From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jun 1 00:18:32 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:18:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <200805271445.m4REjAk2003257@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200805271445.m4REjAk2003257@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4841CEB8.5010808@nhcc.net> > From: vitoldbr > 1. Have I (IB's LHO) rights to get to know intended meaning of IB? This is still not settled. In practice, the answer will probably be different in different jurisdictions. > it s TD's problem to keep this information 100%-secretly for IBer's partner). Again not clear, though this seems to be where the EBL is heading. > 2. Have I (IBer's LHO) rights to get to know in advance (before making my > decision) IBer's options after my decision? Most people think so, but the EBL guidance Grattan has posted says otherwise. I was expecting 1997 L75A to be relevant, but it seems to have disappeared. (Has it moved somewhere or really been deleted?) In any case, L20F seems to give IBer's LHO rights to ask all relevant questions about opponents' system. That together with L27B, which the player is entitled to know, should in principle allow LHO to deduce which calls will be allowed penalty-free. Most of us think the TD should just come out and list those calls. It will be interesting to see what guidance the RA's give. From: (as part of the proposed EBL guidance): > 4. If the IB is rejected the Director needs to ascertain what > the offender was thinking when he made the IB. I can't see any reason for this at all. As the proposed guidance says: > (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. This information is also lawful for the TD, and I see no reason the TD's ruling shouldn't be based on it. Further: > 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. That last is just bizarre. Why in the world is offender's partner not allowed to guess (absent UI)? From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jun 1 00:34:25 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:34:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <200805302257.m4UMvkhl014801@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200805302257.m4UMvkhl014801@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4841D271.2070004@nhcc.net> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > 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. Indeed! > M my intent ... was to ask "What, if anything, does the > UI suggest and why?" That's very tough indeed. One thing perhaps worth pointing out is that this is a great example of where the length of hesitation makes a big difference. A momentary break (at least at the level I play at) probably doesn't show very much -- just trying to absorb the notrump range and remember what defenses apply. A couple of seconds usually shows values but no good way to show them. In the case at hand, we have a much longer pause, 10-30 s. To me, that tends to show something about _distribution_ -- a shape that might be worth bidding. Adam seems to think it shows extra strength, even more than a 1-2 s break would have. Adam is probably right, but the outcome of the case seems to me to hinge on this question. As Adam says, "extra strength" suggests pass. "Extra shape" suggests bid to me. > 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. One would really want to know South's overcall style with strong hands. With what shapes would South consider showing one or more suits? (I didn't guess South's actual shape but should have considered it.) It's quite an interesting case, and there may be no right answer. No AWMW is the only certainty! From henk at amsterdamned.org Sun Jun 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:01:01 +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 Sun Jun 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for May 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 86 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 39 ehaa (at) starpower.net 38 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 31 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 30 Gampas (at) aol.com 29 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 26 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 23 john (at) asimere.com 21 hermandw (at) skynet.be 19 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 17 adam (at) tameware.com 11 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 11 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 10 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 9 swillner (at) nhcc.net 8 sater (at) xs4all.nl 8 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 5 rbusch (at) ozemail.com.au 5 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 5 geller (at) nifty.com 4 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 3 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 3 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 2 schoderb (at) msn.com 2 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 cibor (at) poczta.fm 2 brian666 (at) frontiernet.net 2 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 1 webmaster (at) bridgefederation.ch 1 vitoldbr (at) yandex.ru 1 svenpran (at) online.no 1 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 fab.maillist (at) unetmail.nl 1 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com 1 RCraigH (at) aol.com From geller at nifty.com Sun Jun 1 15:13:35 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:13:35 +0900 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200806011313.AA13918@geller204.nifty.com> None Vul, East Dlr You, South, hold S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 The auction has proceeded as follows: W N E S - - P 2NT P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman P DBL P ? What call do you make? ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 1 16:38:05 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:38:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: <200806011313.AA13918@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200806011313.AA13918@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000001c8c3f5$1a7f18c0$4f7d4a40$@no> I would curse the idea that made me open 2NT instead of (the IMO correct) 1D. In the situation I might have doubled the 3H bid to indicate (show) a spade suit, but now I see only losing alternatives. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Sent: 1. juni 2008 15:14 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] What's your call? > > None Vul, East Dlr > You, South, hold > S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 > The auction has proceeded as follows: > W N E S > - - P 2NT > P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman > P DBL P ? > > What call do you make? > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From geller at nifty.com Sun Jun 1 16:46:40 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:46:40 +0900 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: <000001c8c3f5$1a7f18c0$4f7d4a40$@no> References: <000001c8c3f5$1a7f18c0$4f7d4a40$@no> Message-ID: <200806011446.AA13920@geller204.nifty.com> This is a real hand from a real tourney. I was not South, nor was my partner, nor were any of my teammates. I'd appreciate receiving comments on what South should call now, rather than comments decrying South's bidding (which isn't my cup of tea either....).. Thanks. -Bob Sven Pran writes: >I would curse the idea that made me open 2NT instead of (the IMO correct) >1D. > >In the situation I might have doubled the 3H bid to indicate (show) a spade >suit, but now I see only losing alternatives. > >Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Robert Geller >> Sent: 1. juni 2008 15:14 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [blml] What's your call? >> >> None Vul, East Dlr >> You, South, hold >> S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 >> The auction has proceeded as follows: >> W N E S >> - - P 2NT >> P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman >> P DBL P ? >> >> What call do you make? >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jun 1 23:59:15 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:59:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: <200806011313.AA13918@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200806011313.AA13918@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <48431BB3.7060700@NTLworld.com> [Robert Geller] None Vul, East Dlr You, South, hold S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 The auction has proceeded as follows: W N E S - - P 2NT P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman P DBL P ? What call do you make? [nige1] IMO P = 10, 3S = 8, 3N = 6. Bob would have told us if this situation were covered by specific, generic, or implicit agreement. Lacking any such agreement partner's double is *penalty* (because it is logical that *my* double of 3H would have been penalty). In a new partnership, you might not want to bet the ranch on this interpretation; but if partner tanked before doubling, you are constrained to pass. More interesting is if partner doubles at the speed of light :) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 2 00:38:23 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:38:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth Message-ID: <484324DF.7050807@NTLworld.com> David Stevenson reports this case in his excellent Bridgetalk forum; but please answer the following questions before reading the rest of the auction to help resolve an interesting controversy ... Bournemouth Swiss Teams None vul S: JT876 H: AT73 D: KQ7 C:9 1N (_X) 2H (_P) 3H (_P) ?? - 1N = 15-17 - _X = Minors - 2H = Not alerted (explained as undiscussed). - 3H = Not alerted. When the director was called (later at the end of play) The 1N bidder said that 2H would normally be a transfer after X, but it was undiscussed if it showed minors [A] At this stage in the auction, please award marks (0-10) for the following calls _P, 3S, 3N, 4H, 4S (10 = logical ... 0 = not) [B] Which of those calls is demonstrably suggested by unauthorised information? Again please give marks (10 = suggested ... 0 = not) [C] Does the UI suggest any "illogical" alternative over a "logical" alternative -- and if so, which over which? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 2 00:54:34 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:54:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth In-Reply-To: <484324DF.7050807@NTLworld.com> References: <484324DF.7050807@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <484328AA.6020803@NTLworld.com> Correction. Sorry. Missed a 3C bid over 2H, inserted below. David Stevenson reports this case in his excellent Bridgetalk forum; but please answer the following questions before reading the rest of the auction to help resolve an interesting controversy ... Bournemouth Swiss Teams None vul S: JT876 H: AT73 D: KQ7 C:9 1N (_X) 2H (3C) 3H (_P) ?? - 1N = 15-17 - _X = Minors - 2H = Not alerted (explained as undiscussed). - 3H = Not alerted. When the director was called (later at the end of play) The 1N bidder said that 2H would normally be a transfer after X, but it was undiscussed if it showed minors [A] At this stage in the auction, please award marks (0-10) for the following calls _P, 3S, 3N, 4H, 4S (10 = logical ... 0 = not) [B] Which of those calls is demonstrably suggested by unauthorised information? Again please give marks (10 = suggested ... 0 = not) [C] Does the UI suggest any "illogical" alternative over a "logical" alternative -- and if so, which over which? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 2 01:05:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:05:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] What's your call? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200806011313.AA13918@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: None Vul, East Dlr You, South, hold S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 The auction has proceeded as follows: W N E S - - P 2NT P 3C* 3H P P DBL P ? *Puppet Stayman What call do you make? Richard Hills: If by partnership agreement the double is takeout, then not a problem, I call 3S. If by partnership agreement the double is penalty, then not a problem, I call Pass. If there is zero partnership understanding about the double (quite likely, since an overcall of a strong 2NT is rare), then I apply Law 73C: (a) I remove a lightning-fast double to 3S, as I have UI which suggests a penalty intent, or (b) I leave in a slooooow double with Pass, as I have UI which suggests a takeout intent. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jun 2 01:47:31 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 19:47:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth In-Reply-To: <484328AA.6020803@NTLworld.com> References: <484324DF.7050807@NTLworld.com> <484328AA.6020803@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Guthrie writes: > Correction. Sorry. Missed a 3C bid over 2H, inserted below. > > David Stevenson reports this case in his excellent Bridgetalk forum; but > please answer the following questions before reading the rest of the > auction to help resolve an interesting controversy ... > > Bournemouth Swiss Teams None vul S: JT876 H: AT73 D: KQ7 C:9 > 1N (_X) 2H (3C) > 3H (_P) ?? > - 1N = 15-17 > - _X = Minors > - 2H = Not alerted (explained as undiscussed). > - 3H = Not alerted. > > When the director was called (later at the end of play) The 1N bidder > said that 2H would normally be a transfer after X, but it was > undiscussed if it showed minors We are missing one piece of information about AI: what does a 3H super-accept of a spade transfer normally show? I will answer the question in both ways. > [A] At this stage in the auction, please award marks (0-10) for the > following calls _P, 3S, 3N, 4H, 4S (10 = logical ... 0 = not) If the pair normally plays that 3H as a super-accept shows a small doubleton, that fits very well with the ATxx suit, and since club ruffs will probably be needed and either hearts or clubs may be runnable, 4S is a better game than 3NT. 4S-10, 3NT-5, 3S-2, 4H-0, P-0. > [B] Which of those calls is demonstrably suggested by unauthorised > information? Again please give marks (10 = suggested ... 0 = not) The UI suggests that opener has four hearts or three good ones and possibly extra values but says nothing about spades. If 3H would normally show a doubleton heart, then the UI suggests 3NT-10, P-9, 4H-7, 3S-3, 4S-1. The reason that 3NT is the top suggestion is that opener will correct to 4H with four-card support, which is what responder wants. The UI doesn't make P more attractive than 4H or 4S, but it makes P relatively more attractive since the fit may not be as good as expected; likewise with 3S versus 4S. > [C] Does the UI suggest any "illogical" alternative over a "logical" > alternative -- and if so, which over which? The UI suggests the illogical 4H, P, and even 3S over the logical alternative of 4S, and also 3NT (which might be logical) over 4S. > [A] At this stage in the auction, please award marks (0-10) for the > following calls _P, 3S, 3N, 4H, 4S (10 = logical ... 0 = not) The AI implies that partner has a game invitation with heart values. A possible hand is Qxx Kxxxx Ax AKx; also possible is Qxx KJxx Ax AKxx looking to play a 4-4 fit. Based on the AI, with 10 HCP and a double fit, game is very likely to make in a suit despite the risk of a diamond ruff; it makes opposite either of the example hands but 4H is better opposite the first in case spades break badly or there is a heart ruff. 3NT is not a good contract with a double major fit. It is also possible that opener has four spades and heart values (Qxxx KJxx Ax AKxx); if so, he can correct to 4S over 4H. Therefore, 4H-10, 4S-7, 3NT-4, 3S-1, P-0. > [B] Which of those calls is demonstrably suggested by unauthorised > information? Again please give marks (10 = suggested ... 0 = not) The UI is that opener's spade fit is unknown and the hearts may be only three long. It thus suggests hearts over spades, weaker actions over stronger actions, and NT over hearts. It suggests 3NT-10, P-7, 4H-5, 3S-3, 4S-1. > [C] Does the UI suggest any "illogical" alternative over a "logical" > alternative -- and if so, which over which? The UI suggests the illogical 3NT and P over the logical 4H and 4S, and it also suggests the logical 4H and the illogical 3S over the also logical 4S. Thus, either way, responder should bid 4S, as this is the logical alternative least suggested by the UI. Any other bid except 3S is an infraction. The agreement only matters if responder passes; 4H is a LA to pass only if the AI is that responder has four hearts. From jrmayne at mindspring.com Mon Jun 2 02:41:13 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 20:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Bournemouth Message-ID: <18300706.1212367273751.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: David Grabiner >Sent: Jun 1, 2008 7:47 PM >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: Re: [blml] Bournemouth > >Guthrie writes: > >> Correction. Sorry. Missed a 3C bid over 2H, inserted below. >> >> David Stevenson reports this case in his excellent Bridgetalk forum; but >> please answer the following questions before reading the rest of the >> auction to help resolve an interesting controversy ... >> >> Bournemouth Swiss Teams None vul S: JT876 H: AT73 D: KQ7 C:9 >> 1N (_X) 2H (3C) >> 3H (_P) ?? >> - 1N = 15-17 >> - _X = Minors >> - 2H = Not alerted (explained as undiscussed). >> - 3H = Not alerted. >> >> When the director was called (later at the end of play) The 1N bidder >> said that 2H would normally be a transfer after X, but it was >> undiscussed if it showed minors > >We are missing one piece of information about AI: what does a 3H super-accept of >a spade transfer normally show? I will answer the question in both ways. > >> [A] At this stage in the auction, please award marks (0-10) for the >> following calls _P, 3S, 3N, 4H, 4S (10 = logical ... 0 = not) > >If the pair normally plays that 3H as a super-accept shows a small doubleton, >that fits very well with the ATxx suit, and since club ruffs will probably be >needed and either hearts or clubs may be runnable, 4S is a better game than 3NT. >4S-10, 3NT-5, 3S-2, 4H-0, P-0. > >> [B] Which of those calls is demonstrably suggested by unauthorised >> information? Again please give marks (10 = suggested ... 0 = not) > >The UI suggests that opener has four hearts or three good ones and possibly >extra values but says nothing about spades. If 3H would normally show a >doubleton heart, then the UI suggests 3NT-10, P-9, 4H-7, 3S-3, 4S-1. The reason >that 3NT is the top suggestion is that opener will correct to 4H with four-card >support, which is what responder wants. The UI doesn't make P more attractive >than 4H or 4S, but it makes P relatively more attractive since the fit may not >be as good as expected; likewise with 3S versus 4S. > >> [C] Does the UI suggest any "illogical" alternative over a "logical" >> alternative -- and if so, which over which? > >The UI suggests the illogical 4H, P, and even 3S over the logical alternative of >4S, and also 3NT (which might be logical) over 4S. Does it? Partner has KQ42 K86 AQJ3 43. He bids 3H because he thinks you have hearts. You now bid 4S, which clarifies the auction. Opponents scream for redress and argue that 4H is the rational bid with AT43 of hearts; it can't not work *unless* partner is not on the same page. > >> [A] At this stage in the auction, please award marks (0-10) for the >> following calls _P, 3S, 3N, 4H, 4S (10 = logical ... 0 = not) > >The AI implies that partner has a game invitation with heart values. A possible >hand is Qxx Kxxxx Ax AKx; also possible is Qxx KJxx Ax AKxx looking to play a >4-4 fit. Based on the AI, with 10 HCP and a double fit, game is very likely to >make in a suit despite the risk of a diamond ruff; it makes opposite either of >the example hands but 4H is better opposite the first in case spades break badly >or there is a heart ruff. 3NT is not a good contract with a double major fit. >It is also possible that opener has four spades and heart values (Qxxx KJxx Ax >AKxx); if so, he can correct to 4S over 4H. Therefore, 4H-10, 4S-7, 3NT-4, >3S-1, P-0. OK, so the AI suggests 4H. We agree there. > >> [B] Which of those calls is demonstrably suggested by unauthorised >> information? Again please give marks (10 = suggested ... 0 = not) > >The UI is that opener's spade fit is unknown and the hearts may be only three >long. It thus suggests hearts over spades, weaker actions over stronger >actions, and NT over hearts. It suggests 3NT-10, P-7, 4H-5, 3S-3, 4S-1. I don't see it. I think the UI suggests spades over hearts. You can play a 5-2 spade fit better than a 4-3 heart fit, and the UI tells you partner won't correct when right. I think 4H is the right call under the conditions. > >> [C] Does the UI suggest any "illogical" alternative over a "logical" >> alternative -- and if so, which over which? > >The UI suggests the illogical 3NT and P over the logical 4H and 4S, and it also >suggests the logical 4H and the illogical 3S over the also logical 4S. > >Thus, either way, responder should bid 4S, as this is the logical alternative >least suggested by the UI. Any other bid except 3S is an infraction. I disagree for the reasons stated above. I suppose I could be convinced I am wrong, but I'm unconvinced so far. --JRM From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 2 02:45:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:45:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Trains Fur [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4841CA33.6050009@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>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. Steve Willner: >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. Facts: .....East testified that the partnership played transfer preempts and West testified that she did not think they played them at the four level..... Richard Hills: It seems to me that West cannot simultaneously argue that East bidding 4D with hearts was a misbid of the partnership agreement that 4D was a natural preempt in diamonds, and then West also argue that 5D was by partnership agreement a slam try in the heart suit promised by the non- natural transfer. This is reminiscent of the old argument: (a) pard didn't hesitate, or (b) if pard did hesitate, I didn't notice, or (c) if I noticed, the opponents weren't damaged. or (d) if the opponents were damaged, it was their own IWoG fault. But all jokes aside, the evidence is that East-West did _not_ play a sophisticated system with comprehensive written system notes a la Steve Willner and Alain Gottcheiner. Otherwise East-West could have produced those comprehensive written system notes at the committee hearing, rather than giving conflicting verbal testimony. And how would I rule on the true East-West understandings? (1) I would discount West's assertion that four level preempts are not preempts. Instead I would rule (on the balance of probabilities) that East's 4D as a transfer to hearts was systemic, and that West merely forgot. (2) I would rule (on the balance of probabilities) that East-West had no special understanding about the meaning of a 5D response to a 4D transfer overcall. (3) I would apply a Law 90 procedural penalty to East for failing to correct West's MI (failure to alert) at the end of play of the deal. The magnitude of the PP would depend on East's experience; it would be severe if East was an expert. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 2 03:29:04 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:29:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth In-Reply-To: <18300706.1212367273751.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <18300706.1212367273751.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <48434CE0.4090400@NTLworld.com> [nige1] David Stevenson reports this case in his excellent Bridgetalk forum; but please answer the following questions before reading the rest of the auction to help resolve an interesting controversy ... Bournemouth Swiss Teams None vul S: JT876 H: AT73 D: KQ7 C:9 1N (_X) 2H (3C) 3H (_P) ?? - 1N = 15-17 - _X = Minors - 2H = Not alerted (explained as undiscussed). - 3H = Not alerted. When the director was called (later at the end of play) The 1N bidder said that 2H would normally be a transfer after X, but it was undiscussed if it showed minors [A] At this stage in the auction, please award marks (0-10) for the following calls _P, 3S, 3N, 4H, 4S (10 = logical ... 0 = not) [B] Which of those calls is demonstrably suggested by unauthorised information? Again please give marks (10 = suggested ... 0 = not) [C] Does the UI suggest any "illogical" alternative over a "logical" alternative -- and if so, which over which? [David Grabner asked] We are missing one piece of information about AI: what does a 3H super-accept of a spade transfer normally show? [nige2] Thank you for the answers so far :) I don't think I'm giving away any clues by reporting: at the appeal (not at the table) West said that 3H in this sequence (if 2H was transfer) would show Spade fit and Heart values, he did not alert because he "thought that was not ethical". I would appreciate more answers :) [David Grabner] The AI implies that partner has a game invitation with heart values. A possible hand is Qxx Kxxxx Ax AKx; also possible is Qxx KJxx Ax AKxx looking to play a 4-4 fit. Based on the AI, with 10 HCP and a double fit, game is very likely to make in a suit despite the risk of a diamond ruff; it makes opposite either of the example hands but 4H is better opposite the first in case spades break badly or there is a heart ruff. 3NT is not a good contract with a double major fit. It is also possible that opener has four spades and heart values (Qxxx KJxx Ax AKxx); if so, he can correct to 4S over 4H. Therefore, [A] 4H-10, 4S-7, 3NT-4, 3S-1, P-0. The UI is that opener's spade fit is unknown and the hearts may be only three long. It thus suggests hearts over spades, weaker actions over stronger actions, and NT over hearts. It suggests [B] 3NT-10, P-7, 4H-5, 3S-3, 4S-1. [John R Maine] Does it? Partner has KQ42 K86 AQJ3 43. He bids 3H because he thinks you have hearts. You now bid 4S, which clarifies the auction. Opponents scream for redress and argue that 4H is the rational bid with AT43 of hearts; it can't not work *unless* partner is not on the same page. [David Grabner] [C] The UI suggests the illogical 3NT and P over the logical 4H and 4S, and it also suggests the logical 4H and the illogical 3S over the also logical 4S. Thus, either way, responder should bid 4S, as this is the logical alternative least suggested by the UI. Any other bid except 3S is an infraction. The agreement only matters if responder passes; 4H is a LA to pass only if the AI is that responder has four hearts. [John R Maine] I don't see it. I think the UI suggests spades over hearts. You can play a 5-2 spade fit better than a 4-3 heart fit, and the UI tells you partner won't correct when right. I think 4H is the right call under the conditions. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 2 03:49:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:49:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483FAAB5.5030508@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Reg Busch: >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? Richard Hills: For almost all intents and purposes the English Bridge Union (EBU) and Scottish Bridge Union (SBU) are entirely independent Regulating Authorities. However, they have federally assigned some of their RA powers to an organisation called BGB (Bridge Great Britain?) which runs a cross-border event, the Gold Cup. Teething problems have ensued, since Scotland and England have different alerting regulations. BGB might resolve this by adopting the neutral WBF alerting regulations. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Mon Jun 2 08:29:34 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:29:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4843934E.5070803@ozemail.com.au> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Reg Busch: > > > >>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? >> >> > >Richard Hills: > >For almost all intents and purposes the English Bridge >Union (EBU) and Scottish Bridge Union (SBU) are entirely >independent Regulating Authorities. > >However, they have federally assigned some of their RA >powers to an organisation called BGB (Bridge Great >Britain?) which runs a cross-border event, the Gold Cup. > > > Reg Busch: I'm not sure what you mean by 'federally assigned'. Our problem in Australia is that, like the nation atself, we are a federation with power devolving upwards. The ABF constitutionally has never been given the right to control of state and club events. Yet the WBF, via the 2007 Laws, has given a right that, constitutionally, the ABF is not entitled to exercise. What prevails? The Laws of bridge or our constitution? I have suggested a sensible solution which I hope will be acted on. Reg >Teething problems have ensued, since Scotland and >England have different alerting regulations. BGB might >resolve this by adopting the neutral WBF alerting >regulations. > > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Graduates and Developmental Training Section >Department of Immigration and Citizenship >Telephone: 02 6223 9067 >Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, >dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other >than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and >has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental >privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au >See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > >_______________________________________________ >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: 269.24.4/1477 - Release Date: 1/06/2008 5:28 PM > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 2 09:34:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:34:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48434CE0.4090400@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >- _X = Minors >..... >The 1N bidder said that 2H would normally be a transfer after >X, but it was undiscussed if it [the double] showed minors Richard Hills: Reminiscent of West's argument in the "Trains Fur" thread that the partnership played transfer preemptive jump overcalls after an artificial 1C by an opponent, but East-West had not discussed whether "preempt" meant a jump overcall no higher than the three level. Nigel Guthrie: >West said that 3H in this sequence (if 2H was transfer) would >show Spade fit and Heart values, he did not alert because he >"thought that was not ethical". Richard Hills: _If_ 3H is a mutual special partnership understanding which is alertable by EBU regulation, _then_ a deliberate failure to alert 3H is a "not ethical" infraction of 2007 Law 40B2(a). Yes, I know that Herman De Wael will cite the 2007 Law 20F5(a), and argue that West is a very ethical acolyte of the De Wael School. And yes, I know that the 2007 Lawbook did not yet apply in Bournemouth. Nigel Guthrie: >I would appreciate more answers :) Richard Hills: The 2007 Law 75A cross-references the 2007 Law 73C. Raising 3H to 4H as a choice-of-contracts (hoping a 4-4 heart fit plays better than a 5-3 spade fit) is a logical alternative on AI. On UI it could be a disastrous 4-3 fit when a 5-4 spade fit is available. Plus a "highly ethical" alert of 3H by West will also subject East to Law 75A's constraints, so East will not be permitted to remember the system and remove 4H to 4S. Ergo, I agree with John R. Mayne that the only legal call is 4H, presumably losing a game swing. 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 Jun 2 09:50:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:50:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4843934E.5070803@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Reg Busch: [snip] >>What prevails? The Laws of bridge or our [ABF] constitution? I >>have suggested a sensible solution which I hope will be acted on. >>Reg ABF Constitution - Objects [snip] >(d) To interpret and apply the international laws of Bridge, to >make, apply and interpret Australian laws or rules of Bridge for >events organised by the Federation and to appoint the Australian >"National Authority" for the purpose of the "International Code >of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge". > >(e) To apply and interpret any laws or rules of Bridge at the >request of any State. [snip] Richard Hills: I agree with Reg that, at the very least, the language of the ABF Constitution needs to be updated. The 2007 Laws have deleted the phrase "International Code" and the word "Contract" from their title. The formal name is now "The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge". Furthermore, "National Authority" has been deleted from Law 93, replaced by "Regulating Authority". Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 2 10:21:52 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:21:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4843ADA0.20204@NTLworld.com> Thank you David, John, and Richard. I forgot to ask. Is it OK if I summarise BLMLers views in Bridgetalk? I will wait for a few more replies before I post the Director and Committee rulings here. If you are impatient then you can look up the case on Bridgetalk. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 10:55:35 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:55:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <483F1A4C.2010803@skynet.be> References: <483F1A4C.2010803@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 29/05/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > 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. Herman, there's a huge difference between a player finding a hand that isn't covered by their agreements and hoping partner is able to interpret it correctly - and getting this right and a player forgetting the system and using a non-systemic bid to show a hand that they DO have a bid to show. And here partner wasn't fully able to interpret it either. It was pretty easy to understand what distribution the misbidder was showing via the non-systemic bid - anyone could do that. But what strength he had was a pure 50/50 guess. Any competent TD would understand both parts of this in this example (the distribution shown and the strength guess). > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jun 2 11:04:30 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:04:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? In-Reply-To: <1D60F173B84145B8A132715F613B6449@erdos> References: <200805301543.AA13905@geller204.nifty.com> <1D60F173B84145B8A132715F613B6449@erdos> Message-ID: On 31/05/2008, David Grabiner wrote: > "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. Our tournament regulations prohibit a player sitting out from kibitzing his own team. They doesn't prohibit him from kibitzing a neighbouring table. Not kibitzing the board his teammates are playing would mean not kibitzing at all - all tables play the same boards in our tournaments. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 2 11:03:24 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:03:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth In-Reply-To: <484324DF.7050807@NTLworld.com> References: <484324DF.7050807@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4843B75C.9050207@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > David Stevenson reports this case in his excellent Bridgetalk forum; but > please answer the following questions before reading the rest of the > auction to help resolve an interesting controversy ... > > Bournemouth Swiss Teams None vul S: JT876 H: AT73 D: KQ7 C:9 > 1N (_X) 2H (_P) > 3H (_P) ?? > - 1N = 15-17 > - _X = Minors > - 2H = Not alerted (explained as undiscussed). > - 3H = Not alerted. > > If 2H is a transfer, then I just bid 4S. If I thought 2H was a transfer, my partner's bid awakened me and I can't take any advantage of it. I'm still bidding 4S. This bid is strange enough that partner will be allowed to understand it. Long live screens ! (it is irrelevant here, but a player who doesn't think about cue-bidding, either directly or after doubling, and knows 2H might be misunderstood, deserves his problems) > When the director was called (later at the end of play) The 1N bidder > said that 2H would normally be a transfer after X, but it was > undiscussed if it showed minors > > [A] At this stage in the auction, please award marks (0-10) for the > following calls _P, 3S, 3N, 4H, 4S (10 = logical ... 0 = not) > > Only 4S and 4C make sense to me (given partner showed spades and hearts). If ^partner knows about the transfer, passing or bidding 3S on a combined 25+ count, a spade fit and good controls is absurd. 3NT = 3 after the non-raise of clubs if it is natural. But when we've a sound major fit, we play "serious" 3NT, so 4C is only a mild slam try. I give 4C 10 marks, and 4S 8. > [B] Which of those calls is demonstrably suggested by unauthorised > information? Again please give marks (10 = suggested ... 0 = not) > > 4H = 7/10 of a suggestion. We know parner raised a potentially nonforcing heart bid. 3NT = 4. Always suggested, at least a little, hen partner shows his uncertainty. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 2 11:05:56 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:05:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] What's your call? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4843B7F4.1050101@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > None Vul, East Dlr > You, South, hold > S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 > The auction has proceeded as follows: > W N E S > - - P 2NT > P 3C* 3H P > P DBL P ? > > *Puppet Stayman > > What call do you make? > > Richard Hills: > > If by partnership agreement the double is > takeout, then not a problem, I call 3S. > > If by partnership agreement the double is > penalty, then not a problem, I call Pass. > > If there is zero partnership understanding about > the double (quite likely, since an overcall of a > strong 2NT is rare), then I apply Law 73C: > > (a) I remove a lightning-fast double to 3S, as I > have UI which suggests a penalty intent, or > > (b) I leave in a slooooow double with Pass, as I > have UI which suggests a takeout intent. > > What's the problem? > AG : the problem is that many pairs have an agreement that non-agrred-upon doubles are usually for takeout, and I'm wondering whether it's enough to allow you to change your vote on (b). From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 2 11:27:14 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:27:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth In-Reply-To: <4843B75C.9050207@ulb.ac.be> References: <484324DF.7050807@NTLworld.com> <4843B75C.9050207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4843BCF2.4030309@NTLworld.com> Alain, your LHO bid 3C before partner bid 3H. Does that make any difference to your answer. The auction was ... Bournemouth Swiss Teams None vul S: JT876 H: AT73 D: KQ7 C:9 1N (_X) 2H (3C) 3H (_P) ?? - 1N = 15-17 - _X = Minors - 2H = Not alerted (explained as undiscussed). - 3H = Not alerted. Also, at appeal, West said that if 2H was transfer then 3H in this sequence would show Spade fit and Heart values; but he did not alert because he "thought that was not ethical". From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Jun 2 11:51:44 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:51:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: <48431BB3.7060700@NTLworld.com> References: <200806011313.AA13918@geller204.nifty.com> <48431BB3.7060700@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: > None Vul, East Dlr > You, South, hold > S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 > The auction has proceeded as follows: > W N E S > - - P 2NT > P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman > P DBL P ? > What call do you make? > +++ double of 3H (instead of pass) is not TO, its penos. 2NT is a limit bid - any double made by a limit type hand and frequently by partner opposite a limit type hand are penos. What sort of a hand would a sane east pass and then wander in 3H on ? Cant think of many about the only thing which fits the bill is 7 hearts and 4 spades or maybe a weak weak 7 heart suit + some minor length. Any way one presumably passed in the first place to see if pd could wack 3H's (else 3S is the bid forcing 3NT from pd with a heart stop)... which pd has done. If pd had greater things on their mind they presumably wouldnt give us a losing option of passing. 3H is going off 2/3 maybe more. 3NT probably makes but why bid on when we have a sure plus and a probable top. Pass. K. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 2 11:56:18 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:56:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth In-Reply-To: <4843BCF2.4030309@NTLworld.com> References: <484324DF.7050807@NTLworld.com> <4843B75C.9050207@ulb.ac.be> <4843BCF2.4030309@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4843C3C2.9050100@NTLworld.com> Alain, your LHO bid 3C before partner bid 3H. Does that make any difference to your answer. The auction was ... Bournemouth Swiss Teams None vul S: JT876 H: AT73 D: KQ7 C:9 1N (_X) 2H (3C) 3H (_P) ?? - 1N = 15-17 - _X = Minors - 2H = Not alerted (explained as undiscussed). - 3H = Not alerted. Also, at appeal, the *2H bidder* said that if it was transfer then 3H in this sequence would show Spade fit and Heart values; but he did not alert because he "thought that was not ethical". From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 2 11:53:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:53:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. Message-ID: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott References: <484324DF.7050807@NTLworld.com> <4843B75C.9050207@ulb.ac.be> <4843BCF2.4030309@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4843DD11.1020501@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > Alain, your LHO bid 3C before partner bid 3H. Does that make any > difference to your answer. The auction was ... > > Bournemouth Swiss Teams None vul S: JT876 H: AT73 D: KQ7 C:9 > 1N (_X) 2H (3C) > 3H (_P) ?? > - 1N = 15-17 > - _X = Minors > - 2H = Not alerted (explained as undiscussed). > - 3H = Not alerted. > > It only makes 4C a little more interesting, and a natural 3NT (provided it would be) is probably no more a LA. Now I can really hope for partner to have a perfecto like AKxx-KQxx-Ax-xxx. (where he would respond 4D, I would bid a "last train" 4H and we'd most probably reach slam). After all, he suggested such a hand, if we're on the same wavelength. > Also, at appeal, West said that if 2H was transfer then 3H in this > sequence would show Spade fit and Heart values I'm prone to believe him. That's the most current meaning. > ; but he did not alert > because he "thought that was not ethical". > > Whether such a bid should be alerted is a good question. If 2H had been alerted as transfer, 3H, provided it shows what West said, would probably *not* be alertable. It is directly linked to strength in the suit, and the fact that partner should have a good spade fit is common bridge knowledge. In a similar way, I don't require players to alert "long-suit" or "where-you-live" trial bids. Therefore, I think that alerting 3H would be acting under UI that partner didn't alert and trying to help him. Perhaps I'm influenced by my mild preference for DwS principles, but surely 3H wouldn't be alertable behind screens, and generally there should be less alerts without screens, not more. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 2 13:55:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:55:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: References: <200806011313.AA13918@geller204.nifty.com> <48431BB3.7060700@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4843DF9F.8070504@ulb.ac.be> Karel a ?crit : >> None Vul, East Dlr >> You, South, hold >> S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 >> The auction has proceeded as follows: >> W N E S >> - - P 2NT >> P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman >> P DBL P ? >> What call do you make? >> >> > > > +++ double of 3H (instead of pass) is not TO, its penos. 2NT is a > limit bid - any double made by a limit type hand and frequently by > partner opposite a limit type hand are penos. > > What sort of a hand would a sane east pass and then wander in 3H on ? > Cant think of many about the only thing which fits the bill is 7 > hearts and 4 spades or maybe a weak weak 7 heart suit + some minor > length. > > Any way one presumably passed in the first place to see if pd could > wack 3H's (else 3S is the bid forcing 3NT from pd with a heart > stop)... which pd has done. If pd had greater things on their mind > they presumably wouldnt give us a losing option of passing. > > 3H is going off 2/3 maybe more. 3NT probably makes but why bid on > when we have a sure plus and a probable top. > > AG : IBTD. Partner's double is penalties indeed, taking into account 2+ hearts in our hand. And if they're 2 off, where is your top ? I'm concerned that half of my honor strength lies in a long suit where I expect LHO to be very short, because he has to be very short somewhere (65 or 74 quite probable). Surely I can manufacture some case for bidding 3S, and surely it's coherent with the bidding : xx Jxxx Jxxx AJx 10xx KQxx Qx A1098xxx xxxx --- Qxxxx xx AJxx K AKQxx Kxx But surely pass is a LA. Best regards Alain From geller at nifty.com Mon Jun 2 14:21:42 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:21:42 +0900 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: <4843DF9F.8070504@ulb.ac.be> References: <4843DF9F.8070504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200806021221.AA13933@geller204.nifty.com> As some panelists may have already guessed, there was a break in tempo before North's double (not disputed by NS). At the table South bid 3S, (at that point EW called the director and the break in tempo was agreed to) North bid 3NT, and all passed. 3NT went down 2, +100 for EW (it could actually have been beaten more). After the hand EW called the director, who adjusted the score to 3Hx+3 (as it's cold on the normal lead of a high diamond and the HA continuation by East, which seems normal). The full hand was as follows. x Jxx 10xxx QJxxx KQx xxxxx 109x AQ9xxx Jxxx -- Axx xx AJxx K AKQxx QJx NS appealed, on the following basis (my translation). "North hesitated before doubling. South's bid of 3S was not based on information from the hesitation, as was claimed (by EW). A three member committee heard the appeal. One voted to uphold the director's ruling (3Hx making 3). One voted to fully allow the at table result 3NT/N-2 to stand. One voted for 80% (3NT-2) and 20% (3Hx making). An artifical adjusted score was awarded based on the above three opinions. I would appreciate BLMLers comments on the director's and committee's rulings. Thanks. -Bob Alain Gottcheiner ????????: >Karel a ?rit : >>> None Vul, East Dlr >>> You, South, hold >>> S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 >>> The auction has proceeded as follows: >>> W N E S >>> - - P 2NT >>> P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman >>> P DBL P ? >>> What call do you make? >>> >>> >> >> >> +++ double of 3H (instead of pass) is not TO, its penos. 2NT is a >> limit bid - any double made by a limit type hand and frequently by >> partner opposite a limit type hand are penos. >> >> What sort of a hand would a sane east pass and then wander in 3H on ? >> Cant think of many about the only thing which fits the bill is 7 >> hearts and 4 spades or maybe a weak weak 7 heart suit + some minor >> length. >> >> Any way one presumably passed in the first place to see if pd could >> wack 3H's (else 3S is the bid forcing 3NT from pd with a heart >> stop)... which pd has done. If pd had greater things on their mind >> they presumably wouldnt give us a losing option of passing. >> >> 3H is going off 2/3 maybe more. 3NT probably makes but why bid on >> when we have a sure plus and a probable top. >> >> >AG : IBTD. Partner's double is penalties indeed, taking into account 2+ >hearts in our hand. And if they're 2 off, where is your top ? > I'm concerned that half of my honor strength lies in a long suit where >I expect LHO to be very short, because he has to be very short somewhere >(65 or 74 quite probable). > >Surely I can manufacture some case for bidding 3S, and surely it's >coherent with the bidding : > > xx > Jxxx > Jxxx > AJx > >10xx KQxx >Qx A1098xxx >xxxx --- >Qxxxx xx > > > AJxx > K > AKQxx > Kxx > > >But surely pass is a LA. > >Best regards > > Alain > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Mon Jun 2 14:28:08 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:28:08 +0900 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: <200806021221.AA13933@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200806021221.AA13933@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200806021228.AA13934@geller204.nifty.com> Sorry for the typo, West had HT9x and East had AQ87xx. -Bob >As some panelists may have already guessed, there was a break in >tempo before North's double (not disputed by NS). At the table >South bid 3S, (at that point EW called the director and >the break in tempo was agreed to) North bid 3NT, >and all passed. 3NT went down 2, +100 for EW (it could >actually have been beaten more). After the >hand EW called the director, who adjusted the score to 3Hx+3 >(as it's cold on the normal lead of a high diamond and the >HA continuation by East, which seems normal). The full hand >was as follows. > x > Jxx > 10xxx > QJxxx >KQx xxxxx >109x AQ9xxx >Jxxx -- >Axx xx > AJxx > K > AKQxx > QJx > >NS appealed, on the following basis (my translation). >"North hesitated before doubling. South's bid of 3S was not >based on information from the hesitation, as was claimed (by EW). > >A three member committee heard the appeal. One voted to >uphold the director's ruling (3Hx making 3). One voted to >fully allow the at table result 3NT/N-2 to stand. One >voted for 80% (3NT-2) and 20% (3Hx making). An artifical >adjusted score was awarded based on the above three opinions. > >I would appreciate BLMLers comments on the director's and >committee's rulings. > >Thanks. > >-Bob > > > > >Alain Gottcheiner ????????: >>Karel a ?rit : >>>> None Vul, East Dlr >>>> You, South, hold >>>> S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 >>>> The auction has proceeded as follows: >>>> W N E S >>>> - - P 2NT >>>> P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman >>>> P DBL P ? >>>> What call do you make? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> +++ double of 3H (instead of pass) is not TO, its penos. 2NT >is a >>> limit bid - any double made by a limit type hand and frequently >by >>> partner opposite a limit type hand are penos. >>> >>> What sort of a hand would a sane east pass and then wander in >3H on ? >>> Cant think of many about the only thing which fits the bill is >7 >>> hearts and 4 spades or maybe a weak weak 7 heart suit + some >minor >>> length. >>> >>> Any way one presumably passed in the first place to see if pd >could >>> wack 3H's (else 3S is the bid forcing 3NT from pd with a heart >>> stop)... which pd has done. If pd had greater things on their >mind >>> they presumably wouldnt give us a losing option of passing. >>> >>> 3H is going off 2/3 maybe more. 3NT probably makes but why bid >on >>> when we have a sure plus and a probable top. >>> >>> >>AG : IBTD. Partner's double is penalties indeed, taking into >account 2+ >>hearts in our hand. And if they're 2 off, where is your top ? >> I'm concerned that half of my honor strength lies in a long suit >where >>I expect LHO to be very short, because he has to be very short >somewhere >>(65 or 74 quite probable). >> >>Surely I can manufacture some case for bidding 3S, and surely >it's >>coherent with the bidding : >> >> xx >> Jxxx >> Jxxx >> AJx >> >>10xx KQxx >>Qx A1098xxx >>xxxx --- >>Qxxxx xx >> >> >> AJxx >> K >> AKQxx >> Kxx >> >> >>But surely pass is a LA. >> >>Best regards >> >> Alain >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >----------------------------------------------------- >Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 2 14:28:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:28:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <483F1A4C.2010803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4843E781.5030703@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > Herman, there's a huge difference between a player finding a hand that > isn't covered by their agreements and hoping partner is able to > interpret it correctly - and getting this right and a player > forgetting the system and using a non-systemic bid to show a hand that > they DO have a bid to show. > I have meanwhile responded to another message confirming that this is the case. I acknowledge that I forgot to consider the fact where the system notes cover the actual hand. It is of course possible for the bidder to be mistaken in his system, and for the director to accept this. But let's just get back to the original point: In cases where one player attempts to use an undiscussed call to show a particular hand, the undiscussed call can be considered systemic - without needing to doubt the veracity of it being undiscussed. This is even more the case when the parther apparently recognises the hand being shown. In those cases, "undiscussed" while true, should not be considered a full explanation. This thread arose however from Richard pretending that it is OK to use "non-existant" as a correct explanation. If a player finds, at the table, a use for such a call, and his partner is able to work out what it means, the call is not "non-existant". It can still be "undiscussed" but that does not prevent it from being systemic. Alain's 3Di falls into this case. The worst case, the one Richard gets excited about, is the one in which players attempt to prove the epiteth "non-existant" by a note in their system file. While I accept that it is possible to be less than fully-covered in writing system notes, I do not accept that one sits down to write system notes, discusses a particular call, and finds no use for it - and writes that down. If it is then found (and interreted) at the table, the original discussion was not thorough enough, or worse, deliberately misleading. I hope to never come accross such a case in real life. > And here partner wasn't fully able to interpret it either. It was > pretty easy to understand what distribution the misbidder was showing > via the non-systemic bid - anyone could do that. But what strength he > had was a pure 50/50 guess. Any competent TD would understand both > parts of this in this example (the distribution shown and the strength > guess). So apparently you had the situation in which you had discussed the two possible bids, and decided to use only one, with a wide point range, while leaving the other unused. Then your partner decided "unilaterally" to use the other possible bid anyway, and while you did in fact understood the shape -and explained this- you told the TD you had no idea which of the two possible sub-ranges your partner would attribute to the two possible bids. Next you probably "guessed right" and landed in the correct contract, while leaving your opponents in the dark. How do you prove you did not deliberately hide the separation in two point-ranges from your system notes. Who is to say your story was the first time this happened, and not the second one, when after the first such occurence you decided on the new point ranges, but forgot to change the system notes and forgot to tell this to the opponents? Of course I would never imagine that any player could actually do this, but isn't it better to just rule tha he could have? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Mon Jun 2 15:04:01 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:04:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? References: <200805301543.AA13905@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <007201c8c4b1$211d8f60$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? > Can a sitting out player kibitz a match involving his/her > own team? L76 appears not to make a clear statement on this > point. > Not an answer to your question but the EBU always makes kibitzing a CoC regulation. I personally think it is not covered by Law. John PS, can I have a copy of the translation once you've printed it. I'd like it signed by you and Tadoyoshi please. John > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Jun 2 15:08:08 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:08:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? References: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40805310830i486e821dyd0be71a8eb27fcb7@mail.gmail.com> <000601c8c337$7b194390$714bcab0$@com> Message-ID: <008501c8c4b1$b3a660a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? > [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? To partnerships that inveterately balance; 3NT doesn't exist. John > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Jun 2 15:10:10 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:10:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] What's your call? References: <000001c8c3f5$1a7f18c0$4f7d4a40$@no> <200806011446.AA13920@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <009c01c8c4b1$fced1330$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What's your call? > This is a real hand from a real tourney. I was not South, nor was my > partner, nor were any of my teammates. I'd appreciate receiving comments > on what South should call now, rather than comments decrying South's > bidding > (which isn't my cup of tea either....).. > > Thanks. > > -Bob > > Sven Pran writes: >>I would curse the idea that made me open 2NT instead of (the IMO correct) >>1D. >> >>In the situation I might have doubled the 3H bid to indicate (show) a >>spade >>suit, but now I see only losing alternatives. Pass. wtp? John >> >>Sven >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >>> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Robert Geller >>> Sent: 1. juni 2008 15:14 >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Subject: [blml] What's your call? >>> >>> None Vul, East Dlr >>> You, South, hold >>> S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 >>> The auction has proceeded as follows: >>> W N E S >>> - - P 2NT >>> P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman >>> P DBL P ? >>> >>> What call do you make? >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>> Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Jun 2 15:14:22 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:14:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4843934E.5070803@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <00b301c8c4b2$92ea71c0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Reg Busch" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Reg Busch: >> >> >> >>>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? >>> >>> >> >>Richard Hills: >> >>For almost all intents and purposes the English Bridge >>Union (EBU) and Scottish Bridge Union (SBU) are entirely >>independent Regulating Authorities. >> >>However, they have federally assigned some of their RA >>powers to an organisation called BGB (Bridge Great >>Britain?) which runs a cross-border event, the Gold Cup. >> >> >> > Reg Busch: > I'm not sure what you mean by 'federally assigned'. Our problem in > Australia is that, like the nation atself, we are a federation with > power devolving upwards. The ABF constitutionally has never been given > the right to control of state and club events. Yet the WBF, via the 2007 > Laws, has given a right that, constitutionally, the ABF is not entitled > to exercise. What prevails? The Laws of bridge or our constitution? I > have suggested a sensible solution which I hope will be acted on. > Reg > >>Teething problems have ensued, since Scotland and >>England have different alerting regulations. BGB might >>resolve this by adopting the neutral WBF alerting >>regulations. which would suit the Scots, since they adopted WBF last year :) Well done them. John >> >> >>Best wishes >> >>Richard James Hills >>Graduates and Developmental Training Section >>Department of Immigration and Citizenship >>Telephone: 02 6223 9067 >>Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> >>Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >>advise >>the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This >>email, >>including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >>privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, >>dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities >>other >>than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and >>has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental >>privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at >>www.immi.gov.au >>See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG. >>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1477 - Release Date: 1/06/2008 >>5:28 PM >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 2 15:15:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:15:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: <200806021221.AA13933@geller204.nifty.com> References: <4843DF9F.8070504@ulb.ac.be> <200806021221.AA13933@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4843F285.7070106@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a e'crit: > As some panelists may have already guessed, there was a break in > tempo before North's double (not disputed by NS). At the table > South bid 3S, (at that point EW called the director and > the break in tempo was agreed to) North bid 3NT, > and all passed. 3NT went down 2, +100 for EW (it could > actually have been beaten more). After the > hand EW called the director, who adjusted the score to 3Hx+3 > (as it's cold on the normal lead of a high diamond and the > HA continuation by East, which seems normal). The full hand > was as follows. > x > Jxx > 10xxx > QJxxx > KQx xxxxx > 109x AQ9xxx > Jxxx -- > Axx xx > AJxx > K > AKQxx > QJx > > NS appealed, on the following basis (my translation). > "North hesitated before doubling. South's bid of 3S was not > based on information from the hesitation, as was claimed (by EW). > > A three member committee heard the appeal. One voted to > uphold the director's ruling (3Hx making 3). One voted to > fully allow the at table result 3NT/N-2 to stand. One > voted for 80% (3NT-2) and 20% (3Hx making). An artifical > adjusted score was awarded based on the above three opinions. > > I would appreciate BLMLers comments on the director's and > committee's rulings. > AG: ISTM Pass is a LA, even if inferior, so 3HX it must be. I gave the right reason for not letting in (Diamond strength wotrhless against 3H), but "you're not allowed to be clever after the tempo". But above all, the AC took an illegal decision : weighted scores aren't allowed in this case. Weighted score are there to determine what the NOS would have made had the infraction not occurred (70% of finding the right lead if one had been given the right explanation ; 60% of guessing that crucial queen without the undue BIT ; etc), but *not* to determine what the OS should have done. It shouldn't have taken out that UI-filled double, and that's that.. This, and assessing a percentage score (60-40) after the deal was played, are the biggest and most common mistakes a TD or AC can do. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080602/f6136574/attachment.htm From brian666 at frontiernet.net Mon Jun 2 15:34:39 2008 From: brian666 at frontiernet.net (brian666 at frontiernet.net) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:34:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:28:49 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> > >> And here partner wasn't fully able to interpret it either. It was >> pretty easy to understand what distribution the misbidder was showing >> via the non-systemic bid - anyone could do that. But what strength he >> had was a pure 50/50 guess. Any competent TD would understand both >> parts of this in this example (the distribution shown and the strength >> guess). > >So apparently you had the situation in which you had discussed the two >possible bids, and decided to use only one, with a wide point range, >while leaving the other unused. Then your partner decided >"unilaterally" to use the other possible bid anyway, and while you did >in fact understood the shape -and explained this- you told the TD you >had no idea which of the two possible sub-ranges your partner would >attribute to the two possible bids. Next you probably "guessed right" >and landed in the correct contract, while leaving your opponents in >the dark. How do you prove you did not deliberately hide the >separation in two point-ranges from your system notes. Who is to say >your story was the first time this happened, and not the second one, >when after the first such occurence you decided on the new point >ranges, but forgot to change the system notes and forgot to tell this >to the opponents? > >Of course I would never imagine that any player could actually do >this, but isn't it better to just rule tha he could have? As one half of the pair that perpetrated this particular SNAFU, may I correct one point? The auction in question was as follows 1C(1) 2H(2) 2S(3) 3S(4) (1) Any 16+ (2) Shows any 4441 shape with two possible ranges, 8-11 or 16+ (3) Waiting for partner to show shortage and range (4) Explicitly noted in our system notes as an unused bid. Responder's *systemic* rebids after 2S are that 2NT, 3C, 3D and 3H are the "suit" below the shortage with 8-11 HCP, and that 3NT, 4C, 4D and 4H are the "suit" below the shortage with 16+ HCP. We decided to leave 3S unused in the interests of symmetry, hoping to minimise the memorisation required. So, to deal with Herman's point :- There was no "wide point range" associated with the selected alternative. 2NT (the systemic way of showing a 3-suited hand with 8-11 HCP and short clubs) had exactly the same 4 HCP range as 3C, 3D and 3H. In fact, after the systemic response, we then had a bid (the known shortage) to narrow the ranges down even further, minimum or maximum within that 8-11 HCP range. To suggest that we had decided to narrow down what's effectively a 2 HCP range (8-9 for minimum, 10-11 for maximum) even further by using a piece of undocumented and concealed system (and remember, it would only be for ONE of the four possible shortages) is, IMO, so contrived as to be ridiculous. And if Herman is suggesting that we'd narrowed down the 16+ range, well, with an established combined HCP count of at least 32, and we're still only at 3NT (16+ with club shortage), I think we can afford to sacrifice the extra bid, don't you? We still have the 'short suit relay' to clarify the 16+ range, remember. To put it bluntly, Herman's suggestion is simply laughable, IMO. I would seriously doubt the collective sanity of any TD or AC which came up with this ruling. However, **if the correct ruling really is** to rule that we "could have" done this, then the game of bridge is (IMHO) on its last legs, and the sooner it dies a death, the better. Maybe something better will arise from the ashes. Oh, and if anyone is interested in what REALLY happened, partner had a brain fart. He decided that spades was the suit below clubs (not unreasonably), but totally overlooked the 2NT bid that was available to him. Brian. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 2 15:35:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:35:49 -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> <89C7132F-C404-4E96-84CD-41E695A5FD27@starpower.net> Message-ID: <9A42F6F7-38E4-4400-BF16-1CA700F108D1@starpower.net> On May 30, 2008, at 9:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 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.) The disposition of a penalty card is a function of the existence of the penalty card, and is not affected by how it came to be. A valid analogy would require that offender have some choice to make at the point at which LHO refuses to condone the offending action. After a LOOT, offender has no options, so there is no issue as to whether LHO need be informed as to what they are. > 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? Inform him that without this information I cannot make a positive finding under L27B1, thus will be forced to apply L27B2 to any call he makes. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 2 15:47:29 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:47:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: <200806021221.AA13933@geller204.nifty.com> References: <4843DF9F.8070504@ulb.ac.be> <200806021221.AA13933@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000701c8c4b7$33a0e1e0$9ae2a5a0$@no> A BIT by North before doubling the 3H bid does IMO yell for a spade bid from South. You may count me in with the AC member who voted for upholding the TD ruling of 3HX making 3. BTW: What kind of Puppet Stayman makes North's hand eligible for a 3C bid? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Sent: 2. juni 2008 14:22 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] What's your call? > > As some panelists may have already guessed, there was a break in > tempo before North's double (not disputed by NS). At the table > South bid 3S, (at that point EW called the director and > the break in tempo was agreed to) North bid 3NT, > and all passed. 