeless misjudgement and the AC ruling automatic. If the original > decision had been to restore the result to 2D-1, and North-South had appealed, > then I would have awarded an AWAW, but as the TD got it wrong, that is > clearly inappropriate. Thanks! I've updated my comment to begin "I don't understand why the TD ruled the way he did in either part of his decision." -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sun May 25 17:33:01 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:33:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 In-Reply-To: <4829B413.7060604@NTLworld.com> References: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com> <4829B413.7060604@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40805250833x7381ef84i80cc4cf17c4115f@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [Adam Wildavsky] > Here's my first draft of my casebook comments. Criticisms, > corrections, and comments on my comments are welcome! The write-ups > are here: > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Detroit2008.html > > [Nigel] > Thank you Adam, a pity that few players (at least in the UK) have heard > about these appeal write-ups and expert commentaries. People would be > considerably cheered up to discover that nowadays more than half the > appeal decisions are substantially correct -- and that improvement is > mostly a result of *previous* case-law. Thanks for your comments, Nigel. I agree that one of the main reasons for improved rulings both at the table and in committee is almost 20 years of casebooks. David Stevenson produces casebooks for the EBU, and I've noticed similar improvements there, though I haven't read the most recent casebook. I wish the WBF published write-ups of all of their appeals. How would you suggest publicizing casebooks? One way would be posts on rec.games.bridge. It would reach a relatively small segment of players, but it's a start! The casebooks are mentioned on r.g.b occasionally, but I haven't been posting announcements there the way I do here. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sun May 25 17:41:21 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:41:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 In-Reply-To: <549C8BED25B54F3BB8A941AE46AB4E21@erdos> References: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com> <549C8BED25B54F3BB8A941AE46AB4E21@erdos> Message-ID: <694eadd40805250841y71e9ddb9tf6db2ccfbb6a1574@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:37 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> 8. A don't understand either part of the TD ruling. Certainly the >> question made UI available, and that UI demonstrably suggested acting. >> Perhaps the TDs extrapolated from NABC+ case 1, which had appeared in >> the daily bulletin by the time this case came up. I believe such >> extrapolation is not justified here, but this is something committees >> ought to keep in mind. In close cases we should consider the message >> our decision will send. > > What I would like to know in this case is how well E-W complied with the > convention card rules; in the final of an NABC+ event, I would expect good > compliance, but it's not guaranteed. I usually look at the convention card when > an unalerted 2D is opened because the bid is so often conventional and the alert > might be missing. If E-W had a convention card easily accessible to North, and > North asked a question, the question (rather than looking) may have transmitted > UI. If the closest convention card was under West's coffee cup, in East's lap, > in front of South (only one card), incompletely filled out, or illegible, then > the question should not be considered to transmit UI. Thanks for your comments, David! Where do you usually play? I've found that in the ACBL redress is usually granted for missing alerts of calls that are often played as natural. Surely this would be even more likely in situations where neither opponent's CC is visible. Unfortunately this seems less true in some other jurisdictions, where I often read decisions proclaiming that a player ought to have "protected his own back." -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sun May 25 17:56:47 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 11:56:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805250833x7381ef84i80cc4cf17c4115f@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com> <4829B413.7060604@NTLworld.com> <694eadd40805250833x7381ef84i80cc4cf17c4115f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40805250856y6089cc36k43125a74d09c954c@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:33 AM, I wrote: > How would you suggest publicizing casebooks? One way would be posts on > rec.games.bridge. It would reach a relatively small segment of > players, but it's a start! The casebooks are mentioned on r.g.b > occasionally, but I haven't been posting announcements there the way I > do here. I ought to have realized that not everyone would be familiar with rec.games.bridge. It's a USENET newsgroup and it can be read and posted to here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/ -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun May 25 18:36:58 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 18:36:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805250856y6089cc36k43125a74d09c954c@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com> <4829B413.7060604@NTLworld.com> <694eadd40805250833x7381ef84i80cc4cf17c4115f@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805250856y6089cc36k43125a74d09c954c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483995AA.4000009@aol.com> Hola Adam! I tried the site you gave (and the short form as well) but found only a notification that at this time there was no info available. Try it and see if you have more luck. Ciao,JE adam at tameware.com schrieb: > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:33 AM, I wrote: > >>How would you suggest publicizing casebooks? One way would be posts on >>rec.games.bridge. It would reach a relatively small segment of >>players, but it's a start! The casebooks are mentioned on r.g.b >>occasionally, but I haven't been posting announcements there the way I >>do here. > > > I ought to have realized that not everyone would be familiar with > rec.games.bridge. It's a USENET newsgroup and it can be read and > posted to here: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/ > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun May 25 18:55:45 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 12:55:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805250841y71e9ddb9tf6db2ccfbb6a1574@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com><549C8BED25B54F3BB8A941AE46AB4E21@erdos> <694eadd40805250841y71e9ddb9tf6db2ccfbb6a1574@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <15C5335E662A4421B775436F428FEBC9@erdos> "Adam Wildavsky" writes: > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:37 PM, David Grabiner > wrote: >>> 8. A don't understand either part of the TD ruling. Certainly the >>> question made UI available, and that UI demonstrably suggested acting. >>> Perhaps the TDs extrapolated from NABC+ case 1, which had appeared in >>> the daily bulletin by the time this case came up. I believe such >>> extrapolation is not justified here, but this is something committees >>> ought to keep in mind. In close cases we should consider the message >>> our decision will send. >> >> What I would like to know in this case is how well E-W complied with the >> convention card rules; in the final of an NABC+ event, I would expect good >> compliance, but it's not guaranteed. I usually look at the convention card >> when >> an unalerted 2D is opened because the bid is so often conventional and the >> alert >> might be missing. If E-W had a convention card easily accessible to North, >> and >> North asked a question, the question (rather than looking) may have >> transmitted >> UI. If the closest convention card was under West's coffee cup, in East's >> lap, >> in front of South (only one card), incompletely filled out, or illegible, >> then >> the question should not be considered to transmit UI. > Where do you usually play? I've found that in the ACBL redress is > usually granted for missing alerts of calls that are often played as > natural. Surely this would be even more likely in situations where > neither opponent's CC is visible. Unfortunately this seems less true > in some other jurisdictions, where I often read decisions proclaiming > that a player ought to have "protected his own back." I play in the ACBL, and redress is normally granted, but it isn't guaranteed, and in any case, I would prefer to win at the table if possible. For example, the committee can decide that the NOS was misinformed but would only have beaten the contract half the time given the correct information. As a defender, I would rather have the correct information and either find the correct defense or not. The appeal itself illustrates the problem. N/S chose not to appear at the appeal (it may not have mattered to them), and thus had no opportunity to claim that the questions were asked because of a violation of CC regulations (which is, unfortunately, very common in the ACBL), and they were trying to protect themselves. If the CC was immediately visible to North, then she would not have passed any UI by looking at it during the mandatory 10-second pause, since this would be showing normal interest in the auction. For that matter, if she said, "What is 2D?" and nothing else, I would also rule no UI; if she asked multiple questions, there could be UI. And that is the only reason for an adjustment here. South has AI that North has about 13 points, because West opened a weak 2-bid and East passed as dealer. South may have UI if the questions suggest something about North's hand beyond the 13 points. From sater at xs4all.nl Sun May 25 21:47:29 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 21:47:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <055201c8bcbf$97fdfec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <03af01c8bd74$ec2f06a0$36709951@stefanie> <000301c8be0b$dbb689f0$39d6403e@Mildred> <006301c8be4a$780e7590$682b60b0$@nl> Message-ID: <007e01c8bea0$2a6b2990$7f417cb0$@nl> The notion that a mistake in bidding is (or should be) equivalent to a mistake in explanation pops up more often. Let me try to inject some thoughts here. The easiest way to kill that argument is of course that the law makes that difference, and therefore there is a difference. That should be enough for a director for the next ten years or so. However, there is a stronger argument. When the partnership of A and B are bidding each bid carries three meanings: 1) What A meant 2) What B understood 3) The systemic agreement Now in a perfect partnership these three meanings are always identical. However, between human beings sometimes a difference pops up. Let us look at a misbid first. A goofs, and bids the wrong thing. Opponents ask, and B answers. B gives the meaning of 2) and 3) since these are identical. Now look at a mistake in explanation. A bids the right thing, B goofs and explains something else. Opponents now get the meaning of 2) only. That is why in my opinion the law is quite right in making the distinction between the two. Misinformation is worse, since you get only 1 out of 3, as opposed to a misbid, where you get 2 out of 3. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: zondag 25 mei 2008 16:07 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement Hi. I don't particularly like it when I bid a 20% slam and it makes. I apologize to the opps. But there is no proposal to change the situation, and I can't think of one that would make the game of bridge more enjoyable. Luck and evaluation by outcome are probably critical parts of making a game fun. It doesn't seem fair or logical to say that if I unwilling to make changes in the fundamental nature of bridge as a game, I should also be unwilling to make changes about things that make bridge less of a game and less enjoyable. Also, it seems that your argument would apply equally well to mistaken explanations, which I am guessing you in fact do not want to protect. (Although, at the moment, I cannot think of any reason other than tradition why anyone would want, when there is a conventional confusion, to protect misbids and not mistaken explanations.) Bob > If you miscount your points, and bid a 28 point balanced 6NT making on > four > out of four finesses there is no skill involved either. Yet you keep your > score. > > And the reason is simple: when you bid like this you stand a very good > chance of getting a bad score. Your expectation is negative. The laws > just > do not punish you in the exceptional circumstance that it happens to > work. > Bad luck for opps. Bridge was never meant to be a fair game(in the short > run). > > Exactly the same goes for misbids. Your expectation is negative(if not it > would be a great convention). But if you are in luck, you keep your > score. > Bad luck for opps. Bridge was never meant to be a fair game(in the short > run). > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Sent: zondag 25 mei 2008 6:50 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement > > On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:04:36 -0400, wrote: > >> >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "A full cup must be carried steadily." >> [English proverb ] >> "************************* >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Stefanie Rohan" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 9:05 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement >> >> >>> Looks like I sent a blank reply earlier. >>> >>> Robert Frick: >>> >>> >>> It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an >>> unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to >>> distinguish. >>> >>> SR: >>> >>> How? >>> >> +=+ Interesting question. A misbid, misexplanation, psyche, all >> come the same to an opponent, do they not? They mislead. >> Now if the partner is not misled, caters for the actual holding, >> is the RA not entitled to say "We don't care how it happened, >> the partner's action is to be deemed evidence of an partnership >> understanding" ? >> Just throwing a pebble intro the pool, >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Thanks. A very useful start, except that I think the issue is when > partner > is misled as well as the opponents. > > When I psych, the opps do not like it when they get a bad board. If I run > a squeeze for a top against them, they go "oh well", but when I psych, > they are unhappy. I know this because I psyched last Monday, got a good > score, and my opponent complained more than once to the director. (I was > the director.) He knew he had no reason to complain, but he was unhappy. > > Nonetheless, psychs (and any intentional misbids made for tactical > reasons) are a nice part of bridge. They take skill, and creativity. I > like that the laws protect them. Many people don't, and there is a > problem > with people psyching too much and the fact that partner can pick these up > faster than the opps. But it's fine to protect them. > > But when I forget or imagine a convention, or my partner and I have a > misunderstanding or no understanding, there is no skill involved. I do > not > appreciate that the laws protect me. I don't want to be protected. I want > the opps to know the intended meaning of my bid. Misleading explanations > of conventional confusions are not popular with my opponents either. So I > do not know why anyone is writing laws to try to protect my right to make > conventional confusions and deceive my opponents, or why they work hard > to > interpret the current laws that way. > > If you couldn't distinguish the two, then I can see trying to protect > them > both. But they seem relatively easy to distinguish. In theory it sounds > hard, but in practice, there is usually a tactical reason for the psych > and no possibility of confusion about conventions. For the conventional > confusion misbid, there is usually no tactical reason for the bid and an > obvious confusion about conventions. > > Bob > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 26 06:53:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 14:53:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <18406100.1211299447190.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: John R. Mayne: >This a question we've handled before, but I'm not sure >there's a satisfactory answer. The Bridge World had a hand >where declarer had to play close to this suit combo: > >JT9873 > >AQ6542 > >for no losers. Declarer led the jack, saw the outshow, and >conceded a trick to the SK. Enmity ensued all around; >dummy called the director and the director said declarer >got to keep his well earned down one. > >The committee ruled that the spade king could not be lost >by normal play. The author of the piece thought this was >the worst ruling in recorded history; I submit that the >law is fatally flawed on this. [snip] Richard Hills: The 1997 Lawbook was fatally flawed, since the footnote to the claim Laws which defined "normal" had the criterion of "not irrational". But I submit that the 2007 Lawbook is not fatally flawed, because the new footnote states: "* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." In John Mayne's case, does declarer belong to a class of player for which it would be careless or inferior to fail to count to 13? Obviously so, since declarer has just conceded an unnecessary trick to an offside king after a "bad break" of 1-0. Is it irrational to fail to count to 13? Of course, but rationality is no longer relevant, so the table Director was merely a few years ahead of her 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 26 07:20:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 15:20:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483995AA.4000009@aol.com> Message-ID: To coincide with the introduction of the 2007 Lawbook in Australia on 1st June, the ABF has updated its Alerting, Bidding and System regulations. http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ (The latest version of the Zone 7 options and interpretations are also on this webpage.) 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 May 26 08:21:04 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 02:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <10308755.1211782864842.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Sent: May 26, 2008 12:53 AM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >John R. Mayne: > >>This a question we've handled before, but I'm not sure >>there's a satisfactory answer. The Bridge World had a hand >>where declarer had to play close to this suit combo: >> >>JT9873 >> >>AQ6542 >> >>for no losers. Declarer led the jack, saw the outshow, and >>conceded a trick to the SK. Enmity ensued all around; >>dummy called the director and the director said declarer >>got to keep his well earned down one. >> >>The committee ruled that the spade king could not be lost >>by normal play. The author of the piece thought this was >>the worst ruling in recorded history; I submit that the >>law is fatally flawed on this. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >The 1997 Lawbook was fatally flawed, since the footnote to >the claim Laws which defined "normal" had the criterion of >"not irrational". > >But I submit that the 2007 Lawbook is not fatally flawed, >because the new footnote states: > >"* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes >play that would be careless or inferior for the class of >player involved." > >In John Mayne's case, does declarer belong to a class of >player for which it would be careless or inferior to fail >to count to 13? Obviously so, since declarer has just >conceded an unnecessary trick to an offside king after a >"bad break" of 1-0. Boy, I don't see it. "Normal" still has some meaning, and "Careless or inferior for the class of player involved" doesn't mean that we expect Zia to revoke just because he did it a few years back at the Nationals. One incident of something doesn't make it normal, or even "careless or inferior." Conveniently, less than four hours ago, I managed a defensive feat that was well beyond any ordinary horror; it was a wildly improbably bad play to make for me. However, I am a bit distracted these days and managed to do it anyway. In a good year, I would make zero such errors. There's something past careless or inferior, even if we have evidence of total brainlessness from one hand. The failure of the laws to stick people to their claim statement is the problem, and Richard's sophistry on the issue doesn't solve that. Believe me, I'd *like* it to solve it, but I don't buy the argument. Because when we don't, what if the same guy claims all those spades without a statement? You're going to give the opponents a trick because he's been here before? That just cannot be right; claiming on 6-6 trump suits missing the king seems like something we'd like to encourage. It's a noble effort. But ultimately a failing one, I think. --JRM From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 26 09:13:45 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 17:13:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ABF System Regulation 2008, clause 3.6: More Comprehensive Descriptions of Systems In the interests of full disclosure and for a pair's own benefit in case of disputes, any pair may submit one copy of a more comprehensive description of their system to the Tournament Convenor before the first session of any event. In decisions taken by Tournament Directors and by the Appeals Committee, pairs who have submitted their full system will be given the benefit of any support this provides for an explanation given at the table. Herman De Wael (24th April, unfairly quoted out of context): >I am not in the ABF, nor do I want to be if they issue such >silly regulations as that. Richard Hills: But if Herman was an ABF TD, how would he rule if: (a) Richard described Hashmat's 2S rebid as non-systemic, and (b) the Tournament Convenor's prior copy of the Ali-Hills system boldly listed Hashmat's 2S rebid as non-systemic??? 2007 Law 81B2: "The Director applies, and **is bound by**, these Laws and **supplementary regulations** announced under authority given in 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon May 26 09:27:05 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 09:27:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <10308755.1211782864842.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <10308755.1211782864842.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: On 26/05/2008, John R. Mayne wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >Sent: May 26, 2008 12:53 AM > >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >Subject: Re: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >John R. Mayne: > > > >>This a question we've handled before, but I'm not sure > >>there's a satisfactory answer. The Bridge World had a hand > >>where declarer had to play close to this suit combo: > >> > >>JT9873 > >> > >>AQ6542 > >> > >>for no losers. Declarer led the jack, saw the outshow, and > >>conceded a trick to the SK. Enmity ensued all around; > >>dummy called the director and the director said declarer > >>got to keep his well earned down one. > >> > >>The committee ruled that the spade king could not be lost > >>by normal play. The author of the piece thought this was > >>the worst ruling in recorded history; I submit that the > >>law is fatally flawed on this. > > > >[snip] > > > >Richard Hills: > > > >The 1997 Lawbook was fatally flawed, since the footnote to > >the claim Laws which defined "normal" had the criterion of > >"not irrational". > > > >But I submit that the 2007 Lawbook is not fatally flawed, > >because the new footnote states: > > > >"* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes > >play that would be careless or inferior for the class of > >player involved." > > > >In John Mayne's case, does declarer belong to a class of > >player for which it would be careless or inferior to fail > >to count to 13? Obviously so, since declarer has just > >conceded an unnecessary trick to an offside king after a > >"bad break" of 1-0. > > Boy, I don't see it. "Normal" still has some meaning, and "Careless or inferior for the class of player involved" doesn't mean that we expect Zia to revoke just because he did it a few years back at the Nationals. > > One incident of something doesn't make it normal, or even "careless or inferior." Conveniently, less than four hours ago, I managed a defensive feat that was well beyond any ordinary horror; it was a wildly improbably bad play to make for me. However, I am a bit distracted these days and managed to do it anyway. In a good year, I would make zero such errors. > > There's something past careless or inferior, even if we have evidence of total brainlessness from one hand. The failure of the laws to stick people to their claim statement is the problem, and Richard's sophistry on the issue doesn't solve that. Believe me, I'd *like* it to solve it, but I don't buy the argument. > > Because when we don't, what if the same guy claims all those spades without a statement? You're going to give the opponents a trick because he's been here before? That just cannot be right; claiming on 6-6 trump suits missing the king seems like something we'd like to encourage. > > It's a noble effort. But ultimately a failing one, I think. > There's a difference between a player claiming all the tricks and a player conceding a trick here. The first player obviously knows that the king is a singleton (he has counted his and dummys cards and know they add up to 12), the player conceding a trick has demonstrated that he believes LHO holds a winner, thus 'finessing' is not neither irrational nor abnormal for him. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 26 09:31:26 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 09:31:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <10308755.1211782864842.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <10308755.1211782864842.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <483A674E.3010808@ulb.ac.be> John R. Mayne a ?crit : > > > Boy, I don't see it. "Normal" still has some meaning, and "Careless or inferior for the class of player involved" doesn't mean that we expect Zia to revoke just because he did it a few years back at the Nationals. > > AG : ISTM that it has been said before on BLML that rationality is only considered within legality, so that revoking would never be considered rational (think about what L12 would become !). > There's something past careless or inferior, even if we have evidence of total brainlessness from one hand. The failure of the laws to stick people to their claim statement is the problem AG : May I remember you that, in my original problem, it's by forcing the player to stick to his statement that we awarded him all 13 tricks. Now why do you consider TFLB doesn't compel players to stic kto their statement ? I don't read it that way. > , and Richard's sophistry on the issue doesn't solve that. Believe me, I'd *like* it to solve it, but I don't buy the argument. > > Because when we don't, what if the same guy claims all those spades without a statement? You're going to give the opponents a trick because he's been here before? That just cannot be right; claiming on 6-6 trump suits missing the king seems like something we'd like to encourage. > > AG : in this problem, the player has stated that he'll give a trump trick, and it might as well be the first one. While, in my example, the player said, beyond any doubt, that he would give a trick after he made all his tricks in the minors. Except that there is no after. So, in the 66 case, I'd rule that the loss of one trick is compatible with the statement. In the 8+4+1 case, I didn't know, but after reading the answers, I agree that the loss of one trick isn't compatible with the statement, so that we'd give all 13. (one of the reasons why I had no strong line about it is that the claimer was my partner) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 26 09:42:16 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 09:42:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <10308755.1211782864842.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <483A69D8.2070309@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > There's a difference between a player claiming all the tricks and a > player conceding a trick here. The first player obviously knows that > the king is a singleton (he has counted his and dummys cards and know > they add up to 12), the player conceding a trick has demonstrated that > he believes LHO holds a winner, thus 'finessing' is not neither > irrational nor abnormal for him. > > AG : this is just one other occurrence of taking into account strong evidence of the player's state of mind, something that would be rejected by some contributors. But apparently jurisprudence asks us to do so. For example, it has been said before that, if a declarer, handling a trump suit of AQxxx / Kxx, pulls two rounds (everybody following), says 'aha' and claims wthout saying loudly 'I pull the last one', he is deemed to know there is a trump out, but if he pulls those two rounds, handles another suit then claims without saying 'I pull the trump', he's deemed to have forgotten it. IMHO, the same principle is at work in the distinction Harald makes, and he's right to make it. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 26 10:18:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:18:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: <200805251447.AA13836@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200805251447.AA13836@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <483A726A.5050609@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > If the Dutch dederation (or any other) really wants to sort this out the > solution is simple (but a lot of work!): they need to keep a database of > ALL forgets, misexplanations, misbids, etc. In the event that a pattern > emerges (an implicit or intentional CPU) strong measures should be > taken, but otherwise I don't see how they can eliminate "the rub of the > green" without fundamentally changing the rules of the game. > That won't work! The problem is that people start playing conventions before they know them. Every convention needs to be forgotten once to remember it well. So you don't get "histories of forgets". And it would seem logical to also punish the first forget. "Since it has not yet been fully remembered, it's not an agreement". I concur wholeheartedly with the fact that the Dutch federation would like to try to tackle this problem, and I concur with lots of rulings they have made under their (previous) interpretation of agreement. What I am wholly opposed against is the way the Federation has recently tried to pour their views into regulations. Regulations that as such are completely wrong. Take this latest proposal here. To try and quantify when an agreement becomes "fixed" is bound to fail. Some pairs play three times a week, so their agreements are set in stone after three months. Others play together once a year, so when they forget something that they put on their convention card 7 years ago, the agreement is accepted? Also my SC carries a date, but it's changed every few weeks. Do I need to keep and carry the SC of 12 months ago in order to prove which agreements are fixed and which are not? Absolute lunacy. NBF, just keep ruling that if an agreement is forgotten, it did not exist. And don't go overboard like in the appeal last year, where a player remembered his true agreement before the tray had returned, thereby proving the misbid to all and sundry! > -Bob -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 26 10:23:08 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:23:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: <007e01c8bea0$2a6b2990$7f417cb0$@nl> References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl> <4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com> <482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be> <055201c8bcbf$97fdfec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <03af01c8bd74$ec2f06a0$36709951@stefanie> <000301c8be0b$dbb689f0$39d6403e@Mildred> <006301c8be4a$780e7590$682b60b0$@nl> <007e01c8bea0$2a6b2990$7f417cb0$@nl> Message-ID: <483A736C.3090005@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > The notion that a mistake in bidding is (or should be) equivalent to a > mistake in explanation pops up more often. Let me try to inject some > thoughts here. > > The easiest way to kill that argument is of course that the law makes that > difference, and therefore there is a difference. That should be enough for a > director for the next ten years or so. > > However, there is a stronger argument. When the partnership of A and B are > bidding each bid carries three meanings: > 1) What A meant > 2) What B understood > 3) The systemic agreement > > Now in a perfect partnership these three meanings are always identical. > However, between human beings sometimes a difference pops up. > > Let us look at a misbid first. A goofs, and bids the wrong thing. Opponents > ask, and B answers. B gives the meaning of 2) and 3) since these are > identical. > > Now look at a mistake in explanation. A bids the right thing, B goofs and > explains something else. Opponents now get the meaning of 2) only. > > That is why in my opinion the law is quite right in making the distinction > between the two. Misinformation is worse, since you get only 1 out of 3, as > opposed to a misbid, where you get 2 out of 3. > Sadly Hans is making a logical error here. You cannot simply count truths and add them to make decisions as to what is worse. After all, the opponents are not interested in what the systemic meaning is, they are interested in what A meant, and to a lesser degree what B understood, since that will affect what B's next call might mean. In that sense, both the misbid and the misinformation are equally bad for opponents, since in both they get a wrong picture of what A has (which is what they really want, but they know they'll have to settle with what A meant). Which does not mean I don't agree with Hans' views in this subject. > Hans > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 26 10:38:20 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:38:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483A76FC.30102@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > ABF System Regulation 2008, clause 3.6: > > More Comprehensive Descriptions of Systems > > In the interests of full disclosure and for a pair's own benefit > in case of disputes, any pair may submit one copy of a more > comprehensive description of their system to the Tournament > Convenor before the first session of any event. In decisions > taken by Tournament Directors and by the Appeals Committee, > pairs who have submitted their full system will be given the > benefit of any support this provides for an explanation given at > the table. > > Herman De Wael (24th April, unfairly quoted out of context): > Unfair out of context quote accepted because in context with following post. >> I am not in the ABF, nor do I want to be if they issue such >> silly regulations as that. > > Richard Hills: > > But if Herman was an ABF TD, how would he rule if: > > (a) Richard described Hashmat's 2S rebid as non-systemic, and > > (b) the Tournament Convenor's prior copy of the Ali-Hills > system boldly listed Hashmat's 2S rebid as non-systemic??? > > 2007 Law 81B2: > > "The Director applies, and **is bound by**, these Laws and > **supplementary regulations** announced under authority given > in these Laws." > The Director is however not bound by the letter of the agreements submitted. Allow me to give a very foolish example: Suppose Richard's submitted system contains on page 23: 2S = S+C, and on page 47 2S = H+D (in the same sequence). Suppose Richard holds S+C, bids 2S, and his partner explains it as H+D. And Richard then drags out page 47 of his system notes and claims it's a misbid. (I said it was a foolish example!). Surely the Director is allowed to read the system notes for what they are worth, and to rule misinformation if he finds they are worthless (or inconsistent). So I would have exactly the same reaction as before when a pair lists a bid as non-systemic and then finds a use for it at the table. If they can find the use at the table, then they could also have found it at home. Particularly if the partner appears to understand! Whereas I could understand a saying of "we've never discussed what this means, I'll try to deduce what it could be", I cannot accept a writing of "we have found no possible use for this bid, it does not exist". Well, I can accept it, but I cannot accept it when such a use is found at the table. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 26 11:48:41 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:48:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <10308755.1211782864842.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <002d01c8bf16$20357860$a1d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> There's a difference between a player claiming all the tricks and a player conceding a trick here. The first player obviously knows that the king is a singleton (he has counted his and dummys cards and knows they add up to 12), the player conceding a trick has demonstrated that he believes LHO holds a winner, thus 'finessing' is not neither irrational nor abnormal for him. > > +=+ It is normal as defined ('careless') to miscount cards. Bill Schoder campaigned tirelessly for his belief (which I share) that irrationality is a condition of pure logic and has nothing to do with class of player. It was in deference to this view that the DSC removed the word 'irrational' from the footnote. The committee did not discuss whether it agreed with his belief, and made no pronouncement on the subject; it agreed that normality should be determined by reference to carelessness or inferirority for the class of player, but not by reference to any question of irrationality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Mon May 26 16:49:24 2008 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 18:49:24 +0400 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure Message-ID: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> Hi all? Thx all for interesting discussion. But there was a question that remained almost unnoticeable. It was raised by Robert Frick and answered by Swen Pran. As it was not cleared up I?d like to repeat the problem: My LHO opened 1Heart, partner passed and RHO bid 1Heart? The TD was summoned and he said that it was my turn to make decision: to accept or not to accept. But it is bridge decision and I need more information before making it ? for executing my rights in accordance with L10C3. This decision will depend not only on my hand and meaning of the IB. I will need to get to know possible options from L27? I am trying to resolve the problem as a player: I am not puppet to say accept or not accept without re-think the matter with all needed facts? By the way ? when dealing with (for example) L54 ? declarer is usually informed about every options before he decides to accept (or not to accept) lead out of turn? And in IB case I got the problem with same kind of difficulty. So my questions: 1. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know intended meaning of IB? (OK ? it is TD?s problem to keep this information 100%-secretly for IB?s partner). 2. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know in advance (before making my decision) IB?s options after my decision? For my opinion negative answers for these questions may destroy player?s rights (as IB?s LHO)? Sincerely, Vitold to From john at asimere.com Mon May 26 17:23:09 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 16:23:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <10308755.1211782864842.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <001a01c8bf44$67d8ec50$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Mayne" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 7:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] more-than-complete claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >>John R. Mayne: >> >>>This a question we've handled before, but I'm not sure >>>there's a satisfactory answer. The Bridge World had a hand >>>where declarer had to play close to this suit combo: >>> >>>JT9873 >>> >>>AQ6542 >>> >>>for no losers. Declarer led the jack, saw the outshow, and >>>conceded a trick to the SK. Enmity ensued all around; >>>dummy called the director and the director said declarer >>>got to keep his well earned down one. >>> >>>The committee ruled that the spade king could not be lost >>>by normal play. The author of the piece thought this was >>>the worst ruling in recorded history; I submit that the >>>law is fatally flawed on this. >> snip > > Because when we don't, what if the same guy claims all those spades > without a statement? You're going to give the opponents a trick because > he's been here before? That just cannot be right; claiming on 6-6 trump > suits missing the king seems like something we'd like to encourage. > > It's a noble effort. But ultimately a failing one, I think. A claim shows declarer can count. The concession showed declarer couldn't. Routine trick for the stiff K IMO, John > > --JRM > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon May 26 17:27:35 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 16:27:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <483A76FC.30102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002b01c8bf45$064198b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> ABF System Regulation 2008, clause 3.6: >> >> More Comprehensive Descriptions of Systems >> >> In the interests of full disclosure and for a pair's own benefit >> in case of disputes, any pair may submit one copy of a more >> comprehensive description of their system to the Tournament >> Convenor before the first session of any event. In decisions >> taken by Tournament Directors and by the Appeals Committee, >> pairs who have submitted their full system will be given the >> benefit of any support this provides for an explanation given at >> the table. >> I'm quite prepared to publish all 180 pages of my agreements with Damian here. Anyone up for 10 Meg of system notes? Would that be sufficient evidence? :) John From john at asimere.com Mon May 26 17:33:56 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 16:33:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "vitoldbr" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 3:49 PM Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure > Hi all? > Thx all for interesting discussion. > But there was a question that remained almost unnoticeable. It was raised > by Robert Frick and answered by Swen Pran. As it was not cleared up I'd > like to repeat the problem: > My LHO opened 1Heart, partner passed and RHO bid 1Heart. > The TD was summoned and he said that it was my turn to make decision: to > accept or not to accept. > But it is bridge decision and I need more information before making it - > for executing my rights in accordance with L10C3. This decision will > depend not only on my hand and meaning of the IB. I will need to get to > know possible options from L27. I am trying to resolve the problem as a > player: I am not puppet to say accept or not accept without re-think the > matter with all needed facts. > By the way - when dealing with (for example) L54 - declarer is usually > informed about every options before he decides to accept (or not to > accept) lead out of turn. > And in IB case I got the problem with same kind of difficulty. So my > questions: > 1. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know intended meaning of IB? (OK - > it is TD's problem to keep this information 100%-secretly for IB's > partner). > 2. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know in advance (before making my > decision) IB's options after my decision? > For my opinion negative answers for these questions may destroy player's > rights (as IB's LHO). > Sincerely, > Vitold > It's a very good question Vitold (Hi, Long time no speak). If it is a given that one cannot reasonably (or legally) have an agreement about ones own sides' infractions, then the meaning of the IB is "no agreement". We know full well that all we are entitled to is the partnership agreement, not the player's thought process. Therefore you are absolutely NOT allowed to get an explanation other than "no agreements as they would be illegal" . However I would expect a player to provide past history of similar accidents. "Last time he made an IB it was because he didn't see the auction to date" since this is part of partnership experience, and the TD should so instruct. John > > > to > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon May 26 18:46:03 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 18:46:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?comments_on_27_procedure?= In-Reply-To: <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <1K0fpi-1aY6im0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> From: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" > From: "vitoldbr" > > Hi all? > > Thx all for interesting discussion. > > But there was a question that remained almost unnoticeable. It was > > raised by Robert Frick and answered by Swen Pran. As it was not > > cleared up I'd like to repeat the problem: > > My LHO opened 1Heart, partner passed and RHO bid 1Heart. > > The TD was summoned and he said that it was my turn to make > > decision: to accept or not to accept. > > But it is bridge decision and I need more information before making > > it - for executing my rights in accordance with L10C3. This decision > > will depend not only on my hand and meaning of the IB. I will need > > to get to know possible options from L27. I am trying to resolve the > > problem as a player: I am not puppet to say accept or not accept > > without re-think the matter with all needed facts. > > By the way - when dealing with (for example) L54 - declarer is > > usually informed about every options before ?he decides to accept > > (or not to accept) lead out of turn. > > And in IB case I got the problem with same kind of difficulty. So my > > questions: > > 1. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know intended meaning of IB? > > (OK - it is TD's problem to keep this information 100%-secretly for > > IB's partner). > > 2. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know in advance (before making > > my decision) IB's options after my decision? > > For my opinion negative answers for these questions may destroy > > player's rights (as IB's LHO). > > Sincerely, > > Vitold > > > > > It's a very good question Vitold (Hi, Long time no speak). If it is a > given that one cannot reasonably (or legally) have an agreement about > ones own sides' infractions, then the meaning of the IB is "no > agreement". We know full well that all we are entitled to is the > partnership agreement, not the player's thought process. Therefore you > are absolutely NOT allowed to get an explanation other than "no > agreements as they would be illegal" . Yes > However I would expect a player > to provide past history of similar accidents. "Last time he made an IB > it was because he didn't see the auction to date" since this is part > of partnership experience, and the TD should so instruct. No, John, please Next time a player passes out of turn you want his partner to explain "Last time he did so, he had 6 points, thereby holding 1 ace" ?? As long as irregularities are unintended they do not form a part of partnership experience IMO. And regarding Vitold's 2nd question: Yes, you (IB's LHO) have the right to get all the possibilities explained, but in a form of 1. If IBer replaces with the next legal bid in the IB's denomination (and they both are not artificial) there will be no rectification; 2. If IBer replaces with a bid which has the same or more precise meaning as the IB, there will be no rectification; 3. If IBer replaces with anything different, partner will be barred for the remainder of the auction. 4. If I (the TD) will come the conclusion (after play ceases) that the IB's side will have found a contract they otherwise would not have found without the help of the IB, I will adjust the score afterwards. But, you will not be told, whether 1. will be in order nor which call(s) are consistent with 2. (if any). Peter > > John > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 26 19:08:20 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 18:08:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <005401c8bf56$163824d0$7dd3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 3:49 PM Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure 1 . Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know intended meaning of IB? (OK ? it is TD?s problem to keep this information 100%-secretly for IB?s partner). 2. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know in advance (before making my decision) IB?s options after my decision? For my opinion negative answers for these questions may destroy player?s rights (as IB?s LHO)? +=+ No to both questions. I understand this knowledge will be included in documents for the EBL seminar in Italy this weekend. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 26 19:24:34 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 18:24:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <483A76FC.30102@skynet.be> <002b01c8bf45$064198b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <005501c8bf56$1721e890$7dd3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> I'm quite prepared to publish all 180 pages of my agreements with Damian here. Anyone up for 10 Meg of system notes? Would that be sufficient evidence? :) John > +=+ You would be welcome to deposit it at the Systems Desk at an EBL or WBF tournament. For information not electronically recorded we do not provide transport or lifting gear. ~Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 26 19:32:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:32:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002b01c8bf45$064198b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <483A76FC.30102@skynet.be> <002b01c8bf45$064198b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <483AF433.4060708@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:38 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> ABF System Regulation 2008, clause 3.6: >>> >>> More Comprehensive Descriptions of Systems >>> >>> In the interests of full disclosure and for a pair's own benefit >>> in case of disputes, any pair may submit one copy of a more >>> comprehensive description of their system to the Tournament >>> Convenor before the first session of any event. In decisions >>> taken by Tournament Directors and by the Appeals Committee, >>> pairs who have submitted their full system will be given the >>> benefit of any support this provides for an explanation given at >>> the table. >>> >>> > I'm quite prepared to publish all 180 pages of my agreements with Damian > here. Anyone up for 10 Meg of system notes? Would that be sufficient > evidence? :) John > If you can submit your notes in digital form, typically a CD, which will be printed only if necessary, and which may be taken back, it looks like a good idea. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 26 20:15:20 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:15:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. Message-ID: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott References: <200805151404.m4FE4O4Y009278@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <483B085E.5020307@nhcc.net> [I've had some computer problems that have prevented sending, though not receiving. I'm now trying to catch up with some old messages. Sorry for delayed responses.] > Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 05:18:57 +0100 > From: Guthrie > The few Americans, with whom I've discussed this are unsure whether > other Americans ask consistently but they suspect not. One admitted that > he, himself, wouldn't always ask, if he knew from his own holding that > partner could have no more. That's contrary to my experience. From: "Jerry Fusselman" > Always ask, even when partner has been out of clubs for five tricks > now? Oh, come on, Jerry. You know better than that. "Always ask" means the first time partner shows out of each suit. You just have to remember to do it even if you have already seen all 13 cards of that suit. Most people don't have any trouble doing it, though Nigel seems to have met the exception. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon May 26 21:02:04 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 15:02:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 Message-ID: <483B092C.5050507@nhcc.net> Here are some comments on Adam's comments. This was first sent May 14, but I don't think it got out. > > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > 5. It seems to me it might be "at all probable" that East would allow > > South to play 3C on some auctions. As the AC wrote, this is a complicated case of both UI and MI. The AC considered the course of events had neither occurred, but as Adam indicates, they didn't consider what would have happened with the MI and UI present but East "carefully avoiding" taking advantage. In that case, the auction would have been: N E S W P P 1C x 1H x 2C P (double intended as penalty; explained as showing spades) P 2H 2S x P P 3C P (I've replaced East's illegal 3H bid with a pass.) P ? (I'm fairly confident about the subsequent S, W, and N actions.) What would East, holding 975 KJ542 QJ3 K9, now do? It strikes me that double, pass, and 3H are all conceivable, but others may disagree. The 3H bid may still be illegal, though additional AI not available on the previous round might change the situation. (Here's a good place to poll players who don't know the deal.) Based on the writeup, the AC seems not to have considered the question above. While we don't have an explicit rule, I think the guideline in case of multiple infractions by the same side is to consider what would have happened in all combinations of infractions occurring or not and give the OS the worst case. >7. This one was close -- both decisions seem reasonable. The write-up >> seems to be missing a little something. Based on what I read I'd have >> strongly considered giving a split ruling, NS -620 and EW +130, per >> Law 72b1. I don't see how 72B1 comes into anything. Either the explanation given was MI or it wasn't. This is another example of "What is the true agreement?" That's often a complicated question. On the facts stated, it seems to me a full explanation of 3H would have been "We've discussed having it be lead directing with a spade fit but haven't agreed to play that." Then the AC would have to decide what would have happened if that explanation had been given. As Adam says, either result is reasonable, as is a split score under L12C2. >8. A don't understand either part of the TD ruling. Agreed. Hesitations are rarely relevant after skip bids, and I can't conceive what AI the TD had in mind. >> Certainly the question made UI available, Adam may be taking a shortcut here. While questions certainly _can_ make UI available, they don't necessarily. (More precisely, not all questions suggest one alternative over another.) After a 2D opening, it's normal to verify that it's a weak two and _maybe_ ask a question about style. Normally the TD and AC would have to investigate just what questions North asked and perhaps in what tone of voice. Here, though, South's bizarre balance gives overwhelming evidence that North's message was sent and received. West's first name is wrong in the writeup, by the way; it's Ljudmila. >> 9. The TD ruling was reasonable, and the AC ruling improved upon it. Agreed. The AC comment was a bit harsh on East, but it doesn't seem to have affected the result. If the AC had decided on a split score, they wouldn't average the results. Instead, each team would receive the VPs for its own result. >> 10. A thorough job by the AC. Yes, though they might have explicitly stated that passing 6H was not a LA. East's prior intentions are irrelevant. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon May 26 21:06:35 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 15:06:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit Message-ID: <483B0A3B.4090204@nhcc.net> [Originally sent May 16] >> 2. I see no merit to the appeal. Yes, 4H might have gone down >> fewer, but laws do not give the offenders the benefit of the doubt >> and in any case, there was likely little or no difference between >> -300 and -200. Also, I don't understand why the AC polled players on how the play was likely to go. How does that help their decision? More seriously, though it did not affect the outcome, why did the AC poll players about what they would do with the North hand after the MI? Were they worried about "irrational, wild, or gambling?" That hardly seems reasonable. The proper legal question is what North would have bid if given correct information, and that seems obvious enough without a poll. Finally, the AC might have mentioned that the UI to East (from West's alert and misexplanation) didn't affect the result because East was always passing. >> 3. How did the TD determine that there was no LA to 4S? As the >> Panel's admirably thorough poll showed 3S was a standout. The panel >> corrected an injustice. I do not understand, though, why they >> removed the PP. Fully agree. Actually the poll seems pointless unless the pollees are given a thorough explanation of the NS methods. >> 4. The Panel improved upon the TD's ruling. All that was missing >> was the legal basis for their ruling, which I believe is Law 72b1. I don't see how 72B1 comes in. The question is whether West's 5D was "irrational, wild, or gambling." Here the poll suggested that it might have been, so it was reasonable to let the NOS keep their table score (though I personally might have voted the other way). Adjusting the score for the OS should have been automatic. No West would have bid 5D if given a correct explanation. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 26 23:07:42 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 22:07:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 References: <200805151404.m4FE4O4Y009278@cfa.harvard.edu> <483B085E.5020307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000401c8bf75$553f26a0$1cd2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 > Oh, come on, Jerry. You know better than that. "Always ask" means the first time partner shows out of each suit. You just have to remember to do it even if you have already seen all 13 cards of that suit. Most people don't have any trouble doing it, though Nigel seems to have met the exception. > +=+ 'Always ask' is a glib solution of which I remain sceptical. It may mitigate the effects much of the time, but bridge is a game of atmosphere in which mannerism, intonation, inflection, manner, the air of the questioner, count for too much to allow of any easy assertion that asking a question does not convey information to partner if the player always asks. The Director must still form a judgement as to whether a question has created UI. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon May 26 23:07:42 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 22:07:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 References: <200805151404.m4FE4O4Y009278@cfa.harvard.edu> <483B085E.5020307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000401c8bf75$553f26a0$1cd2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 64B7 > Oh, come on, Jerry. You know better than that. "Always ask" means the first time partner shows out of each suit. You just have to remember to do it even if you have already seen all 13 cards of that suit. Most people don't have any trouble doing it, though Nigel seems to have met the exception. > +=+ 'Always ask' is a glib solution of which I remain sceptical. It may mitigate the effects much of the time, but bridge is a game of atmosphere in which mannerism, intonation, inflection, manner, the air of the questioner, count for too much to allow of any easy assertion that asking a question does not convey information to partner if the player always asks. The Director must still form a judgement as to whether a question has created UI. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Tue May 27 01:41:59 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 19:41:59 EDT Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 Message-ID: In a message dated 25/05/2008 16:25:22 GMT Standard Time, adam at tameware.com writes: [lamford] > Again I disagree on an important point of principle. A TD, who is presumed > to know the rules, got this wrong originally and was corrected by a senior TD. > It cannot be right that the appellants are assumed to know the rules better > than one of the directing staff, and therefore the appeal cannot be without > merit, albeit on technical grounds. [adam] The appellants had the law explained to them thoroughly both before they appealed and in the appeal screening. [lamford] That I did not know, as I only read the details of the cases on the link you provided. That changes the matter, and I would agree with an AWMW. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue May 27 02:05:06 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 01:05:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on Detroit NABC+ cases 2-10 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805250856y6089cc36k43125a74d09c954c@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805122343i564be726ycd2969915fc6c418@mail.gmail.com> <4829B413.7060604@NTLworld.com> <694eadd40805250833x7381ef84i80cc4cf17c4115f@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805250856y6089cc36k43125a74d09c954c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <483B5032.7050803@NTLworld.com> [Adam Wildavsky] How would you suggest publicizing casebooks? One way would be posts on It would reach a relatively small segment of players, but it's a start! The casebooks are mentioned on r.g.b occasionally, but I haven't been posting announcements there the way I do here. I ought to have realized that not everyone would be familiar with rec.games.bridge. It's a USENET newsgroup and it can be read and posted to here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/ [nige1] Good thinking Adam. Some half-baked ideas ... [A] Other useful *URLs*: (i) David Stevenson's and Ed Reppert's Bridge Laws Fora are excellent. There is one forum specifically dealing with Appeals http://forums.bridgetalk.com/ (ii) Bridge Base Online discussion groups are also popular with players http://forums.bridgebase.com/ [B] Many published appeal decisions are stark raving mad; so it would be useful if the WBFLC selected and endorsed some appeals as conforming to their interpretation of the law. Officially vetted versions of paradigm appeals would form really useful body of *approved case law*. [C] To ensure easy web access, such documents should be published in standard *HTML* format. There is no harm is publishing them in proprietary formats like pdf, as well although, typically, those are relatively bulky and slow. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 27 03:46:57 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 02:46:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Read it as you will. Message-ID: <000801c8bf9b$90c6c180$c7d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Richard Hills ("L27 question" thread): >>The Director does not know whether to rule >>that South must pass for the rest of the >>auction (Law 27B2), or whether to rule that >>South may bid (Law 27B1). Stefanie Rohan ("L27 question" thread): >Perhaps not. But it is impossible to see how >learning North's intention in an auction >that is in the past and has also been >cancelled can help in this regard. George Orwell, 1984: Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. Richard Hills: Are the writings of George Orwell for the connoisseurs of Law 27 language??? 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 Tue May 27 08:56:48 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 08:56:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On 26/05/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > +=+ Vitold, > Concerning your questions re L27 and the TDs > procedure. > The following opinion evolved after a detailed > discussion. The document that will be available after > the weekend will carry guidance, I believe, not much > removed from this. The seminar this weekend is for > the assistance of those explaining the new laws to TDs > in the NBOs of Zone 1 - i.e. the EBL member NBOs. > I hear there are 29 trainers attending. This means that > fourteen or more of our Zone 1 NBOs may not have > accepted the invitation to send anyone. I do not know > at all what advice will be available in other Zones. Only 29??That's surprisingly few. And we're two from Norway, meaning at least 15 (probably more) NBOs won't be represented. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 27 08:58:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:58:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483A76FC.30102@skynet.be> Message-ID: ABF Bidding Regulations, effective 1st June 2008: 1.5 The use of Stop Cards is authorized for ABF controlled Tournaments and recommended for use in other tournaments. 1.6 The Stop Card is used during the auction as a Skip Bid Warning. 1.7 Before a player makes a bid that skips one or more levels, a Stop Card should be placed face up on the table in front of the left-hand opponent. After an appropriate period (approximately 10 seconds but less at one's own discretion) the person who made the skip bid picks up the Stop Card, whereupon the left hand opponent may then call. 1.8 Left-hand opponent should ask any questions during the period in which the stop card is on the table. 1.9 When a player omits to use the Stop Card before making a Skip Bid, the failure to do so may be taken into account by the Director, and subsequently by an Appeals Committee, when assessing what action to take with respect to possible extraneous information (Law 16). 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 Tue May 27 10:05:26 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:05:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001001c8bfd0$95af5e20$75d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. > On 26/05/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "A full cup must be carried steadily." >> [English proverb ] >> "************************* (Grattan) The seminar this weekend is for the assistance of those explaining the new laws to TDs in the NBOs of Zone 1 - i.e. the EBL member NBOs. I hear there are 29 trainers attending. This means that fourteen or more of our Zone 1 NBOs may not have accepted the invitation to send anyone. I do not know at all what advice will be available in other Zones. > (Harald) Only 29??That's surprisingly few. And we're two from Norway, meaning at least 15 (probably more) NBOs won't be represented. > +=+ Some of the gaps may be covered by the presenters, from The Netherlands, Italy, France and England. But one of the 29 is from England so this cuts away again. It must be a question of cost in some cases. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 27 12:11:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:11:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >> > It's a very good question Vitold (Hi, Long time no speak). If it is a given > that one cannot reasonably (or legally) have an agreement about ones own > sides' infractions, then the meaning of the IB is "no agreement". We know > full well that all we are entitled to is the partnership agreement, not the > player's thought process. Therefore you are absolutely NOT allowed to get an > explanation other than "no agreements as they would be illegal" . However I > would expect a player to provide past history of similar accidents. "Last > time he made an IB it was because he didn't see the auction to date" since > this is part of partnership experience, and the TD should so instruct. > > John That is not a helpful answer, John. The question is not "what does 1He pass 1He show?" because we all know that this cannot have any answer. The real table question is twofold: one: "what does pass 1He show?; what does 1He pass 2He show?" which has to be answered; and two: "what was your mistake? did you not see the 1He or did you think you were bidding high enough?" which is the real important issue here. My answer is that the Director needs to know the answer to that question. It determines his decision. Furthermore, that decision needs to be told to opponent before he needs to decide on accepting the IB (not perfectly clear, but my firm opinion in this case). Finally, the director's decision, in combination with a detailed knowledge of the laws (to which an opponent should be entitled), and in combination with the full system description (to which the opponent is certainly entitled) means that opponent can most (IMO 99%) of the time deduce what the intent was. My conclusion is that it is best for the whole table to allow the Director to reveal the original intent to the table. >> >> to >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 27 12:16:42 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:16:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483BDF8A.9030103@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > ABF Bidding Regulations, effective 1st June 2008: > > 1.5 The use of Stop Cards is authorized for ABF controlled > Tournaments and recommended for use in other tournaments. > > 1.6 The Stop Card is used during the auction as a Skip Bid > Warning. > > 1.7 Before a player makes a bid that skips one or more > levels, a Stop Card should be placed face up on the table > in front of the left-hand opponent. After an appropriate > period (approximately 10 seconds but less at one's own > discretion) the person who made the skip bid picks up the > Stop Card, whereupon the left hand opponent may then call. > > 1.8 Left-hand opponent should ask any questions during the > period in which the stop card is on the table. > > All very nice and understandable, but put together it means that you'll have only 10 seconds (possibly less) to ask questions. Yes, I know that wasn't the intent. But phrasing 1.8 as "left-hand opponents shouldn't wait until the card is picked up if he wants to ask any questions" would have solved this. And I have another concern about skip bids : how is the fact that you should do your best to look like you've got a problem compatible with L73D2 ? Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 27 12:20:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:20:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be> Have we dealt with the L26 implications? The IB is still a retracted bid - which showed some suits. Does the TD not imply by giving certain types of L26 rulings what the intention was? gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > +=+ Vitold, > Concerning your questions re L27 and the TDs > procedure. > The following opinion evolved after a detailed > discussion. The document that will be available after > the weekend will carry guidance, I believe, not much > removed from this. The seminar this weekend is for > the assistance of those explaining the new laws to TDs > in the NBOs of Zone 1 - i.e. the EBL member NBOs. > I hear there are 29 trainers attending. This means that > fourteen or more of our Zone 1 NBOs may not have > accepted the invitation to send anyone. I do not know > at all what advice will be available in other Zones. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > " Every player is entitled to the information > he brings to the table with him. [Law 16A1(d)]. > In theory at least this includes the text of the law. > When the Director arrives at the table the only > options are with LHO of the offender. The > Director will explain these and will clarify the > meaning of the law if the LHO is uncertain of it. > Only after the LHO rejects the IB does > the offender have any options. The other 3 players > at the table are entitled to know what the RC means > and the Director's ruling in relation to it. They are > not entitled to know what led to the IB and if > the offender discloses what he thought he was doing > Law 16B applies to that information. If anyone is > in doubt about the meaning of the law the director > will clarify. The Director may take the offender > away from the table to obtain information the other > players should not have. (If the offender has already > said openly what caused the infraction - "I thought I > was making an overcall" - the Director will explain > the application of Law 16B to this information.) > As a matter of bridge knowledge (again > 16C1(d) refers) the players have the information > that the IB will have arisen from one of a number > of possible circumstances. The offender's partner, > with an appropriate hand, may explore within > these possibilities (in some circumstances it is > possible the offender's partner may know from > the information lawfully available to him that they > have - or do not have - the combined values for > game etc.). > ....................................................................... > Director's suggested procedure: > 1. He should ask the offender to say nothing, explaining that > anything he says or indicates may create UI for his partner. > 2. He should tell the LHO that he may accept or reject the IB, > going on to tell him that if he rejects the IB the offender will > have options: > If the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same > denomination (and neither bid is artificial) the auction will > continue. If the offender makes a call that conveys no meaning > outside of the meaning of the IB the auction will continue. (A > more precise call conveys, of course, more information since > it defines the hand more closely. ) If he selects any other call > it will silence his partner for the remainder of the auction. > 3. He should answer any question the LHO raises but should > maintain the stance that he does not know what the offender > thought he was doing when he made the IB and should not > discuss options the offender may have if the IB is rejected. > The LHO may examine his opponent's system card or make > enquiries about opponent's system before choosing his option. > 4. If the IB is rejected the Director needs to ascertain what > the offender was thinking when he made the IB. The other > three players are not entitled to know this so he should be > asked away from the table. > 5. The Director should amplify the explanation of Law 27B > without disclosing the basis of the offence. The IB is not part > of the legal auction. > 6. The AI is twofold > (i) the meaning of the replacement call (LHO may ask, or > RHO may at his turn); > (ii) the knowledge, lawful under Law 16A1(d), that the > offender may have been responding to a call from partner, > overcalling a bid by opponent, or opening the bidding. The > offender's partner may use this information and in the > subsequent auction may explore, to the extent that his hand > justifies it, the possibilities of the hand. He is not entitled to > 'guess' and act upon his guess. (In some situations one > - ? more than one - of the said possible causes of the IB > may be eliminated by circumstances.) " > .................................................................................. > We will see what we will see - in particular how far > the above is confirmed. Then we can discuss some more. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue May 27 13:11:22 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 13:11:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Vitold=27s_Law_27_concerns=2E?= In-Reply-To: <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Have we dealt with the L26 implications? > The IB is still a retracted bid - which showed some suits. Does the TD > not imply by giving certain types of L26 rulings what the intention > was? The itself deals with L26 implications: If the RC fits L27B1 (a or b) there are no L26 restrictions. If the RC does not fir L27B1 the L26 restrictions are mentioned. The IB does not show anything. Most of the time the IBer meant a (some) suit(s) while making the IB, but it is forbidden by law to give a particular meaning to the IB. Peter From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 27 14:11:17 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 13:11:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru><003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> >>> >> It's a very good question Vitold (Hi, Long time no speak). If it is a >> given >> that one cannot reasonably (or legally) have an agreement about ones own >> sides' infractions, then the meaning of the IB is "no agreement". We know >> full well that all we are entitled to is the partnership agreement, not >> the >> player's thought process. Therefore you are absolutely NOT allowed to get >> an >> explanation other than "no agreements as they would be illegal" . However >> I >> would expect a player to provide past history of similar accidents. "Last >> time he made an IB it was because he didn't see the auction to date" >> since >> this is part of partnership experience, and the TD should so instruct. >> >> John > > That is not a helpful answer, John. > > The question is not "what does 1He pass 1He show?" because we all know > that this cannot have any answer. > > The real table question is twofold: > one: "what does pass 1He show?; what does 1He pass 2He show?" which > has to be answered; and > two: "what was your mistake? did you not see the 1He or did you think > you were bidding high enough?" which is the real important issue here. > > My answer is that the Director needs to know the answer to that > question. It determines his decision. Furthermore, that decision needs > to be told to opponent before he needs to decide on accepting the IB > (not perfectly clear, but my firm opinion in this case). Finally, the > director's decision, in combination with a detailed knowledge of the > laws (to which an opponent should be entitled), and in combination > with the full system description (to which the opponent is certainly > entitled) means that opponent can most (IMO 99%) of the time deduce > what the intent was. > My conclusion is that it is best for the whole table to allow the > Director to reveal the original intent to the table. > +=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it. For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to know what his options are, and what the law says about the consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no information to give him about the effect in this particular case of applying 27B. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 27 14:36:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:36:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru><003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:11 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure > > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >>> It's a very good question Vitold (Hi, Long time no speak). If it is a >>> given >>> that one cannot reasonably (or legally) have an agreement about ones own >>> sides' infractions, then the meaning of the IB is "no agreement". We know >>> full well that all we are entitled to is the partnership agreement, not >>> the >>> player's thought process. Therefore you are absolutely NOT allowed to get >>> an >>> explanation other than "no agreements as they would be illegal" . However >>> I >>> would expect a player to provide past history of similar accidents. "Last >>> time he made an IB it was because he didn't see the auction to date" >>> since >>> this is part of partnership experience, and the TD should so instruct. >>> >>> John >> That is not a helpful answer, John. >> >> The question is not "what does 1He pass 1He show?" because we all know >> that this cannot have any answer. >> >> The real table question is twofold: >> one: "what does pass 1He show?; what does 1He pass 2He show?" which >> has to be answered; and >> two: "what was your mistake? did you not see the 1He or did you think >> you were bidding high enough?" which is the real important issue here. >> >> My answer is that the Director needs to know the answer to that >> question. It determines his decision. Furthermore, that decision needs >> to be told to opponent before he needs to decide on accepting the IB >> (not perfectly clear, but my firm opinion in this case). Finally, the >> director's decision, in combination with a detailed knowledge of the >> laws (to which an opponent should be entitled), and in combination >> with the full system description (to which the opponent is certainly >> entitled) means that opponent can most (IMO 99%) of the time deduce >> what the intent was. >> My conclusion is that it is best for the whole table to allow the >> Director to reveal the original intent to the table. >> > +=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no > decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and > does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The > IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it. > For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to > know what his options are, and what the law says about the > consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no > information to give him about the effect in this particular case > of applying 27B. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange and disagree with the strongest. We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid. I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 27 14:38:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:38:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be> <1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Have we dealt with the L26 implications? >> The IB is still a retracted bid - which showed some suits. Does the TD >> not imply by giving certain types of L26 rulings what the intention >> was? > > The itself deals with L26 implications: > If the RC fits L27B1 (a or b) there are no L26 restrictions. > If the RC does not fir L27B1 the L26 restrictions are mentioned. > > The IB does not show anything. Most of the time > the IBer meant a (some) suit(s) while making > the IB, but it is forbidden by law to give a particular > meaning to the IB. > But surely the L26 restrictions apply to the intended suits? > Peter > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 27 15:17:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:17:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement In-Reply-To: <000301c8be0b$dbb689f0$39d6403e@Mildred> References: <023301c8b282$4e4e5c30$eaeb1490$@nl><4829C6EB.30103@NTLworld.com><482AA307.9040907@ulb.ac.be><055201c8bcbf$97fdfec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <03af01c8bd74$ec2f06a0$36709951@stefanie> <000301c8be0b$dbb689f0$39d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <3C93496A-855B-4438-8B47-56AC0A9E3EF1@starpower.net> On May 24, 2008, at 10:04 PM, wrote: > 4From: "Stefanie Rohan" > >> Robert Frick: >> >> It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche >> and an >> unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to >> distinguish. >> >> SR: >> >> How? > > +=+ Interesting question. A misbid, misexplanation, psyche, all > come the same to an opponent, do they not? They mislead. > Now if the partner is not misled, caters for the actual holding, > is the RA not entitled to say "We don't care how it happened, > the partner's action is to be deemed evidence of an partnership > understanding" ? > Just throwing a pebble intro the pool, Isn't that just Mr. Wolff's "Rule of Coincidence"? Hadn't we already decided to let it drown? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 27 16:53:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:53:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru><003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <483C205F.2080105@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "A full cup must be carried steadily." >> [English proverb ] >> "************************* >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure >> >> >> >>> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >>>> It's a very good question Vitold (Hi, Long time no speak). If it is a >>>> given >>>> that one cannot reasonably (or legally) have an agreement about ones own >>>> sides' infractions, then the meaning of the IB is "no agreement". We know >>>> full well that all we are entitled to is the partnership agreement, not >>>> the >>>> player's thought process. Therefore you are absolutely NOT allowed to get >>>> an >>>> explanation other than "no agreements as they would be illegal" . However >>>> I >>>> would expect a player to provide past history of similar accidents. "Last >>>> time he made an IB it was because he didn't see the auction to date" >>>> since >>>> this is part of partnership experience, and the TD should so instruct. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>> That is not a helpful answer, John. >>> >>> The question is not "what does 1He pass 1He show?" because we all know >>> that this cannot have any answer. >>> >>> The real table question is twofold: >>> one: "what does pass 1He show?; what does 1He pass 2He show?" which >>> has to be answered; and >>> two: "what was your mistake? did you not see the 1He or did you think >>> you were bidding high enough?" which is the real important issue here. >>> >>> My answer is that the Director needs to know the answer to that >>> question. It determines his decision. Furthermore, that decision needs >>> to be told to opponent before he needs to decide on accepting the IB >>> (not perfectly clear, but my firm opinion in this case). Finally, the >>> director's decision, in combination with a detailed knowledge of the >>> laws (to which an opponent should be entitled), and in combination >>> with the full system description (to which the opponent is certainly >>> entitled) means that opponent can most (IMO 99%) of the time deduce >>> what the intent was. >>> My conclusion is that it is best for the whole table to allow the >>> Director to reveal the original intent to the table. >>> >>> >> +=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no >> decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and >> does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The >> IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it. >> For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to >> know what his options are, and what the law says about the >> consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no >> information to give him about the effect in this particular case >> of applying 27B. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > > Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange and > disagree with the strongest. > We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to > decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could > not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid. > I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the > number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else. > AG : agree with Herman. The wording L72A4 makes it necessary that the NOS know what each of their possible reactions will generate. There was a somewhat similar situation not long ago : after EW bid all the way to 6D, not at all hindered by North's 2H overcall, South decided to sacrifice in 6H. West led a diamond OOT. In order to know what to request, North wanted to know whether East's jump-cue showed a void (if it did, disallowing a Diamond would mean East would have to open one of the other suits). The TD allowed him the information. To do this, he had to ask West the meaning of the 4H bid. And about the present case : I disagree with those who claim that determining the intent of the player can't be done, because it will necessitate mind-reading, at least in some cases : it will, but other Laws ask us to do likewise, so that's no strong argument. Of course, it isn't an exact science, but I think reserving the right of both sides (as laid down by L72) is important. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 27 17:12:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:12:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru><003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <483C24F6.6040605@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "A full cup must be carried steadily." >> [English proverb ] >> "************************* >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure >> >> >> >>> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >>>> It's a very good question Vitold (Hi, Long time no speak). If it is a >>>> given >>>> that one cannot reasonably (or legally) have an agreement about ones own >>>> sides' infractions, then the meaning of the IB is "no agreement". We know >>>> full well that all we are entitled to is the partnership agreement, not >>>> the >>>> player's thought process. Therefore you are absolutely NOT allowed to get >>>> an >>>> explanation other than "no agreements as they would be illegal" . However >>>> I >>>> would expect a player to provide past history of similar accidents. "Last >>>> time he made an IB it was because he didn't see the auction to date" >>>> since >>>> this is part of partnership experience, and the TD should so instruct. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>> That is not a helpful answer, John. >>> >>> The question is not "what does 1He pass 1He show?" because we all know >>> that this cannot have any answer. >>> >>> The real table question is twofold: >>> one: "what does pass 1He show?; what does 1He pass 2He show?" which >>> has to be answered; and >>> two: "what was your mistake? did you not see the 1He or did you think >>> you were bidding high enough?" which is the real important issue here. >>> >>> My answer is that the Director needs to know the answer to that >>> question. It determines his decision. Furthermore, that decision needs >>> to be told to opponent before he needs to decide on accepting the IB >>> (not perfectly clear, but my firm opinion in this case). Finally, the >>> director's decision, in combination with a detailed knowledge of the >>> laws (to which an opponent should be entitled), and in combination >>> with the full system description (to which the opponent is certainly >>> entitled) means that opponent can most (IMO 99%) of the time deduce >>> what the intent was. >>> My conclusion is that it is best for the whole table to allow the >>> Director to reveal the original intent to the table. >>> >>> >> +=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no >> decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and >> does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The >> IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it. >> For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to >> know what his options are, and what the law says about the >> consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no >> information to give him about the effect in this particular case >> of applying 27B. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > > Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange and > disagree with the strongest. > We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to > decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could > not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid. > I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the > number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else. > > There is in fact one difference. In TOFLB, when there was a way to escape without penalty, the mere fact that there was a possible substitution told which one. : 1 more in the same denomination was the only possibility. So I could decide whether to accept the bid withtout needing any more information. In TNFLB, this is no more sure ; before I decide whether to accept the IB, I'd like to know what the SB would be, so that I could estimate my chances of describing my hand. For example, if the only bid to replace 1H was 3C (example : 3C = game-forcing raise of 1H opening), I could be prone to accept it in order to double it for the lead. Something that would never have happened under TOFLB. While if it was 2NT, I might decide to allow the 1H bid and bid my lead-director 2C instead. So, (old) "there is" = "this is". But new "there is" is different from "this is". Which of those two informations shall be kept ? I claim it's the latter, in order to apply L72B2 ar full strength. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue May 27 16:15:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 15:15:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru><003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be><004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c8c00f$536c5470$23cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "A full cup must be carried steadily." >> [English proverb ] >> "************************* >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure << (Grattan) > For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to know what his options are, and what the law says about the consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no information to give him about the effect in this particular case of applying 27B. << ( Herman DE WAEL) Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange and disagree with the strongest. We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid. I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else. << (Grattan) Well, until I see how things go at the weekend nothing is set in concrete. The above is how we left the discussion. But 'We' - who are 'we'? ---------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 27 18:20:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:20:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <1K0fpi-1aY6im0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <1K0fpi-1aY6im0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On May 26, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" >> From: "vitoldbr" >>> Hi all? >>> Thx all for interesting discussion. >>> But there was a question that remained almost unnoticeable. It was >>> raised by Robert Frick and answered by Swen Pran. As it was not >>> cleared up I'd like to repeat the problem: >>> My LHO opened 1Heart, partner passed and RHO bid 1Heart. >>> The TD was summoned and he said that it was my turn to make >>> decision: to accept or not to accept. >>> But it is bridge decision and I need more information before making >>> it - for executing my rights in accordance with L10C3. This decision >>> will depend not only on my hand and meaning of the IB. I will need >>> to get to know possible options from L27. I am trying to resolve the >>> problem as a player: I am not puppet to say accept or not accept >>> without re-think the matter with all needed facts. >>> By the way - when dealing with (for example) L54 - declarer is >>> usually informed about every options before he decides to accept >>> (or not to accept) lead out of turn. >>> And in IB case I got the problem with same kind of difficulty. So my >>> questions: >>> 1. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know intended meaning of IB? >>> (OK - it is TD's problem to keep this information 100%-secretly for >>> IB's partner). >>> 2. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know in advance (before making >>> my decision) IB's options after my decision? >>> For my opinion negative answers for these questions may destroy >>> player's rights (as IB's LHO). >>> Sincerely, >>> Vitold >>> >> It's a very good question Vitold (Hi, Long time no speak). If it is a >> given that one cannot reasonably (or legally) have an agreement about >> ones own sides' infractions, then the meaning of the IB is "no >> agreement". We know full well that all we are entitled to is the >> partnership agreement, not the player's thought process. Therefore >> you >> are absolutely NOT allowed to get an explanation other than "no >> agreements as they would be illegal" . > > Yes > >> However I would expect a player >> to provide past history of similar accidents. "Last time he made >> an IB >> it was because he didn't see the auction to date" since this is part >> of partnership experience, and the TD should so instruct. > > No, John, please > > Next time a player passes out of turn you want his partner > to explain "Last time he did so, he had 6 points, thereby > holding 1 ace" ?? > > As long as irregularities are unintended they do not form > a part of partnership experience IMO. > > And regarding Vitold's 2nd question: > Yes, you (IB's LHO) have the right to get all the > possibilities explained, but in a form of > 1. If IBer replaces with the next legal bid in the > IB's denomination (and they both are not artificial) > there will be no rectification; > 2. If IBer replaces with a bid which has the > same or more precise meaning as the IB, > there will be no rectification; > 3. If IBer replaces with anything different, partner > will be barred for the remainder of the auction. > 4. If I (the TD) will come the conclusion (after play > ceases) that the IB's side will have found a contract > they otherwise would not have found without the help > of the IB, I will adjust the score afterwards. > > But, you will not be told, whether 1. will be in order > nor which call(s) are consistent with 2. (if any). The problem is that items #1 and #2 are worthless unless you kow whether the IBer's methods qualifies him to make those bids without barring his partner. For all you know, the number of available penalty-free RCs available to the IBer "in the Director's opinion" [L27B1] could be zero, one, or many -- and it couldn't be more obvious that the IBer's LHO is likely to care. ISTM that L10C must prevent his being forced to take an outright guess as to how the law will apply after it's too late for him to do anything about it. And only the Director can say what's "in the Director's opinion", no matter how hard anyone else tries. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue May 27 18:26:12 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:26:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Vitold=27s_Law_27_concerns=2E?= In-Reply-To: <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be> <1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1K1204-0hiV4y0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Peter Eidt wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > > Have we dealt with the L26 implications? > > > The IB is still a retracted bid - which showed some suits. Does > > > the TD not imply by giving certain types of L26 rulings what the > > > intention was? > > > > > > > The *Law* itself deals with L26 implications: > > If the RC fits L27B1 (a or b) there are no L26 restrictions. > > If the RC does not fir L27B1 the L26 restrictions are mentioned. > > > > The IB does not show anything. Most of the time > > the IBer meant a (some) suit(s) while making > > the IB, but it is forbidden by law to give a particular > > meaning to the IB. > > > > But surely the L26 restrictions apply to the intended suits? Herman, if it's an B1 case they never apply to anything, cause it's all either natural or said within the RC. If it''s not an B1 case they do apply in a way the TD will tell the table - without telling them the intention of the IB. Peter > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue May 27 21:51:26 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:51:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Read it as you will. In-Reply-To: <000801c8bf9b$90c6c180$c7d3403e@Mildred> References: <000801c8bf9b$90c6c180$c7d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000801c8c033$122fb280$368f1780$@com> [GE] For connoisseurs of language: "NASA's Phoenix lander set itself down safely in the northern area of Mars as planned a short time ago." Another contribution to the media's corruption of the English language. [DALB] Well, in comparison with the lifetime of Mars, the time involved in planning the Phoenix landing could well be described as short. For well it was said by the bard: Sub specie aeternitatis even the dearest bought is gratis. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 27 22:19:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:19:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru><003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <40047AB6-4878-4F8C-9B91-674A8966DA4C@starpower.net> On May 27, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >> +=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no >> decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and >> does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The >> IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it. >> For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to >> know what his options are, and what the law says about the >> consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no >> information to give him about the effect in this particular case >> of applying 27B. > > Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange and > disagree with the strongest. > We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to > decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could > not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid. > I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the > number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else. Exactly. Under the 1997 law, the IBer's LHO has always been allowed to decide to accept the IB only if the IBer has a penalty-free RC available and not otherwise. By denying him this ability -- as Grattan's interpretation would -- we open the door to the OS gaining considerable advantage by virtue of the combination of their infraction and the NOS's poor choice of subsequent action. The director is responsible for informing the non-offending LHO of his options [L10C1], and he is entitled to select the one most to his advantage [L10C3]. A "Probst cheat" would be able to "try on" IBs hoping to gain advantage from a bad choice made in ignorance of its consequences by his LHO. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 27 22:30:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:30:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <483C24F6.6040605@ulb.ac.be> References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru><003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> <483C24F6.6040605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On May 27, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> >>> +=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no >>> decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and >>> does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The >>> IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it. >>> For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to >>> know what his options are, and what the law says about the >>> consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no >>> information to give him about the effect in this particular case >>> of applying 27B. >> >> Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange >> and >> disagree with the strongest. >> We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to >> decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could >> not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid. >> I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the >> number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else. > > There is in fact one difference. > > In TOFLB, when there was a way to escape without penalty, the mere > fact > that there was a possible substitution told which one. : 1 more in the > same denomination was the only possibility. So I could decide > whether to > accept the bid withtout needing any more information. > > In TNFLB, this is no more sure ; before I decide whether to accept the > IB, I'd like to know what the SB would be, so that I could estimate my > chances of describing my hand. For example, if the only bid to replace > 1H was 3C (example : 3C = game-forcing raise of 1H opening), I > could be > prone to accept it in order to double it for the lead. Something that > would never have happened under TOFLB. While if it was 2NT, I might > decide to allow the 1H bid and bid my lead-director 2C instead. > > So, (old) "there is" = "this is". But new "there is" is different from > "this is". Which of those two informations shall be kept ? I claim > it's > the latter, in order to apply L72B2 ar full strength. It goes beyond that. Consider that if we were to apply Grattan's interpretation to TOFLB, "the mere fact that there was a possible substitution" would no longer be information to which LHO was entitled. That is true for the new FLB as well. I do not believe that the lawmakers intended to take even that away (how is poor LHO, without even that much, to have any clue what's to his best advantage?), and question Grattan's interpretation on that basis. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 28 00:30:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 08:30:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S 5D X ? (1) Forcing, not necessarily strong (2) Transfer preempt to hearts You, East, hold: 6 AJT87654 653 5 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 jrmayne at mindspring.com Wed May 28 00:40:57 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <26909260.1211928057473.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Sent: May 27, 2008 6:30 PM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S >5D X ? > >(1) Forcing, not necessarily strong >(2) Transfer preempt to hearts > >You, East, hold: > >6 >AJT87654 >653 >5 > >What call do you make? Pass. >What other calls do you consider making? Just pass. We've been doubled, and it looks like they'll sit. I don't have a ninth heart, and I'm not 8-5. How bad can this be? (Yes, I know at the table that it's going to be bad, because idiot partner has forgotten our agreements. I'll go buy beer; he can play it.) --JRM From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 28 02:17:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 02:17:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <1K1204-0hiV4y0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be> <1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> <1K1204-0hiV4y0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <483CA4A6.8060108@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Peter Eidt wrote: >>> From: Herman De Wael >>>> Have we dealt with the L26 implications? >>>> The IB is still a retracted bid - which showed some suits. Does >>>> the TD not imply by giving certain types of L26 rulings what the >>>> intention was? >>>> >>> The *Law* itself deals with L26 implications: >>> If the RC fits L27B1 (a or b) there are no L26 restrictions. >>> If the RC does not fir L27B1 the L26 restrictions are mentioned. >>> >>> The IB does not show anything. Most of the time >>> the IBer meant a (some) suit(s) while making >>> the IB, but it is forbidden by law to give a particular >>> meaning to the IB. >>> >> But surely the L26 restrictions apply to the intended suits? > > Herman, > > if it's an B1 case they never apply to anything, cause > it's all either natural or said within the RC. > > If it''s not an B1 case they do apply in a way the TD will > tell the table - without telling them the intention of the IB. > But if the intention determines the restrictions, don't the restrictions reveal the intent? > Peter >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed May 28 02:48:55 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 01:48:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483CABF7.2080402@NTLworld.com> {Richard Hills] Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S 5D X ? (1) Forcing, not necessarily strong (2) Transfer preempt to hearts You, East, hold: 6 AJT87654 653 5 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [nige1] 5S = 10, 6D = 9, 5N = 8, 5H = 7, P = 6. Whether partner's 5D is natural or a cue-bid in support of hearts, you have a good hand. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed May 28 03:46:49 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 21:46:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0CD5DF7F0AD642AEBCCB6F9E4F5FAA55@erdos> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S > 5D X ? > > (1) Forcing, not necessarily strong > (2) Transfer preempt to hearts > > You, East, hold: > > 6 > AJT87654 > 653 > 5 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? Pass, with no alternative. If partner's 5D was intended as lead-directing, he will correct to 5H himself. If partner actually has diamonds, I'll make a great dummy for 5Dx, but I am not going to sacrifice in 6D in front of partner. If 4D was not alerted, I would impose a procedural penalty on a good player who corrected to 5H. From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Wed May 28 03:55:01 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:55:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) Message-ID: <483CBB75.607@ozemail.com.au> This may not be the most appropriate forum for this discussion, but here goes anyway. On June 1st the ABF will be operating under the 2007 Laws. I believe that Law 80 is quite inconsistent with thestructure of bridge as it exists in Australia. Like the nation, we are a federation. Players are members of clubs. Clubs have got together and formed state bodies with (limited) powers to conduct state level matters (in Queensland it is the QBA) . States have got together to form the ABF with (limited) powers to conduct national level matters. At no time have the clubs ceded to the state the power to regulate their own events, nor have the states ceded to the ABF the power to regulate their events. In other words, in Australia power devolves upwards from the grassroots to the top, and this is enshrined in constitutions under Australian law. There has ben no problem in the past, because each jurisdiction has been a Sponsoring Organisation in its own right and has had the power to regulate its own activities. . Law 80 seeks to reverse this situation, so that all power resides at the top and devolves downwards (if at all). I contend that the ABF constitutionally does not have the right to act as sole RA. It has certainly (until now) never claimed that right, A change in the constitution would clear the air, but this may not be achievable.. Can it really be that a change in the rules of a game can override the constitution of an affiliate NBO set up under local law? I've wondered why the WBF scrapped the Sponsoring Organisation principle, which worked well, in favour of an RA. This is not really about a change in the rules of a game, such as say the changes to Law 27. It's about a change in the politics of bridge, and really has no place in the Laws.. It seems that the WBF has sought to impose a particular political structure on its afiliates. The ABF has resolved to assign its powers under Law 80 to the state associations, but only for a limited period. This is a temporary fix and does not solve the underlying dilemma. I foresee a problem such as this: a club needs to take disciplinary action against a player for a gross breach of regulation: Player (or more likely his lawyer): 'You can't take action against me. You no longer have the right to make regulations under the Laws of Bridge' Club:' Not so.The ABF has assigned its powers as the RA to us .' Player's lawyer: 'But the ABF (under its own constitution) does not have the right to exercise authority as RA. How can it assign powers it does not legally have?' Are we really in legal limbo? I assume we are not alone. There must be other NBOs which have a federal structure like ours. What is happening in other jurisdictions? Reg Busch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 28 06:02:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:02:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483CBB75.607@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Reg Busch wondered: [big snip] >I've wondered why the WBF scrapped the Sponsoring Organisation >principle, which worked well, in favour of an RA. [big snip] Richard Hills unofficial reply: My unofficial thoughts are that: (1) the 1997 concept of "sponsoring organisation" did not work well, since the concept was undefined, and (2) there was not a one-to-one replacement of the 1997 concept of "sponsoring organisation" with the 2007 concept of "Regulating Authority". Rather the 1997 undefined concept of "sponsoring organisation" was replaced with _two_ defined 2007 concepts, "Tournament Organizer" and "Regulating Authority". Reg Busch hypothetical: >Player (or more likely his lawyer): 'You can't take action >against me. You no longer have the right to make regulations >under the Laws of Bridge' Law 80B2(f): The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: 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 rbusch at ozemail.com.au Wed May 28 08:04:28 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 16:04:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483CF5EC.2070108@ozemail.com.au> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Reg Busch wondered: > >[big snip] > > > >>I've wondered why the WBF scrapped the Sponsoring Organisation >>principle, which worked well, in favour of an RA. >> >> > >[big snip] > >Richard Hills unofficial reply: > >My unofficial thoughts are that: > >(1) the 1997 concept of "sponsoring organisation" did not work >well, since the concept was undefined, > >and > >(2) there was not a one-to-one replacement of the 1997 concept >of "sponsoring organisation" with the 2007 concept of >"Regulating Authority". Rather the 1997 undefined concept of >"sponsoring organisation" was replaced with _two_ defined 2007 >concepts, "Tournament Organizer" and "Regulating Authority". > >Reg Busch hypothetical: > > > >>Player (or more likely his lawyer): 'You can't take action >>against me. You no longer have the right to make regulations >>under the Laws of Bridge' >> >> > >Law 80B2(f): > >The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: >to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict >with, these Laws. > > > >Reg Busch: But the Tournament Organiser has to be recognised by the RA and is subject to the RA's requirements. If the RA is exercising its powers illegally according to civil law, where does that leave the Tournament Organiser? > > Reg >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 > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1469 - Release Date: 27/05/2008 1:25 PM > > From RCraigH at aol.com Wed May 28 00:44:18 2008 From: RCraigH at aol.com (RCraigH at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:44:18 EDT Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Pass. No other call is possible. I have bid my hand, according to our system, and I have support for partner's suit. Correcting to 5H is not a logical alternative. Craig Hemphill In a message dated 5/27/2008 6:31:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S 5D X ? (1) Forcing, not necessarily strong (2) Transfer preempt to hearts You, East, hold: 6 AJT87654 653 5 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 **************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080527/56d12ca1/attachment.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed May 28 08:51:45 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 08:51:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <40047AB6-4878-4F8C-9B91-674A8966DA4C@starpower.net> References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> <40047AB6-4878-4F8C-9B91-674A8966DA4C@starpower.net> Message-ID: On 27/05/2008, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 27, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > > >> +=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no > >> decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and > >> does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The > >> IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it. > >> For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to > >> know what his options are, and what the law says about the > >> consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no > >> information to give him about the effect in this particular case > >> of applying 27B. > > > > Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange and > > disagree with the strongest. > > We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to > > decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could > > not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid. > > I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the > > number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else. > > Exactly. Under the 1997 law, the IBer's LHO has always been allowed > to decide to accept the IB only if the IBer has a penalty-free RC > available and not otherwise. What on earth are you talking about here? The IBer's LHO had the right to accept the IB whenever it suited him. There being a penalty-frree RC available or not. That right is still absolute. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > By denying him this ability -- as > Grattan's interpretation would -- we open the door to the OS gaining > considerable advantage by virtue of the combination of their > infraction and the NOS's poor choice of subsequent action. The > director is responsible for informing the non-offending LHO of his > options [L10C1], and he is entitled to select the one most to his > advantage [L10C3]. A "Probst cheat" would be able to "try on" IBs > hoping to gain advantage from a bad choice made in ignorance of its > consequences by his LHO. > > > 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed May 28 09:01:54 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:01:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S > 5D X ? > > (1) Forcing, not necessarily strong > (2) Transfer preempt to hearts > > You, East, hold: > > 6 > AJT87654 > 653 > 5 > > What call do you make? Pass. 5D is natural, normally a save. It can't be lead-directing, since partner is on lead himself. We've been doubled, so partner is still there. > What other calls do you consider making? Absolutely none. If someone screwed up here (supposedly partner forgot the transfer part of the preempt), I've got UI constraints. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed May 28 09:16:36 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:16:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> Message-ID: Peter: > If the RC fits L27B1 (a or b) there are no L26 restrictions. ton: And why not? From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 28 09:31:25 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:31:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> <40047AB6-4878-4F8C-9B91-674A8966DA4C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <483D0A4D.4050609@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 27/05/2008, Eric Landau wrote: >> On May 27, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >>> >>>> +=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no >>>> decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and >>>> does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The >>>> IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it. >>>> For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to >>>> know what his options are, and what the law says about the >>>> consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no >>>> information to give him about the effect in this particular case >>>> of applying 27B. >>> Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange and >>> disagree with the strongest. >>> We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to >>> decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could >>> not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid. >>> I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the >>> number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else. >> Exactly. Under the 1997 law, the IBer's LHO has always been allowed >> to decide to accept the IB only if the IBer has a penalty-free RC >> available and not otherwise. > > What on earth are you talking about here? Is that so unclear? > The IBer's LHO had the right to accept the IB whenever it suited him. > There being a penalty-frree RC available or not. That right is still > absolute. > Of course he has the right. But under the 1997 standard practice he only had to decide AFTER being told that the IBer had a penalty-free RC or not! And of course he also knew what call that was, since it could be only one call. Under the guidelines as proposed by Grattan for the 2007 laws, LHO must decide on acceptance WITHOUT knowing whether there exists a penalty-free RC or not. Of course he need not be told if IBer will make that call, but knowing if you're accepting against a possible normal auction or against a gambling one is an interesting piece of information. And since that information is mostly derived from available information anyway (basically the laws and the offenders' system), I feel that the conclusion ought to be told to LHO before he decides to accept or not. Consider the alternative: "do you accept?" "what happens if I don't?" "then IBer will need to make his call sufficient; depending on lots of circumstances, he will silence his partner" "what circumstances?" "if the replacement call provides the same information, it's ok" "what does their IB show?" "that depends on his intention" "what is his intention" "I'm not allowed to tell you that" "if his intention were X, what would the IB show?" "A" "do they have a sufficient call that shows A?" "I'm not allowed to tell you that" "LHO, what would Q show in this sequence?, and R, and S?" "LHO explains all that" "TD, would you accept Q as a RC if the original intent were X?" "I would" (*) "now what would the IB show if the intention were Y?" "B" "do they have a sufficient call that shows B?" "you know the answer to that" "LHO, I already know about Q, R and S, but T shows?" "TD, would you accept T as a RC if the intent were Y?" "I would not" (*) (*) note that one of these questions is superfluous - the TD has already decided on one of them, not on the other - his hesitation on one or the other question will give the game away. Now the LHO has all the information he needs. He must of course guess the intent, but at least he knows what will happen then. Is it not far simpler to simply allow the intent to be known, as well as all the relevant pieces of ruling? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Wed May 28 10:01:36 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:01:36 +0900 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483CF5EC.2070108@ozemail.com.au> References: <483CF5EC.2070108@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <200805280801.AA13877@geller204.nifty.com> Reg Busch writes: >>Reg Busch: But the Tournament Organiser has to be recognised by the RA and is subject to the RA's requirements. If the RA is exercising its powers illegally according to civil law, where does that leave the Tournament Organiser? >> The footnote to L93C3b says the following ************************************************* * The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action. ************************************************* It appears to me this should be a footnote to L80 or maybe should be added as L80A4, as it should apply to all actions of the the RA, not just appeals. In any case the answer to Reg's very apt question appears to be that the RA is not allowed to take actions that conflict with national law (for that matter, with State Law or municipal ordinances either, maybe this should be added), and that if they are they should be told promptly to stop. -Bob From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 28 10:04:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:04:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <26909260.1211928057473.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <26909260.1211928057473.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <483D11F6.4090706@ulb.ac.be> John R. Mayne a ?crit : > -----Original Message----- > >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Sent: May 27, 2008 6:30 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S >> 5D X ? >> >> (1) Forcing, not necessarily strong >> (2) Transfer preempt to hearts >> >> You, East, hold: >> >> 6 >> AJT87654 >> 653 >> 5 >> >> What call do you make? >> AG : 5H, because in my agreements 5D is fit-showing. (and it should be) To those who tell me this is self-serving, I can show my system notes. (and I do play transfer preempts in such a case) Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Wed May 28 10:09:06 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:09:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a501c8c09a$1c59c180$550d4480$@nl> Well, allow me to inject a contrary opinion here. I'll bid 5 Hearts and will defend it at the committee(I fear). Partner cannot just have D, that would make no sense. In this sort of bidding 5D should show some diamonds, plus heart support to aid in deciding whether to save against 5S. My diamonds are just not good enough to pass this, nor is this the sort of hand I want to preempt to the 6-level. So I bid the simple minimum that I can bid, no adventures. 5H it is. Hans van Staveren -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran Sent: woensdag 28 mei 2008 9:02 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 28/05/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S > 5D X ? > > (1) Forcing, not necessarily strong > (2) Transfer preempt to hearts > > You, East, hold: > > 6 > AJT87654 > 653 > 5 > > What call do you make? Pass. 5D is natural, normally a save. It can't be lead-directing, since partner is on lead himself. We've been doubled, so partner is still there. > What other calls do you consider making? Absolutely none. If someone screwed up here (supposedly partner forgot the transfer part of the preempt), I've got UI constraints. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 28 10:07:17 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:07:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0CD5DF7F0AD642AEBCCB6F9E4F5FAA55@erdos> References: <0CD5DF7F0AD642AEBCCB6F9E4F5FAA55@erdos> Message-ID: <483D12B5.6070002@ulb.ac.be> David Grabiner a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > >> Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S >> 5D X ? >> >> (1) Forcing, not necessarily strong >> (2) Transfer preempt to hearts >> >> You, East, hold: >> >> 6 >> AJT87654 >> 653 >> 5 >> >> What call do you make? >> What other calls do you consider making? >> > > Pass, with no alternative. If partner's 5D was intended as lead-directing, he > will correct to 5H himself. I'm sorry, Sir. 5D is lead-directing, that's pure bridge logic and that's written in my system notes. And in that case, passing the double is *stronger* than correcting to the "commitment" 5H. So pass is a bad call, while 5H is normal. At least that's Robson's theory. So, if the system notes read "commitment theory" and explain it (as mine do), you can't disallow the normal call. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 28 10:15:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:15:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be><1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> <1K1204-0hiV4y0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001701c8c09b$287b9230$73d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. > From: Herman De Wael >> Peter Eidt wrote: >> > From: Herman De Wael >> > > Have we dealt with the L26 implications? >> > > The IB is still a retracted bid - which showed some suits. Does >> > > the TD not imply by giving certain types of L26 rulings what the >> > > intention was? >> > > >> > >> > The *Law* itself deals with L26 implications: >> > If the RC fits L27B1 (a or b) there are no L26 restrictions. >> > If the RC does not fir L27B1 the L26 restrictions are mentioned. >> > >> > The IB does not show anything. Most of the time >> > the IBer meant a (some) suit(s) while making >> > the IB, but it is forbidden by law to give a particular >> > meaning to the IB. >> > >> >> But surely the L26 restrictions apply to the intended suits? > > Herman, > > if it's an B1 case they never apply to anything, cause > it's all either natural or said within the RC. > > If it''s not an B1 case they do apply in a way the TD will > tell the table - without telling them the intention of the IB. > > Peter < < --------------------------------------------------------- (Grattan:) I would think that under the 1997 Law 27 the LHO was entitled to know what the law said. He was not entitled to know what the offender's choice of option would be, nor did the law give him a right to know what false impression had led the offender to make his IB. Moreover, the Director could only speak as to what the law said about the penalties subsequent to the offender's exercise of option. Until the choice of RC by offender the Director could not rule on the application of law to the chosen call. Similarly under the 2007 law the LHO is entitled to know what the law says. He is not entitled to know what option the offender will choose; he has no right set in law to know what false impression has caused offender to make the insufficient bid. The Director can speak as to what the law says, but he cannot rule on offender's choice of RC until the choice is made. The LHO has no right to information about the legal auction until it has occurred. Under both codes the LHO is entitled to examine the opponents' system card. So I think perhaps the principles governing the 2007 law correspond to the principles governing the 1997 law. Introduction of a wider selection of choices under 27B1 does not carry with it an extension of the entitlements of the LHO - the law makes no such provision. Concerning Law 26, I will wait for an answer until after the weekend; we have split views on it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 28 10:19:55 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:19:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a501c8c09a$1c59c180$550d4480$@nl> References: <00a501c8c09a$1c59c180$550d4480$@nl> Message-ID: <483D15AB.2010102@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > Well, allow me to inject a contrary opinion here. > I'll bid 5 Hearts and will defend it at the committee(I fear). > > Partner cannot just have D, that would make no sense. In this sort of bidding 5D should show some diamonds, plus heart support to aid in deciding whether to save against 5S. My diamonds are just not good enough to pass this, nor is this the sort of hand I want to preempt to the 6-level. > > So I bid the simple minimum that I can bid, no adventures. 5H it is. > > AG : it seems like I've found a fellow Robsonian 8-) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 28 10:16:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:16:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483D14EB.9090504@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > On 28/05/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S >> 5D X ? >> >> (1) Forcing, not necessarily strong >> (2) Transfer preempt to hearts >> >> You, East, hold: >> >> 6 >> AJT87654 >> 653 >> 5 >> >> What call do you make? >> > > Pass. 5D is natural, normally a save. It can't be lead-directing, > since partner is on lead himself. We've been doubled, so partner is > still there. > > >> What other calls do you consider making? >> > > Absolutely none. > If someone screwed up here (supposedly partner forgot the transfer > part of the preempt), I've got UI constraints. > AG : you should assume nobody srewed it up. And ask yourself what 5D means in that case. Perhaps you would say it's natural, but some would say it's fit-showing. Never assume a screw-up without due enquiry. We once had the following auction : 4C 4H 5C 5D 6H 4C was a transfer to hearts. RHO, a well-known TD, made comments about ethics, then doubled and added "I won't call the TD, the score will be enough of a penalty". We made seven. 5C wasn't an attempt to correct a screw-up. My partner had : void - AKQJxxxx - x - AQ10x. RHO was right in a way : the score was the right punishment. The most important thing, here, is to remember that "peers" also means "players who use the same conventions". If the pair in question are diehard Robsonians, 5H is automatic, for the reasons presented in my preceding post. This proves one thing : questions of the form "what do you bid and why" can't be answered without knowing the full set of agreements. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080528/3dea49f2/attachment.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed May 28 10:34:26 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:34:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN><483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred><483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> <40047AB6-4878-4F8C-9B91-674A8966DA4C@starpower.net> <483D0A4D.4050609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005401c8c09d$a795a5e0$73d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure < Under the guidelines as proposed by Grattan for the 2007 laws, < +=+ Actually the thoughts in my messages on the subject are the product of a long and diligent dialogue with the teacher who will present the subject of Law 27 to the seminar this weekend. I have not yet seen his actual paper, so while I believe it will say largely what I have said, I am not committing him to every detail and I await his lecture with much interest. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed May 28 10:48:47 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:48:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483D12B5.6070002@ulb.ac.be> References: <0CD5DF7F0AD642AEBCCB6F9E4F5FAA55@erdos> <483D12B5.6070002@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <483D1C6F.6010107@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I'm sorry, Sir. 5D is lead-directing, that's pure bridge logic and that's written in my system notes. And in that case, passing the double is *stronger* than correcting to the "commitment" 5H. So pass is a bad call, while 5H is normal. At least that's Robson's theory. So, if the system notes read "commitment theory" and explain it (as mine do), you can't disallow the normal call. [Hans van Staveren] Well, allow me to inject a contrary opinion here. I'll bid 5 Hearts and will defend it at the committee(I fear). Partner cannot just have D, that would make no sense. In this sort of bidding 5D should show some diamonds, plus heart support to aid in deciding whether to save against 5S. My diamonds are just not good enough to pass this, nor is this the sort of hand I want to preempt to the 6-level. So I bid the simple minimum that I can bid, no adventures. 5H it is. [Nige1] In this auction, it would make sense that suit bids by other players are natural. Hence I don't think Alain's inference is inexorable Bridge logic. 5H is fine, however, if Alain and Hans have a conventional agreement. I think that Richard might have told us if, systemically, 5D was a cue bid, fit bid, asking bid or whatever. If 5D is natural or if there is any doubt about its systemic meaning then, in view of opponent's double and my diamond support, pass seems to be the automatic flexible action. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed May 28 11:07:31 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:07:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur In-Reply-To: <483D1C6F.6010107@NTLworld.com> References: <0CD5DF7F0AD642AEBCCB6F9E4F5FAA55@erdos> <483D12B5.6070002@ulb.ac.be> <483D1C6F.6010107@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00b801c8c0a2$429b7b60$c7d27220$@nl> [Nige1] In this auction, it would make sense that suit bids by other players are natural. Hence I don't think Alain's inference is inexorable Bridge logic. 5H is fine, however, if Alain and Hans have a conventional agreement. I think that Richard might have told us if, systemically, 5D was a cue bid, fit bid, asking bid or whatever. If 5D is natural or if there is any doubt about its systemic meaning then, in view of opponent's double and my diamond support, pass seems to be the automatic flexible action. [HvS] I really cannot agree with the fact that without special agreements 5D would be natural, without heart fit implications. If your partner preempts to the roof in one suit, and you do not have a fit, would you *really* bid your own suit at the 5-level? Somehow I cannot believe that this could happen. Even without agreements 5D(whatever its meaning) must show heart support. In the case on hand 5D can hardly be lead directing, since the bidder anticipates having to lead himself, therefore I would expect a reasonable diamond suit plus some hearts. The double from North makes it clear that preempting to the 6-level will not do. Hans From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 28 11:21:56 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:21:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <005401c8c09d$a795a5e0$73d4403e@Mildred> References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN><483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred><483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> <40047AB6-4878-4F8C-9B91-674A8966DA4C@starpower.net> <483D0A4D.4050609@skynet.be> <005401c8c09d$a795a5e0$73d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <483D2434.2030704@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:31 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] comments on 27 procedure > < > Under the guidelines as proposed by Grattan for the > 2007 laws, > < > +=+ Actually the thoughts in my messages on the subject > are the product of a long and diligent dialogue with the > teacher who will present the subject of Law 27 to the > seminar this weekend. I have not yet seen his actual paper, > so while I believe it will say largely what I have said, I am > not committing him to every detail and I await his lecture > with much interest. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > As do I. See you on Friday! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 28 11:41:44 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:41:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <001701c8c09b$287b9230$73d4403e@Mildred> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be><1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> <1K1204-0hiV4y0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <001701c8c09b$287b9230$73d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <483D28D8.5050709@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > (Grattan:) Grattan, I think you need to be careful with drawing similarities: > I would think that under the 1997 Law 27 the LHO was > entitled to know what the law said. OK, and similarly under the 2007 law. > He was not entitled > to know what the offender's choice of option would be, OK. But we _did_ tell him what the offender's options were! > nor did the law give him a right to know what false > impression had led the offender to make his IB. I'm not so certain about that. The question never arose, since the false impression was only mildly important. If the lowest correction was conventional, there were no penalty-free options. If the lowest correction was natural, it was most often clear if the IB could be showing that same suit. So yes, maybe we did not tell the LHO what the offender's intention were, but he knew those most of the time anyway. > Moreover, > the Director could only speak as to what the law said > about the penalties subsequent to the offender's exercise > of option. Until the choice of RC by offender the Director > could not rule on the application of law to the chosen call. > He could not rule, but it was his duty to explain the possible rulings to the offender at his time of choice _and_ to the LHO before he chose to accept or not. > Similarly under the 2007 law the LHO is entitled to know > what the law says. OK. But the law is much more complex now! > He is not entitled to know what option > the offender will choose; OK. of course. But he is entitled to know what options exist. I believe that includes the answer to the hypothetical question "if IBer intended A, would a bid of Q be acceptable?" The LHO is entitled to know what the IB meant under hypothesis A (and under B and C), and he is entitled to know the meaning of RB Q (and R and S). I'm quite convinced he's also entitled to know what the ruling of the TD would be if the offender chooses RB Q. > he has no right set in law to > know what false impression has caused offender to make > the insufficient bid. Indeed, no right set in law. But I'm talking practical here. If the ruling takes 5 minutes if the intention is kept hidden, and the ruling takes only 1 minute if the intention is revealed, then should we not examine if it is not better to reveal the intention? > The Director can speak as to what the > law says, but he cannot rule on offender's choice of RC > until the choice is made. I believe that "speak as to what the law says" includes "telling what the ruling would be in the hypothetical cases". As a TD, I will not obfuscate by reading the letter of the law when I can simply tell what the ruling would be. > The LHO has no right to > information about the legal auction until it has occurred. > Yes he has! He has the right to know in advance the meaning of every single bid the player is legally entitled to make. > Under both codes the LHO is entitled to examine the > opponents' system card. > > So I think perhaps the principles governing the 2007 law > correspond to the principles governing the 1997 law. > Introduction of a wider selection of choices under 27B1 > does not carry with it an extension of the entitlements of > the LHO - the law makes no such provision. Concerning > Law 26, I will wait for an answer until after the weekend; > we have split views on it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 May 28 12:06:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:06:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483D1C6F.6010107@NTLworld.com> References: <0CD5DF7F0AD642AEBCCB6F9E4F5FAA55@erdos> <483D12B5.6070002@ulb.ac.be> <483D1C6F.6010107@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <483D2EB9.9040504@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > In this auction, it would make sense that suit bids by other players are > natural. Hence I don't think Alain's inference is inexorable Bridge > logic. 5H is fine, however, if Alain and Hans have a conventional > agreement. AG : Excerpts of my system notes follow. I'll let you judge. Notice that conditions 2, 4 and 5 of item [1] are met. [Nigel] I think that Richard might have told us if, systemically, 5D was a cue bid, fit bid, asking bid or whatever. AG : only if he had been told it, that is, if the original AC had enquired about that, which they often don't, AND considered it relevant rather than self-serving, which would need some analysis of the enquiry's results..If they had to analyze the following notes, many would have abandoned and considered only the default value of "if there is any doubt, shoot him". Yet they contain everything that's needed to allow the 5H bid. Best regards Alain [1] FJ/FNJ : show good suit + raise of last suit mentioned by partner. Occur whenever at least three of the following conditions are met : ? Partner has opened a preempt ? Partner has made a 1-suited overcall ? The bid is a jump ? RHO's last declaration was not a Pass ? The bid is at 3-level or above (doesn't count if the bid is 4 in major) ? By PH, or otherwise after pass if bidding higher than one would have done on a former round (1C-p-p-1S-2C-2D) [10] commitment principle in competitive bidding Whenever a) a raise has been offered, or a fit has been shown (eg splinter, or FJ/FNJ [1] ), or one of us made a preempt or any 1-suited overcall or has shown a 6-card suit b) the partnership is forced up to some level L c) opponents bid or double below level L Then : L is a weak bid, and pass is encouraging, denying the ability to make another descriptive move From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 28 12:19:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:19:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <483D28D8.5050709@skynet.be> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be><1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> <1K1204-0hiV4y0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <001701c8c09b$287b9230$73d4403e@Mildred> <483D28D8.5050709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <483D3199.3060106@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> nor did the law give him a right to know what false >> impression had led the offender to make his IB. >> > > I'm not so certain about that. The question never arose, since the > false impression was only mildly important. If the lowest correction > was conventional, there were no penalty-free options. If the lowest > correction was natural, it was most often clear if the IB could be > showing that same suit. > So yes, maybe we did not tell the LHO what the offender's intention > were, but he knew those most of the time anyway. > Indeed. So, as far as information content is concerned, we're in unchartered waters here, and we might as well argue "information about the intent, as before" as we might "information about the RB only, as before", because they were equivalent ... only, they are no more. And I'm with Herman .about efficiency. > > >> The LHO has no right to >> information about the legal auction until it has occurred. >> >> > > Yes he has! He has the right to know in advance the meaning of every > single bid the player is legally entitled to make. > > Indeed, because this bid will conform to the opponents' system (no new conventions after infractions), and he is entitled to the opponents' full system before making his call, as always. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed May 28 13:43:58 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:43:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur In-Reply-To: <00b801c8c0a2$429b7b60$c7d27220$@nl> References: <0CD5DF7F0AD642AEBCCB6F9E4F5FAA55@erdos> <483D12B5.6070002@ulb.ac.be> <483D1C6F.6010107@NTLworld.com> <00b801c8c0a2$429b7b60$c7d27220$@nl> Message-ID: <003501c8c0b8$1fbcc700$5f365500$@com> [HvS] I really cannot agree with the fact that without special agreements 5D would be natural [DALB] That is the definition of "natural" - a natural bid is one not based on a special agreement. Of course 5D is natural by an unpassed hand. What is partner supposed to do with x None AKQJ10xxxxx Ax? Pass 4S? Commit to 5H or 6D because he is playing with some blockhead who thinks that 5D shows heart support? Robson is a fine player and a splendid fellow, but that blasted book has filled people's heads with ideas so ludicrous that they have done the game a serious disservice. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 28 13:44:20 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 13:44:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] trains fur Message-ID: <483D4594.7030902@ulb.ac.be> I just asked the question about what to bid over 5DX to my partner (the one with which I use the system notes given on a previous mail) and here is his answer : --- Tu dois ?tre s?r de ma r?ponse, non? 5C d?courageant, je n'ai d?j? pas grand'chose pour 4K, et le partenaire me demande de juger sur mon compl?ment. Si par hasard 5K ?tait en r?alit? un cue-bid, mon ench?re est la m?me, avec la m?me signification. L'adversaire n'a pas voulu te croire? --- Translation : You already know my answer, don't you ? 5H, discouraging. I already stretched it when I bid 4D, and partner asks me to decide on the basis of my secondary fit. If, by a mere chance, 5D was in fact a cue-bid, I make the same answer, with the same meaning. They didn't believe you ? --- I'd like to add that he is the diehard Robsonian I was thinking about. Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Wed May 28 13:56:14 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 13:56:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur In-Reply-To: <003501c8c0b8$1fbcc700$5f365500$@com> References: <0CD5DF7F0AD642AEBCCB6F9E4F5FAA55@erdos> <483D12B5.6070002@ulb.ac.be> <483D1C6F.6010107@NTLworld.com> <00b801c8c0a2$429b7b60$c7d27220$@nl> <003501c8c0b8$1fbcc700$5f365500$@com> Message-ID: <00c001c8c0b9$d474db50$7d5e91f0$@nl> Far be it from humble me to try to score a point in bidding against David, but although the hand he gives would be an argument in favor of 5D being totally natural I think the odds are against playing 5D natural. You are in my opinion much better off playing 5D in some cooperative sense. However, this is of course all beside the point. Either you have an agreement about 5D or you don't. If you don't and partner has not alerted your 4D the final contract is 5D doubled. If you have the final contract will be something else. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of David Burn Sent: woensdag 28 mei 2008 13:44 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blml] Trains Fur [HvS] I really cannot agree with the fact that without special agreements 5D would be natural [DALB] That is the definition of "natural" - a natural bid is one not based on a special agreement. Of course 5D is natural by an unpassed hand. What is partner supposed to do with x None AKQJ10xxxxx Ax? Pass 4S? Commit to 5H or 6D because he is playing with some blockhead who thinks that 5D shows heart support? Robson is a fine player and a splendid fellow, but that blasted book has filled people's heads with ideas so ludicrous that they have done the game a serious disservice. David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 28 13:58:24 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 13:58:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur In-Reply-To: <003501c8c0b8$1fbcc700$5f365500$@com> References: <0CD5DF7F0AD642AEBCCB6F9E4F5FAA55@erdos> <483D12B5.6070002@ulb.ac.be> <483D1C6F.6010107@NTLworld.com> <00b801c8c0a2$429b7b60$c7d27220$@nl> <003501c8c0b8$1fbcc700$5f365500$@com> Message-ID: <483D48E0.9000602@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [HvS] > > I really cannot agree with the fact that without special agreements 5D would > be natural > > [DALB] > > That is the definition of "natural" - a natural bid is one not based on a > special agreement. Of course 5D is natural by an unpassed hand. What is > partner supposed to do with x None AKQJ10xxxxx Ax? Pass 4S? Commit to 5H or > 6D because he is playing with some blockhead who thinks that 5D shows heart > support? Robson is a fine player and a splendid fellow, but that blasted > book has filled people's heads with ideas so ludicrous that they have done > the game a serious disservice. > Except, of course, that with said hand you can bid 6D, hoping to make that contract, but that's another story. Anyway, nobody ever said that you must get an adverse ruling because the TD doesn't like your system. BTA that's sometimes the reason why he doesn't enquire as finely as he should. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 28 14:05:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:05:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur In-Reply-To: <00c001c8c0b9$d474db50$7d5e91f0$@nl> References: <0CD5DF7F0AD642AEBCCB6F9E4F5FAA55@erdos> <483D12B5.6070002@ulb.ac.be> <483D1C6F.6010107@NTLworld.com> <00b801c8c0a2$429b7b60$c7d27220$@nl> <003501c8c0b8$1fbcc700$5f365500$@com> <00c001c8c0b9$d474db50$7d5e91f0$@nl> Message-ID: <483D4AA2.3060504@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > Far be it from humble me to try to score a point in bidding against David, > but although the hand he gives would be an argument in favor of 5D being > totally natural I think the odds are against playing 5D natural. You are in > my opinion much better off playing 5D in some cooperative sense. > > However, this is of course all beside the point. Either you have an > agreement about 5D or you don't. If you don't and partner has not alerted > your 4D the final contract is 5D doubled. If you have the final contract > will be something else. > AG : In Belgium, the "partner has not alerted" part doesn't play any role, because bids at this level aren't alertable. Zounds ! Perhaps that's the reason why ;-) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed May 28 16:48:47 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 16:48:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Vitold=27s_Law_27_concerns=2E?= Message-ID: <1K1MxL-04NPGq0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> From: "ton" > Peter: > > If the RC fits L27B1 (a or b) there are no L26 restrictions. > > ton: > And why not? ok, we had this point before ... "The Law says "the auction continues without further rectification". This - literally - does not exclude lead restrictions, as the lead is following the auction. But I thought, there was something like a consensus, that the intention of this law was, not to apply lead restrictions in case of L27B1. (?) c u on Friday! Peter From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 28 20:57:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 14:57:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru> <003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be> <004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> <40047AB6-4878-4F8C-9B91-674A8966DA4C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <98FA943D-1C94-4291-A844-57EC6128BCFC@starpower.net> On May 28, 2008, at 2:51 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 27/05/2008, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Exactly. Under the 1997 law, the IBer's LHO has always been allowed >> to decide to accept the IB only if the IBer has a penalty-free RC >> available and not otherwise. > > What on earth are you talking about here? > The IBer's LHO had the right to accept the IB whenever it suited him. > There being a penalty-frree RC available or not. That right is still > absolute. Indeed, the IBer's LHO has the right to accept the IB whenever it suits him, whether there is a penalty-free RC available or not. But it has historically been the case that the IBer's LHO had the right to be informed as to whether or not there was a penalty-free RC available before he had to decide whether or not it suited him to accept the IB. Under the new interpretation floated by Grattan, that would no longer be the case. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 28 22:11:34 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 16:11:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002b01c8bf45$064198b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <483A76FC.30102@skynet.be> <002b01c8bf45$064198b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 May 2008 11:27:35 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:38 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> ABF System Regulation 2008, clause 3.6: >>> >>> More Comprehensive Descriptions of Systems >>> >>> In the interests of full disclosure and for a pair's own benefit >>> in case of disputes, any pair may submit one copy of a more >>> comprehensive description of their system to the Tournament >>> Convenor before the first session of any event. In decisions >>> taken by Tournament Directors and by the Appeals Committee, >>> pairs who have submitted their full system will be given the >>> benefit of any support this provides for an explanation given at >>> the table. >>> > I'm quite prepared to publish all 180 pages of my agreements with Damian > here. Anyone up for 10 Meg of system notes? Would that be sufficient > evidence? :) John Also, there might be contradictions in your notes, so perhaps all 180 pages should be examined before making a ruling. I assume that if my partner and I agree to play a book (for example we are learning Precision) that we can submit the book. (I'm pretty sure our book has contradictions.) Ironically, my regular partner and I haven't updated our notes. If we have updated our system and I forget the convention and misexplain my partner's bid, we will be able to document that it is a misbid even though it is not. But no harm, the mistake is equally likely to go in the other direction. Hmmm, there must be an easier way to do this. From john at asimere.com Thu May 29 00:07:04 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:07:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Read it as you will. References: <000801c8bf9b$90c6c180$c7d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002201c8c10f$29ced470$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:46 AM Subject: [blml] Read it as you will. > > Grattan Endicott ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > +=+ For connoisseurs of language: > > "NASA's Phoenix lander set itself down safely in the > northern area of Mars as planned a short time ago." > TV news report. Grattan it has no commas. It is perfectly clear and completely untrue. The planning had been going on for a long time. John > > - Another contribution to the media's corruption > of the English language > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu May 29 00:13:04 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:13:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure References: <1440511211813364@webmail49.yandex.ru><003201c8bf45$e8f7c620$0901a8c0@JOHN> <483BDE61.8070202@skynet.be><004001c8bff3$21163200$4bce403e@Mildred> <483C006B.2010705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003b01c8c110$0077fc40$0901a8c0@JOHN> >>> Director to reveal the original intent to the table. >>> >> +=+ Until offender has a choice of options the Director has no >> decision to make concerning the application of Law 27B and >> does not enquire what the offender thought he was doing. The >> IB is only withdrawn after LHO decides not to accept it. >> For the purpose of selecting his option LHO is entitled to >> know what his options are, and what the law says about the >> consequences of his choice. At this time the Director has no >> information to give him about the effect in this particular case >> of applying 27B. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Within this whole discussion, this is the part I find most strange and > disagree with the strongest. > We have always ruled IB in such a way that the LHO only needed to > decide on whether to accept AFTER the TD told that IB could or could > not escape "unpunished" by bidding some aprticular bid. > I don't see why this should change in the new laws, where only the > number of acceptable changes has altered, nothing else. clearly this is so. "You may accept the call but I'm not going to tell you the details of the Law". The regulation as promulgated is flawed. another row with Max. A player cannot be asked to accept the call until he knows RHO's options. Not that RHO has options, but actually what the options are in a legal context rather than a bridge context. 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 rbusch at ozemail.com.au Thu May 29 02:11:36 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 10:11:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200805280801.AA13877@geller204.nifty.com> References: <483CF5EC.2070108@ozemail.com.au> <200805280801.AA13877@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <483DF4B8.20202@ozemail.com.au> Robert Geller wrote: >Reg Busch writes: > > >>>Reg Busch: But the Tournament Organiser has to be recognised >>> >>> >by the RA and is subject to the RA's requirements. If the RA is >exercising its powers illegally according to civil law, where >does that leave the Tournament Organiser? > > >>> >>> >>> > >The footnote to L93C3b says the following >************************************************* >* The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with >any >national law that may affect its action. >************************************************* >It appears to me this should be a footnote to L80 or maybe >should be added as L80A4, as it should apply to all actions of >the the RA, not just appeals. > >In any case the answer to Reg's very apt question appears to be >that the RA is not allowed to take actions that conflict with >national law (for that matter, with State Law or municipal >ordinances either, maybe this should be added), and that if they >are they should be told promptly to stop. > >-Bob > > > Reg: But Bob this is not the answer. The footnote does not apply to Law 80, and it seems to me that the footnote refers to such things as the observation of rules of natural justice etc. The fact is that, on June 1 in Australia, under the Laws of Bridge the ABF will be the sole RA in Australia, and the ABF intends to assume those powers.. If I believe that the ABF in accepting this power is acting ultra vires under the constitution, who is to, as you put it, promptly tell the ABF to stop? Or has the WBF forecd us into a position of having to chase this matter through the courts? The WBF could have (and arguably should have) anticipated this problem. And it could still clear the air. All it needs is a rider to the effect that, should there be doubt as to the constitutionality of the NBO accepting sole rights as RA, then the NBO may make 'power sharing' arrangements with other stakeholders (clubs and states) so that they have RA rights in their own areas. Assignment is not enough. The ABF has already decided to assign their rights s RA to the states, but only for a period of five years. The states hopefully will reassign rights to the clubs. Assignment in perpetuity would relieve the problem, but not solve the actual legalities involved. Reg >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 28/05/2008 5:33 PM > > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu May 29 05:07:10 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 04:07:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483DF4B8.20202@ozemail.com.au> References: <483CF5EC.2070108@ozemail.com.au> <200805280801.AA13877@geller204.nifty.com> <483DF4B8.20202@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <483E1DDE.5060409@NTLworld.com> The rules of a game should be the same internationally so that players can enjoy substantially the same game everywhere. National rule variations discriminate against foreigners if only because of their unfamiliarity. IMO the WBFLC should formulate the complete rules of Bridge, in consultation with players from different countries; in the end the WBFLC's decision should be final. There would be fewer fudges and inconsistencies if the WBFLC decided the rules on a "take it or leave it" basis. As Bob Geller suggests, the rules should be translated into simple *English* before starting the laborious process of producing other language variants. In theory, with a *complete* set of official rules, there would less need for other regulatory authorities to concoct local regulations. Whatever the WBF policy, in practice, the WBFLC is powerless to prevent Bolshy regulators from changing the rules in any way to suit themselves. For example, the ACBL promotes its own brand of idiosyncratic fairy bridge. Some of us players do vainly protest at such petty chauvinism. This simple policy would work well, with few legal problems. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 29 06:09:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:09:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <26909260.1211928057473.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: John R. Mayne: >(Yes, I know at the table that it's going to be bad, because >idiot partner has forgotten our agreements. I'll go buy beer; >he can play it.) 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." Richard Hills: If you know that partner is not the sort of idiot to sacrifice at the 5-level on a potential misfit..... Hans von Staveren: >If your partner preempts to the roof in one suit, and you do >not have a fit, would you *really* bid your own suit at the 5- >level? Somehow I cannot believe that this could happen. Richard Hills .....but you also know that partner is the sort of idiot to forget your agreements, would (other things being equal) the 2007 Law 16A1(d) permit you to run from 5Dx to 5H? Of course, at the table other things were not equal. It was a tangled ruling due to MI, UI and possible wild or gambling actions by the non-offending side. New Orleans 1995 Casebook, appeal number 12 Morning Knockout Team Bracket II Dlr: North J97 Vul: North-South Q AK9 AQT973 KQ43 6 3 AJT87654 QT742 653 K64 5 AT852 K92 J8 J82 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C (1) 4D 4S 5D 6S Pass Pass Pass (1) PreAlerted: Forcing, not necessarily strong Result: 6S went down two, +100 for East-West. Facts: North-South preAlerted their 1C opening was forcing, but not necessarily strong. East-West played "transfer preempts" against artificial 1C opening bids. East testified that the partnership played transfer preempts and West testified that she did not think they played them at the four level. South claimed that if he had known 4D was a transfer to hearts he would have passed and would have bid 4S in the balancing seat. The Director was not called until after the match was completed and it was discovered in the comparison that East had an eight- card heart suit. The other team had left the playing area so the Committee heard the case without the facts being determined by the Director. Committee Decision: The Committee, after hearing the testimony from East-West, decided that East-West had not met the burden of proving that they did not have the agreement that 4D was a transfer preempt. The Committee was unanimous in their opinion that East-West were playing transfer preempts and East had not simply *misbid*. When in doubt, Committees should rule "misinformation" unless there was compelling evidence to support "misbid". Players are expected to know their agreements, particularly complex conventions such as transfer preempts. The Committee considered whether the 4D bid caused South to go wrong. There was much discussion of South's 4S call and the Committee ultimately agreed that South's 4S bid was *not unreasonable* in view of the experience of the player. The Committee determined that there had been misinformation caused by West's failure to know their agreements and failure to Alert the 4D bid. The Committee tried to reconstruct an auction that would have occurred if the players had been playing behind screens. If South had been Alerted by East that the 4D bid was a transfer preempt, he probably would have passed as he indicated in his testimony. West would not have been aware that her partner really had hearts and would have bid 5D and North would probably have doubled. East would have been free to bid 5H if he had been playing behind screens and would not have received any *unauthorized information* from his partner's failure to Alert. South would have doubled and with normal defense, East would have gone down four, +800 for North-South. The Committee changed the contract to 5H doubled, +800 for North-South. The Committee was concerned that East had not notified his opponents at the end of the hand that there had been a failure to Alert his 4D bid. It was determined that there was much confusion because the match had finished very late and East-West left the table immediately to compare scores. East was told that he had an obligation to inform the opponents of the failure to Alert his 4D bid and that a misunderstanding had occurred. Casebook panellist Meckstroth: My personal belief is that the Committee should never have tried to determine what would have happened with a hypothetical screen. There was no screen and what would have happened if there was one was not relevant. Casebook panellist Gerard: [snip] I am unsure that North was entitled to go back and double 5D if he would have been more likely to have done so with the knowledge that East held hearts (not the case in this hand). In other words, to what extent should East-West have been at risk for their misunderstanding while providing perfect information to their opponents? Are there standards or guidelines for this situation? 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 May 29 08:27:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 16:27:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483A76FC.30102@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >So I would have exactly the same reaction as before when a pair lists >a bid as non-systemic and then finds a use for it at the table. If >they can find the use at the table, then they could also have found >it at home. Particularly if the partner appears to understand! Richard Hills: WEST EAST 1NT 4H (1) Pass(2) Sigh(3) (1) Texas transfer to spades (2) Non-systemic (3) I understand that partner has forgotten the system. I understand that we are about to get a bottom. In this case West's Pass remains non-systemic despite East's later, "a posteriori" understanding (unless West repeatedly passes in this auction, in which case an "a priori" 2007 Law 40C1 implicit mutual _partnership_ understanding exists). Once more with feeling -> "A first-time unilateral action by one partner is not a pre-existing mutual understanding of both partners." 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 petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Thu May 29 09:29:57 2008 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:29:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <001001c8bfd0$95af5e20$75d2403e@Mildred> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <001001c8bfd0$95af5e20$75d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Am 27.05.2008, 10:05 Uhr, schrieb : >> > +=+ Some of the gaps may be covered by the presenters, > from The Netherlands, Italy, France and England. But one > of the 29 is from England so this cuts away again. It must > be a question of cost in some cases. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It is a question of the date in our case. The seminar coincides with the Austrian National Open Teams, and of the three or four who might reasonably represent us, one is directing, one on a trip abroad and the two others are playing. But perhaps there will be a way to get the papers? Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 29 09:47:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:47:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483E5F7A.10103@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> So I would have exactly the same reaction as before when a pair lists >> a bid as non-systemic and then finds a use for it at the table. If >> they can find the use at the table, then they could also have found >> it at home. Particularly if the partner appears to understand! > > Richard Hills: > > WEST EAST > 1NT 4H (1) > Pass(2) Sigh(3) > > (1) Texas transfer to spades > (2) Non-systemic No Richard, simply wrong! > (3) I understand that partner has forgotten the system. > I understand that we are about to get a bottom. > > In this case West's Pass remains non-systemic despite East's later, > "a posteriori" understanding (unless West repeatedly passes in this > auction, in which case an "a priori" 2007 Law 40C1 implicit mutual > _partnership_ understanding exists). > > Once more with feeling -> > > "A first-time unilateral action by one partner is not a pre-existing > mutual understanding of both partners." > Once more with even more feelling: Even a first time unilateral action may be ruled systemic if understood by partner. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 29 10:50:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 10:50:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483E6E57.1060003@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > The Committee tried to reconstruct an auction that would have > occurred if the players had been playing behind screens. If > South had been Alerted by East that the 4D bid was a transfer > preempt, he probably would have passed as he indicated in his > testimony. West would not have been aware that her partner > really had hearts and would have bid 5D and North would > probably have doubled. East would have been free to bid 5H if > he had been playing behind screens and would not have received > any *unauthorized information* from his partner's failure to > Alert. South would have doubled and with normal defense, East > would have gone down four, +800 for North-South. > > The Committee changed the contract to 5H doubled, +800 for > North-South. So that the whole problem boils down to changing +800 into +800 :-P (and that E/W escape a warning for breach of ethics by using UI ; IMOBO the Committee is right) > Casebook panellist Meckstroth: My personal belief is that the > Committee should never have tried to determine what would have > happened with a hypothetical screen. There was no screen and > what would have happened if there was one was not relevant. > > With a hypothetical screen between North and East, and a clever West (one who doesn't want to push his opponents to slam when they didn't even bid a suit), the final contract would have been 4D, if we believe South when he says he'd have passed 4D. ( If you don't believe that could happen, and West will always raise with such a great fit, please consider the following deal : xx KJxxx xx Qxxx xxx AQJx Q Ax Jxxxxx AKQxx Axx Kx Kxxxx xxxxx --- Jxx North : 2D (weakish weak two in unspecified major) East : pass (only dangerous if South has enough Diamonds to pass, and that's unlikely) South : thought he had enough diamonds to pass ;-) NS - 350. ) As to whether South's 4S was "wild or gambling", well, any bid when you're preempted is a bit of a gamble, so I won't deprive him of his score for this reason. Remark that only MI, not UI use, would be the basis for my ruling. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 29 10:53:51 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 10:53:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483E6F1F.6020102@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : In this case West's Pass remains non-systemic despite East's later, "a posteriori" understanding > Once more with feeling -> > > "A first-time unilateral action by one partner is not a pre-existing > mutual understanding of both partners." > > Then why did you all say my 3D (three-suited, remember ? 1C-1S-2D-3D) was based on an understanding ? This was a first-time, you know. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu May 29 14:08:26 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 13:08:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483E9CBA.2090506@NTLworld.com> New Orleans 1995 Casebook, appeal number 12 Morning Knockout Team Bracket II Dlr: North J97 Vul: North-South Q AK9 AQT973 KQ43 6 3 AJT87654 QT742 653 K64 5 AT852 K92 J8 J82 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C (1) 4D 4S 5D 6S Pass Pass Pass (1) PreAlerted: Forcing, not necessarily strong Result: 6S went down two, +100 for East-West. Facts: North-South preAlerted their 1C opening was forcing, but not necessarily strong. East-West played "transfer preempts" against artificial 1C opening bids. East testified that the partnership played transfer preempts and West testified that she did not think they played them at the four level. South claimed that if he had known 4D was a transfer to hearts he would have passed and would have bid 4S in the balancing seat. The Director was not called until after the match was completed and it was discovered in the comparison that East had an eight- card heart suit. The other team had left the playing area so the Committee heard the case without the facts being determined by the Director. Committee Decision: The Committee, after hearing the testimony from East-West, decided that East-West had not met the burden of proving that they did not have the agreement that 4D was a transfer preempt. The Committee was unanimous in their opinion that East-West were playing transfer preempts and East had not simply *misbid*. When in doubt, Committees should rule "misinformation" unless there was compelling evidence to support "misbid". Players are expected to know their agreements, particularly complex conventions such as transfer preempts. The Committee considered whether the 4D bid caused South to go wrong. There was much discussion of South's 4S call and the Committee ultimately agreed that South's 4S bid was *not unreasonable* in view of the experience of the player. The Committee determined that there had been misinformation caused by West's failure to know their agreements and failure to Alert the 4D bid. The Committee tried to reconstruct an auction that would have occurred if the players had been playing behind screens. If South had been Alerted by East that the 4D bid was a transfer preempt, he probably would have passed as he indicated in his testimony. West would not have been aware that her partner really had hearts and would have bid 5D and North would probably have doubled. East would have been free to bid 5H if he had been playing behind screens and would not have received any *unauthorized information* from his partner's failure to Alert. South would have doubled and with normal defense, East would have gone down four, +800 for North-South. The Committee changed the contract to 5H doubled, +800 for North-South. The Committee was concerned that East had not notified his opponents at the end of the hand that there had been a failure to Alert his 4D bid. It was determined that there was much confusion because the match had finished very late and East-West left the table immediately to compare scores. East was told that he had an obligation to inform the opponents of the failure to Alert his 4D bid and that a misunderstanding had occurred. Casebook panellist Meckstroth: My personal belief is that the Committee should never have tried to determine what would have happened with a hypothetical screen. There was no screen and what would have happened if there was one was not relevant. Casebook panellist Gerard: [snip] I am unsure that North was entitled to go back and double 5D if he would have been more likely to have done so with the knowledge that East held hearts (not the case in this hand). In other words, to what extent should East-West have been at risk for their misunderstanding while providing perfect information to their opponents? Are there standards or guidelines for this situation? [Nige1] If BLMLers can be considered to be West's peers; and in the absence of system-notes like Alain's, pass of 5DX seems to be an LA. East was in receipt of UI from the non-alert of 4D which suggested rescuing 5DX to 5H. Hence, IMO, the committee should probably adjust back to 5DX-6. I'm surprized by Alain's support for the committee decision. He may not himself regard pass as an LA but surely he should be influenced in this regard, by the views of other roughly equivalent players, like David Burn. Isn't that the point of conducting polls? From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 29 14:57:31 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:57:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) In-Reply-To: <483E1DDE.5060409@NTLworld.com> References: <483CF5EC.2070108@ozemail.com.au> <200805280801.AA13877@geller204.nifty.com> <483DF4B8.20202@ozemail.com.au> <483E1DDE.5060409@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <3AAF7E85-892A-4992-AE2C-0631FB6E3B11@starpower.net> On May 28, 2008, at 11:07 PM, Guthrie wrote: > The rules of a game should be the same internationally so that players > can enjoy substantially the same game everywhere. National rule > variations discriminate against foreigners if only because of their > unfamiliarity. Perhaps the rules of a game should differ internationally so that players can enjoy the particular form of the game most favored in their home countries. On any given day, after all, the number of people playing competitive bridge in foreign countries is insignificant compared to the number of people playing competitive bridge in their home countries. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From brian666 at frontiernet.net Thu May 29 15:19:44 2008 From: brian666 at frontiernet.net (brian666 at frontiernet.net) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:19:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:47:06 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Herman De Wael: >> >>> So I would have exactly the same reaction as before when a pair lists >>> a bid as non-systemic and then finds a use for it at the table. If >>> they can find the use at the table, then they could also have found >>> it at home. Particularly if the partner appears to understand! >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> WEST EAST >> 1NT 4H (1) >> Pass(2) Sigh(3) >> >> (1) Texas transfer to spades >> (2) Non-systemic > >No Richard, simply wrong! > >> (3) I understand that partner has forgotten the system. >> I understand that we are about to get a bottom. >> >> In this case West's Pass remains non-systemic despite East's later, >> "a posteriori" understanding (unless West repeatedly passes in this >> auction, in which case an "a priori" 2007 Law 40C1 implicit mutual >> _partnership_ understanding exists). >> >> Once more with feeling -> >> >> "A first-time unilateral action by one partner is not a pre-existing >> mutual understanding of both partners." >> > >Once more with even more feelling: > >Even a first time unilateral action may be ruled systemic if >understood by partner. > Give this auction a try, please, Herman. You hold as dealer (as near as I can remember it) AKxx QJx Kx KQxx It goes 1C(1) 2H(2) 2S(3) 3S(4) (1) Any 16+ (2) Any 4441 shape, either 8-11 or 16+ (3) Just waiting for clarification (4) Anti-systemic. Responder's possible responses to 2S are :- 2NT -> 3H = 8-11, suit below the singleton 3NT -> 4H = 16+, suit below the singleton 3S is explicitly noted in our system notes (as seems to be the fashion, e-mailed on request) as an unused bid, in an attempt to preserve memory capacity - with 16+ opposite 16+, we think we can afford the extravagance of skipping a 3S response in the interests of symmetry. 12-15 HCP 3 suited hands are shown via an immediate 3-level response, BTW. Now, I can't believe that things have been reduced to a situation where I can only avoid a penalty by getting it spectacularly wrong, so please tell me what my legally-acceptable continuations might be? I'm willing to answer as many questions as you like on our system, either privately or on list as you prefer. I will state with absolute certainty that this sequence had not come up before. I was *reasonably* certain that pard was going to show with a club shortage, that he'd decided that spades were the suit below clubs - but what am I to guess about the range? Must I bid 6S or 6NT, purely on the grounds that it's more probable that pard has the 8-11 range (and if so, do you penalize me for bidding the slam when he turns up with 16+ and it makes) or do I bid 3NT or 4S, which is more likely to be right, but then presumably you'll penalize me for guessing the more probable 8-11 range correctly? Your "even more feeling" sentiment (above) seems close to me to a return to "convention disruption" theory. Damned if I bid the slam and damned if I don't, *unless* I get it wrong. Brian. From geller at nifty.com Thu May 29 15:20:29 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 22:20:29 +0900 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483DF4B8.20202@ozemail.com.au> References: <483DF4B8.20202@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <200805291320.AA13883@geller204.nifty.com> Hi Reg, >Reg: >But Bob this is not the answer. The footnote does not apply to Law 80, >and it seems to me that the footnote refers to such things as the >observation of rules of natural justice etc. -> Perhaps Grattan has something to say about this. It's true the the placement of the footnote seems to imply it is related to the appeal process. But it doesn't say that RAs must obey national law with respect to appeals but are free to otherwise ignore it, so this to me suggests that RAs must obey all national laws at all times, not just as related to appeals (the infelicitous placement of the footnote notwithstanding). >The fact is that, on June 1 in Australia, under the Laws of Bridge the >ABF will be the sole RA in Australia, and the ABF intends to assume >those powers. If I believe that the ABF in accepting this power is >acting ultra vires under the constitution, who is to, as you put it, >promptly tell the ABF to stop? Or has the WBF forecd us into a position >of having to chase this matter through the courts? What exactly is it that the ABF will do which heretofore has been done by the state federations? Could you please provide some specific examples? >The WBF could have (and arguably should have) anticipated this problem. >And it could still clear the air. All it needs is a rider to the effect >that, should there be doubt as to the constitutionality of the NBO >accepting sole rights as RA, then the NBO may make 'power sharing' >arrangements with other stakeholders (clubs and states) so that they >have RA rights in their own areas. Assignment is not enough. The ABF >has already decided to assign their rights s RA to the states, but only >for a period of five years. The states hopefully will reassign rights to >the clubs. Assignment in perpetuity would relieve the problem, but not >solve the actual legalities involved. -> I'm a little confused. L80A3 says: ************************************************************************* 3. 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). ************************************************************************** What exactly is the problem with this? Up until now the duties and rights of NBOs were specified by the WBF Constitution, bylaws and various regulations, but were not written in the Laws. I haven't checked this super-carefully, but I don't believe L80 changes significantly anything that was already istated in the WBF Constitution, bylaws and regulations, but just writes in explicitly into the Laws. This doesn't seem to be something that can't be amicably resolved by discussions between the ABF and state federations to reach an agreement that reflects local conditions. Although I can understand your position that the ABF shouldn't be the RA in the first place in fact it probably already was (although not called RA) under pre-existing WBF Constitution, bylaws and regulations. -Bob >Reg > > > >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG. >>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 28/05/2008 5:33 PM >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 29 17:26:08 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 17:26:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483ECB10.9070802@skynet.be> brian666 at frontiernet.net wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:47:06 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Herman De Wael: >>> >>>> So I would have exactly the same reaction as before when a pair lists >>>> a bid as non-systemic and then finds a use for it at the table. If >>>> they can find the use at the table, then they could also have found >>>> it at home. Particularly if the partner appears to understand! >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> WEST EAST >>> 1NT 4H (1) >>> Pass(2) Sigh(3) >>> >>> (1) Texas transfer to spades >>> (2) Non-systemic >> No Richard, simply wrong! >> >>> (3) I understand that partner has forgotten the system. >>> I understand that we are about to get a bottom. >>> >>> In this case West's Pass remains non-systemic despite East's later, >>> "a posteriori" understanding (unless West repeatedly passes in this >>> auction, in which case an "a priori" 2007 Law 40C1 implicit mutual >>> _partnership_ understanding exists). >>> >>> Once more with feeling -> >>> >>> "A first-time unilateral action by one partner is not a pre-existing >>> mutual understanding of both partners." >>> >> Once more with even more feelling: >> >> Even a first time unilateral action may be ruled systemic if >> understood by partner. >> > > Give this auction a try, please, Herman. > > You hold as dealer (as near as I can remember it) > > AKxx > QJx > Kx > KQxx > > > It goes > > 1C(1) 2H(2) > 2S(3) 3S(4) > > > (1) Any 16+ > (2) Any 4441 shape, either 8-11 or 16+ > (3) Just waiting for clarification > (4) Anti-systemic. > > Responder's possible responses to 2S are :- > > 2NT -> 3H = 8-11, suit below the singleton > 3NT -> 4H = 16+, suit below the singleton > > 3S is explicitly noted in our system notes (as seems to be the > fashion, e-mailed on request) as an unused bid, in an attempt to > preserve memory capacity - with 16+ opposite 16+, we think we can > afford the extravagance of skipping a 3S response in the interests of > symmetry. > > 12-15 HCP 3 suited hands are shown via an immediate 3-level response, > BTW. > > Now, I can't believe that things have been reduced to a situation > where I can only avoid a penalty by getting it spectacularly wrong, so > please tell me what my legally-acceptable continuations might be? I'm > willing to answer as many questions as you like on our system, either > privately or on list as you prefer. > > I will state with absolute certainty that this sequence had not come > up before. I was *reasonably* certain that pard was going to show with > a club shortage, that he'd decided that spades were the suit below > clubs - but what am I to guess about the range? Must I bid 6S or 6NT, > purely on the grounds that it's more probable that pard has the 8-11 > range (and if so, do you penalize me for bidding the slam when he > turns up with 16+ and it makes) or do I bid 3NT or 4S, which is more > likely to be right, but then presumably you'll penalize me for > guessing the more probable 8-11 range correctly? > > Your "even more feeling" sentiment (above) seems close to me to a > return to "convention disruption" theory. Damned if I bid the slam and > damned if I don't, *unless* I get it wrong. > No Brian, absolutely not. I did not go through the example thoroughly enough, but from what I gather you decided in your system discussions to leave the 3S unused. OK? Yet here came an auction where you or your partner decided to use 3S anyway - and the other understood it! Now I am certain that you explained it at the table in the correct manner. So all is well. What I am fuming against would be the following: That you would have understood the bid for what it is and arrived at a good contract. But that in the meantime you would have said nothing else to the opponents than "that bid does not exist in our system". And that you would have tried to prove this to me, the Director, with your system notes and a big "unused" at 3S. That I would not accept. I will accept that people fill in their system notes and mention only the first three bids, and then use a jump bid. I will accept that they then explain that jump bid as undiscussed, provided they explain what the circumstances could be for this bid. But I will not accept that pairs take time to write down 3S: unused and then find a use for it. If you can take the time to ask yourselves the question: "what shall we use 3S for?" then you either write down what it could be used for, or you conclude that there is no possible use. And then you don't find such a use later on. > > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian666 at frontiernet.net Thu May 29 19:39:20 2008 From: brian666 at frontiernet.net (brian666 at frontiernet.net) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 13:39:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: On Thu, 29 May 2008 17:26:08 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >No Brian, absolutely not. > >I did not go through the example thoroughly enough, but from what I >gather you decided in your system discussions to leave the 3S unused. OK? >Yet here came an auction where you or your partner decided to use 3S >anyway - and the other understood it! >Now I am certain that you explained it at the table in the correct >manner. So all is well. As far as I recall, Herman, the explanation given of 3S was "There's no such bid in the system, we deliberately left that unused to make things easier to remember". Opps chose not to enquire further (we knew them, and they knew we were honest). >What I am fuming against would be the following: That you would have >understood the bid for what it is and arrived at a good contract. But >that in the meantime you would have said nothing else to the opponents >than "that bid does not exist in our system". And that you would have >tried to prove this to me, the Director, with your system notes and a >big "unused" at 3S. That I would not accept. > But Herman, that's **exactly** the situation we would have been in, had the director been called. The 3S bid does *NOT* exist in our system. And the system notes would state exactly that. >I will accept that people fill in their system notes and mention only >the first three bids, and then use a jump bid. >I will accept that they then explain that jump bid as undiscussed, >provided they explain what the circumstances could be for this bid. > >But I will not accept that pairs take time to write down 3S: unused >and then find a use for it. If you can take the time to ask yourselves >the question: "what shall we use 3S for?" then you either write down >what it could be used for, or you conclude that there is no possible >use. And then you don't find such a use later on. > All right, let me state it again. There *IS* no use for 3S on that system. To make it so that the bids always tied to the same short suit, we deliberately omitted 3S. And now partner *apparently* found a use for it. I *guessed* that partner had short clubs, because most of our three suiters are shown on the "suit below the shortage" principle. In that, I was right (and yes, I volunteered the information after the auction was over, and before the opening lead). But as regards the range, I had **no idea** as to whether it was 8-11, and partner should have bid 2NT, or 16+, and he should have bid 3NT. And it still seems to me, from what you've said above, that when partner violates system agreement and uses a bid which we've explicitly agreed (and documented) does NOT exist, then you, as TD, are going to penalize me any time I guess right. 3S was an unused bid on our system. 3S *remained* an unused bid on our system even after idiot partner decided to use it anyway, *despite* the fact that he had the correct bid available which carried *exactly* the same meaning as he intended 3S to have. He misbid. Our system notes prove that. Except that you, apparently, are going to say that we can't get it right when faced with a total guess as to what partner has once partner has used an "unused" bid. That can't be right. Brian. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 29 23:04:12 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:04:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483F1A4C.2010803@skynet.be> brian666 at frontiernet.net wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2008 17:26:08 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> No Brian, absolutely not. >> >> I did not go through the example thoroughly enough, but from what I >> gather you decided in your system discussions to leave the 3S unused. OK? >> Yet here came an auction where you or your partner decided to use 3S >> anyway - and the other understood it! >> Now I am certain that you explained it at the table in the correct >> manner. So all is well. > > As far as I recall, Herman, the explanation given of 3S was "There's > no such bid in the system, we deliberately left that unused to make > things easier to remember". Opps chose not to enquire further (we knew > them, and they knew we were honest). > >> What I am fuming against would be the following: That you would have >> understood the bid for what it is and arrived at a good contract. But >> that in the meantime you would have said nothing else to the opponents >> than "that bid does not exist in our system". And that you would have >> tried to prove this to me, the Director, with your system notes and a >> big "unused" at 3S. That I would not accept. >> > > But Herman, that's **exactly** the situation we would have been in, > had the director been called. The 3S bid does *NOT* exist in our > system. And the system notes would state exactly that. > >> I will accept that people fill in their system notes and mention only >> the first three bids, and then use a jump bid. >> I will accept that they then explain that jump bid as undiscussed, >> provided they explain what the circumstances could be for this bid. >> >> But I will not accept that pairs take time to write down 3S: unused >> and then find a use for it. If you can take the time to ask yourselves >> the question: "what shall we use 3S for?" then you either write down >> what it could be used for, or you conclude that there is no possible >> use. And then you don't find such a use later on. >> > > All right, let me state it again. There *IS* no use for 3S on that > system. To make it so that the bids always tied to the same short > suit, we deliberately omitted 3S. And now partner *apparently* found a > use for it. > Well you can say this seventeen times, as a TD, I choose not to believe you. I shall rule against you, and you'll be able to say it an eighteenth time to the AC. > I *guessed* that partner had short clubs, because most of our three > suiters are shown on the "suit below the shortage" principle. See? You both "guessed" right - how am I to believe that it was just a guess and not something you discussed while deciding to write "unused" on the SC? > In that, > I was right (and yes, I volunteered the information after the auction > was over, and before the opening lead). And that is all I am asking! What I am criticizing is not that you write "unused", but that you would say "unused" at the table and not reveal your guess. You have done nothing wrong, and I don't even criticize your writing of "unused", since you did reveal the common guess at the table. > But as regards the range, I > had **no idea** as to whether it was 8-11, and partner should have bid > 2NT, or 16+, and he should have bid 3NT. And it still seems to me, > from what you've said above, that when partner violates system > agreement and uses a bid which we've explicitly agreed (and > documented) does NOT exist, then you, as TD, are going to penalize me > any time I guess right. > NO, only if you guess right but refuse to reveal your guess. Then I'm going to rule that you cannot prove that it is merely a guess and not a hidden part of system. > 3S was an unused bid on our system. 3S *remained* an unused bid on our > system even after idiot partner decided to use it anyway, *despite* > the fact that he had the correct bid available which carried *exactly* > the same meaning as he intended 3S to have. > > He misbid. Our system notes prove that. Except that you, apparently, > are going to say that we can't get it right when faced with a total > guess as to what partner has once partner has used an "unused" bid. > But this is another story still. He misbid, you are saying. He probably did say the same thing at the table, and maybe you have gotten the TD to accept it. The story I was discussing with Richard involved both partners agreeing that the so-called inexistant bid was the right one for the hand they apparently had, and both partners agreed. If they then still want to claim the bid is unused, I protest. OK? > That can't be right. > > > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 30 02:57:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:57:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483E9CBA.2090506@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nige1 Guthrie: >If BLMLers can be considered to be West's peers; and in the absence >of system-notes like Alain's, pass of 5Dx seems to be an LA. East >was in receipt of UI from the non-alert of 4D which suggested >rescuing 5Dx to 5H. Hence, IMO, the committee should probably >adjust back to 5Dx-6. Richard Hills: Yes, the committee erred in ruling what would have been the contract behind screens (zero UI received by East) thus 5Hx -800. Instead the ruling should normally have been based on the actual UI received by East, but with East choosing the non-suggested LA of pass, 5Dx -1400 (on the standard trump lead against sacrifices). Except that... The only way that North could double 5D is if West had not given MI (failure to alert) about 4D. But if West had alerted East's 4D, then East would have had no UI, so East could legally bid 5H. Except that... East would have no reason to remove 5Dx to 5H if West had alerted 4D. It was UI from the lack of alert that warned East of a bidding misunderstanding. Casebook panellist Weinstein: >>In other words, to what extent should East-West have been at >>risk for their misunderstanding while providing perfect >>information to their opponents? Are there standards or >>guidelines for this situation? 2007 Law 40C3(a): Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. Richard Hills: So, to answer Mr Weinstein's question, West was required by Law 75 to describe 4D as a transfer to hearts, and West was then required by Law 40C3(a) to erase the answer West just gave from West's memory and continue to bid 5D based on West's original misunderstanding. 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 May 30 05:10:33 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:10:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <483D28D8.5050709@skynet.be> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be> <1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> <1K1204-0hiV4y0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <001701c8c09b$287b9230$73d4403e@Mildred> <483D28D8.5050709@skynet.be> Message-ID: Is this analogy relevant? Suppose there is a club lead out of turn by defender. The declarer would like to insist on the lead of a club. But first, declarer wants to know if the player on lead has a club. Of course. So that declarer would like it very much if I as director peeked into the defender's hand and then explained what would happen if declarer insists on the lead of a club. Similarly, when there is an insufficient bid, the laws require me to tell LHO his/her options, which are to accept the bid or not accept the bid. LHO might want me to peek at the insufficient bidder's hand and volunteer important information for making that decision, but I don't think I am obligated to do so. (I do have to "explain", but I think that means just explaining what happens when the lead is accepted or not. "The auction might seem strange, but..." Also, I cannot believe that a director would voluntarily explain all of Law 27 to LHO, but even then the director would say something like "and lead penalties may apply" and leave out a complete description of Law 26.) (I understand that in some places, the tradition is to inform LHO if there is a nonbarring replacement call. I am suspecting that they might want to abandon that tradition because of 27B1(b).) From adam at tameware.com Fri May 30 06:28:17 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 00:28:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> References: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to everyone who replied! For those who haven't yet looked the complete writeup is here: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Detroit2008/01-NABC+.pdf This case gave me fits. It's the most difficult I've seen in a while. My original question may have sounded like a poll, but my intent, which I hope I accomplished, was to ask "What, if anything, does the UI suggest and why?" Even after reading all your comments, and those from NAC members and private correspondence, I could not answer the question to my own satisfaction. On that account I broke down and did something I've been putting off for years. I bought a copy of Dealmaster Pro and learned how to use it. This software has a simulation module combined with the Deep Finesse double-dummy solver. It allows one to generate random deals that fit a set of criteria and then learn the theoretical optimal result when played at various contracts. I entered the actual North hand and criteria for each of the other three hands in two cases. The first was when South holds 19 HCP or fewer, roughly matching the AI case, and then second when South has 20 HCP or more, roughly matching the UI case. For the UI case I also added that South would not be 4333, since with that shape he would never have a problem over 1NT. My goal was to learn whether the UI made balancing more or less attractive. This would be directly relevant only if players at the table were also computers, but in a sense this kind of calculation is something every player does, to one degree or another. In any case I found the analysis useful. Here are the criteria I used in both the AI and UI cases: East holds 15-17 HCP, balanced, with no 5 card major, no 6 card minor, and not 5422. East also does not hold both four hearts and 17 support points, since with that he'd likely have pre-accepted. South is balanced. Further, if South hold 16 HCP or more he holds at least 3 hearts, since otherwise he'd have doubled 2 hearts. South does not hold five spades, since then he might have bid over 2H. West hold five or six hearts. West is not 4540 since he'd have likely used Stayman. West does not hold both 4 spades and 8+ distribution points, since he might have used Stayman. West does not hold 6 hearts with two of the top three honors -- he might have invited. West does not hold 6 hearts with 9+ distribution points -- again a possible invite. Distribution points are 4321 HCP plus 321 for void/stiff/doubleton. I know that in the AI case I didn't need to restrict South to 19 HCP or fewer, but it makes little practical difference since the 20+ HCP hands are rare. I evaluated the results of 2H versus 3C for two cases, one where 3C ends the auction and another where 3C is always doubled when it's going down. Fortunately none of our opponents are that good, but this lets us generate figures for opponents who get the decision right a percentage of the time. I'll post the results after giving you all a chance to review my criteria and suggest changes. AW From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 30 07:36:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:36:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483F1A4C.2010803@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Well you can say this seventeen times, as a TD, I choose >not to believe you. I shall rule against you, and you'll >be able to say it an eighteenth time to the AC. >From the "Balance of probabilities" thread, 6th July 2004 The opponents are playing the Symmetric Relay system. Imps, Knockout Teams Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1D(1) Pass 1H(2) Pass 2C(3) Pass 2D(4) Pass Pass ? (1) 10-14 hcp, unbalanced with 2 or 3 suits, usually denies a 5-card major (exception, could be 5/5 in both majors), may or may not hold either or both 4-card majors, could hold as few as zero diamonds. (2) Two-way bid. Either less than game-forcing with a heart suit (promising a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp), or the first step in an artificial game force relay. (3) Shows exactly 4 diamonds, and at least 5 clubs. (4) Signoff. Heart suit + diamond preference. You, South, hold: AK732 5 T854 875 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 rbusch at ozemail.com.au Fri May 30 09:20:21 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 17:20:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200805291320.AA13883@geller204.nifty.com> References: <483DF4B8.20202@ozemail.com.au> <200805291320.AA13883@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <483FAAB5.5030508@ozemail.com.au> Robert Geller wrote: >Hi Reg, > > > >>Reg: >>But Bob this is not the answer. The footnote does not apply to Law 80, >>and it seems to me that the footnote refers to such things as the >>observation of rules of natural justice etc. >> >> > >-> >Perhaps Grattan has something to say about this. It's true the the >placement of the footnote seems to imply it is related to the appeal >process. But it doesn't say that RAs must obey national law with >respect to appeals but are free to otherwise ignore it, so this to >me suggests that RAs must obey all national laws at all times, not >just as related to appeals (the infelicitous placement of the footnote >notwithstanding). > > > > >>The fact is that, on June 1 in Australia, under the Laws of Bridge the >>ABF will be the sole RA in Australia, and the ABF intends to assume >>those powers. If I believe that the ABF in accepting this power is >>acting ultra vires under the constitution, who is to, as you put it, >>promptly tell the ABF to stop? Or has the WBF forecd us into a position >>of having to chase this matter through the courts? >> >> >What exactly is it that the ABF will do which heretofore has been done >by the state federations? Could you please provide some specific >examples? > > > > >>The WBF could have (and arguably should have) anticipated this problem. >>And it could still clear the air. All it needs is a rider to the effect >>that, should there be doubt as to the constitutionality of the NBO >>accepting sole rights as RA, then the NBO may make 'power sharing' >>arrangements with other stakeholders (clubs and states) so that they >>have RA rights in their own areas. Assignment is not enough. The ABF >>has already decided to assign their rights s RA to the states, but only >>for a period of five years. The states hopefully will reassign rights to >>the clubs. Assignment in perpetuity would relieve the problem, but not >>solve the actual legalities involved. >> >> > >-> >I'm a little confused. L80A3 says: >************************************************************************* >3. 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). >************************************************************************** >What exactly is the problem with this? Up until now the duties and >rights of NBOs were specified by the WBF Constitution, bylaws and various >regulations, but were not written in the Laws. I haven't checked this >super-carefully, but I don't believe L80 changes significantly anything >that was already istated in the WBF Constitution, bylaws and regulations, >but just writes in explicitly into the Laws. > >This doesn't seem to be something that can't be amicably resolved by >discussions between the ABF and state federations to reach an agreement >that reflects local conditions. Although I can understand your position >that the ABF shouldn't be the RA in the first place in fact it probably >already was (although not called RA) under pre-existing WBF Constitution, >bylaws and regulations. > >-Bob > > > >From Reg Bob, before answering the above can I say that I am surprised that we have had no contribution from players from other NBOs. Is it possible that the ABF is the only NBO with a federal structure? An example of possible problems: The ABF has never had the right to regulate state events e.g. championships etc. Under the new Law 80 it will have such rights. I'm not saying that they will, but they could. But this is not about an ABF /state power battle that can amicably be resolved by discussions. It's about clarifying our position under civil law. I believe that .a player facing disciplinary action from a state could mount an arguable case that this body has no rights to make regulation under the new Law 80 and that the assignment of RA powers by the ABF is illegal because the ABF's assumption of the sole RA rights in Australia was illegal under it's own constitution, and you can't assign a right you are not legally entitlrd to hold. This is not a situation any of us want. We in Qld have already been through this. Some years ago we had an extended and expensive court battle with a litigious player challenging our right to take disciplinary action. We prevailed, but largely because we had ensured that every 'i' and 't' had been crossed in our regulations. I'm not at all sure that this is the case at the moment. There is a simple solution which I have already mentioned above. I'm hoping the ABF will take the matter forward. I won't prolong this discussion further, but will inform the forum if there is any progress. Reg > > > > > > > > > >>Reg >> >> >> >> >> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>blml mailing list >>>blml at amsterdamned.org >>>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>>No virus found in this incoming message. >>>Checked by AVG. >>>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 28/05/2008 5:33 PM >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > >----------------------------------------------------- >Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1473 - Release Date: 29/05/2008 7:53 PM > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 30 11:28:51 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:28:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483E9CBA.2090506@NTLworld.com> References: <483E9CBA.2090506@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <483FC8D3.7090501@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > New Orleans 1995 Casebook, appeal number 12 > Morning Knockout Team Bracket II > Dlr: North J97 > Vul: North-South Q > AK9 > AQT973 > KQ43 6 > 3 AJT87654 > QT742 653 > K64 5 > AT852 > K92 > J8 > J82 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C (1) 4D 4S > 5D 6S Pass Pass > Pass > > ( > > [Nige1] > If BLMLers can be considered to be West's peers; and in the absence of > system-notes like Alain's, pass of 5DX seems to be an LA. East was in > receipt of UI from the non-alert of 4D which suggested rescuing 5DX to > 5H. Hence, IMO, the committee should probably adjust back to 5DX-6. > I'm surprized by Alain's support for the committee decision. He may not > himself regard pass as an LA but surely he should be influenced in this > regard, by the views of other roughly equivalent players, like David > Burn. Isn't that the point of conducting polls? > There seems to be a misunderstanding here. My point is that there is nothing in the report to ascertain that enquires were duly made in order to know what 5D would have meant in the pair's system. It's very probable that the AC didn't even care to ask E/W what it meant. Perhaps they didn't even realize it could be other than natural. In such a case, the AC isn't allowed, in my view, to decide unilaterally what it meant and penalize E/W for UI use. Much too often, TDs and ACs brush aside claims that "5D was fit-showing in our system" or "5D is an obvious cue-bid" as self-serving, even when system notes are categorical about it. And that's what I'm fighting against. There are three possible decisions about UI : 1) We found 5D could have been natural and we penalize UI use 2) We found that 5D was clearly fit-showing and we don't penalize UI use (but we still consider MI in this case) 3) We didn't check about the meaning of 5D, and we don't care, because MI is enough I don't say doing 3) was right ; it'll never be ; but I insist that 1) can't be made without due enquiry, so that in this case it couldn't be done. Best regards Alain > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri May 30 17:24:37 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:24:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com> References: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48401C35.6000804@NTLworld.com> [Adam Wildavsky] [SNIP] ... when South has 20 HCP or more, roughly matching the UI case. For the UI case I also added that South would not be 4333, since with that shape he would never have a problem over 1NT. South is balanced. Further, if South hold 16 HCP or more he holds at least 3 hearts, since otherwise he'd have doubled 2 hearts. South does not hold five spades, since then he might have bid over 2H. [Nige1] [A] IMO, South is as likely to hold 4333 as any other flat shape (4432 or 5332) without a good 5 card major. Arguably, with none of these hands, has South any legitimate reason to hesitate. [B] As Richard Hills points out, without South's hesitation, there is a significant danger that reopening with 3C will accomplish a *Biltcliffe* coup. Biltcliffe, an expert at Reading Bridge Club, was notorious for re-opening the bidding on rubbish, allowing opponents a second bite at the cherry, so that they could reach a successful game or slam. In an earlier post on this topic, I gave a recent example (repeated below). In a recent county teams competition, my 15-18 notrump was followed by two passes. My LHO did not hestitate so there was no unauthorised information but otherwise my RHO faced a problem similar to NABC1. Opponents' partnership agreement included various distributional overcalls but no penalty double. RHO held a weak distributional hand but passed in sleep. That scored well when it turned out that I had miscounted my points, opening 1N on 19 HCP. We missed a cold 3N :( More "Biltcliffe Coup" nomenclature: Biltcliffe accepted -- opponents take advantage of your protection to recover and bid their game or slam. Biltcliffe declined -- when you reopen but opponents don't take advantage as above. Biltcliffe twice declined -- when you twice reopen on the same board but opponents repeatedly fail to take advantage as above. and so on ... My best effort, after 1C and 2 passes, was reopening with 1S, so that opponents could recover to bid and make 7H :( From geller at nifty.com Fri May 30 17:43:22 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 00:43:22 +0900 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200805301543.AA13905@geller204.nifty.com> Can a sitting out player kibitz a match involving his/her own team? L76 appears not to make a clear statement on this point. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri May 30 21:24:30 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:24:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be> <1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> <1K1204-0hiV4y0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <001701c8c09b$287b9230$73d4403e@Mildred> <483D28D8.5050709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <89C7132F-C404-4E96-84CD-41E695A5FD27@starpower.net> On May 29, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Is this analogy relevant? Suppose there is a club lead out of turn by > defender. The declarer would like to insist on the lead of a club. But > first, declarer wants to know if the player on lead has a club. Of > course. > So that declarer would like it very much if I as director peeked > into the > defender's hand and then explained what would happen if declarer > insists > on the lead of a club. Not really, because declarer's ability to demand a club lead is not an option consequent on the infraction. The penalty for the lead out of turn, if not accepted, is that the card becomes a penalty card, to be disposed of in the proper manner at the proper time. Until then, there are no options available to the OS, nor any further to the NOS regarding the PC. It is mere coincidence that in this case the desired disposition of the PC immediately follows its establishment, so the ability to bar a club lead looks like a penalty for the club LOOT even though it actually isn't. > Similarly, when there is an insufficient bid, the laws require me > to tell > LHO his/her options, which are to accept the bid or not accept the > bid. > LHO might want me to peek at the insufficient bidder's hand and > volunteer > important information for making that decision, but I don't think I am > obligated to do so. A better analogy might be that when the defender leads out of turn, L54D applies; the TD explains that declarer may accept the lead, with no further penalty for the OS, or reject it, in which case the card becomes a PC. The offender is surely entitled to be told what the potential dispositions of the PC will be. TD does *not* say, sorry, I can't explain that until after you've decided whether to make it one. The actual disposition of the PC at the proper time is an entirely separate matter, even if the "proper time" follows immediately. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Fri May 30 22:47:44 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:47:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <483B0A3B.4090204@nhcc.net> References: <483B0A3B.4090204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <694eadd40805301347x39957283j57fd34363d2c95ca@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>> 4. The Panel improved upon the TD's ruling. All that was missing >>> was the legal basis for their ruling, which I believe is Law 72b1. > > I don't see how 72B1 comes in. The question is whether West's 5D was > "irrational, wild, or gambling." Here the poll suggested that it might > have been, so it was reasonable to let the NOS keep their table score > (though I personally might have voted the other way). Adjusting the > score for the OS should have been automatic. No West would have bid 5D > if given a correct explanation. This will be moot once the new laws take affect, but I can't resist replying anyway. Where do you suppose this "irrational, wild, or gambling" notion comes from? I don't see in in the 1997 laws. 72b1 is the best legal justification I've been able to come up with for Kaplan's consequent/subsequent distinction. As I recall, the notion was first raised in a Bridge World editorial, in response to a letter from Eric Landau. Alas the editorial did not mention the basis in law for such an approach. AW -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Fri May 30 22:56:17 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:56:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] enquiry spring national, Detroit, commentaries In-Reply-To: <4832DED4.1040409@aol.com> References: <4832DED4.1040409@aol.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40805301356wc5858c3scdb61a6370a55b3@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola blmlers! Does anyone out there know when the commentaries of the > expert panel will finally be published? (Or why it is taking so long?) > And, when they are available it would be most appreciated (at least by > me) if that could be noted in a blml posting with coordinates of the > site where they can be found. > Or have they already appeared? I may have misunderstood but a posting > by Eric (I think it was from him) semed to me to imply that they were > already available. Ahoy, JE No doubt it's partly my fault -- I still haven't sent in my comments on NABC+ case 1. We try to publish before the following NABC. You haven't missed any announcements. I will post when I discover that they've been posted. In the meantime you can peruse my draft comments here on BLML. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat May 31 00:55:31 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 18:55:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? In-Reply-To: <200805301543.AA13905@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200805301543.AA13905@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1D60F173B84145B8A132715F613B6449@erdos> "Robert Geller" writes: > Can a sitting out player kibitz a match involving his/her > own team? L76 appears not to make a clear statement on this > point. This is a matter of local regulation, as it isn't inherently a problem; there is only the potential for a player to give information while kibitzing his teammates. The ACBL, for example, requires a player sitting out to stay at least two tables away from his teammates, and not to kibitz the same board his teammates are playing. From geller at nifty.com Sat May 31 02:30:27 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 09:30:27 +0900 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? In-Reply-To: <1D60F173B84145B8A132715F613B6449@erdos> References: <1D60F173B84145B8A132715F613B6449@erdos> Message-ID: <200805310030.AA13907@geller204.nifty.com> Thanks. Here's the link btw. It's on pg. 4 http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Conditions-of-Contest/General-AllEvents.pdf -Bob David Grabiner ????????: >"Robert Geller" writes: > >> Can a sitting out player kibitz a match involving his/her >> own team? L76 appears not to make a clear statement on this >> point. > >This is a matter of local regulation, as it isn't inherently a problem; there is >only the potential for a player to give information while kibitzing his >teammates. The ACBL, for example, requires a player sitting out to stay at >least two tables away from his teammates, and not to kibitz the same board his >teammates are playing. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 31 03:17:14 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 21:17:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <89C7132F-C404-4E96-84CD-41E695A5FD27@starpower.net> References: <001901c8bf5c$85921920$7dd3403e@Mildred> <483BE07A.7090706@skynet.be> <1K0x5O-1yQt5U0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <483C00AB.6080202@skynet.be> <1K1204-0hiV4y0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <001701c8c09b$287b9230$73d4403e@Mildred> <483D28D8.5050709@skynet.be> <89C7132F-C404-4E96-84CD-41E695A5FD27@starpower.net> Message-ID: Hi Eric. There is an order to the decisions, so your analogy does not work. (Change my example to a penalty card if you do not include those options for lead out of turn.) Maybe there is another problem. If you think that the director has to inform LHO if there is a nonbarring replacement call...what are you going to do if the insufficient bidder refuses to tell you the intention behind his bid? I think that the director has an obligation to tell the insufficient bidder whether or not a proposed replacement call is nonbarring. But I don't think that the insufficient bidder is required to ask for this information. The insufficient bidder might be willing to make a barring replacement call. Or the insufficient bidder might be willing to make the replacement call and then tell you whatever you need to decide if it bars partner or not. Bob > On May 29, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Is this analogy relevant? Suppose there is a club lead out of turn by >> defender. The declarer would like to insist on the lead of a club. But >> first, declarer wants to know if the player on lead has a club. Of >> course. >> So that declarer would like it very much if I as director peeked >> into the >> defender's hand and then explained what would happen if declarer >> insists >> on the lead of a club. > > Not really, because declarer's ability to demand a club lead is not > an option consequent on the infraction. The penalty for the lead out > of turn, if not accepted, is that the card becomes a penalty card, to > be disposed of in the proper manner at the proper time. Until then, > there are no options available to the OS, nor any further to the NOS > regarding the PC. It is mere coincidence that in this case the > desired disposition of the PC immediately follows its establishment, > so the ability to bar a club lead looks like a penalty for the club > LOOT even though it actually isn't. > >> Similarly, when there is an insufficient bid, the laws require me >> to tell >> LHO his/her options, which are to accept the bid or not accept the >> bid. >> LHO might want me to peek at the insufficient bidder's hand and >> volunteer >> important information for making that decision, but I don't think I am >> obligated to do so. > > A better analogy might be that when the defender leads out of turn, > L54D applies; the TD explains that declarer may accept the lead, with > no further penalty for the OS, or reject it, in which case the card > becomes a PC. The offender is surely entitled to be told what the > potential dispositions of the PC will be. TD does *not* say, sorry, > I can't explain that until after you've decided whether to make it > one. The actual disposition of the PC at the proper time is an > entirely separate matter, even if the "proper time" follows immediately. >> > > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at tameware.com Sat May 31 17:30:58 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:30:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com> References: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40805310830i486e821dyd0be71a8eb27fcb7@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:28 AM, I wrote: > Thanks to everyone who replied! For those who haven't yet looked the > complete writeup is here: > > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Detroit2008/01-NABC+.pdf > > This case gave me fits. It's the most difficult I've seen in a while. > My original question may have sounded like a poll, but my intent, > which I hope I accomplished, was to ask "What, if anything, does the > UI suggest and why?" > > Even after reading all your comments, and those from NAC members and > private correspondence, I could not answer the question to my own > satisfaction. On that account I broke down and did something I've been > putting off for years. I bought a copy of Dealmaster Pro and learned > how to use it. This software has a simulation module combined with the > Deep Finesse double-dummy solver. It allows one to generate random > deals that fit a set of criteria and then learn the theoretical > optimal result when played at various contracts. I entered the actual > North hand and criteria for each of the other three hands in two > cases. The first was when South holds 19 HCP or fewer, roughly > matching the AI case, and then second when South has 20 HCP or more, > roughly matching the UI case. For the UI case I also added that South > would not be 4333, since with that shape he would never have a problem > over 1NT. > > My goal was to learn whether the UI made balancing more or less > attractive. This would be directly relevant only if players at the > table were also computers, but in a sense this kind of calculation is > something every player does, to one degree or another. In any case I > found the analysis useful. > > Here are the criteria I used in both the AI and UI cases: > > East holds 15-17 HCP, balanced, with no 5 card major, no 6 card minor, > and not 5422. East also does not hold both four hearts and 17 support > points, since with that he'd likely have pre-accepted. > > South is balanced. Further, if South hold 16 HCP or more he holds at > least 3 hearts, since otherwise he'd have doubled 2 hearts. > South does not hold five spades, since then he might have bid over 2H. > > West hold five or six hearts. West is not 4540 since he'd have likely > used Stayman. West does not hold both 4 spades and 8+ distribution > points, since he might have used Stayman. West does not hold 6 hearts > with two of the top three honors -- he might have invited. West does > not hold 6 hearts with 9+ distribution points -- again a possible > invite. > > Distribution points are 4321 HCP plus 321 for void/stiff/doubleton. > > I know that in the AI case I didn't need to restrict South to 19 HCP > or fewer, but it makes little practical difference since the 20+ HCP > hands are rare. > > I evaluated the results of 2H versus 3C for two cases, one where 3C > ends the auction and another where 3C is always doubled when it's > going down. Fortunately none of our opponents are that good, but this > lets us generate figures for opponents who get the decision right a > percentage of the time. > > I'll post the results after giving you all a chance to review my > criteria and suggest changes. I've published my initial simulation results here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pZJesnDzgUg742amrxeWqUg I look at 100 deals with AI assumptions and 100 deals with UI assumptions. In each case I check whether bidding 3C improves the score (a) if the opponents pass out 3C and (b) if they always double 3C when it's going down and never double when it's making. My guess is that EW will double 3C 33% of the time it's going down. I don't take into account the times when EW continue to 3H and make it, in which case balancing will neither gain nor lose. If anyone wants to incorporate that let me know and I'll give you write access to the spreadsheet. As you might expect, EW can't often make 140 in the UI case, since by the rules of the simulation partner has at least 20 HCP. Here's the summary so far: Balancing improves Score Assumption AI UI 3C ends the auction 93 75 3C is doubled 100% of the time it's going down 80 74 3C is doubled 33% of the time it's going down 89 75 What does this tell us? First that balancing rates to work, with or without UI. That's not relevant to the case, though, since we've already established that both Pass and 3C are logical alternatives. The second is that, under the assumptions made so far, the UI makes balancing with 3C less attractive. This seems to be for precisely the reason stated by the appellants, that the more HCP partner holds the more likely +200 is. When partner holds 20+ HCP we can score +200 22 times out of 100 deals. When partner has 19 or less we can score +200 only one time in a hundred. Yes, results on individual deals might not correspond to the double-dummy results, but the difference between the AI and UI cases are likely to remain similar. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat May 31 18:00:40 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 17:00:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805310830i486e821dyd0be71a8eb27fcb7@mail.gmail.com> References: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805310830i486e821dyd0be71a8eb27fcb7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000601c8c337$7b194390$714bcab0$@com> [AW] My goal was to learn whether the UI made balancing more or less attractive. [DALB] Not quite sure I've understood this. Presumably some of the time when we balance, even when we can make 3C partner will bid 3NT and go down in it. Has this been factored into the simulation? David Burn London, England From adam at tameware.com Sat May 31 18:44:52 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 12:44:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <000601c8c337$7b194390$714bcab0$@com> References: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805310830i486e821dyd0be71a8eb27fcb7@mail.gmail.com> <000601c8c337$7b194390$714bcab0$@com> Message-ID: <694eadd40805310944o1e471b4bqe80d5f48261459aa@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:00 PM, David Burn wrote: > [AW] > > My goal was to learn whether the UI made balancing more or less attractive. > > [DALB] > > Not quite sure I've understood this. Presumably some of the time when we > balance, even when we can make 3C partner will bid 3NT and go down in it. > Has this been factored into the simulation? It has not, but you are welcome to do so! First you'll have to decide how likely North is to sit it out. I didn't ask DM Pro to calculate how many tricks South would take at NT, but I can do another run if you like. 9 tricks at NT seem improbable. Note that on some of the hands where South would bid 3NT NS will be able to collect 200 from 2H, so North may have already lost the board by balancing. I suppose North also has some protection since his partner knows that he didn't open 3C at favorable. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 31 23:53:46 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 17:53:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <200805302302.m4UN2e7S015646@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200805302302.m4UN2e7S015646@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4841C8EA.8030103@nhcc.net> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Where do you suppose this "irrational, wild, or > gambling" notion comes from? I don't see in in the 1997 laws. I think it's an SO regulation made under authority of (probably) L80F. That explains why standards differ in different places and from time to time. For example, the ACBL switched from "egregious error" some years ago, and I believe the EBU dropped "with some element of a double shot" fairly recently. An alternative origin might be something in L12, but offhand I don't see what. > 72b1 is > the best legal justification I've been able to come up with for > Kaplan's consequent/subsequent distinction. I don't see how 72B1 can work at all. All it says is to assign an adjusted score in specified circumstances; it doesn't say what adjusted score to assign. Moreover, the circumstances 72B1 specifies aren't likely to apply in a typical IWoG case. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 31 23:59:15 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 17:59:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur In-Reply-To: <200805292205.m4TM5NhC028177@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200805292205.m4TM5NhC028177@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4841CA33.6050009@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Knockout teams, Dlr: North, Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C (1) 4D (2) 4S > 5D X ? > > (1) Forcing, not necessarily strong > (2) Transfer preempt to hearts As Alain and possibly others pointed out, you can't possibly rule this without finding out the true EW agreements. In my world -- and it's a good thing I don't play with David Burn -- 4D sets hearts as trumps, and 5D is a slam try. That makes 5H and 6H LAs; certainly not pass (unless you think the hand is strong enough to pass and pull, which seems crazy). Of course neither Alain's agreements nor mine nor David's are relevant to the actual decision. The point is that a wide variety of agreements are possible, and it's the TD's and certainly the AC's duty to find out which ones the players involved are actually using.