3NT went down 2, +100 for EW (it could > actually have been beaten more). After the > hand EW called the director, who adjusted the score to 3Hx+3 > (as it's cold on the normal lead of a high diamond and the > HA continuation by East, which seems normal). The full hand > was as follows. > x > Jxx > 10xxx > QJxxx > KQx xxxxx > 109x AQ9xxx > Jxxx -- > Axx xx > AJxx > K > AKQxx > QJx > > NS appealed, on the following basis (my translation). > "North hesitated before doubling. South's bid of 3S was not > based on information from the hesitation, as was claimed (by EW). > > A three member committee heard the appeal. One voted to > uphold the director's ruling (3Hx making 3). One voted to > fully allow the at table result 3NT/N-2 to stand. One > voted for 80% (3NT-2) and 20% (3Hx making). An artifical > adjusted score was awarded based on the above three opinions. > > I would appreciate BLMLers comments on the director's and > committee's rulings. > > Thanks. > > -Bob > > > > > Alain Gottcheiner ????????: > >Karel a ?rit : > >>> None Vul, East Dlr > >>> You, South, hold > >>> S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 > >>> The auction has proceeded as follows: > >>> W N E S > >>> - - P 2NT > >>> P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman > >>> P DBL P ? > >>> What call do you make? > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> +++ double of 3H (instead of pass) is not TO, its penos. 2NT > is a > >> limit bid - any double made by a limit type hand and frequently > by > >> partner opposite a limit type hand are penos. > >> > >> What sort of a hand would a sane east pass and then wander in > 3H on ? > >> Cant think of many about the only thing which fits the bill is > 7 > >> hearts and 4 spades or maybe a weak weak 7 heart suit + some > minor > >> length. > >> > >> Any way one presumably passed in the first place to see if pd > could > >> wack 3H's (else 3S is the bid forcing 3NT from pd with a heart > >> stop)... which pd has done. If pd had greater things on their > mind > >> they presumably wouldnt give us a losing option of passing. > >> > >> 3H is going off 2/3 maybe more. 3NT probably makes but why bid > on > >> when we have a sure plus and a probable top. > >> > >> > >AG : IBTD. Partner's double is penalties indeed, taking into > account 2+ > >hearts in our hand. And if they're 2 off, where is your top ? > > I'm concerned that half of my honor strength lies in a long suit > where > >I expect LHO to be very short, because he has to be very short > somewhere > >(65 or 74 quite probable). > > > >Surely I can manufacture some case for bidding 3S, and surely > it's > >coherent with the bidding : > > > > xx > > Jxxx > > Jxxx > > AJx > > > >10xx KQxx > >Qx A1098xxx > >xxxx --- > >Qxxxx xx > > > > > > AJxx > > K > > AKQxx > > Kxx > > > > > >But surely pass is a LA. > > > >Best regards > > > > Alain > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml at amsterdamned.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 2 15:55:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:55:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: <200806011313.AA13918@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200806011313.AA13918@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > None Vul, East Dlr > You, South, hold > S AJ53 H K D AKQ86 C K84 > The auction has proceeded as follows: > W N E S > - - P 2NT > P 3C* 3H P *Puppet Stayman > P DBL P ? > > What call do you make? Pass. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 2 16:11:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:11:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar doc. Law 12 Message-ID: <003a01c8c4ba$de467620$dbcf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott<200806021221.AA13933@geller204.nifty.com> <4843F285.7070106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002a01c8c4bd$c99b2470$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What's your call? Robert Geller a ecrit : As some panelists may have already guessed, there was a break in tempo before North's double (not disputed by NS). At the table South bid 3S, (at that point EW called the director and the break in tempo was agreed to) North bid 3NT, and all passed. 3NT went down 2, +100 for EW (it could actually have been beaten more). After the hand EW called the director, who adjusted the score to 3Hx+3 (as it's cold on the normal lead of a high diamond and the HA continuation by East, which seems normal). The full hand was as follows. x Jxx 10xxx QJxxx KQx xxxxx 109x AQ9xxx Jxxx -- Axx xx AJxx K AKQxx QJx NS appealed, on the following basis (my translation). "North hesitated before doubling. South's bid of 3S was not based on information from the hesitation, as was claimed (by EW). A three member committee heard the appeal. One voted to uphold the director's ruling (3Hx making 3). One voted to fully allow the at table result 3NT/N-2 to stand. One voted for 80% (3NT-2) and 20% (3Hx making). An artifical adjusted score was awarded based on the above three opinions. I would appreciate BLMLers comments on the director's and committee's rulings. MadDog writes: South would have passed a fast happy double in sleep. As I said elsewhere in the thread. Pass, wtp? John AG: ISTM Pass is a LA, even if inferior, so 3HX it must be. I gave the right reason for not letting in (Diamond strength wotrhless against 3H), but "you're not allowed to be clever after the tempo". But above all, the AC took an illegal decision : weighted scores aren't allowed in this case. Weighted score are there to determine what the NOS would have made had the infraction not occurred (70% of finding the right lead if one had been given the right explanation ; 60% of guessing that crucial queen without the undue BIT ; etc), but *not* to determine what the OS should have done. It shouldn't have taken out that UI-filled double, and that's that.. This, and assessing a percentage score (60-40) after the deal was played, are the biggest and most common mistakes a TD or AC can do. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 2 17:32:27 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:32:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Vitold's Law 27 concerns. In-Reply-To: <9A42F6F7-38E4-4400-BF16-1CA700F108D1@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> <9A42F6F7-38E4-4400-BF16-1CA700F108D1@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:35:49 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 30, 2008, at 9:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> 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.) > > The disposition of a penalty card is a function of the existence of > the penalty card, and is not affected by how it came to be. A valid > analogy would require that offender have some choice to make at the > point at which LHO refuses to condone the offending action. After a > LOOT, offender has no options, so there is no issue as to whether LHO > need be informed as to what they are. Sorry, it is a slight change in my example. There is a penalty card. In clubs. One of declarer's options might be that the defender on lead has a club. Do you look in the defender's hand to find out if this is a viable option for declarer? No. You just say the legal options. Same for LHO after an insufficient -- he can accept the bid or not accept the bid. I don't think you should be peeking in the insufficient bidder's hand to tell LHO what happens after an option is chosen. I think people are making the point that LHO can usually figure it out. And maybe it will speed things up just to give that information. But I think sometimes LHO cannot. For example, if 2S is overcalled with 2C, it is probably a mistaken overcall, but it could be a strong 2C opening. LHO probably can't know which it is, and I don't see how LHO is entitled to that information. > >> 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? > > Inform him that without this information I cannot make a positive > finding under L27B1, thus will be forced to apply L27B2 to any call > he makes. Yes. But suppose you have given LHO the right to know if there are nonbarring replacement calls and LHO wants to assert this right before deciding whether or not to accept the insufficient bid. (LHO knows that if the bid is not accepted the replacement call will be nonbarring, but LHO nonetheless wants to know if there are any nonbarring bids. That could be valuable information about the insufficient bidder's hand. And I suppose the insufficient bidder could change his mind after the IB was accepted.) What are you going to do? Give A+ to both sides? From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 2 19:21:26 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:21:26 EDT Subject: [blml] Bournemouth Message-ID: In a message dated 02/06/2008 12:45:33 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: [alain] Whether such a bid should be alerted is a good question. If 2H had been alerted as transfer, 3H, provided it shows what West said, would probably *not* be alertable. It is directly linked to strength in the suit, and the fact that partner should have a good spade fit is common bridge knowledge. In a similar way, I don't require players to alert "long-suit" or "where-you-live" trial bids. [lamford] This does not seem right; 2H was not alerted, and now partner raises to 3H which is systemically some sort of transfer break for spades (we are not told what it would have been). I would have thought that the method of raising a non-forcing 2H to 3H to show four spades would not be common bridge knowledge. I wholeheartedly agree with Richard Hills that the failure to alert 3H was a "not ethical" infraction, and well put as well. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 2 19:59:17 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:59:17 EDT Subject: [blml] Bournemouth Message-ID: In a message dated 02/06/2008 00:48:30 GMT Standard Time, grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu writes: [grabiner] Thus, either way, responder should bid 4S, as this is the logical alternative least suggested by the UI. Any other bid except 3S is an infraction. [lamford] I cannot agree with the last sentence of this. You argued that the UI suggests weaker action rather than stronger action. I would agree with this. Therefore 3S is an infraction as the AI makes it clear to bid game. If the player thought that 3NT, Pass and 4H were infractions, he would have to choose between 3S and 4S. A simulation shows that 4S is poor if partner has four hearts and an unspecified number of spades. How do we rule when a bid is normal with AI, but also would be suggested by UI, such as 4H here? I tend to think that 4S is the whiter than white bid, and would be unsure how to rule after 4H. But I would definitely penalise 3S, as it is a subtle attempt to wriggle out of the mess, hoping that game is failing. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 2 20:32:09 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:32:09 EDT Subject: [blml] What's your call? Message-ID: In a message dated 02/06/2008 14:48:57 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: > x > Jxx > 10xxx > QJxxx > KQx xxxxx > 109x AQ9xxx > Jxxx -- > Axx xx > AJxx > K > AKQxx > QJx > > NS appealed, on the following basis (my translation). > "North hesitated before doubling. South's bid of 3S was not > based on information from the hesitation, as was claimed (by EW). > > A three member committee heard the appeal. One voted to > uphold the director's ruling (3Hx making 3). One voted to > fully allow the at table result 3NT/N-2 to stand. One > voted for 80% (3NT-2) and 20% (3Hx making). An artifical > adjusted score was awarded based on the above three opinions. > > I would appreciate BLMLers comments on the director's and > committee's rulings. In my opinion Pass is a clear logical alternative, and any bid is suggested by the UI. I thought the committee did a very poor job, with the obvious exception of the person upholding the director's ruling. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jun 2 22:02:49 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 21:02:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701c8c4eb$a923e640$fb6bb2c0$@com> I haven't been paying much attention to this, since I assume that it will be discussed at the next meeting of the EBU's L&E Committee this Thursday. But I confess, having read the posts here and on Bridgetalk, that I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Someone had something like J10xxx A10xx KQx x. He heard 1NT (strong) from partner, double to his right (not for penalty) and he bid 2H to show spades. His partner didn't alert, and his LHO bid 3C. His partner bid 3H, his RHO passed and he... ...well, apparently he bid 3S. It is obvious why he did this: he thought "My partner didn't alert 2H, so he thinks I have 5+ hearts whereas in fact I have 5+ spades. I had better bid spades, in order to tell him this." He didn't think further than that - he didn't think, for example, that his partner might pass 3S when his side belonged in game. He just thought "my partner doesn't know I have spades, so I will bid spades." Now, this is cheating and the player should be told so - but bless us all, it's the kind of cheating that goes on all the time, and it's hardly an occasion for drumming up the lynch mobs. The strong no trumper, understandably confused by the whole business but unconstrained by UI or any other legal consideration, worked out that 2H must have been a transfer and passed 3S. There isn't much more to say about this - he was perfectly within his rights, and his action completely normal. It turned out that, as you would expect, East-West had missed a decent game that they would not have made. The Director and the Appeals Committee ruled, as far as I can see, that the table result stood. The Director and the Appeals Committee lost their collective minds in so doing - but bless us all, it's the kind of insanity that goes on all the time, and it's hardly an occasion for summoning the men in white coats. Someone should have a quiet word with West: "as far as you know, you've shown spades and your partner has bid 3H knowing that you have spades, so your next bid ought to be consistent with that." The score should have been adjusted to four of a major, down however many four of a major would go. The Director should be shot and the Appeals Committee incarcerated for a considerable period of time - but bless us all, if we were to shoot hopeless Directors and imprison hopeless Committee members, how would we ever run a tournament? David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 2 22:31:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:31:03 -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> <89C7132F-C404-4E96-84CD-41E695A5FD27@starpower.net> <9A42F6F7-38E4-4400-BF16-1CA700F108D1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <3FAE1703-A6BD-407A-9F58-E249D7DB1CAC@starpower.net> On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:35:49 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On May 30, 2008, at 9:17 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> 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? >> >> Inform him that without this information I cannot make a positive >> finding under L27B1, thus will be forced to apply L27B2 to any call >> he makes. > > Yes. But suppose you have given LHO the right to know if there are > nonbarring replacement calls and LHO wants to assert this right before > deciding whether or not to accept the insufficient bid. (LHO knows > that if > the bid is not accepted the replacement call will be nonbarring, > but LHO > nonetheless wants to know if there are any nonbarring bids. That > could be > valuable information about the insufficient bidder's hand. And I > suppose > the insufficient bidder could change his mind after the IB was > accepted.) > What are you going to do? Give A+ to both sides? Say what? LHO knows that the actual RC will be non-barring but doesn't know whether any non-barring RCs exist? Huh? If LHO has a legitimate question, I investigate the answer. If IBer will not provide the information I need to apply L27B1, I apply L27B2. I inform LHO that there are no non-barring bids available. IBer makes RC. Auction continues with IBer's partner barred. Score is obtained and recorded. I may or may not choose to impose a disciplinary penalty on IBer for his refusal to answer my question (L90B8). What's all this about A+? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 2 21:45:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:45:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? References: <200805301543.AA13905@geller204.nifty.com> <007201c8c4b1$211d8f60$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <00c801c8c4f0$a8cf9270$a6ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Geller" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 4:43 PM > Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? > > >> Can a sitting out player kibitz a match involving his/her >> own team? L76 appears not to make a clear statement on this >> point. >> > Not an answer to your question but the EBU always makes kibitzing a CoC > regulation. I personally think it is not covered by Law. John > > PS, can I have a copy of the translation once you've printed it. I'd like > it signed by you and Tadoyoshi please. John > +=+ Internationally it is covered in regulations. That is the place for the subject, I believe. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ .......................................................................................................... From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 2 23:39:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:39:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4844688F.609@skynet.be> brian666 at frontiernet.net wrote: > [quite logical story snipped] > > > Oh, and if anyone is interested in what REALLY happened, partner had a > brain fart. He decided that spades was the suit below clubs (not > unreasonably), but totally overlooked the 2NT bid that was available > to him. > > And if that's the story the TD is going to believe, OK. But if he's not careful to check that it could be something else, he's not doing his job. > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 3 00:45:02 2008 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 23:45:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land Message-ID: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Re: Defenders asking each other about a possible revoke... Law 61B3 says; Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information). Under the 1997 rules (which are still in effect until 1st August), defenders are currently barred from asking partner, "Having none?". What will happen come 1st August in England? Has the Regulating Authority exercised its right to prohibit this? The reason I ask is that I have not seen anything from the EBU suggesting that the prohibition has been relaxed. However there is commercial magazine, called Mr Bridge, that is issued free to many rank and file bridge players in the UK. It has an article entitled: "Introduction to Duplicate by Simon Ainger and updated by David Stevenson", which says: "Dummy may ask declarer in the interests of preventing a revoke and defenders may ask each other". -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 3 02:23:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:23:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: EBU Laws & Ethic Committee minutes 24th April 2008: 6.2 Regulating Authority options The Committee considered correspondence from Mr J Whitelock regarding the Regulating Authority (RA) option in new Law 40B3. Following discussion the RA option in 40B3 was confirmed, however there was further discussion regarding permitted actions by the offending side following an insufficient bid. There had already been much correspondence through email and internet groups regarding the new Law 27B1(b) which allows a not accepted insufficient bid to be replaced with a legal call that has the same meaning, or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid. There was a worry that some unscrupulous pairs might deliberately make insufficient bids and then try to have an agreement about replaced calls. It was agreed that was illegal under Law 72B1, but could be difficult to prove. Instead the Committee sought to apply a specific regulation making it clear the practice would not be allowed. The Committee agreed to replace the RA option passed on December 17th 2007 with the following: 40B3(d) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1(b). It was agreed that all RA options would be published in the Orange Book supplement along with all the other Orange Book's changes. * * * EBU Laws & Ethic Committee minutes 17th December 2008: 6.2 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge - Regulating Authority options Mr Endicott suggested that under the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge the EBU Board is the Regulating Authority and not the L&E Committee. The Committee agreed. The Committee considered suggestions from Mr Stevenson and Miss Hinden regarding the Regulating Authority options and recommended the following to the Board. Mr Stevenson said that many of the Regulating Authority options just empower what the EBU already does. Should any of the decisions be discovered to be unsatisfactory they could be changed in the future. In most cases the default option went through, but specific comment was made on the following 12C1(c) Weighted scores would be the norm. 40B1 the fact that a regulation is made concerning a partnership agreement declares it ipso facto to be a special partnership agreement. A blanket statement to this effect might not be a bad thing. 40B2(c)(iii) a player may look at his opponents convention card at any time. Unauthorised Information could well result however and members should be made aware of this. 40B3 (a) A pair is NOT allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction or play consequent on a question asked by either side. (b) A pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction or play consequent on a response by the opponents to a question by this pair. (c) A pair is NOT allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction or play consequent on a response by this pair to a question by the opponents. (d) [Amended on 24th April 2008 - see above] 40C3 confirm the default option, reminding players that, for example, looking at the scores on the back of bidding cards during the hand is considered an aide memoire and therefore illegal. 61B3 After discussion it was carried by 3 - 2 that the default option be recommended. i.e. defenders will be allowed to ask each other "having no hearts, partner", for example. The law recognizes that unauthorised information may result from the question. 78D This allows "other scoring methods". In the Hubert Phillips, for example, honours count, but are not referred to in the law. 80A The Regulating Authority can delegate its powers to the Tournament Organiser. In practice clubs will often be the Tournament Organiser. The EBU should make it clear which options are to be delegated or assigned. Mr Endicott noted that some changes to the White Book would be needed. For example 70.2 refers to claims that are "irrational". The word "irrational" no longer appears in the laws. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 3 02:45:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:45:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00c801c8c4f0$a8cf9270$a6ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Internationally it is covered in regulations. That is the >place for the subject, I believe. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ John (MadDog) Probst: >>Not an answer to your question but the EBU always makes >>kibitzing a CoC regulation. I personally think it is not >>covered by Law. Richard Hills: Not covered by the over-succinct 1997 Law 76. But perhaps the 2007 Law 76A1 "Spectators in the playing area* are subject to the control of the Director under the regulations for the tournament. * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present during a session in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation." Richard Hills: It seems to be that Law 76A1 specifically allows regulation of spectators (including a regulation prohibiting a sitting out player from kibitzing her own team). It also seems to me that if the Tournament Organizer has failed to create any Law 76 regulations, then the Director's Law 76A1 "control" means that the Director may choose to prohibit a sitting out player from kibitzing her own team. 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 Jun 3 04:02:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:02:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] What's your call? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4843B7F4.1050101@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >A three member committee heard the appeal. One voted to >uphold the director's ruling (3Hx making 3). One voted to >fully allow the at table result 3NT/N-2 to stand. One >voted for 80% (3NT-2) and 20% (3Hx making). An artificial >adjusted score was awarded based on the above three opinions. > >I would appreciate BLMLers comments on the director's and >committee's rulings. Richard Hills: This AC ruled backwards, working out each one's preferred adjusted score _before_ bothering to determine whether the preferred adjusted scores were logically consistent with each other. Either South infracted Law 16 (if so the AC should have let the TD's ruling of -530 fully stand) or South did not infract Law 16 (in that highly unlikely event the AC should have let the table result of -100 fully stand). But on what basis did two members of the AC overrule the TD? WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of evidence presented." WBF Code of Practice, page 9: "Before any report of an appeal is released for publication the chairman of the appeal committee must be satisfied that it gives a satisfactory account of the committee's proceedings and decisions. Decisions should be referenced with Law numbers and it is highly important that the Chief Director or his nominee confirm Law references." 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 Tue Jun 3 04:17:56 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 03:17:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <72cd01c8c520$099a1f60$55719951@stefanie> > Under the 1997 rules (which are still in effect until 1st August), > defenders are currently barred from asking partner, "Having none?". > > What will happen come 1st August in England? Has the Regulating > Authority exercised its right to prohibit this? The L&EC have elected not to prohibit this. Their reasoning was probably that since there was no punishment specified, there was no point. Hopefully they will rethink this in the near future and simply make it attract an automatic PP. Would be best to do this before players get in the habit. Stefanie Rohan London, England > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Jun 3 04:38:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 03:38:40 +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$8eca403e@Mildred> <003901c8b86e$f95e4f80$26d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> (Grattan) > +=+ I have been following this topic with interest. At this point > I have a question. Stipulate that there was a pause for thought. > So the change cannot be permitted. We have an IB to handle. > How do we determine the meaning of the unintended and > insufficient bid? +=+ This question is interesting on the surface, but normally there will not be a pause for thought. Once a person notices that he has pulled a wrong card, he will immediately attempt to change it, or call the director, or something. Of course, if he does not notice until partner calls, he cannot change his bid. But in this case LHO has already accepted the bid, so the insufficient bid is not penalised. Stefanie Rohan London, England From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 05:24:06 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:24:06 +1200 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <00c801c8c4f0$a8cf9270$a6ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> 2008/6/3 : > > Grattan Endicott: > > >+=+ Internationally it is covered in regulations. That is the > >place for the subject, I believe. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > John (MadDog) Probst: > > >>Not an answer to your question but the EBU always makes > >>kibitzing a CoC regulation. I personally think it is not > >>covered by Law. > > Richard Hills: > > Not covered by the over-succinct 1997 Law 76. But perhaps the > > 2007 Law 76A1 > > "Spectators in the playing area* are subject to the control of > the Director under the regulations for the tournament. > > * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation > where a player may be present during a session in which he is > participating. It may be further defined by regulation." > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to be that Law 76A1 specifically allows regulation > of spectators (including a regulation prohibiting a sitting > out player from kibitzing her own team). > > It also seems to me that if the Tournament Organizer has > failed to create any Law 76 regulations, then the Director's > Law 76A1 "control" means that the Director may choose to > prohibit a sitting out player from kibitzing her own team. > I would have thought exactly the opposite. That is that the TD has no power in regard to this matter if there is no regulation. If there is no regulation then in what sense is the TD acting "under the regulations for the tournament"? Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 3 06:26:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:26:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>It also seems to me that if the Tournament Organizer has >>failed to create any Law 76 regulations, then the Director's >>Law 76A1 "control" means that the Director may choose to >>prohibit a sitting out player from kibitzing her own team. Wayne Burrows: >I would have thought exactly the opposite. That is that the >TD has no power in regard to this matter if there is no >regulation. > >If there is no regulation then in what sense is the TD >acting "under the regulations for the tournament"? 2007 Law 81B1: "The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer." Richard Hills: In my opinion, to "remedy any omissions" includes remedying a failure to create a necessary regulation. (The classic example is the Tournament Organizer forgetting to create a tie-break regulation.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 3 11:54:43 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:54:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> <72cd01c8c520$099a1f60$55719951@stefanie> Message-ID: <00ad01c8c561$18149200$2fd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land > >> Under the 1997 rules (which are still in effect until 1st August), >> defenders are currently barred from asking partner, "Having none?". >> >> What will happen come 1st August in England? Has the Regulating >> Authority exercised its right to prohibit this? > > The L&EC have elected not to prohibit this. Their reasoning was probably > that since there was no punishment specified, there was no point. > Hopefully > they will rethink this in the near future and simply make it attract an > automatic PP. Would be best to do this before players get in the habit. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England >> +=+ The reasoning had nothing to do with what punishment might apply. There was a simple question whether to swim with the tide or whether there was enough motivation to swim against the tide. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 3 11:57:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:57:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00ae01c8c561$191ade70$2fd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 1:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > >>+=+ Internationally it is covered in regulations. That is the >>place for the subject, I believe. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > John (MadDog) Probst: > >>>Not an answer to your question but the EBU always makes >>>kibitzing a CoC regulation. I personally think it is not >>>covered by Law. > > Richard Hills: > > Not covered by the over-succinct 1997 Law 76. But perhaps the > > 2007 Law 76A1 > > "Spectators in the playing area* are subject to the control of > the Director under the regulations for the tournament. > > * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation > where a player may be present during a session in which he is > participating. It may be further defined by regulation." > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to be that Law 76A1 specifically allows regulation > of spectators (including a regulation prohibiting a sitting > out player from kibitzing her own team). > > It also seems to me that if the Tournament Organizer has > failed to create any Law 76 regulations, then the Director's > Law 76A1 "control" means that the Director may choose to > prohibit a sitting out player from kibitzing her own team. > +=+ And see law 81B1. ~ G ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 12:28:37 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:37 +1200 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560806030328l11349a7dkfe55f3cc6cc30039@mail.gmail.com> 2008/6/3 : > Richard Hills: > >>>It also seems to me that if the Tournament Organizer has >>>failed to create any Law 76 regulations, then the Director's >>>Law 76A1 "control" means that the Director may choose to >>>prohibit a sitting out player from kibitzing her own team. > > Wayne Burrows: > >>I would have thought exactly the opposite. That is that the >>TD has no power in regard to this matter if there is no >>regulation. >> >>If there is no regulation then in what sense is the TD >>acting "under the regulations for the tournament"? > > 2007 Law 81B1: > > "The Director is responsible for the on-site technical > management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any > omissions of the Tournament Organizer." > And how do we determine what has been omitted? At least in this law we don't have the absurd qualifier ' in his opinion '. The director therefore is restricted to actual omissions not perceived omissions. If kibitzing a teammate does not cause any problem then it is hard to imagine that this is an omission. In any case how would you know that this was an omission and not a deliberate choice of the RA? Wayne From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 3 13:06:54 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:06:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <00c801c8c4f0$a8cf9270$a6ca403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001301c8c56a$07983540$cfca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > I would have thought exactly the opposite. That is that the TD has no power in regard to this matter if there is no regulation. > If there is no regulation then in what sense is the TD acting "under the regulations for the tournament"? > Wayne > +=+ That is not exactly so. If the TO has made a positive decision that there will be no regulation of the matter then the TD has no power except to apply Law 76. If on the other hand the TO has simply omitted to give the matter consideration, then the TD has power to remedy the omission under Law 81B1. One of our concerns in the laws was to give the TD power to do what in his opinion had to be done if the TO did not fulfil a requirement. Or again, the TO may have decided to remit the matter to the discretion of the TD. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 3 13:10:34 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:10:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560806030328l11349a7dkfe55f3cc6cc30039@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560806030328l11349a7dkfe55f3cc6cc30039@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000601c8c56a$71f36180$55da2480$@no> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ........... > > And how do we determine what has been omitted? > > At least in this law we don't have the absurd qualifier ' in his > opinion '. The director therefore is restricted to actual omissions > not perceived omissions. If kibitzing a teammate does not cause any > problem then it is hard to imagine that this is an omission. > > In any case how would you know that this was an omission and not a > deliberate choice of the RA? I would as a Director assume that if spectators are mentioned in CoC for the actual event or in regulation applicable to the event then the choice was deliberate while if no such reference to spectators exists then it was an omission. Besides, nothing in the laws prohibits the Director from using "common sense". Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 3 13:38:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:38:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560806030328l11349a7dkfe55f3cc6cc30039@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001b01c8c56e$6be0d3f0$cfca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > At least in this law we don't have the absurd qualifier ' in his > opinion '. The director therefore is restricted to actual omissions > not perceived omissions. If kibitzing a teammate does not cause any > problem then it is hard to imagine that this is an omission. > > In any case how would you know that this was an omission and not a > deliberate choice of the RA? > +=+ That is a matter for the TD to sort out. He is responsible for the on site technical management of the tournament. However, a sitting out player is not only a spectator. He is a player and a component of a contestant. If the Director instructs a sitting out player to remove himself from a table at which his own team is playing, failure to do so may be penalized under Law 90B8. It may also occasion action under Law 91. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 3 16:18:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:18:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Read it as you will. References: <000801c8bf9b$90c6c180$c7d3403e@Mildred> <000801c8c033$122fb280$368f1780$@com> Message-ID: <000301c8c585$445c48c0$69cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Read it as you will. > [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: > > [GE] +=+ For well it was said by the bard " This tongue is especially hard And they who invent Will forever repent Giving rise to mistake and canard." +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 3 15:16:07 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:16:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4843934E.5070803@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000201c8c585$435f7230$69cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Reg Busch: > I'm not sure what you mean by 'federally assigned'. Our problem in > Australia is that, like the nation atself, we are a federation with > power devolving upwards. The ABF constitutionally has never been given > the right to control of state and club events. Yet the WBF, via the 2007 > Laws, has given a right that, constitutionally, the ABF is not entitled > to exercise. What prevails? The Laws of bridge or our constitution? I > have suggested a sensible solution which I hope will be acted on. > (Grattan ) +=+ How do you apply the WBF Constiution and Bye-Laws, to which perhaps the ABF is an assenting signatory? +=+ From john at asimere.com Tue Jun 3 17:09:31 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:09:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <00c801c8c4f0$a8cf9270$a6ca403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002a01c8c58b$d3653350$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 2008/6/3 : >> >> Grattan Endicott: >> >> >+=+ Internationally it is covered in regulations. That is the >> >place for the subject, I believe. >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> John (MadDog) Probst: >> >> >>Not an answer to your question but the EBU always makes >> >>kibitzing a CoC regulation. I personally think it is not >> >>covered by Law. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Not covered by the over-succinct 1997 Law 76. But perhaps the >> >> 2007 Law 76A1 >> >> "Spectators in the playing area* are subject to the control of >> the Director under the regulations for the tournament. >> >> * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation >> where a player may be present during a session in which he is >> participating. It may be further defined by regulation." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> It seems to be that Law 76A1 specifically allows regulation >> of spectators (including a regulation prohibiting a sitting >> out player from kibitzing her own team). >> >> It also seems to me that if the Tournament Organizer has >> failed to create any Law 76 regulations, then the Director's >> Law 76A1 "control" means that the Director may choose to >> prohibit a sitting out player from kibitzing her own team. >> > > I would have thought exactly the opposite. That is that the TD has no > power in regard to this matter if there is no regulation. > > If there is no regulation then in what sense is the TD acting "under > the regulations for the tournament"? I think a TD has the power to create a regulation. John > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Jun 3 17:12:18 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:12:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> <72cd01c8c520$099a1f60$55719951@stefanie> Message-ID: <003501c8c58c$371efc50$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land > >> Under the 1997 rules (which are still in effect until 1st August), >> defenders are currently barred from asking partner, "Having none?". >> >> What will happen come 1st August in England? Has the Regulating >> Authority exercised its right to prohibit this? > > The L&EC have elected not to prohibit this. Their reasoning was probably > that since there was no punishment specified, there was no point. > Hopefully > they will rethink this in the near future and simply make it attract an > automatic PP. Would be best to do this before players get in the habit. I have no problem at all with "having none?" It works fine at rubber and does not particularly get abused. When it does the TD or host adjusts. Simple. John > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Jun 3 17:22:56 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:22:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Read it as you will. References: <000801c8bf9b$90c6c180$c7d3403e@Mildred><000801c8c033$122fb280$368f1780$@com> <000301c8c585$445c48c0$69cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <005801c8c58d$b2dbd0b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Read it as you will. > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:51 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Read it as you will. > > >> >> [GE] > +=+ For well it was said by the bard > " This tongue is especially hard > And they who invent > Will forever repent > Giving rise to mistake and canard." +=+ > Grattan, the meter in this is totally busted. You should be shot. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 23:02:36 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:02:36 +1200 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002a01c8c58b$d3653350$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <00c801c8c4f0$a8cf9270$a6ca403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> <002a01c8c58b$d3653350$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560806031402m62fb241egf83d7b36d2d24c83@mail.gmail.com> 2008/6/4 John (MadDog) Probst : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:24 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own > team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > 2008/6/3 : > >> > >> Grattan Endicott: > >> > >> >+=+ Internationally it is covered in regulations. That is the > >> >place for the subject, I believe. > >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > >> John (MadDog) Probst: > >> > >> >>Not an answer to your question but the EBU always makes > >> >>kibitzing a CoC regulation. I personally think it is not > >> >>covered by Law. > >> > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Not covered by the over-succinct 1997 Law 76. But perhaps the > >> > >> 2007 Law 76A1 > >> > >> "Spectators in the playing area* are subject to the control of > >> the Director under the regulations for the tournament. > >> > >> * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation > >> where a player may be present during a session in which he is > >> participating. It may be further defined by regulation." > >> > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> It seems to be that Law 76A1 specifically allows regulation > >> of spectators (including a regulation prohibiting a sitting > >> out player from kibitzing her own team). > >> > >> It also seems to me that if the Tournament Organizer has > >> failed to create any Law 76 regulations, then the Director's > >> Law 76A1 "control" means that the Director may choose to > >> prohibit a sitting out player from kibitzing her own team. > >> > > > > I would have thought exactly the opposite. That is that the TD has no > > power in regard to this matter if there is no regulation. > > > > If there is no regulation then in what sense is the TD acting "under > > the regulations for the tournament"? > > I think a TD has the power to create a regulation. John I think that is incredibly dangerous. I can accept that correcting an omission is reasonable so long as it is in reality an omission and not a deliberate act of the organizers or regulators. Creating a new regulation that is outside those already in place for the event that has not been omitted is directly contrary to the TD powers. L81B1 may allow a director to rectify an omission but otherwise L81B2 constrains the director to the supplementary regulations that have been announced. This means if there is no omission then there can be no new legal regulation. To me making a new regulation would be particular problem when the new regulation was not made until some time after the event started. This would create a situation where the regulations were different at different times in the event. Unless the TD was going to impose the regulation retrospectively then different matches or sessions would be played using different regulations. This is hardly fair. It is also possible that a player or group of players would find the new regulation so onerous that they would not have chosen to play the event had it been appropriately announced in advance. The more I think of it the more I think it is completely unreasonable to give a director the power to create a new regulation unless it is the most obvious omission. How can you be "bound" to the existing regulations while creating a new regulation if it is not 100% clear there has been an omission. You cannot. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 23:24:23 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:24:23 +1200 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c8c56e$6be0d3f0$cfca403e@Mildred> References: <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560806030328l11349a7dkfe55f3cc6cc30039@mail.gmail.com> <001b01c8c56e$6be0d3f0$cfca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560806031424v2d217061ja636ef025c7c18d6@mail.gmail.com> 2008/6/3 : > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:28 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her > own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> At least in this law we don't have the absurd qualifier ' in his >> opinion '. The director therefore is restricted to actual omissions >> not perceived omissions. If kibitzing a teammate does not cause any >> problem then it is hard to imagine that this is an omission. >> >> In any case how would you know that this was an omission and not a >> deliberate choice of the RA? >> > +=+ That is a matter for the TD to sort out. He is responsible for > the on site technical management of the tournament. > However, a sitting out player is not only a spectator. He is a > player and a component of a contestant. If the Director instructs a > sitting out player to remove himself from a table at which his own > team is playing, failure to do so may be penalized under Law 90B8. > It may also occasion action under Law 91. It is moot whether a person not playing is a player. The laws do not define player. The language throughout the laws suggest strongly IMO that a player is sitting at a table playing cards. For example L7B2 "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards." If you are going to call someone a player when they are not playing then you need to give them some cards to count. As the law requires "each player" to count his cards. I have to admit I have not looked exhaustively but I have not seen a law that suggests that someone who is not playing should be called a "player". Further the law 91 penalties are restricted: "The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." Kibitzing does not necessarily unduly delay or obstruct the game; it does not necessarily inconvenience other contestants - if there a number of contestants then they might not even know that a particular kibitzer is present ; it does not violate correct procedure; nor does it require an adjusted score. Unless one of these things happens it would not be possible for the director to award a L91 penalty whilst following his duties and being "bound" to the laws and announced regulations. The director does not have a free reign to make any instruction he feels like and then impose penalties. The director is bound by the laws and regulations that have been announced. Not following an instruction is an example in L91B but nevertheless the penalty must be for one of the reasons in L91A. The director simply does not have the power to go around and tell people to move for no good reason. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 4 00:57:49 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:57:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560806031424v2d217061ja636ef025c7c18d6@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560806030328l11349a7dkfe55f3cc6cc30039@mail.gmail.com> <001b01c8c56e$6be0d3f0$cfca403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560806031424v2d217061ja636ef025c7c18d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000601c8c5cd$3f11d540$bd357fc0$@no> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ................................ > It is moot whether a person not playing is a player. The laws do not > define player. The language throughout the laws suggest strongly IMO > that a player is sitting at a table playing cards. The 1997 laws may be considered moot, but the 2007 laws are not: Quote from definitions: Contestant - in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Regards Sven From geller at nifty.com Wed Jun 4 01:06:13 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:06:13 +0900 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c8c5cd$3f11d540$bd357fc0$@no> References: <000601c8c5cd$3f11d540$bd357fc0$@no> Message-ID: <200806032306.AA13982@geller204.nifty.com> But Sven, what you quote below is the definition of "contestant," not that of "player." Although it is true that the latter can arguably be inferred from from the former. -Bob Sven Pran ????????: >On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >................................ >> It is moot whether a person not playing is a player. The laws do not >> define player. The language throughout the laws suggest strongly IMO >> that a player is sitting at a table playing cards. > >The 1997 laws may be considered moot, but the 2007 laws are not: > >Quote from definitions: > >Contestant - in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players >playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more >players playing as team-mates. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 02:58:28 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:58:28 +1200 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c8c5cd$3f11d540$bd357fc0$@no> References: <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560806030328l11349a7dkfe55f3cc6cc30039@mail.gmail.com> <001b01c8c56e$6be0d3f0$cfca403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560806031424v2d217061ja636ef025c7c18d6@mail.gmail.com> <000601c8c5cd$3f11d540$bd357fc0$@no> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560806031758m3700898dq17acd41ccbf25362@mail.gmail.com> 2008/6/4 Sven Pran : > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ................................ >> It is moot whether a person not playing is a player. The laws do not >> define player. The language throughout the laws suggest strongly IMO >> that a player is sitting at a table playing cards. > > The 1997 laws may be considered moot, but the 2007 laws are not: > > Quote from definitions: > > Contestant - in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players > playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more > players playing as team-mates. > I think that is moot. 1. A player is not defined 2. It is not clear to me that a contestant refers to all the five or six people on a team in a teams of four competition or just those playing. When I am sitting out in a team of six I think it is reasonable to argue that I am not playing as a team-mate. Only when I am playing am I playing as a teammate. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 4 03:51:18 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:51:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Why sit out? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560806031758m3700898dq17acd41ccbf25362@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Merely because you are in a team-of-six does not necessarily mean that you have to sit out. See the two movements attached. 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 Team of six (ABC) versus team of six (XYZ) Introduction: The ACT Open Team and the ACT Women's Team played against each other in a practice match prior to the Interstate Teams in Darwin. Each pair played 30 boards (10 boards against each opposing pair), but the teams contested 45 boards, thus giving the respective captains plenty of food for thought. Stanza One Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair A Pair X 1-5 Two Pair B Pair Y 6-10 Three Pair C Pair Z 11-15 Stanza Two Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair Z Pair A 6-10 Two Pair X Pair B 11-15 Three Pair Y Pair C 1-5 Score-up and reshuffle boards after Stanza Two Stanza Three Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair A Pair Y 11-15 Two Pair B Pair Z 1-5 Three Pair C Pair X 6-10 Stanza Four Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair X Pair A 1-5 Two Pair Y Pair B 6-10 Three Pair Z Pair C 11-15 Score-up and reshuffle boards after Stanza Four Stanza Five Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair A Pair Z 6-10 Two Pair B Pair X 11-15 Three Pair C Pair Y 1-5 Stanza Six Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair Y Pair A 11-15 Two Pair Z Pair B 1-5 Three Pair X Pair C 6-10 Final score-up Note: If there is access to computer dealt boards (for example, if this team of six vs team of six movement is the grand final of a bridge club?s championship), then reshuffling of boards is not necessary. Stanzas 1 & 2 use boards 1-15, Stanzas 3 & 4 use boards 16-30, and Stanzas 5 & 6 use Boards 31-45. Team of six (ABC) vs team of six (XYZ) vs team of four (PQ) Introduction: The ACT Open Team, the ACT Seniors' Team and two pairs from the ACT Youth Team scheduled a three-way practice match prior to the Interstate Teams in Darwin. The movement allows each team-of-four pair to play each opposing pair once. The movement also allows each team-of-six pair to play each opposing pair at least once (twice against one pair from the other team-of-six). Tables 1 & 2 share boards throughout. Tables 3 & 4 share boards throughout. Teams compare scores after every stanza. Reshuffle boards after Stanza Three. Stanza One Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair A 1-5 Two Pair X Pair Q 1-5 Three Pair Y Pair B 16-20 Four Pair C Pair Z 16-20 Stanza Two Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair X 6-10 Two Pair B Pair Q 6-10 Three Pair Y Pair A 21-25 Four Pair C Pair Z 21-25 Stanza Three Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair B 11-15 Two Pair Y Pair Q 11-15 Three Pair X Pair C 26-30 Four Pair A Pair Z 26-30 Reshuffle boards after Stanza Three Stanza Four Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair Y 16-20 Two Pair C Pair Q 16-20 Three Pair X Pair A 1-5 Four Pair B Pair Z 1-5 Stanza Five Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair C 21-25 Two Pair Z Pair Q 21-25 Three Pair X Pair A 6-10 Four Pair B Pair Y 6-10 Stanza Six Table North-South East-West Boards One Pair P Pair Z 26-30 Two Pair A Pair Q 26-30 Three Pair X Pair B 11-15 Four Pair C Pair Y 11-15 Final score-up Note: Again, if there is access to computer dealt boards, then reshuffling is not necessary. This particular movement works just as well as a barometer-style movement, with all four tables sharing boards throughout. However, a barometer movement needs two identical sets of boards in play during each stanza, so fast players are not unduly delayed by slow players. Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 4 06:07:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:07:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>If 2H had been alerted as transfer, 3H, provided it >>shows what West said, would probably *not* be >>alertable. Paul Lamford: >This does not seem right; 2H was not alerted, and now >partner raises to 3H which is systemically some sort of >transfer break for spades Alain Gottcheiner: >>In a similar way, I don't require players to alert >>"long-suit" or "where-you-live" trial bids. Paul Lamford: >I would have thought that the method of raising a non- >forcing 2H to 3H to show four spades would not be >common bridge knowledge. > >I wholeheartedly agree with Richard Hills that the >failure to alert 3H was a "not ethical" infraction, >and well put as well. Richard Hills (previous posting): _If_ 3H is a mutual special partnership understanding which is alertable by EBU regulation, _then_ a deliberate failure to alert 3H is a "not ethical" infraction of 2007 Law 40B2(a). Richard Hills (current posting): _If_ 3H is a mutual special partnership understanding which is _not_ intrinsically alertable by EBU regulation, due to 3H obviously being a "where-you- live" trial bid super-accepting the transfer to spades, _then_ a deliberate choice to alert the non-alertable 3H is a "not ethical" infraction of 2007 Law 20F5(a). The point is that "raising a non-forcing 2H to 3H to show four spades" is not the partnership agreement, so has no bearing on the alertability of 3H. That is, whether or not 3H is alerted does _not_ change depending on whether or not 2H was misexplained. 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 adam at tameware.com Wed Jun 4 06:10:14 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:10:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <694eadd40806032033se4a6c96w85f4e98f96f6b24e@mail.gmail.com> References: <483B0A3B.4090204@nhcc.net> <694eadd40806032033se4a6c96w85f4e98f96f6b24e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40806032110r3920318ejb0c94c52917c9a1@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > >> 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? The appeal was heard by a panel of TDs, not a committee of players. The ACBL's TD panels make an effort to apply only their knowledge of the application of the laws, and to consult players on any matter involving bridge expertise. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 4 06:13:42 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:13:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land In-Reply-To: <72cd01c8c520$099a1f60$55719951@stefanie> References: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> <72cd01c8c520$099a1f60$55719951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48461676.1010008@NTLworld.com> [Steve Wright] Under the 1997 rules (which are still in effect until 1st August), defenders are currently barred from asking partner, "Having none?". What will happen come 1st August in England? Has the Regulating Authority exercised its right to prohibit this? [Stefanie Rohan] The L&EC have elected not to prohibit this. Their reasoning was probably that since there was no punishment specified, there was no point. Hopefully they will rethink this in the near future and simply make it attract an automatic PP. Would be best to do this before players get in the habit. [Nigel] I (and many other players) agree with Stefanie but I fear that she is indulging in wishful thinking :( From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Jun 3 10:20:37 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:20:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:32 PM, wrote: >> x >> Jxx >> 10xxx >> QJxxx >> KQx xxxxx >> 109x AQ9xxx >> Jxxx -- >> Axx xx >> AJxx >> K >> AKQxx >> QJx >> +++ Well as i've already said if south didnt want to explore the possibility of a penalty of 3H's he should not have passed. He did explore it. North suggested penos with his double over a known limited range and shape. It is not TO for the minors. North hand is terrible. Not sure what his plan was if the opps didnt come in - presumably 4C over 3S saying I have the minors ... forcing ?? In any event he has the same options available over 3H (ie) 3NT punt, 4C minors and one extra double penos. South has no reason what so ever to pull it - none. He can expect 3/4 tricks in defence plus the 2+ pd SHOULD have. No reason to over ride pd's opinion about the chances of 3NT, having given him the chance. Only reason to do so is UI in some form. result 3H* making ... K. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080603/805a291d/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 4 10:55:00 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:55:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560806031758m3700898dq17acd41ccbf25362@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560806030328l11349a7dkfe55f3cc6cc30039@mail.gmail.com> <001b01c8c56e$6be0d3f0$cfca403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560806031424v2d217061ja636ef025c7c18d6@mail.gmail.com> <000601c8c5cd$3f11d540$bd357fc0$@no> <2a1c3a560806031758m3700898dq17acd41ccbf25362@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c8c620$abc90430$035b0c90$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > Sent: 4. juni 2008 02:58 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own > team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > 2008/6/4 Sven Pran : > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > > ................................ > >> It is moot whether a person not playing is a player. The laws do not > >> define player. The language throughout the laws suggest strongly IMO > >> that a player is sitting at a table playing cards. > > > > The 1997 laws may be considered moot, but the 2007 laws are not: > > > > Quote from definitions: > > > > Contestant - in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players > > playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more > > players playing as team-mates. > > > > I think that is moot. > > 1. A player is not defined > > 2. It is not clear to me that a contestant refers to all the five or > six people on a team in a teams of four competition or just those > playing. When I am sitting out in a team of six I think it is > reasonable to argue that I am not playing as a team-mate. Only when I > am playing am I playing as a teammate. > The 2007 laws clearly define a contestant in teams play as a set of 4 or more players. Obviously only four of those players can actually "play" at the same time in a particular round, but none the less all the players constituting a contestant are still "players" (as teammates) in that competition whether or not they have a sitout. It is generally known, and in fact proven (in math logic) that any definition must be derived from axioms that cannot themselves be proven. You can consider the term "player" such an axiom that in this context needs no formal definition. Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 4 11:52:37 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:52:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her ownteam?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2a1c3a560806022024of34ae07t876a2676f4831967@mail.gmail.com><2a1c3a560806030328l11349a7dkfe55f3cc6cc30039@mail.gmail.com><001b01c8c56e$6be0d3f0$cfca403e@Mildred><2a1c3a560806031424v2d217061ja636ef025c7c18d6@mail.gmail.com><000601c8c5cd$3f11d540$bd357fc0$@no> <2a1c3a560806031758m3700898dq17acd41ccbf25362@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004101c8c628$c136e190$3fc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Can a sitting out player kibitz his/her own team?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Quote from definitions: > Contestant - in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. > > I think that is moot. 1. A player is not defined 2. It is not clear to me that a contestant refers to all the five or six people on a team in a teams of four competition or just those playing. When I am sitting out in a team of six I think it is reasonable to argue that I am not playing as a team-mate. Only when I am playing am I playing as a team-mate. Wayne > +=+ "Only when I am playing am I playing as a team-mate" (sic). When you are not 'playing' as a team-mate I suggest you are in attendance or in waiting as a team mate, having been entered in the tournament as a team-mate, a component of a team. When you go to receive your medals you go as team-mates. "Any player smoking in the building will cause his team to be fined 1VP. plus a fine of...."(sic) "Oh, I am not a player - only the four members of the team currently at the table are players" Right, Wayne? Tell it to your captain. Are substitutes on the bench players? Is an entrant in a tennis tournament no longer a player between matches? Come on, Wayne, enter the real world. Incidentally, I think that in Laws 90-91 the word 'player' appears only once. In Law 90A the Director's power is not limited to 'player'. Reverting to the word 'omissions' in Law 81B1, I observe that 'to omit' is any of these: neglect to do fail to do neglect to include fail to include Reference to a dictionary allows of a wide interpretation of the statement in the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 12:42:51 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:42:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land In-Reply-To: <00ad01c8c561$18149200$2fd0403e@Mildred> References: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> <72cd01c8c520$099a1f60$55719951@stefanie> <00ad01c8c561$18149200$2fd0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On 03/06/2008, 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: "Stefanie Rohan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:17 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land > > > > > >> Under the 1997 rules (which are still in effect until 1st August), > >> defenders are currently barred from asking partner, "Having none?". > >> > >> What will happen come 1st August in England? Has the Regulating > >> Authority exercised its right to prohibit this? > > > > The L&EC have elected not to prohibit this. Their reasoning was probably > > that since there was no punishment specified, there was no point. > > Hopefully > > they will rethink this in the near future and simply make it attract an > > automatic PP. Would be best to do this before players get in the habit. > > > > Stefanie Rohan > > London, England > >> > +=+ The reasoning had nothing to do with what > punishment might apply. There was a simple question > whether to swim with the tide or whether there was > enough motivation to swim against the tide. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > What tide? I can't say I've noticed that tide reaching our shores, eventhough we're going with the default position of the laws on this issue. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 4 13:37:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:37:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk><72cd01c8c520$099a1f60$55719951@stefanie><00ad01c8c561$18149200$2fd0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002401c8c637$6d847f80$26d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land >> >> >> +=+ The reasoning had nothing to do with what >> punishment might apply. There was a simple question >> whether to swim with the tide or whether there was >> enough motivation to swim against the tide. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > What tide? > I can't say I've noticed that tide reaching our shores, eventhough > we're going with the default position of the laws on this issue. > +=+ Ah, well, perhaps you have not been sitting in midstream. Going back to November 2006 and the consultation with NBOs, we were then proposing Law 61B3 as now but with no option for the RA - such was the tide in the drafting committee. In response to the one protest received - such was the tide or inertia among NBOs (there were those in favour*) - the option was incorporated. Add this to your list of the wider flexibilities introduced in this Code. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ *and, one assumes, many neutrals. From geller at nifty.com Wed Jun 4 14:19:46 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:19:46 +0900 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land In-Reply-To: <002401c8c637$6d847f80$26d5403e@Mildred> References: <002401c8c637$6d847f80$26d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200806041219.AA13997@geller204.nifty.com> Yes and no. The local option was retained, but the right of the RA to have the defender's question trigger the establishment of a revoke was removed, so in practice the local option is useless. Here in Japan we decided (reluctantly) that in the absence of the right to allow the question to trigger automatic establishment of the revoke we had no option but to allow the defender's questions. -Bob gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >************************* >"A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] >"************************* >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Harald Skjaran" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:42 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land > > >>> >> >>> +=+ The reasoning had nothing to do with what >>> punishment might apply. There was a simple question >>> whether to swim with the tide or whether there was >>> enough motivation to swim against the tide. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> What tide? >> I can't say I've noticed that tide reaching our shores, eventhough >> we're going with the default position of the laws on this issue. >> >+=+ Ah, well, perhaps you have not been sitting in midstream. >Going back to November 2006 and the consultation with NBOs, >we were then proposing Law 61B3 as now but with no option >for the RA - such was the tide in the drafting committee. In response >to the one protest received - such was the tide or inertia among >NBOs (there were those in favour*) - the option was incorporated. >Add this to your list of the wider flexibilities introduced in this Code. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >*and, one assumes, many neutrals. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 4 14:47:19 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:47:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit References: <483B0A3B.4090204@nhcc.net><694eadd40806032033se4a6c96w85f4e98f96f6b24e@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40806032110r3920318ejb0c94c52917c9a1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002401c8c641$205bcc40$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> >> >> 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? > > The appeal was heard by a panel of TDs, not a committee of players. > The ACBL's TD panels make an effort to apply only their knowledge of > the application of the laws, and to consult players on any matter > involving bridge expertise. IMHO I think this procedure is flawed. I believe the TD must instruct the AC Panel in the applicable points of Law, and advise whether their intended ruling is legal. The AC Panel should have a Chairman familiar with Standing Orders (the rules of debate), with a working understanding of the Law but should consist of players capable of putting their mindset in the frame of the peergroup of the appellants. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 4 15:00:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:00:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <002401c8c637$6d847f80$26d5403e@Mildred> <200806041219.AA13997@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <003801c8c642$f3ab2540$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land > Yes and no. The local option was retained, but the right of the RA to > have > the defender's question trigger the establishment of a revoke was removed, > so in practice the local option is useless. Here in Japan we decided > (reluctantly) that in the absence of the right to allow the question to > trigger automatic establishment of the revoke we had no option but to > allow the defender's questions. > -Bob I have found it interesting that the Japanese psyche is so often parallel to the English one. The London Nihon club's Japanese ladies and I often comment that there are more similarities than differences between the culture of our two island races. Had the British been involved in the Pacific War then I'm certain that the Japanese would have adopted cricket with the same gusto that they now apply to baseball, and with a profound understanding that it's correct to "walk". ["walk", to give oneself out when one knows one is regardless of the umpire's decision]. This opinion is based only on my interaction with the ladies here in London and perhaps it's different in Japan. John > From geller at nifty.com Wed Jun 4 15:23:31 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:23:31 +0900 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land In-Reply-To: <003801c8c642$f3ab2540$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <003801c8c642$f3ab2540$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <200806041323.AA14001@geller204.nifty.com> Actually baseball was very popular in Japan before WWII. The Sawamura prize given annually to the best pitcher in Japan is named for a pitcher who was drafted into the army and died in WWII. But you'll be happy to learn that an English sporting tradition, namely football hooliganism, is now becoming popular in Japan. Cheers, Bob John \(MadDog\) Probst ????????: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Geller" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:19 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land > > >> Yes and no. The local option was retained, but the right of the RA to >> have >> the defender's question trigger the establishment of a revoke was removed, >> so in practice the local option is useless. Here in Japan we decided >> (reluctantly) that in the absence of the right to allow the question to >> trigger automatic establishment of the revoke we had no option but to >> allow the defender's questions. >> -Bob > >I have found it interesting that the Japanese psyche is so often parallel to >the English one. The London Nihon club's Japanese ladies and I often comment >that there are more similarities than differences between the culture of our >two island races. Had the British been involved in the Pacific War then I'm >certain that the Japanese would have adopted cricket with the same gusto >that they now apply to baseball, and with a profound understanding that it's >correct to "walk". ["walk", to give oneself out when one knows one is >regardless of the umpire's decision]. This opinion is based only on my >interaction with the ladies here in London and perhaps it's different in >Japan. John > >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 4 16:30:07 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:30:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit References: <483B0A3B.4090204@nhcc.net><694eadd40806032033se4a6c96w85f4e98f96f6b24e@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40806032110r3920318ejb0c94c52917c9a1@mail.gmail.com> <002401c8c641$205bcc40$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <003a01c8c64f$85b448c0$93cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:10 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit > > >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>> >>> >> 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? >> >> The appeal was heard by a panel of TDs, not a committee of players. >> The ACBL's TD panels make an effort to apply only their knowledge of >> the application of the laws, and to consult players on any matter >> involving bridge expertise. > [John] > IMHO I think this procedure is flawed. I believe the TD must instruct the > AC Panel in the applicable points of Law, and advise whether their > intended ruling is legal. The AC Panel should have a Chairman familiar > with Standing Orders (the rules of debate), with a working understanding > of the Law but should consist of players capable of putting their mindset > in the frame of the peergroup of the appellants. >> [Grattan] +=+ I always seek to be wary of criticising the procedure in other domains, where the psyche, the culture, has developed differently from my own. No surprise that John's thoughts strike a chord with me. I am reluctant to approve anything that smacks of judge and jury in one's own cause, and I tend to feel that - within their own jurisdictions - Directors largely have mindsets in common that are an impediment to independent objective judgements and assessments. As a bridge jurist I am attached to the concept of the independence of the judiciary and to the perception of it at large. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 4 17:02:45 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:02:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit References: <483B0A3B.4090204@nhcc.net><694eadd40806032033se4a6c96w85f4e98f96f6b24e@mail.gmail.com><694eadd40806032110r3920318ejb0c94c52917c9a1@mail.gmail.com><002401c8c641$205bcc40$0901a8c0@JOHN> <003a01c8c64f$85b448c0$93cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000f01c8c654$0b8fdff0$0901a8c0@JOHN> snip >>>> Also, I don't understand why the AC polled players on how the play was >>>> likely to go. How does that help their decision? >>> >>> The appeal was heard by a panel of TDs, not a committee of players. >>> The ACBL's TD panels make an effort to apply only their knowledge of >>> the application of the laws, and to consult players on any matter >>> involving bridge expertise. >> > [John] >> IMHO I think this procedure is flawed. I believe the TD must instruct the >> AC Panel in the applicable points of Law, and advise whether their >> intended ruling is legal. The AC Panel should have a Chairman familiar >> with Standing Orders (the rules of debate), with a working understanding >> of the Law but should consist of players capable of putting their mindset >> in the frame of the peergroup of the appellants. >>> > [Grattan] > +=+ I always seek to be wary of criticising the procedure in other > domains, > where the psyche, the culture, has developed differently from my own. No > surprise that John's thoughts strike a chord with me. I am reluctant to > approve > anything that smacks of judge and jury in one's own cause, and I tend to > feel > that - within their own jurisdictions - Directors largely have mindsets in > common > that are an impediment to independent objective judgements and > assessments. > As a bridge jurist I am attached to the concept of the independence of > the > judiciary and to the perception of it at large. [John] Indeed, Grattan. I am not actively criticising this alternative method of constituting an AC. It meets the requirement of the laws and indeed a panel of TDs alone will sometimes produce a more equitable ruling than a player constituted AC. For one, I refuse to sit on ACs (although in practice I'd probably be competent) purely because I don't want to be seen to be ratifying my own peers' decisions. As a mild digression I'm having a major row with the EBU Board at the moment (not for the first time) about how EBU TDs are selected and promoted, since my perception is that the current procedure constitutes executive interference in the freedom of the judiciary. I understand there are also flaws in a procedure where the judges judge the judges, but English jurisprudence has always worked that way, with reasonable though occasionally idiosyncratic results. I also accept that other jurisdictions see the appointment of judges to be a political decision, rather than a judicial one - and this too works ok. Within that environment the judges can be seen to passing comment on the judges, and maybe this is a more open method. John From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 4 17:11:14 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:11:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <003801c8c642$f3ab2540$0901a8c0@JOHN> <200806041323.AA14001@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <004c01c8c655$710ce750$93cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land > > But you'll be happy to learn that an English > sporting tradition, namely football hooliganism, > is now becoming popular in Japan. > +=+ History implies that Japan will do it to greater effect than the English or even our most successful European acolytes. +=+ From geller at nifty.com Wed Jun 4 17:15:35 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:15:35 +0900 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land In-Reply-To: <004c01c8c655$710ce750$93cd403e@Mildred> References: <004c01c8c655$710ce750$93cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200806041515.AA14007@geller204.nifty.com> I'm afraid hooliganism will be the exception. We have only a very mild case so far..... :-) gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >************************* >"A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] >"************************* >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Geller" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:23 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land > > >> >> But you'll be happy to learn that an English >> sporting tradition, namely football hooliganism, >> is now becoming popular in Japan. >> >+=+ History implies that Japan will do it to >greater effect than the English or even our >most successful European acolytes. +=+ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 5 02:25:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:25:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4843ADA0.20204@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >Thank you David, John, and Richard. I forgot to ask. Is it OK if >I summarise BLMLers views in Bridgetalk? Richard Hills notes: When Paul Lamford wholeheartedly agreed with my views on this thread Paul slightly misconstrued them (see yesterday's posting from me). Possibly my fault for having subtly nuanced views expressed in over-succinct language. Because it is a convention, 3H would be alertable in Australia. Christopher Marlowe, The Jew of Malta: "...but that was in another country. And besides, the wench is dead." Richard Hills: But I have not yet expressed a view on whether 3H is alertable in England. I will analyse that now. EBU Orange Book clause 5B9: General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable, but a player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning. A call with an alertable meaning arising from an implicit agreement (see section 3 A 2) must be alerted. EBU Orange Book clause 5G3, subsection (i): Players should not alert: A "long suit" trial bid showing at least three cards in the suit bid, even if the suit may be, or is expected to be, weak. Richard Hills: Question 1: Should a long suit super-accept of partner's transfer to spades be defined as a non-alertable long suit trial bid? My answer is No, because a long suit trial happens _after_ the raise, not before. For example, 1S - (Pass) - 2S - (Pass) - 3H. Question 2: Should a long suit super-accept of partner's transfer to spades be defined as a general bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand? My answer is No, because 3H was not a general bridge inference but rather a special partnership understanding. Question 3: Are EBU alerting rules unnecessarily complex? My parochial Aussie answer is Yes. By comparison, the ABF alerting rules had an elegant simplicity before 1st June 2008. (The elegant simplicity has been slightly dented by the new ABF rule that a 2C response to a 1NT opening bid in an uncontested auction is now a "self-alerting" call.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jun 5 03:35:12 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:35:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Still pretty confused about the IBer's "intention". What if there is no penalty-free correction if IBer had one intention, say opening the bidding, but there is a PFC if he had intended to respond to partner's bid, and, say, missed the intervention. The "information" conveyed is the same, and the partner should be allowed the PFC no matter what his original "intention" was. So he and the director must try several possible "intentions" in their search for PFC's. Right? Stefanie Rohan London, England ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "BLML" Cc: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:53 AM Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > > +=+ Attached: > Document issued at EBL Seminar > 30-31 May 2008.+=+ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jun 5 03:57:45 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:57:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk><72cd01c8c520$099a1f60$55719951@stefanie> <00ad01c8c561$18149200$2fd0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <3af701c8c6af$8c6ba360$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Stefanie: >> >>> Under the 1997 rules (which are still in effect until 1st August), >>> defenders are currently barred from asking partner, "Having none?". >>> >>> What will happen come 1st August in England? Has the Regulating >>> Authority exercised its right to prohibit this? >> >> The L&EC have elected not to prohibit this. Their reasoning was probably >> that since there was no punishment specified, there was no point. >> Hopefully >> they will rethink this in the near future and simply make it attract an >> automatic PP. Would be best to do this before players get in the habit. >> Grattan: >>> > +=+ The reasoning had nothing to do with what > punishment might apply. There was a simple question > whether to swim with the tide or whether there was > enough motivation to swim against the tide. But as Bob Geller has stated in relation to Japan, prohibiting the questions would have been useless anyway, as there is no penalty. If the Law had been kept the way it was, then the status quo in the UK would be described as "swimming with the tide". When there is a local option, it does not matter what the "tide" is anyway, as most bridge players play exclusively within their RA. Those that don't are usually top players or at least players with enough experience to adjust to different regulations. But the problem is not the L&E's acceptance of the default position, but the change in the Law. In the 1997 Laws, every RA could make the choice that would make their players happy. What possible reason, then, could there have been for not just keeping it as it was? Why could not RA's that were happy with "having none" have exercised the option that had been available to them for 10 years? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jun 5 04:04:06 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 03:04:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk><72cd01c8c520$099a1f60$55719951@stefanie> <003501c8c58c$371efc50$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <3b0501c8c6b0$6fa29990$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Probst > I have no problem at all with "having none?" It works fine at rubber and > does not particularly get abused. When it does the TD or host adjusts. > Simple. John Rubber bridge is a different game with different people, John. But I am less concerned with abuse than with the practice driving me batty. In a given hand there are up to 7 opportunities in a hand to ask "having none?", and the ethical player must take advantage of every one of them; and in fact, probably must ask every time partner shows out in the same suit. Otherwise you might forget and accidentally ask about the same suit twice. I played in a duplicate club in America over Christmas, and there were a number of "askers" in attendance. I cannot describe how annoying it was Stefanie Rohan London, England From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 5 04:06:29 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:06:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] comments on 27 procedure In-Reply-To: <200806031534.m53FY1Rm011842@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200806031534.m53FY1Rm011842@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48474A25.9050604@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > The 1997 Law 75A is now the 2007 Law 40A1(b), 40A2 and 40B1(b). The part about "fully and freely available" seems to have disappeared. The specific provisions for disclosure are still in place, though, so the change probably won't have much practical effect. I confess to curiosity about it, though. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 5 04:16:52 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:16:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] What's your call? In-Reply-To: <200806032153.m53LrEL8003997@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200806032153.m53LrEL8003997@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48474C94.9070209@nhcc.net> > From: Robert Geller [hand and auction deleted] > What call do you make? Another question where no answer is possible without knowing what agreements exist. In the "Trains Fur" thread, From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > .....East testified that the partnership played transfer preempts and > West testified that she did not think they played them at the four > level..... The TD and AC have to make a decision on balance of probabilities. In doing so, it would be a good idea to inquire about the EW agreements. > It seems to me that West cannot simultaneously argue [two incompatible things] No, of course not. > But all jokes aside, the evidence is that East-West did _not_ play a > sophisticated system with comprehensive written system notes Indeed. But that doesn't mean they lacked all agreements. In particular, EW did apparently agree to use transfer preempts in some auctions, whether or not the one that took place at the table. They might very well have had general agreements about which bids are cues in support of partner's suit and which are suggestions of a place to play. Or maybe they didn't. The point is, the TD and AC need to find out before ruling, not just guess. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 5 04:34:08 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:34:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land In-Reply-To: <200806041507.m54F7O4R023142@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200806041507.m54F7O4R023142@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <484750A0.7030406@nhcc.net> > From: Robert Geller > The local option was retained, but the right of the RA to have > the defender's question trigger the establishment of a revoke was removed, > so in practice the local option is useless. Nonsense! If asking is illegal, then score adjustment could easily follow under L12A1. The RA could also mandate a PP. All that's changed is that the former three-trick penalty is gone. From: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" > Had the British been involved in the Pacific War... I'm astonished by this comment. Is history taught as badly in the UK as it is here?! Assuming John means the 1333-1945 Pacific War, the British were most certainly "involved," though it's fair to say not one of the leading participants. (I'd put them at number five, behind Australia and ahead of several others.) More to John's point, I think, is that the British weren't much involved in the postwar occupation of Japan. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 5 05:01:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:01:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] comments on disclosure procedure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48474A25.9050604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The 1997 Law 75A is now the 2007 Law 40A1(b), 40A2 and 40B1(b). Steve Willner: >The part about "fully and freely available" seems to have >disappeared. The specific provisions for disclosure are still >in place, though, so the change probably won't have much >practical effect. I confess to curiosity about it, though. Richard Hills: I would argue improved practical effect, due to the specific enforcement provisions of the 2007 Law 40B4, B5 and B6. I do not know why "fully and freely available" disappeared. However, some years ago a blmler asserted that that phrase was a meaningless motherhood statement. While I did not quite agree, I did believe that a literal interpretation of "fully and freely available" would slow auctions to a crawl, as hour- long full and free explanations were narrated. So I much prefer the more specific 2007 Law 40B6(b) test for completeness of an explanation: "The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged." 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 Jun 5 05:25:37 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:25:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >Still pretty confused about the IBer's "intention". What if there is no >penalty-free correction if IBer had one intention, say opening the bidding, >but there is a PFC if he had intended to respond to partner's bid, and, >say, missed the intervention. The "information" conveyed is the same, and >the partner should be allowed the PFC no matter what his original >"intention" was. So he and the director must try several possible >"intentions" in their search for PFC's. Right? Richard Hills: In Zone 1 (and Zone 7) wrong. Max Bavin, Zone 1 interpretation of Law 27: >>If the IB is rejected, the TD will need to establish what the offender was >>trying to do ***when he made it***. He will almost inevitably need to do >>this away from the table in order that the other three players remain >>unaware of the reason. The TD ***then*** advises the player of his >>options (still away from the table) Richard Hills: That is, the insufficient bidder truthfully tells her original intent to the TD. If the original intent (a.k.a. possible meanings of the insufficient bid) causes all possible replacement calls to bar her partner from the rest of the auction, then c'est la vie. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jun 5 05:46:42 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 04:46:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: <484761A2.6090205@NTLworld.com> In formulating the new laws, law-makers proudly state their intention to increase the importance of directors and reliance on their judgement. Discussion groups like BLML show that few directors can handle the complexities of current law. Most club directors don't even try. Hence it seems unrealistic to expect directors to cope with the increased sophistication of the new laws. These are likely to remain beyond the comprehension of most directors even if they can spare the time to attend all the relevant seminars. Most players will have little chance of complying with the new laws; they will resent the few secretary birds who devote the time and effort needed to exploit new opportunities to the full -- minimising inconvenience from their own infraction -- but extracting the last pound of flesh from their opponents'. Nowadays, some players react with despair when presented with a crammed convention card before a 2 board encounter. Imagine their reaction when presented with *several* convention cards dealing with agreements contingent on various infractions. The new laws open a Pandora's box of intriguing possibilities. For example, suppose declarer leads from the wrong hand. A pair may now devise 3 agreements, contingent on the options now available. e.g. [A] Condone the lead and use *Count* signals. [B] Declarer's LHO objects to trigger *Lavinthal* signals. [C] Declarer's RHO objects to trigger *Odd-even* signals. Can you imagine the average club player's reaction to what will be an increasingly common kind of scenario: Declarer leads from the wrong hand. LHO objects. Declarer leads from the correct hand. LHO plays the deuce. RHO wins the trick and successfully switches to the lower ranking suit. Declarer (puzzled): "Great lead! How did you know to do that?" RHO (proudly): "Partner's deuce was a Lavinthal." Declarer (amazed): "But it was a singleton!" RHO (patiently) : "He wouldn't object to the lead out of turn unless it was also a Lavinthal." You may protest that some directors, imbued with a sense of fair play, won't allow this. Although, sticklers for the letter of the law will. Anyway, the average player is nauseated by completely unnecessary controversy and inconsistency. Arguably, ploys such as the above are quite legal. But Stefanie and others complain that other new laws (like some old ones) are an open invitation to virtually undetectable exploitation by *Probst Cheats*. For example the new "Having none" law invites abuse. Whether any player actually stoops to such depths hardly matters. The US experience seems to indicate that although a player may suspect another, he will eventually realise that nothing will be done about it. Admittedly, it's hard to imagine what *can* be done about it. The law is inherently flawed. This is the tip of the iceberg of the new laws. A Titanic mass of Bridge players will inevitably founder on them. Professional directors and administrators may be delighted with their vastly expanded roles; but the new laws will be the last straw for many players, already unhappy with the unnecessary subjectivity and complexity of current laws. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 5 09:27:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:27:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] What's your call? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200806021221.AA13933@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >NS appealed, on the following basis (my translation). >"North hesitated before doubling. South's bid of 3S >was not based on information from the hesitation, as >was claimed (by EW). Richard Hills: It seems that East-West were alleging cheating, while North-South were denying that accusation In which case North, South, East, West and at least two members of the Appeals Committee do not know what Law 16 actually says. Law 16 is not a disciplinary Law about cheating (David Burn take note), it is a score-adjustment Law about restriction of Logical Alternatives after unintended UI. It is irrelevant what South would always bid if North had not hesitated. Once UI is transmitted, South must choose a non-suggested Logical Alternative - in this case Pass - even if South would always choose the other Logical Alternative of 3S without the hesitation. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 5 10:23:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:23:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4847A267.9070502@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Nigel Guthrie asked: > > >> Thank you David, John, and Richard. I forgot to ask. Is it OK if >> I summarise BLMLers views in Bridgetalk? >> > > Richard Hills notes: > > When Paul Lamford wholeheartedly agreed with my views on this > thread Paul slightly misconstrued them (see yesterday's posting > from me). Possibly my fault for having subtly nuanced views > expressed in over-succinct language. > > Because it is a convention, 3H would be alertable in Australia. > > AG : I'm unable to understand that. The preliminaries to TFLB state a bid will be a convention when it's not linked to length or strength in the suit (which isn't true of 3H). Yes, it contains inferences (spade support), but this isn't the pair's convention ; it's bridge logic. What's wrong with my reasoning ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 5 10:33:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:33:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] What's your call? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4847A4C2.1040408@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > It is irrelevant what South would always bid if North > had not hesitated. Once UI is transmitted, South > must choose a non-suggested Logical Alternative - in > this case Pass - even if South would always choose > the other Logical Alternative of 3S without the > hesitation. > > AG : that's a very important point, and I hope we'll all agree on that. But TDs and ACs shall always remember that what constitutes a Logical Alternative depends on the pair's agreements. For example, for pairs who have the (perfectly logical) agreement that "doubles in complex auctions are penalties behind the bid, optional in front of it" , there willl be no Logical Alternative to pulling the double. Not to speak of those who would have agreed that such a double is for takeout. Once again, we aren't allowed to answer the question without specific information on the pair's system. As in the Transfer Preempt case, I'm uneasy with the fact that many of us condemned South without asking NS what the double meant in *their* system. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 5 15:03:23 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:03:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: <9DCFFA53-D8EE-4DB6-BE57-9E15FF9CC123@starpower.net> On Jun 4, 2008, at 9:35 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Still pretty confused about the IBer's "intention". What if there > is no > penalty-free correction if IBer had one intention, say opening the > bidding, > but there is a PFC if he had intended to respond to partner's bid, > and, say, > missed the intervention. The "information" conveyed is the same, > and the > partner should be allowed the PFC no matter what his original > "intention" > was. So he and the director must try several possible "intentions" > in their > search for PFC's. Right? ISTM that can't be right, because how is the TD to determine those "several possible 'intentions'" he "must try"? Either he must determine the actual intention, or he must "try" *all* "possible intentions", which, in any but the simplest auctions, would be a prohibitively complex and time-consuming task. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jun 5 18:04:08 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:04:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <200806041507.m54F7O4R023142@cfa.harvard.edu> <484750A0.7030406@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <3c5b01c8c725$c9f43000$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> >> From: Robert Geller >> The local option was retained, but the right of the RA to have >> the defender's question trigger the establishment of a revoke was >> removed, >> so in practice the local option is useless. > Steve Willner: > Nonsense! If asking is illegal, then score adjustment could easily > follow under L12A1. The RA could also mandate a PP. All that's changed > is that the former three-trick penalty is gone. Well, this is what I am hoping to see, but now that the default position in the Laws allows asking, and most of (all?) RAs have accepted it, it would take a lot of courage on the part of the L&E. Accepting the penalty prescribed in the Laws did not require any courage, thought or initiative. To correct matters by regulation would indeed be, in Grattan's words, "swimming against the tide", even if most of the "tide" is lukewarm. Also it would be much harder for players to know their requirements, and for directors to rule, than if it were in the Laws. Some directors at higher levels consult the Orange Book from time to time, but I have never seen a director at club level bring an Orange Book to the table, and don't see why they would be expected to find there the information that they needed. All this is why I find it incomprehensible that the 1997 Law, which made it much easier for each RA to do what they felt was best. Anyway, we will see what happens when the new Law, as I predict it will, proves wildly unpopular in England. I find it incomprehensible, really, that such communication, which is described as illegal in other parts of the Lawbook, can be contemplated, let alone condoned. Stefanie Rohan London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 5 18:13:13 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:13:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:35:12 -0400, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Still pretty confused about the IBer's "intention". What if there is no > penalty-free correction if IBer had one intention, say opening the > bidding, > but there is a PFC if he had intended to respond to partner's bid, and, > say, > missed the intervention. The "information" conveyed is the same, and the > partner should be allowed the PFC no matter what his original > "intention" > was. So he and the director must try several possible "intentions" in > their > search for PFC's. Right? The laws talk about the meaning of the IB, but they don't say whether it is the meaning in the head of the insufficient bidder or from the perspective of the players at the table. The underlying logic of 27B1(b) suggests that it should be the perspective of the table. But even if that is practical (and you are starting to point out one difficulty), 27B1(a) almost certainly should be from the perspective of the insufficient bidder. For example, I think even with the old laws that after 2S - 2C, 3C is nonbarring if the 2C was meant as an overcall and barring if 2C was meant as an artificial opening bid. I think they are worried that Nigel Guthrie will commit hari kari if directors are expected to enforce 27B1(a) from the perspective of the insufficient bidder and 27B1(b) from the perspective of the table. From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 5 18:25:52 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:25:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <200806041507.m54F7O4R023142@cfa.harvard.edu> <484750A0.7030406@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <006601c8c728$d2779250$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land >> From: Robert Geller >> The local option was retained, but the right of the RA to have >> the defender's question trigger the establishment of a revoke was >> removed, >> so in practice the local option is useless. > > Nonsense! If asking is illegal, then score adjustment could easily > follow under L12A1. The RA could also mandate a PP. All that's changed > is that the former three-trick penalty is gone. > > From: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" >> Had the British been involved in the Pacific War... > > I'm astonished by this comment. Is history taught as badly in the UK as > it is here?! Assuming John means the 1333-1945 Pacific War, the British > were most certainly "involved," though it's fair to say not one of the > leading participants. (I'd put them at number five, behind Australia > and ahead of several others.) More to John's point, I think, is that > the British weren't much involved in the postwar occupation of Japan. > This is interesting. The Japanese name and the Western names for the 1941-1945 War are different (not surprisingly). I was referring to this period, rather than the Sino-Nihon war which had bumbled along from about 1933. ... and indeed was referring to the Brits not occupying Japan after the termination of hostilities. What was new to me was that baseball had been played in Japan before this period; but on reflection, we get an inkling that this might be so. Puccini; Madame Butterfly being a good start point. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 5 18:30:35 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:30:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land References: <200806041507.m54F7O4R023142@cfa.harvard.edu><484750A0.7030406@nhcc.net> <3c5b01c8c725$c9f43000$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: <007901c8c729$7b3449b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land >>> From: Robert Geller >>> The local option was retained, but the right of the RA to have >>> the defender's question trigger the establishment of a revoke was >>> removed, >>> so in practice the local option is useless. >> > Steve Willner: > >> Nonsense! If asking is illegal, then score adjustment could easily >> follow under L12A1. The RA could also mandate a PP. All that's changed >> is that the former three-trick penalty is gone. > > Well, this is what I am hoping to see, but now that the default position > in > the Laws allows asking, and most of (all?) RAs have accepted it, it would > take a lot of courage on the part of the L&E. Accepting the penalty > prescribed in the Laws did not require any courage, thought or initiative. > > To correct matters by regulation would indeed be, in Grattan's words, > "swimming against the tide", even if most of the "tide" is lukewarm. Also > it > would be much harder for players to know their requirements, and for > directors to rule, than if it were in the Laws. Some directors at higher > levels consult the Orange Book from time to time, but I have never seen a > director at club level bring an Orange Book to the table, and don't see > why > they would be expected to find there the information that they needed. > > All this is why I find it incomprehensible that the 1997 Law, which made > it > much easier for each RA to do what they felt was best. > > Anyway, we will see what happens when the new Law, as I predict it will, > proves wildly unpopular in England. I find it incomprehensible, really, > that > such communication, which is described as illegal in other parts of the > Lawbook, can be contemplated, let alone condoned. mm, I take your point about the sheer annoyance of "having none". We don't notice "thank you partner" though. I think it will be filtered out in due course. John > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 5 19:28:33 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:28:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land In-Reply-To: <3c5b01c8c725$c9f43000$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> References: <200806041507.m54F7O4R023142@cfa.harvard.edu> <484750A0.7030406@nhcc.net> <3c5b01c8c725$c9f43000$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:04:08 -0400, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> From: Robert Geller >>> The local option was retained, but the right of the RA to have >>> the defender's question trigger the establishment of a revoke was >>> removed, >>> so in practice the local option is useless. >> > Steve Willner: > >> Nonsense! If asking is illegal, then score adjustment could easily >> follow under L12A1. The RA could also mandate a PP. All that's changed >> is that the former three-trick penalty is gone. > > Well, this is what I am hoping to see, but now that the default position > in > the Laws allows asking, and most of (all?) RAs have accepted it, it would > take a lot of courage on the part of the L&E. Accepting the penalty > prescribed in the Laws did not require any courage, thought or > initiative. > > To correct matters by regulation would indeed be, in Grattan's words, > "swimming against the tide", even if most of the "tide" is lukewarm. > Also it > would be much harder for players to know their requirements, and for > directors to rule, than if it were in the Laws. Some directors at higher > levels consult the Orange Book from time to time, but I have never seen a > director at club level bring an Orange Book to the table, and don't see > why > they would be expected to find there the information that they needed. > > All this is why I find it incomprehensible that the 1997 Law, which made > it > much easier for each RA to do what they felt was best. > > Anyway, we will see what happens when the new Law, as I predict it will, > proves wildly unpopular in England. I find it incomprehensible, really, > that > such communication, which is described as illegal in other parts of the > Lawbook, can be contemplated, let alone condoned. I am in ACBL-land and we have been warning each other for years. In defense of this law, it is probably good when partner makes an obvious revoke. So partner has bid spades and then shows out on the first round of the suit. The whole world, except partner, knows he has revoked. IMO this is the proper use of this law. Some people, including my regular partner, use it more routinely. It annoys me when my partner does it, but not enough that I have remembered to ask him to stop. It doesn't bother me when the defenders do it. There probably is UI, but it is not so easy for most people to understand and probably not that useful. So I suspect this rule will not bother most people and will not be a problem at the club level. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jun 5 21:42:01 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:42:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: <48484189.2070702@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick] The laws talk about the meaning of the IB, but they don't say whether it is the meaning in the head of the insufficient bidder or from the perspective of the players at the table. The underlying logic of 27B1(b) suggests that it should be the perspective of the table. [Nige1] By law, an insufficient bid cannot be the subject of a systemic understanding, so the law must be referring to the meaning that the insufficient bidder intended [Robert] But even if that is practical (and you are starting to point out one difficulty), 27B1(a) almost certainly should be from the perspective of the insufficient bidder. For example, I think even with the old laws that after 2S - 2C, 3C is nonbarring if the 2C was meant as an overcall and barring if 2C was meant as an artificial opening bid. I think they are worried that Nigel Guthrie will commit hari kari if directors are expected to enforce 27B1(a) from the perspective of the insufficient bidder and 27B1(b) from the perspective of the table. [Nigel] That would not occasion worry :) From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 5 22:25:10 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:25:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: <38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> On Jun 5, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:35:12 -0400, Stefanie Rohan > wrote: > >> Still pretty confused about the IBer's "intention". What if there >> is no >> penalty-free correction if IBer had one intention, say opening the >> bidding, >> but there is a PFC if he had intended to respond to partner's bid, >> and, >> say, >> missed the intervention. The "information" conveyed is the same, >> and the >> partner should be allowed the PFC no matter what his original >> "intention" >> was. So he and the director must try several possible "intentions" in >> their >> search for PFC's. Right? > > The laws talk about the meaning of the IB, but they don't say > whether it > is the meaning in the head of the insufficient bidder or from the > perspective of the players at the table. The underlying logic of > 27B1(b) > suggests that it should be the perspective of the table. > > But even if that is practical (and you are starting to point out one > difficulty), 27B1(a) almost certainly should be from the > perspective of > the insufficient bidder. For example, I think even with the old > laws that > after 2S - 2C, 3C is nonbarring if the 2C was meant as an overcall and > barring if 2C was meant as an artificial opening bid. > > I think they are worried that Nigel Guthrie will commit hari kari if > directors are expected to enforce 27B1(a) from the perspective of the > insufficient bidder and 27B1(b) from the perspective of the table. What does "the perspective of the table" mean? There are four "perspective(s) of the players at the table"; how exactly do they combine into a single "perspective"? Is Robert suggesting that Stefanie's "several possible 'intentions'" should be determined by allowing each player to nominate one from his or her own "perspective"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 6 00:50:39 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:50:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> <38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:25:10 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > What does "the perspective of the table" mean? There are four > "perspective(s) of the players at the table"; how exactly do they > combine into a single "perspective"? By table perspective, I meant what can be known about the insufficient bidder's hand from just seeing the auction. When there are two (or more) reasonable reasons for the insufficient bid, the table perspective is less informationally specific than the insufficient bidder's intended meaning. So it allows more L27B1(b) corrections, though fewer L27B1(a) corrections. For example, the auction is 2D - 2C. From the table's perspective, this could be intended as an overcall (mixing up the suits) or as a strong artificial opening (not seeing the opening bid). So from the table's perspective the 2C bid is not incontrovertibly natural. Or suppose the auction is 1C - 1S - 1H. The player has actually mixed up the suits and thought he was showing 5 hearts. So from the player's perspective, the negative double would not be allowed under L27B1(b). But from the table's perspective, the insufficient bidder probably didn't see the 1S overcall, so the negative double would be allowed under L27B1(b) as meaning the same or being more specific. And once it is made, the insufficient bid has no UI so it makes sense that partner is not barred. That is what I meant when I said the logic of L27B1(b) fits the table perspective. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 6 01:34:26 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:34:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <3d6401c8c764$b1632160$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> > Richard Hills: > > That is, the insufficient bidder truthfully tells her original intent to > the > TD. If the original intent (a.k.a. possible meanings of the insufficient > bid) causes all possible replacement calls to bar her partner from the > rest > of the auction, then c'est la vie. I am sure that this cannot be legal. And if it is, I know for sure that I would never tell my intention (if i should ever make my first insufficient bid), and hope that others would not either. And would certainly, when directing, tell the player that revealing his intention would not be in his best interests. Stefanie Rohan London, England P.S Can you not remove that thing from the subject when you send a message? From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 6 01:39:33 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:39:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred><3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> <9DCFFA53-D8EE-4DB6-BE57-9E15FF9CC123@starpower.net> Message-ID: <3d7a01c8c765$68514500$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> Still pretty confused about the IBer's "intention". What if there >> is no >> penalty-free correction if IBer had one intention, say opening the >> bidding, >> but there is a PFC if he had intended to respond to partner's bid, >> and, say, >> missed the intervention. The "information" conveyed is the same, >> and the >> partner should be allowed the PFC no matter what his original >> "intention" >> was. So he and the director must try several possible "intentions" >> in their >> search for PFC's. Right? > Eric Landau > ISTM that can't be right, because how is the TD to determine those > "several possible 'intentions'" he "must try"? Either he must > determine the actual intention, or he must "try" *all* "possible > intentions", which, in any but the simplest auctions, would be a > prohibitively complex and time-consuming task. > But that is the director's problem. The Law does not mention anything about the meaning of the bid being tangled up with the IBer's "intention". The latter is not a matter of Laws, and obviously it would behoove a player not to reveal this, at least until he knows what his RCs are. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 6 01:43:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:43:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bournemouth [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4847A267.9070502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Because it is a convention, 3H would be alertable in Australia. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I'm unable to understand that. The preliminaries to TFLB >state a bid will be a convention when it's not linked to length >or strength in the suit (which isn't true of 3H). > >Yes, it contains inferences (spade support), but this isn't the >pair's convention ; it's bridge logic. > >What's wrong with my reasoning ? Richard Hills: 3H showing just hearts = not a convention 3H showing hearts and spades = convention It is irrelevant that "bridge logic" demands that 3H should show hearts and spades in a particular auction. On the other hand, under the 2007 Definitions, 3H showing hearts and spades is possibly not an artificial bid. The Definition of "Artificial call" includes the caveat "not information taken for granted by players generally". On yet another hand, the generality of bridge players are often illogical, so Alain's fit-showing "bridge logic" may not be taken for granted by illogical players such as myself and David Burn. 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 Jun 6 02:20:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:20:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ 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? +=+ Stefanie Rohan: >This question is interesting on the surface, but normally there >will not be a pause for thought. Once a person notices that he has >pulled a wrong card, he will immediately attempt to change it, or >call the director, or something. Richard Hills: Stefanie is talking about the classical Law 25A situation. A player intended to make a particular call, then "pulled a wrong card", so the player can revert to their originally intended call without "pause for thought". Grattan, however, is talking about a player who has not yet decided on their original intention, then "pulled a wrong card", so now must decide after "pause for thought" what their eventual intention will be. In Grattan's case Law 25A does not apply, so Law 27 is all that is left. But since in Grattan's case the insufficient bid was made without any intent, it does not have any meaning. Therefore I would argue that Law 27B1(a) does not apply, since a meaningless insufficient bid is not "incontrovertibly not artificial". And also I would argue that Law 27B1(b) does not apply, since a meaningless call describes the ultimately precise zero hand types, so any replacement call will automatically be less precise. Ergo, for a Grattanical insufficient bid, the replacement call must be a Law 27B2 sufficient bid or pass, and partner is barred from the rest of the auction. 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 Jun 6 02:52:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:52:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3d7a01c8c765$68514500$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >The Law does not mention anything about the meaning of >the bid being tangled up with the IBer's "intention". Richard Hills: No, but Directors in Zone 1 (Europe) and Zone 7 (Australia / New Zealand) must abide by the interim interpretations of Law 27 provided by their respective Zonal Laws Committees. For both Zones the interim interpretation is that the meaning of an insufficient bid has a one-to-one correspondence with the IBer's intention. The ACBL Laws Commission (Zone 2) has not yet given detailed consideration to Law 27. However, the 2007 Laws have not yet commenced in ACBL-land. With a bit of luck, the WBF Laws Committee meeting in October at Beijing will issue a final interpretation of Law 27. Max Bavin: >>There may be Law 26 type lead penalties if the >>offending side become defenders. Please see this Law >>even in 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) cases [this aspect of Law >>may be subject to further review by the WBF LC]. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From adam at tameware.com Fri Jun 6 05:07:05 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:07:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <008501c8c4b1$b3a660a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805310830i486e821dyd0be71a8eb27fcb7@mail.gmail.com> <000601c8c337$7b194390$714bcab0$@com> <008501c8c4b1$b3a660a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <694eadd40806052007j5cc36067w72923a647c105480@mail.gmail.com> Here are my draft comments on the case. I'll appreciate any suggestions, especially those that might make it shorter: This case gave me fits. It's the most difficult I've seen in a while. Let's take for granted that both Pass and 3C would be logical -- I'm confident that many of North's peers would choose each. Law 16 then instructs us to adjust the score if and only if the UI could demonstrably suggest 3C over Pass. North made a sophisticated argument to the committee that the UI he received suggested passing, and that in his judgment the laws required him to bid. This sounded implausible to me, and to many others, so I set out to see what I could demonstrate. I started by constructing various layouts of the unseen hands. I rejected the actual layout as unlikely, especially in that the hand was such a misfit for EW. I gave West a more balanced pattern and then looked to see how transferring five points or so from EW to South would affect the decision to balance. I had trouble coming up with even one deal whether giving South more points made balancing more attractive. I've no doubt I could have done so had I persevered, but I decided instead to take a different approach. I purchased simulation software, Dealmaster Pro, which includes a version of the Deep Finesse double-dummy analyzer. I learned how to use it and then set up two simulations of 100 deals each. For those who are interested I've posted the criteria I used, along with all 200 generated deals and the double-dummy results playing in hearts and clubs: http://tinyurl.com/6ky35y I realize that double-dummy results need not mimic real life, but I found the exercise informative. If the UI improves the expectation for balancing double-dummy I'd expect that it would also improve the expectation in real life. What did I learn? It depends on the assumptions one makes. If EW always pass out 3C then balancing is a big winner overall, and the UI makes balancing substantially *less* attractive. That's for precisely the reason given by the appellants, that balancing is likely to lose the chance at +200. EW might do better, though. Suppose that EW double when they can collect 300, and otherwise bid on to 3H when they can make nine tricks or more, half the time. Then balancing will improve the NS score 76 times out of 100 in the AI case and 74 times out of 100 in the UI case. The assumptions I made were conservative in that they ignored a couple factors that argue in favor of balancing being the legal action. I did not assume that the UI implied that South was 4-4 in the majors, though that seems to be the shape likeliest to give him a problem. That would make balancing less attractive. I did not take into account that South might bid 3N, which will tend to be a poor spot, with some 20+ HCP hands. I conclude that, just as the AC contended, the UI did not suggest balancing over passing. This is an unusual case. See my comments for NABC+ Case 8 for my view as to why that case is different. The factors present there seem more typical. AW From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 6 06:15:13 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:15:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0806051729wf282b34o2fb1357660324d9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0806051729wf282b34o2fb1357660324d9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0806052115p7bc00760g746d0949fe7572b8@mail.gmail.com> I hope someone will kindly explain to me this inference mentioned in non-NABC+ case 4: (I "knew" that 3D was not a cue bid was a common statement.) How can West deduce after East's double that North's hand is inconsistent with South's description of 3D? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 6 02:29:39 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 19:29:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] My draft comments on the non-NABC+ cases from Detroit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0806051729wf282b34o2fb1357660324d9d@mail.gmail.com> I hope someone will kindly justify this inference mentioned in non-NABC+ case 4: (I "knew" that 3D* *was not a cue bid was a common statement.) How can West deduce with such great certainty after East's double that North's hand is inconsistent with South's description of 3D? Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080605/c17b38cb/attachment.htm From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Jun 6 08:57:58 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:57:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4848DFF6.7020709@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott: > >>> +=+ 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? +=+ > > Stefanie Rohan: > >> This question is interesting on the surface, but normally there >> will not be a pause for thought. Once a person notices that he has >> pulled a wrong card, he will immediately attempt to change it, or >> call the director, or something. > > Richard Hills: > > Stefanie is talking about the classical Law 25A situation. A > player intended to make a particular call, then "pulled a wrong > card", so the player can revert to their originally intended call > without "pause for thought". > > Grattan, however, is talking about a player who has not yet decided > on their original intention, then "pulled a wrong card", so now > must decide after "pause for thought" what their eventual intention > will be. In Grattan's case Law 25A does not apply, so Law 27 is > all that is left. But since in Grattan's case the insufficient bid > was made without any intent, it does not have any meaning. > > Therefore I would argue that Law 27B1(a) does not apply, since a > meaningless insufficient bid is not "incontrovertibly not > artificial". And also I would argue that Law 27B1(b) does not > apply, since a meaningless call describes the ultimately precise > zero hand types, so any replacement call will automatically be less > precise. i don't follow your logics: a meaningless call doesn't deny any possible hand, so it is compatible with every possible hand, so any replacement call will automatically be more precise. how can we disagree so strongly? jpr > > Ergo, for a Grattanical insufficient bid, the replacement call must > be a Law 27B2 sufficient bid or pass, and partner is barred from the > rest of the auction. > > > 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 > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jun 6 09:29:55 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:29:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] What's your call? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4847A4C2.1040408@ulb.ac.be> References: <4847A4C2.1040408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 05/06/2008, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > It is irrelevant what South would always bid if North > > had not hesitated. Once UI is transmitted, South > > must choose a non-suggested Logical Alternative - in > > this case Pass - even if South would always choose > > the other Logical Alternative of 3S without the > > hesitation. > > > > > AG : that's a very important point, and I hope we'll all agree on that. > But TDs and ACs shall always remember that what constitutes a Logical > Alternative depends on the pair's agreements. > For example, for pairs who have the (perfectly logical) agreement that > "doubles in complex auctions are penalties behind the bid, optional in > front of it" , there willl be no Logical Alternative to pulling the > double. Not to speak of those who would have agreed that such a double > is for takeout. > > Once again, we aren't allowed to answer the question without specific > information on the pair's system. > As in the Transfer Preempt case, I'm uneasy with the fact that many of > us condemned South without asking NS what the double meant in *their* > system. > I agree with that, Alain, provided they can come up with written documentation of their agreements or meta agreements. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > Best regards > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 6 09:34:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:34:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4843E781.5030703@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >But let's just get back to the original point: In cases where one >player attempts to use an undiscussed call to show a particular hand, >the undiscussed call can be considered systemic - without needing to >doubt the veracity of it being undiscussed. Richard Hills: I agree with Herman. The defining difference between an explicit mutual partnership understanding and an implicit mutual partnership understanding is that the implicit mutual partnership understanding was not explicitly discussed by the partnership. Law 40A1(a): "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." Herman De Wael: >This is even more the case when the partner apparently recognises >the hand being shown. In those cases, "undiscussed" while true, >should not be considered a full explanation. Richard Hills: I disagree with Herman. In my opinion, Herman should not have written "In those cases" but "In some of those cases". In my opinion, the situation is analogous to so-called "fielding" of a so-called "psyche". In some cases the alleged psyche is actually a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) pseudo- psyche, and the pseudo-psycher's partner is bidding systemically in response to the CPU. In other circumstances the alleged psyche is a real psyche, and "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" (Law 40C1). In those circumstances it is legal for partner to field the psyche via lucky guesswork or the logic of the auction. Likewise, it is legal for partner to field a truly non-agreed call via lucky guesswork or the logic of the auction. And such post facto fielding does not mutate the non-agreed call into a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. (However, a new mutual partnership understanding has now been created for _future_ auctions.) 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 Fri Jun 6 09:41:53 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:41:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> Message-ID: On 06/06/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > > >>+=+ 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? +=+ > > Stefanie Rohan: > > >This question is interesting on the surface, but normally there > >will not be a pause for thought. Once a person notices that he has > >pulled a wrong card, he will immediately attempt to change it, or > >call the director, or something. > > Richard Hills: > > Stefanie is talking about the classical Law 25A situation. A > player intended to make a particular call, then "pulled a wrong > card", so the player can revert to their originally intended call > without "pause for thought". > > Grattan, however, is talking about a player who has not yet decided > on their original intention, then "pulled a wrong card", so now > must decide after "pause for thought" what their eventual intention > will be. In Grattan's case Law 25A does not apply, so Law 27 is > all that is left. But since in Grattan's case the insufficient bid > was made without any intent, it does not have any meaning. > > Therefore I would argue that Law 27B1(a) does not apply, since a > meaningless insufficient bid is not "incontrovertibly not > artificial". And also I would argue that Law 27B1(b) does not > apply, since a meaningless call describes the ultimately precise > zero hand types, so any replacement call will automatically be less > precise. I think you've got this one backward, Richard. If a bid has no meaning at all, it could be made with any holding IMO. Thus any replacemant call would be more precise - having a meaning. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Ergo, for a Grattanical insufficient bid, the replacement call must > be a Law 27B2 sufficient bid or pass, and partner is barred from the > rest of the auction. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jun 6 10:38:25 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:38:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4848F781.7020305@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> But let's just get back to the original point: In cases where one >> player attempts to use an undiscussed call to show a particular hand, >> the undiscussed call can be considered systemic - without needing to >> doubt the veracity of it being undiscussed. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Herman. The defining difference between an explicit > mutual partnership understanding and an implicit mutual partnership > understanding is that the implicit mutual partnership understanding > was not explicitly discussed by the partnership. > Great! I have finally managed to put my views into words Richard can agree with. > Law 40A1(a): > > "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a > partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly > through mutual experience or awareness of the players." > > Herman De Wael: > >> This is even more the case when the partner apparently recognises >> the hand being shown. In those cases, "undiscussed" while true, >> should not be considered a full explanation. > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree with Herman. In my opinion, Herman should not have > written "In those cases" but "In some of those cases". > Let's see: > In my opinion, the situation is analogous to so-called "fielding" > of a so-called "psyche". In some cases the alleged psyche is > actually a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) pseudo- > psyche, and the pseudo-psycher's partner is bidding systemically in > response to the CPU. > That's correct. > In other circumstances the alleged psyche is a real psyche, and > "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than > have the opponents" (Law 40C1). In those circumstances it is > legal for partner to field the psyche via lucky guesswork or the > logic of the auction. > That's also true. But how is the TD going to distinguish the "lucky guess" from the CPU? > Likewise, it is legal for partner to field a truly non-agreed > call via lucky guesswork or the logic of the auction. Lucky guesswork : yes Logic of the auction : NO - that would clearly be an implicit understanding. > And such > post facto fielding does not mutate the non-agreed call into a > pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. (However, a new > mutual partnership understanding has now been created for > _future_ auctions.) > If we're only talking about lucky guesswork, then your statement is true, but I repeat: how is the TD going to make the difference between lucky guesswork and logical deduction? How, in fact, are the players going to make the difference? "Yes, I felt that was what you were trying to say". What is a "feeling"? Is it a lucky guess, or is it knowing your partner too well? I don't believe in ESP, and even if it existed, it must be UI! > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 6 11:25:30 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:25:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> Message-ID: <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> Therefore I would argue that Law 27B1(a) does not apply, since a >> meaningless insufficient bid is not "incontrovertibly not >> artificial". And also I would argue that Law 27B1(b) does not >> apply, since a meaningless call describes the ultimately precise >> zero hand types, so any replacement call will automatically be less >> precise. > +=+ In his seminar paper on the subject Max Bavin refers to the issue of a wrong bidding card pulled by mistake. He says that the TD needs to be satisfied this is what happened. He observes that Law 25A will sometimes apply. (With bidding cards there is no 'pause for thought' if the player reacts as soon as he notices what he has done.) Max allows the player to replace his IB (which has no meaning) with his intended call when the Director decides there has been a pause for thought, and applies 27B1(b). See his comment at (b) on page 5 of his paper. I would expect the Director to be vigilant for the potential that, given the player's holding, the IB could have been intended by a player who did not realize it was insufficient. His page 6 section on 'misbids and fielded misbids' should also be read. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 6 11:48:54 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:48:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <4848DFF6.7020709@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <003201c8c7ba$b4e04420$93d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency > i don't follow your logics: a meaningless call doesn't deny any possible hand, so it is compatible with every possible hand, so any replacement call will automatically be more precise. how can we disagree so strongly? jpr > +=+ We are dealing with the situation where the player claims he pulled the wrong bidding card and the Director considers 25A does not apply. I agree with Jean-Pierre and I believe Max Bavin also agrees with him. The caveat is that the Director must be satisfied that it was an unintended call. A player should not be allowed to claim inadvertency when in the judgement of the Director the player made the call purposefully being under a false impression as to the level of the auction. If in difficulty to resolve the question there is always Law 85B. Subsequently bear in mind what Max has to say regarding misbids and fielded misbids. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jun 6 12:36:14 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 22:36:14 +1200 Subject: [blml] New ABF regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4848F781.7020305@skynet.be> References: <4848F781.7020305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560806060336t2b6fc3fbtcff3843f9b51b1c4@mail.gmail.com> 2008/6/6 Herman De Wael : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Herman De Wael: >> >>> But let's just get back to the original point: In cases where one >>> player attempts to use an undiscussed call to show a particular hand, >>> the undiscussed call can be considered systemic - without needing to >>> doubt the veracity of it being undiscussed. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I agree with Herman. The defining difference between an explicit >> mutual partnership understanding and an implicit mutual partnership >> understanding is that the implicit mutual partnership understanding >> was not explicitly discussed by the partnership. >> > > Great! I have finally managed to put my views into words Richard can > agree with. > >> Law 40A1(a): >> >> "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a >> partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly >> through mutual experience or awareness of the players." >> >> Herman De Wael: >> >>> This is even more the case when the partner apparently recognises >>> the hand being shown. In those cases, "undiscussed" while true, >>> should not be considered a full explanation. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I disagree with Herman. In my opinion, Herman should not have >> written "In those cases" but "In some of those cases". >> > > Let's see: > >> In my opinion, the situation is analogous to so-called "fielding" >> of a so-called "psyche". In some cases the alleged psyche is >> actually a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) pseudo- >> psyche, and the pseudo-psycher's partner is bidding systemically in >> response to the CPU. >> > > That's correct. > >> In other circumstances the alleged psyche is a real psyche, and >> "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than >> have the opponents" (Law 40C1). In those circumstances it is >> legal for partner to field the psyche via lucky guesswork or the >> logic of the auction. >> > > That's also true. > But how is the TD going to distinguish the "lucky guess" from the CPU? > >> Likewise, it is legal for partner to field a truly non-agreed >> call via lucky guesswork or the logic of the auction. > > Lucky guesswork : yes > Logic of the auction : NO - that would clearly be an implicit > understanding. > Wrong. The logic of the auction may be logic based on information from the opponent's call subsequent to partner's action for which there is no agreement. Wayne From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri Jun 6 13:50:08 2008 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:50:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land In-Reply-To: <3af701c8c6af$8c6ba360$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> References: <1XFJxgaufHRIFwFu@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> <72cd01c8c520$099a1f60$55719951@stefanie> <00ad01c8c561$18149200$2fd0403e@Mildred> <3af701c8c6af$8c6ba360$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: Am 05.06.2008, 03:57 Uhr, schrieb Stefanie Rohan : > > But as Bob Geller has stated in relation to Japan, prohibiting the > questions > would have been useless anyway, as there is no penalty. Austria has decided to allow the question, for the same reason. As the only "rectification" after an illegal question would be a score adjustment under Law 12, based on the likely outcome of the deal had the revoke become established, we felt that to be beyond what one might reasonably expect of a - playing - club TD. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas revolution?rem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 6 14:53:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 08:53:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> <38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:25:10 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> What does "the perspective of the table" mean? There are four >> "perspective(s) of the players at the table"; how exactly do they >> combine into a single "perspective"? > > By table perspective, I meant what can be known about the insufficient > bidder's hand from just seeing the auction. When there are two (or > more) > reasonable reasons for the insufficient bid, the table perspective > is less > informationally specific than the insufficient bidder's intended > meaning. > So it allows more L27B1(b) corrections, though fewer L27B1(a) > corrections. > > For example, the auction is 2D - 2C. From the table's perspective, > this > could be intended as an overcall (mixing up the suits) or as a strong > artificial opening (not seeing the opening bid). So from the table's > perspective the 2C bid is not incontrovertibly natural. > > Or suppose the auction is 1C - 1S - 1H. The player has actually > mixed up > the suits and thought he was showing 5 hearts. So from the player's > perspective, the negative double would not be allowed under L27B1 > (b). But > from the table's perspective, the insufficient bidder probably > didn't see > the 1S overcall, so the negative double would be allowed under L27B1 > (b) as > meaning the same or being more specific. > > And once it is made, the insufficient bid has no UI so it makes > sense that > partner is not barred. That is what I meant when I said the logic of > L27B1(b) fits the table perspective. I see two problems with this approach. (1) Different tables will have different "perspectives", leading to different rulings in apparently identical situations. (2) The "perspective of the table" could fail to include the actual "meaning" of the IB, or could add superfluous ones (as in Robert's 2C example), either possibly depriving the IBer of a penalty-free correction to which he would appear to be patently entitled. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 6 14:56:57 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 08:56:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <3d6401c8c764$b1632160$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> References: <3d6401c8c764$b1632160$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: <3132EC39-2977-4D25-8151-C2CCF0AA4649@starpower.net> On Jun 5, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> Richard Hills: >> >> That is, the insufficient bidder truthfully tells her original >> intent to >> the >> TD. If the original intent (a.k.a. possible meanings of the >> insufficient >> bid) causes all possible replacement calls to bar her partner from >> the >> rest >> of the auction, then c'est la vie. > > I am sure that this cannot be legal. And if it is, I know for sure > that I > would never tell my intention (if i should ever make my first > insufficient > bid), and hope that others would not either. And would certainly, when > directing, tell the player that revealing his intention would not > be in his > best interests. If the director instructs you to reveal your intention, you have no right to refuse to do so. L90B8. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 6 17:17:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:17:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <3d7a01c8c765$68514500$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred><3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> <9DCFFA53-D8EE-4DB6-BE57-9E15FF9CC123@starpower.net> <3d7a01c8c765$68514500$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >>> Still pretty confused about the IBer's "intention". What if there >>> is no >>> penalty-free correction if IBer had one intention, say opening the >>> bidding, >>> but there is a PFC if he had intended to respond to partner's bid, >>> and, say, >>> missed the intervention. The "information" conveyed is the same, >>> and the >>> partner should be allowed the PFC no matter what his original >>> "intention" >>> was. So he and the director must try several possible "intentions" >>> in their >>> search for PFC's. Right? > >> Eric Landau > >> ISTM that can't be right, because how is the TD to determine those >> "several possible 'intentions'" he "must try"? Either he must >> determine the actual intention, or he must "try" *all* "possible >> intentions", which, in any but the simplest auctions, would be a >> prohibitively complex and time-consuming task. > > But that is the director's problem. The Law does not mention > anything about > the meaning of the bid being tangled up with the IBer's > "intention". The > latter is not a matter of Laws, and obviously it would behoove a > player not > to reveal this, at least until he knows what his RCs are. I don't see how you can untangle them. In isolation, an IB is meaningless, but we cannot apply L27B1 without imparting some "meaning" to it. If that is not to be the meaning intended by the IBer, it will then have to be some arbitrary meaning assigned by the TD for whatever idiosyncratic reasons he might have at the time. Nor do I see anything in L27B1 to suggest that "meaning" was intended to designate some sort of union or intersection of multiple possible meanings. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 6 17:36:39 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:36:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> Message-ID: On Jun 6, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 06/06/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au > wrote: >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>>> +=+ 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? +=+ >> >> Stefanie Rohan: >> >>> This question is interesting on the surface, but normally there >>> will not be a pause for thought. Once a person notices that he has >>> pulled a wrong card, he will immediately attempt to change it, or >>> call the director, or something. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Stefanie is talking about the classical Law 25A situation. A >> player intended to make a particular call, then "pulled a wrong >> card", so the player can revert to their originally intended call >> without "pause for thought". >> >> Grattan, however, is talking about a player who has not yet decided >> on their original intention, then "pulled a wrong card", so now >> must decide after "pause for thought" what their eventual intention >> will be. In Grattan's case Law 25A does not apply, so Law 27 is >> all that is left. But since in Grattan's case the insufficient bid >> was made without any intent, it does not have any meaning. >> >> Therefore I would argue that Law 27B1(a) does not apply, since a >> meaningless insufficient bid is not "incontrovertibly not >> artificial". And also I would argue that Law 27B1(b) does not >> apply, since a meaningless call describes the ultimately precise >> zero hand types, so any replacement call will automatically be less >> precise. > > I think you've got this one backward, Richard. If a bid has no meaning > at all, it could be made with any holding IMO. Thus any replacemant > call would be more precise - having a meaning. L27B1 requires the TD ("in [his] opinion") to ascribe a meaning to the IB. "No meaning" is *not* a meaning to which L27B1 can be applied. {more precise than} is a logical relationship. The relationship "A {more precise than} B" has a value of either [true] or [false], but "A {more precise than} [null]" has the value [null]. Richard is right: if the IB is "meaningless", L27B1 cannot apply to it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 7 08:11:02 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 02:11:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> <38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:53:22 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:25:10 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> What does "the perspective of the table" mean? There are four >>> "perspective(s) of the players at the table"; how exactly do they >>> combine into a single "perspective"? >> >> By table perspective, I meant what can be known about the insufficient >> bidder's hand from just seeing the auction. When there are two (or >> more) >> reasonable reasons for the insufficient bid, the table perspective >> is less >> informationally specific than the insufficient bidder's intended >> meaning. >> So it allows more L27B1(b) corrections, though fewer L27B1(a) >> corrections. >> >> For example, the auction is 2D - 2C. From the table's perspective, >> this >> could be intended as an overcall (mixing up the suits) or as a strong >> artificial opening (not seeing the opening bid). So from the table's >> perspective the 2C bid is not incontrovertibly natural. >> >> Or suppose the auction is 1C - 1S - 1H. The player has actually >> mixed up >> the suits and thought he was showing 5 hearts. So from the player's >> perspective, the negative double would not be allowed under L27B1 >> (b). But >> from the table's perspective, the insufficient bidder probably >> didn't see >> the 1S overcall, so the negative double would be allowed under L27B1 >> (b) as >> meaning the same or being more specific. >> >> And once it is made, the insufficient bid has no UI so it makes >> sense that >> partner is not barred. That is what I meant when I said the logic of >> L27B1(b) fits the table perspective. > > I see two problems with this approach. (1) Different tables will > have different "perspectives", leading to different rulings in > apparently identical situations. (2) The "perspective of the table" > could fail to include the actual "meaning" of the IB, or could add > superfluous ones (as in Robert's 2C example), either possibly > depriving the IBer of a penalty-free correction to which he would > appear to be patently entitled. > > > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 7 08:21:20 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 02:21:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> <38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:53:22 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:25:10 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> What does "the perspective of the table" mean? There are four >>> "perspective(s) of the players at the table"; how exactly do they >>> combine into a single "perspective"? >> >> By table perspective, I meant what can be known about the insufficient >> bidder's hand from just seeing the auction. When there are two (or >> more) >> reasonable reasons for the insufficient bid, the table perspective >> is less >> informationally specific than the insufficient bidder's intended >> meaning. >> So it allows more L27B1(b) corrections, though fewer L27B1(a) >> corrections. >> >> For example, the auction is 2D - 2C. From the table's perspective, >> this >> could be intended as an overcall (mixing up the suits) or as a strong >> artificial opening (not seeing the opening bid). So from the table's >> perspective the 2C bid is not incontrovertibly natural. >> >> Or suppose the auction is 1C - 1S - 1H. The player has actually >> mixed up >> the suits and thought he was showing 5 hearts. So from the player's >> perspective, the negative double would not be allowed under L27B1 >> (b). But >> from the table's perspective, the insufficient bidder probably >> didn't see >> the 1S overcall, so the negative double would be allowed under L27B1 >> (b) as >> meaning the same or being more specific. >> >> And once it is made, the insufficient bid has no UI so it makes >> sense that >> partner is not barred. That is what I meant when I said the logic of >> L27B1(b) fits the table perspective. > > I see two problems with this approach. (1) Different tables will > have different "perspectives", leading to different rulings in > apparently identical situations. (2) The "perspective of the table" > could fail to include the actual "meaning" of the IB, or could add > superfluous ones (as in Robert's 2C example), either possibly > depriving the IBer of a penalty-free correction to which he would > appear to be patently entitled. I don't think the "table perspective" should actually be used; I am just trying to explain it. When you come to the table and see that 2S has been overcalled with 2C, the 2C bid could be artificial for all you know so far. You can allow a correction to 3C only after you look in the insufficient bidder's hand to find out his intention, or ask his intention. Only then does the 2C bid become incontrovertably not conventional/artificial. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 8 12:01:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 11:01:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred><3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie><38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c8c94f$5a2e6b10$88c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. > I don't think the "table perspective" should actually be used; I am just trying to explain it. When you come to the table and see that 2S has been overcalled with 2C, the 2C bid could be artificial for all you know so far. You can allow a correction to 3C only after you look in the insufficient bidder's hand to find out his intention, or ask his intention. Only then does the 2C bid become incontrovertably not conventional/artificial. > +=+ I am not clear what is being suggested about the "table perception". The NOS are not entitled to discuss with each other what is the perception of each of them about the IB. The players at the table are not allowed such a discussion. EBL Directors are told that the offender should not indicate what he thought he was doing and the Director should warn him that he may create UI for his partner if he does. The official EBL (Zone 1) guidance to its Directors is that the LHO is not entitled to know (but is entitled to guess) what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB. The LHO is entitled to know full details of his opponents' system (and may ask supplementary questions about it); he is also entitled to know the Law (and may ask the Director for any clarification of it.). Only after the LHO has rejected the IB does the TD take the offender away from the table and ask him what he was trying to do (away from the table because it is knowledge to be denied to the other three players). Still away from the table, the Director then advises the offender of his options - in particular which calls, if any, will allow the auction to proceed without further rectification. (If the call is to be allowed under 27B1(b) this is likely to call for a detailed discussion and analysis of the player's system. The key question for the Director is "Would all hands that might make the new call (the RC) have also made the old call - the insufficient bid?".) The offender then makes his choice of replacement call at the table and the Director informs the table as a whole whether the partner is silenced. If the offender subsequently becomes a defender Law 26 lead restrictions may apply. (This is a subject potentially for review at the next WBF LC meeting.) At the end of the play the Director may well need to judge whether there is any reason to adjust the score. In general terms and in the absence of a Law 16B type UI: - if the IB has been accepted there should be no problem. - if partner has been silenced (and Law 23 does not apply) all should be well. In particular note that when partner is silenced 'rub of the green' or 'just being lucky' is acceptable and Law 27D does not then apply. [Note that if the offender claims he had simply pulled out the wrong bidding card by mistake the TD needs to satisfy himself fully this is really the case. In that event, either under Law 25A if it applies or under 25B1 the change to his original intention is allowable.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jun 8 12:36:56 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:36:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <000201c8c94f$5a2e6b10$88c8403e@Mildred> References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred><3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie><38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> <000201c8c94f$5a2e6b10$88c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <484BB648.2040209@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ I am not clear what is being suggested about the > "table perception". The NOS are not entitled to discuss > with each other what is the perception of each of them > about the IB. The players at the table are not allowed > such a discussion. > EBL Directors are told that the offender should not > indicate what he thought he was doing and the Director > should warn him that he may create UI for his partner if > he does. > The official EBL (Zone 1) guidance to its Directors is > that the LHO is not entitled to know (but is entitled to guess) > what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB. > The LHO is entitled to know full details of his opponents' > system (and may ask supplementary questions about it); > he is also entitled to know the Law (and may ask the > Director for any clarification of it.). I have no problem with this being the official guidance, but I would like TDs to see how this works in practice. I suspect that within a year or so, we'll find out that the practice is unworkable, or, at the very least, unfavourable to NOs. I would like to see the guidance being re-evaluated in about one year's time. > Only after the LHO has rejected the IB does the TD > take the offender away from the table and ask him what > he was trying to do (away from the table because it is > knowledge to be denied to the other three players). Still > away from the table, the Director then advises the offender > of his options - in particular which calls, if any, will allow the > auction to proceed without further rectification. (If the call > is to be allowed under 27B1(b) this is likely to call for a > detailed discussion and analysis of the player's system. The > key question for the Director is "Would all hands that might > make the new call (the RC) have also made the old call - the > insufficient bid?".) > The offender then makes his choice of replacement call > at the table and the Director informs the table as a whole > whether the partner is silenced. At which point the original intention becomes clear to all three players (very often) and the partner is able to use the information, since it is no longer UI. The LHO did not have the same information, though. > If the offender subsequently becomes a defender Law 26 > lead restrictions may apply. (This is a subject potentially for > review at the next WBF LC meeting.) > At the end of the play the Director may well need to judge > whether there is any reason to adjust the score. In general > terms and in the absence of a Law 16B type UI: > - if the IB has been accepted there should be no problem. > - if partner has been silenced (and Law 23 does not apply) > all should be well. In particular note that when partner is > silenced 'rub of the green' or 'just being lucky' is acceptable > and Law 27D does not then apply. > > [Note that if the offender claims he had simply pulled out the > wrong bidding card by mistake the TD needs to satisfy himself > fully this is really the case. In that event, either under Law 25A > if it applies or under 25B1 the change to his original intention is > allowable.] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 8 15:09:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:09:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred><3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie><38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> <000201c8c94f$5a2e6b10$88c8403e@Mildred> <484BB648.2040209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007701c8c971$71c12570$88c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> The official EBL (Zone 1) guidance to its Directors is >> that the LHO is not entitled to know (but is entitled to guess) >> what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB. >> The LHO is entitled to know full details of his opponents' >> system (and may ask supplementary questions about it); >> he is also entitled to know the Law (and may ask the >> Director for any clarification of it.). > > I have no problem with this being the official guidance, but I would > like TDs to see how this works in practice. I suspect that within a > year or so, we'll find out that the practice is unworkable, or, at the > very least, unfavourable to NOs. I would like to see the guidance > being re-evaluated in about one year's time. > +=+ It would depend on the extent to which this is agreed to be the meaning of the law. The current belief is that there will be no rewriting of the text of the law as early as 2009. However, we can leave future history to roll itself out. Max Bavin's lecture to European NBO trainers of TDs last week made a point that may be of interest. He observed that following a Director's ruling that a given RC complies with the criteria of 27B1(b) if it makes good bridge sense for the offender to make a slight misbid rather than gamble on a final contract via a call that will silence partner, the law does not preclude his action. Furthermore, if there is no UI, it is general bridge knowledge [Law 16A1(d)] for the partner that such a misbid may occur and he may cater for the possibility. Law 27D may apply in such a case if the player does misbid or, whether he does misbid or not, if the partner attempts to cater for it. Max points out that under 27D the adjustments are different from Law 16 type adjustments - 27D adjustments is back to the probable outcome of the board had the IB never occurred in the first place. In a Law 27D adjustment if a weighted score is permitted by the RA it may include an element of the actual table result. In a Law 16B adjustment this is not the case. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 8 21:12:48 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:12:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <000201c8c94f$5a2e6b10$88c8403e@Mildred> References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred> <3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> <38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> <000201c8c94f$5a2e6b10$88c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 06:01:35 -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: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:21 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. > > >> > I don't think the "table perspective" should actually > be used; I am just trying to explain it. When you come > to the table and see that 2S has been overcalled with > 2C, the 2C bid could be artificial for all you know so > far. You can allow a correction to 3C only after you > look in the insufficient bidder's hand to find out his > intention, or ask his intention. Only then does the 2C > bid become incontrovertably not conventional/artificial. >> > +=+ I am not clear what is being suggested about the > "table perception". The NOS are not entitled to discuss > with each other what is the perception of each of them > about the IB. The players at the table are not allowed > such a discussion. > EBL Directors are told that the offender should not > indicate what he thought he was doing and the Director > should warn him that he may create UI for his partner if > he does. > The official EBL (Zone 1) guidance to its Directors is > that the LHO is not entitled to know (but is entitled to guess) > what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB. > The LHO is entitled to know full details of his opponents' > system (and may ask supplementary questions about it); > he is also entitled to know the Law (and may ask the > Director for any clarification of it.). > Only after the LHO has rejected the IB does the TD > take the offender away from the table and ask him what > he was trying to do (away from the table because it is > knowledge to be denied to the other three players). Still > away from the table, the Director then advises the offender > of his options - in particular which calls, if any, will allow the > auction to proceed without further rectification. (If the call > is to be allowed under 27B1(b) this is likely to call for a > detailed discussion and analysis of the player's system. The > key question for the Director is "Would all hands that might > make the new call (the RC) have also made the old call - the > insufficient bid?".) > The offender then makes his choice of replacement call > at the table and the Director informs the table as a whole > whether the partner is silenced. > If the offender subsequently becomes a defender Law 26 > lead restrictions may apply. (This is a subject potentially for > review at the next WBF LC meeting.) > At the end of the play the Director may well need to judge > whether there is any reason to adjust the score. In general > terms and in the absence of a Law 16B type UI: > - if the IB has been accepted there should be no problem. > - if partner has been silenced (and Law 23 does not apply) > all should be well. In particular note that when partner is > silenced 'rub of the green' or 'just being lucky' is acceptable > and Law 27D does not then apply. > [Note that if the offender claims he had simply pulled out the > wrong bidding card by mistake the TD needs to satisfy himself > fully this is really the case. In that event, either under Law 25A > if it applies or under 25B1 the change to his original intention is > allowable.] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think it is useful to understand table perspective, because I think it will be seductive. You go to the table the auction is 2NT - P - 2C. LHO rejects the bid. You, and anyone else including the players at the table, can make some reasonable inferences about the insufficient bidders hand, based on just the auction. That is what I have been calling the table perspective. In this case, the 2C bid is probably Stayman, but I suppose it could be an opening 2C bid. Or as Eric notes, it could have many improbably intended meanings. The insufficient bidder now wants to change the bid to 3C. Do you allow that as nonbarring? From the perspective of 27B1(b), this seems good. Once the bid is changed to 3C, the 2C IB loses all informational value. This is because the meaning of the 3C is more informationally specific than the meaning of the 2C bid, FROM THE TABLE'S PERSPECTIVE. So, by the logic underlying 27B1(b), you might want to accept it as nonbarring. Plus, I think there are at least some directors who do not like to look in a player's hand. So this is very tempting. According to Max, and I agree, the director should take the player aside and find out the intended meaning of the 2C bid. If the player meant to bid Stayman (or Puppet Stayman) over a 2NT opening and just erred on the level, all is well. But if the player meant to bid Stayman over a 1NT opening, then it is not so clear. Max opined (as I remember) that the 3C RC would not satisfy 27B1(b). So, the underlying logic of 27B1(b) suggests, at least to me, use of the table perspective, not the intended meaning of the insufficient bidder. Using table perspective is a lot harder because of the multiple possible meanings. Also the players have nonverbal cues which will probably help decipher the meaning of the insufficient bid. So it would be difficult to use table perspective for 27Ba(b). I believe table perspective was not used in the old laws -- for 2S - 2C, directors did not automatically say that the 2C IB could be artificial because it could have been an opening 2C. So, given that 27B1(a) will be based on the intended meaning (I think) of the insufficient bid, it would be very awkward to base 27B1(b) on the table perspective. From jpgss at uq.net.au Mon Jun 9 01:33:14 2008 From: jpgss at uq.net.au (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:33:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <009301c8c9c0$22a26130$75e765cb@your3dbe17a7c0> Stefanie Rohan: >Still pretty confused about the IBer's "intention". What if there is no >penalty-free correction if IBer had one intention, say opening the bidding, >but there is a PFC if he had intended to respond to partner's bid, and, >say, missed the intervention. The "information" conveyed is the same, and >the partner should be allowed the PFC no matter what his original >"intention" was. So he and the director must try several possible >"intentions" in their search for PFC's. Right? Richard Hills: In Zone 1 (and Zone 7) wrong. Max Bavin, Zone 1 interpretation of Law 27: >>If the IB is rejected, the TD will need to establish what the offender was >>trying to do ***when he made it***. He will almost inevitably need to do >>this away from the table in order that the other three players remain >>unaware of the reason. The TD ***then*** advises the player of his >>options (still away from the table) Richard Hills: That is, the insufficient bidder truthfully tells her original intent to the TD. If the original intent (a.k.a. possible meanings of the insufficient bid) causes all possible replacement calls to bar her partner from the rest of the auction, then c'est la vie. Jan Peach: How can "original intent"singular be a.k.a. "possible meanings" plural? There is only one intended meaning and only the offender knows it for certain. The other 3 players deduce the possible meanings which would usually include the intended meaning. Could not the WBFLC have used the singular "meaning" had they intended (sorry) only one meaning to be considered? Had the WBFLC meant the intended meaning they could so easily have written, "that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning * as, or a more precise meaning* than what the insufficient bid was intended to mean....." Is there some indication that the WBF is to issue a clarification that "several possible" means "the one intended"? Why has "intended" become so important when it doesn't even appear in Law 27B1(b)? ISTM that some zones have already rewritten 27B1(b). ISTM that the only reason for the director to enquire about the intended meaning would be to make sure it is on the list of possible meanings. The concept of posssible meanings plural is easily understood and permits more auctions to continue "normally". Players should not be in a position that telling untruths will get a better RC for their side. Jan From adam at tameware.com Mon Jun 9 07:25:59 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 01:25:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <694eadd40806052007j5cc36067w72923a647c105480@mail.gmail.com> References: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805310830i486e821dyd0be71a8eb27fcb7@mail.gmail.com> <000601c8c337$7b194390$714bcab0$@com> <008501c8c4b1$b3a660a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <694eadd40806052007j5cc36067w72923a647c105480@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40806082225p27266f17p8240566c168a8abe@mail.gmail.com> Here's my second draft. Thanks to everyone who wrote! The spreadsheet I refer to was incomplete for a while -- I've fixed it. ============ This case gave me fits. It's the most difficult I've seen in a while. Was there UI? Yes, South's hesitation was unmistakable. What did the hesitation suggest? Let's agree that it suggested a strong hand, perhaps 20 HCP or more. What were the logical alternatives? Let's take for granted that both Pass and 3C would be logical -- I'm confident that many of North's peers would choose each. Law 16 then instructs us to adjust the score if and only if the UI could demonstrably suggest 3C over Pass. South made a sophisticated argument to the committee that the UI suggested passing, and that in his judgment the laws required his partner to bid. This sounded implausible to me, and to many others, so I set out to see what I could demonstrate. I started by constructing various layouts of the unseen hands. I wondered whether the AC might have been unduly influenced by the actual layout, which was such a misfit for EW. I gave West a more balanced pattern and then looked to see how transferring five points or so from EW to South would affect the results. I had trouble coming up with even one deal whether giving South more points made balancing more attractive. I've no doubt I could have done so had I persevered, but I decided instead to take a different approach. I purchased simulation software, Dealmaster Pro, which includes a version of the Deep Finesse double-dummy analyzer. I learned how to use it and then set up two simulations of 100 deals each. For those who are interested I've posted the criteria I used, along with all 200 generated deals and the double-dummy results playing in hearts and clubs: http://tinyurl.com/6ky35y I realize that double-dummy results need not mimic real life, but I found the exercise informative. If the UI improves the expectation for balancing double-dummy I'd expect that it would also improve it in real life. What did I learn? It depends on the assumptions one makes. If EW always pass out 3C then balancing is a big winner overall, and the UI makes balancing substantially *less* attractive. That's for precisely the reason given by the appellants, that balancing is likely to lose the chance at +200. EW might do better, though. Suppose that EW double when they can collect 300, and otherwise bid on to 3H when they can make nine tricks or more, half the time. Then balancing will improve the NS score 76 times out of 100 in the AI case and 74 times out of 100 in the UI case. The UI still makes balancing less attractive. The assumptions I made ignored a couple factors that argue in favor of balancing being the legal action, and a couple that argue against it. I did not assume that the UI implied that South was 4-4 in the majors, though that seems to be the shape likeliest to give him a problem. I did not take into account that South might bid 3N, which will tend to be a poor spot, with some 20+ HCP hands. Contrariwise, I did not take into account that EW might bid and make 4H after the balance. That's not at all likely if South has 20 HCP, but could happen occasionally when South has less. The exact figures don't matter, since North is not a computer and can't run a simulation like this at the table. They simply helped me judge whether South's contention, that North knew he was giving up a realistic shot at +200, was reasonable. The simulation makes it seem reasonable enough. The question is whether you buy that a player looking at the North hand would believe that at the table. I like the TD's ruling. South's hesitation was a bad one. To play methods like these one must be prepared to pass in tempo. It would be wrong to force EW to appeal here. That said, I have no problem with the AC's ruling. It's perfectly plausible to conclude that the UI did not suggest balancing over passing. South's hesitation in a situation where he ought to have known it could cause a problem like this was unfortunate. Some would like to see a procedural penalty assessed in cases like this, but the laws are clear that a hesitation in and of itself is not an infraction. South's incentive to act in tempo is that, in the vast majority of cases where the UI does suggest the winning action over the losing one, his partner will be precluded from taking that winning action. This is an unusual case. See my comments on NABC+ Case 8 for my view as to why that one is different. The factors present there seem more typical. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jun 9 11:57:49 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:57:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? In-Reply-To: <694eadd40806082225p27266f17p8240566c168a8abe@mail.gmail.com> References: <481EC192.6070006@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40805292128t40cbf4b5u311ee77f1b83f384@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40805310830i486e821dyd0be71a8eb27fcb7@mail.gmail.com> <000601c8c337$7b194390$714bcab0$@com> <008501c8c4b1$b3a660a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <694eadd40806052007j5cc36067w72923a647c105480@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40806082225p27266f17p8240566c168a8abe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <484CFE9D.30602@NTLworld.com> Thank you Adam. The analysis of case I is interesting, as far as it goes, but gives little weight to 3 considerations of primary importance: [A] Adam's simulations are enlightening and do help to rationalise a 3C bid but were unavailable to the player at the table. A poll of the player's peers would be more appropriate to judge what are LAs and what action the hesitation suggests :) [B] Richard Hills points out one danger unrated by Adam: opponents can made a mistake or underbid; balancing gives them the chance to recover and bid game. If you know that partner has 20+HCP then it is less likely that opponents have missed anything :) [C] David Burn points out another risk unmentioned by Adam: partner may bid 3N or 5C, hoping that you have more than a 3 count for your re-opening. If you know that partner has 20+HCP then this is less of a calamity because your side is more likely to make game :) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jun 9 12:37:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:37:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 Example Message-ID: <44a101c8ca1c$d8255740$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Here is the auction: 1S-(2D)-1NT 1. I have bid 1NT with KX, J10xx, KJX, AQxxx. I had been daydreaming and missed the whole auction. I had intended to open 1NT. I have no RC that would show a 1NT opener or a more specific hand. Must choose final contract. 2. At the next table, I have the same auction and the same hand. Only this time I noticed partner's opening and thought that my RHO had doubled instead of overcalling 2D. I play transfer responses over this (I actually do in real life), so my 1NT bid shows a transfer to clubs. If I bid 3C, it shows clubs as well, and is more specific, showing, as it does, game-forcing values. So I am allowed a penalty-free correction to 3C. In the first case I should be allowed the same correction. Why does it matter what portion of the auction I actually missed. I think that the "meaning" should be from my partner's perspective. Obviously he cannot be sure initially, since we are not permitted to have agreements about the meaning of insufficient bids. But my choice of RC will make it clear. I do not think that the "meaning" can be from my perspective, since I cannot have attached any meaning at all to the insufficient bid. That auction was illegal. I think that it is extremely poor that there should be a different ruling at each table, when the circumstances, except for a temporary and erroneous state of mind of one of the players, are completely the same. I would, in fact, expect player 1 to give the same reason for his bid as player 2 and would consider him to be illegally dumping if he did not. My views about this Law are well known, but we are stuck with it and it seems perverse to interpret it in any way except for the above. Stefanie Rohan London, England From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Jun 9 13:08:58 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:08:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?L27_Example?= In-Reply-To: <44a101c8ca1c$d8255740$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> References: <44a101c8ca1c$d8255740$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: <1K5fFC-1Gn3q40@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> From: "Stefanie Rohan" > Here is the auction: > > 1S-(2D)-1NT > > 1. I have bid 1NT with KX, J10xx, KJX, AQxxx. I had been daydreaming > and missed the whole auction. I had intended to open 1NT. I have no RC > that would show a 1NT opener or a more specific hand. Must choose > final contract. Not, if you find a TD applying Law 27 B1a. If you play 2NT in this sequence as natural, you might choose to bid this and let partner guess, whether you missed RHO's 2D or the whole auction so far ... [rest snipped (as a consequence)] From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 9 13:17:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:17:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 Example In-Reply-To: <44a101c8ca1c$d8255740$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> References: <44a101c8ca1c$d8255740$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: <484D1163.5010002@skynet.be> Stefanie, You have given an example where, by enourmous chance (minimum for the one bid, maximum for the other, NT distribution with 5-card in the suit the NT bid transfers to) there are two intentions consistent with your hand. Of course that means that if you are awake enough, you can substitute the second intent for the (actual) first, and get away with a penalty-free substitution that you should not have had. However: a) you would be cheating b) this case will not be the most frequent (in fact, I doubt if it will turn up at a table -no cheating!- within the 10 years that this law is due to we working) So I doubt if it can serve as a good example. Your points are quite valid, but I think that the original intent shall be the basis on which to define the "meaning" that we need for L27. Herman. Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Here is the auction: > > 1S-(2D)-1NT > > 1. I have bid 1NT with KX, J10xx, KJX, AQxxx. I had been daydreaming and > missed the whole auction. I had intended to open 1NT. I have no RC that > would show a 1NT opener or a more specific hand. Must choose final contract. > > 2. At the next table, I have the same auction and the same hand. Only this > time I noticed partner's opening and thought that my RHO had doubled instead > of overcalling 2D. I play transfer responses over this (I actually do in > real life), so my 1NT bid shows a transfer to clubs. If I bid 3C, it shows > clubs as well, and is more specific, showing, as it does, game-forcing > values. So I am allowed a penalty-free correction to 3C. > > In the first case I should be allowed the same correction. Why does it > matter what portion of the auction I actually missed. I think that the > "meaning" should be from my partner's perspective. Obviously he cannot be > sure initially, since we are not permitted to have agreements about the > meaning of insufficient bids. But my choice of RC will make it clear. I do > not think that the "meaning" can be from my perspective, since I cannot have > attached any meaning at all to the insufficient bid. That auction was > illegal. > > I think that it is extremely poor that there should be a different ruling at > each table, when the circumstances, except for a temporary and erroneous > state of mind of one of the players, are completely the same. I would, in > fact, expect player 1 to give the same reason for his bid as player 2 and > would consider him to be illegally dumping if he did not. > > My views about this Law are well known, but we are stuck with it and it > seems perverse to interpret it in any way except for the above. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Mon Jun 9 14:51:51 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:51:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> Grattan wrote: >+=+ In his seminar paper on the subject Max Bavin refers to the >issue of a wrong bidding card pulled by mistake. He says that the >TD needs to be satisfied this is what happened. He observes that >Law 25A will sometimes apply. (With bidding cards there is no >'pause for thought' if the player reacts as soon as he notices what >he has done.) > Max allows the player to replace his IB (which has no meaning) >with his intended call when the Director decides there has been a >pause for thought, and applies 27B1(b). See his comment at (b) on >page 5 of his paper. > I would expect the Director to be vigilant for the potential that, >given the player's holding, the IB could have been intended by a >player who did not realize it was insufficient. > His page 6 section on 'misbids and fielded misbids' should >also be read. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >From Max's paper to the EBL > > 2. _N_ _S_ 2NT (20-22) 2C South thought he was responding 2C Stayman to 1NT (15-17). <> a) can South replace his bid with 3C, if this also happens to be Stayman? <> No ? some hands which would bid 3C Stayman would not have bid 2C Stayman. For example, balanced 4-7 counts with a 4-card major. <> b) what if South was just confused or has pulled out the wrong card by mistake ? he was trying to respond 3C in the first place? <> In this case, yes (in fact in some scenarios the change might be permitted under 25A ? but let us assume for the sake of this example that this is not one of them; the attempt to change has not been made without pause for thought). <> Of course, the TD needs to be quite sure that this is really what happened. >From Reg If I may summarise as I see it: after 2NT - 2C one would not normally allow a penalty free replacement to 3C Stayman. One exception: where the 2C was clearly unintended (inadvertent) and meets the requirements of Law 25. But there is one other possibility: if the IBer can convince me that his 2C was unintended (perhaps he was just confused as Max says) even though not covered by Law 25 and that he really intended to bid 3C, then there is something in Law 27 (or its interpretation) that allows me to permit the replacement where Law 25 would not. Of course I must be sceptical, but in most cases even inspecting the player's hand would not be helpful. Yes, I still have resort o 27D, but that doesn't make he decision easier.. Perhaps someone could provide some examples of (a) the sort of hand where one would accept such a claim and (b) the sort of hand where one would not. I can see that we are forced into this position once we have decided as policy that the 'meaning' of the IB is what the IBer meant by his bid. And if the player is adamant that he never meant to bid 2C then his IB has no meaning! We have dug ourselves into a bit of a hole It seems to me that Law 27 is an excellent example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. . Reg Busch >_______________________________________________ >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: 270.0.0/1489 - Release Date: 7/06/2008 11:17 AM > > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 9 15:28:40 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:28:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <000201c8c94f$5a2e6b10$88c8403e@Mildred> References: <002501c8c497$350d0290$c2d4403e@Mildred><3ab501c8c6ac$66317150$5c1f2bd9@stefanie><38E860A4-319F-4A51-905F-CAA3E955A578@starpower.net> <000201c8c94f$5a2e6b10$88c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <1BBCF333-F7E7-4C93-ABE1-A6B0C0C6AE77@starpower.net> On Jun 8, 2008, at 6:01 AM, wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" >> > I don't think the "table perspective" should actually > be used; I am just trying to explain it. When you come > to the table and see that 2S has been overcalled with > 2C, the 2C bid could be artificial for all you know so > far. You can allow a correction to 3C only after you > look in the insufficient bidder's hand to find out his > intention, or ask his intention. Only then does the 2C > bid become incontrovertably not conventional/artificial. >> > +=+ I am not clear what is being suggested about the > "table perception". The NOS are not entitled to discuss > with each other what is the perception of each of them > about the IB. The players at the table are not allowed > such a discussion. > EBL Directors are told that the offender should not > indicate what he thought he was doing and the Director > should warn him that he may create UI for his partner if > he does. > The official EBL (Zone 1) guidance to its Directors is > that the LHO is not entitled to know (but is entitled to guess) > what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB. > The LHO is entitled to know full details of his opponents' > system (and may ask supplementary questions about it); > he is also entitled to know the Law (and may ask the > Director for any clarification of it.). Herman has shown us the problem with this approach. It is a near certainty that LHO will be able to deduce the IBer's intention given (a) sufficient information about the details of his opponents' system, (b) full understanding of the application and ramifications of L27, (c) IBer's choice of RC, and (d) the TD's ruling as to whether the IBer's partner is subsequently barred from the bidding. At this point in the procedure, however, he has no knowledge of (c) or (d), so it behooves him, to maximize his chance of being able to figure out what's going on, to take the time and the effort *now* to learn as much as he possibly can about (a) and (b). But if we let him do that, we will need a time machine to get the game back on schedule. And if we don't, or if we restrict or limit him in doing it, we are putting the NOS at an inherent potential disadvantage as a result of the infraction. We could avoid this dilemma by simply making the information (which the TD must eventually obtain in any case) available up front, rather than forcing the IBer's LHO to go through an uncertain and time-consuming process to ferret it out. > Only after the LHO has rejected the IB does the TD > take the offender away from the table and ask him what > he was trying to do (away from the table because it is > knowledge to be denied to the other three players). Still > away from the table, the Director then advises the offender > of his options - in particular which calls, if any, will allow the > auction to proceed without further rectification. (If the call > is to be allowed under 27B1(b) this is likely to call for a > detailed discussion and analysis of the player's system. The > key question for the Director is "Would all hands that might > make the new call (the RC) have also made the old call - the > insufficient bid?".) > The offender then makes his choice of replacement call > at the table and the Director informs the table as a whole > whether the partner is silenced. > If the offender subsequently becomes a defender Law 26 > lead restrictions may apply. (This is a subject potentially for > review at the next WBF LC meeting.) > At the end of the play the Director may well need to judge > whether there is any reason to adjust the score. In general > terms and in the absence of a Law 16B type UI: > - if the IB has been accepted there should be no problem. > - if partner has been silenced (and Law 23 does not apply) > all should be well. In particular note that when partner is > silenced 'rub of the green' or 'just being lucky' is acceptable > and Law 27D does not then apply. > > [Note that if the offender claims he had simply pulled out the > wrong bidding card by mistake the TD needs to satisfy himself > fully this is really the case. In that event, either under Law 25A > if it applies or under 25B1 the change to his original intention is > allowable.] Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 9 15:34:09 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 15:34:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred> <484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no> On Behalf Of Reg Busch ............... > If I may summarise as I see it: after 2NT - 2C one would not normally > allow a penalty free replacement to 3C Stayman. One exception: where the > 2C was clearly unintended (inadvertent) and meets the requirements of > Law 25. > > But there is one other possibility: if the IBer can convince me that his > 2C was unintended (perhaps he was just confused as Max says) even though > not covered by Law 25 and that he really intended to bid 3C, then there > is something in Law 27 (or its interpretation) that allows me to permit > the replacement where Law 25 would not. Could you be kind enough to tell exactly what you have found in Law 27 that makes the question of an insufficient bid being unintended relevant? Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 9 16:04:11 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:04:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <009301c8c9c0$22a26130$75e765cb@your3dbe17a7c0> References: <009301c8c9c0$22a26130$75e765cb@your3dbe17a7c0> Message-ID: <8B3C9115-5EEA-4A7F-8764-B8B990272F26@starpower.net> On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:33 PM, Jan Peach wrote: > Max Bavin, Zone 1 interpretation of Law 27: > >>> If the IB is rejected, the TD will need to establish what the >>> offender > was >>> trying to do ***when he made it***. He will almost inevitably >>> need to do >>> this away from the table in order that the other three players >>> remain >>> unaware of the reason. The TD ***then*** advises the player of his >>> options (still away from the table) > > Richard Hills: > > That is, the insufficient bidder truthfully tells her original > intent to > the > TD. If the original intent (a.k.a. possible meanings of the > insufficient > bid) causes all possible replacement calls to bar her partner from > the rest > of the auction, then c'est la vie. > > Jan Peach: > How can "original intent"singular be a.k.a. "possible meanings" > plural? > > There is only one intended meaning and only the offender knows it for > certain. The other 3 players deduce the possible meanings which would > usually include the intended meaning. Could not the WBFLC have used > the > singular "meaning" had they intended (sorry) only one meaning to be > considered? > > Had the WBFLC meant the intended meaning they could so easily have > written, > "that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning * as, or a > more precise > meaning* than what the insufficient bid was intended to mean....." > > Is there some indication that the WBF is to issue a clarification that > "several possible" means "the one intended"? Why has "intended" > become so > important when it doesn't even appear in Law 27B1(b)? > > ISTM that some zones have already rewritten 27B1(b). > > ISTM that the only reason for the director to enquire about the > intended > meaning would be to make sure it is on the list of possible meanings. > > The concept of posssible meanings plural is easily understood and > permits > more auctions to continue "normally". Players should not be in a > position that telling untruths will get a better RC for their side. One could just as easily interpret "the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" as an instruction that L27B1(b) may be applied when the intended insufficient bid has multiple possible meanings (some bids do, after all). The actual language suggests this for two reasons: (1) If "the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" was meant to be read as "the meanings of the possible insufficient bids" the writers could have used words to that effect. (2) If that were the case, the phrase "fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" would be hopelessly ambiguous. Does "contained within the possible meanings" mean "within *any of* the possible meanings" or "within *all of* the possible meanings? We would have radically different laws depending on which way we chose to interpret the language. I argue that if the writers had that interpretation in mind, they would have surely realized the need to resolve this ambiguity explcitly. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 9 16:39:32 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:39:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 Example In-Reply-To: <44a101c8ca1c$d8255740$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> References: <44a101c8ca1c$d8255740$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> Message-ID: <1CA3A7ED-B07B-4BF4-B52B-44011A52A463@starpower.net> On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:37 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Here is the auction: > > 1S-(2D)-1NT > > 1. I have bid 1NT with KX, J10xx, KJX, AQxxx. I had been > daydreaming and ...still are. OK, let's make it Kx/J10x/KJx/AQxxx and get on with it... > missed the whole auction. I had intended to open 1NT. I have no RC > that > would show a 1NT opener or a more specific hand. Must choose final > contract. > > 2. At the next table, I have the same auction and the same hand. > Only this > time I noticed partner's opening and thought that my RHO had > doubled instead > of overcalling 2D. I play transfer responses over this (I actually > do in > real life), so my 1NT bid shows a transfer to clubs. If I bid 3C, > it shows > clubs as well, and is more specific, showing, as it does, game-forcing > values. So I am allowed a penalty-free correction to 3C. > > In the first case I should be allowed the same correction. Why does it > matter what portion of the auction I actually missed. I think that the > "meaning" should be from my partner's perspective. Obviously he > cannot be > sure initially, since we are not permitted to have agreements about > the > meaning of insufficient bids. But my choice of RC will make it > clear. I do > not think that the "meaning" can be from my perspective, since I > cannot have > attached any meaning at all to the insufficient bid. That auction was > illegal. > > I think that it is extremely poor that there should be a different > ruling at > each table, when the circumstances, except for a temporary and > erroneous > state of mind of one of the players, are completely the same. I > would, in > fact, expect player 1 to give the same reason for his bid as player > 2 and > would consider him to be illegally dumping if he did not. If player 1 gave the same reason for his bid as player 2, he would be clearly cheating outright. When the TD instructs you to reveal your intention, you must do so, and do so honestly [L90B8]. Stefanie may be comfortable with her own desire to correct to 3C on Kx/J10x/KJx/AQxxx in #1, but there is nothing in L27 that places any restriction on what the IBer is actually allowed to hold. If she is permitted to do so, there is nothing to stop the next "player 1" from making the same 3C bid holding AQxxx/J10x/KJx/Kx. Stefanie may not be so comfortable with this -- I know I'm not -- given that the IBer's opponents would seem to be entitled to presume that he has a "real" 3C RC (i.e. at least some "judgmental approximation" to what 3C nominally shows). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jun 9 16:43:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 15:43:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 Example References: <44a101c8ca1c$d8255740$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> <484D1163.5010002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002401c8ca3f$30592c80$0100a8c0@stefanie> HdW: > > You have given an example where, by enourmous chance (minimum for the > one bid, maximum for the other, > Not really. Yes, the hand has 14-points, but a 12-count would also have opened 1NT and would also be good enough for 3 Clubs. The hand does, after all, have to be 12-14 if I had thought I'd opened 1NT, and I think 12 HCP is enough for 3C. > NT distribution with 5-card in the > suit the NT bid transfers to) Yes, but it needn't be. There is apparently not going to be a requirement that the RC resemble the actual hand, but I picked a hand that is suitable so as not to add distractions. > there are two intentions consistent with > your hand. Of course that means that if you are awake enough, you can > substitute the second intent for the (actual) first, and get away with > a penalty-free substitution that you should not have had. > However: > a) you would be cheating Not so sure about that -- see below. > b) this case will not be the most frequent (in fact, I doubt if it > will turn up at a table -no cheating!- within the 10 years that this > law is due to we working) > > So I doubt if it can serve as a good example. It is just an example where the penalty-free RC is not the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination. It is fine as an example of that type of situation. > Your points are quite valid, but I think that the original intent > shall be the basis on which to define the "meaning" that we need for L27. That is what everyone seems to think, but the Law doesn't specify. And in any case, since an insufficient bid is not a legal call, and cannot nave been governed by agreement anyway, it seems that the player can decide on his intention after examining the legal auction which is, after all, AI. The player's "intention" was to describe his holding. I would have thought that this new Law is supposed to let him do that. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 9 17:09:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:09:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred> <484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <80A105BE-931B-4939-9FE9-BF5D3E8B06F9@starpower.net> On Jun 9, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Reg Busch wrote: > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ In his seminar paper on the subject Max Bavin refers to the >> issue of a wrong bidding card pulled by mistake. He says that the >> TD needs to be satisfied this is what happened. He observes that >> Law 25A will sometimes apply. (With bidding cards there is no >> 'pause for thought' if the player reacts as soon as he notices what >> he has done.) >> Max allows the player to replace his IB (which has no meaning) >> with his intended call when the Director decides there has been a >> pause for thought, and applies 27B1(b). See his comment at (b) on >> page 5 of his paper. >> I would expect the Director to be vigilant for the >> potential that, >> given the player's holding, the IB could have been intended by a >> player who did not realize it was insufficient. >> His page 6 section on 'misbids and fielded misbids' should >> also be read. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> From Max's paper to the EBL > > 2. > _N_ _S_ > > 2NT (20-22) 2C > > South thought he was responding 2C Stayman to 1NT (15-17). <> > a) can South replace his bid with 3C, if this also > happens to be Stayman? <> > No ? some hands which would bid 3C Stayman would not have bid 2C > Stayman. For example, balanced 4-7 counts with a 4-card major. <> > b) what if South was just confused or has > pulled out > the wrong card by mistake ? he was trying to respond 3C in the first > place? <> > In this case, yes (in fact in some scenarios the change might be > permitted under 25A ? but let us assume for the sake of this example > that this is not one of them; the attempt to change has not been made > without pause for thought). <> > Of course, the TD needs to be quite sure that this is really what > happened. > > From Reg > > If I may summarise as I see it: after 2NT - 2C one would not normally > allow a penalty free replacement to 3C Stayman. One exception: > where the > 2C was clearly unintended (inadvertent) and meets the requirements of > Law 25. > > But there is one other possibility: if the IBer can convince me > that his > 2C was unintended (perhaps he was just confused as Max says) even > though > not covered by Law 25 and that he really intended to bid 3C, then > there > is something in Law 27 (or its interpretation) that allows me to > permit > the replacement where Law 25 would not. Of course I must be sceptical, > but in most cases even inspecting the player's hand would not be > helpful. Yes, I still have resort o 27D, but that doesn't make he > decision easier.. > Perhaps someone could provide some examples of (a) the sort of hand > where one would accept such a claim and (b) the sort of hand where one > would not. > > I can see that we are forced into this position once we have > decided as > policy that the 'meaning' of the IB is what the IBer meant by his bid. > And if the player is adamant that he never meant to bid 2C then his IB > has no meaning! We have dug ourselves into a bit of a hole > > It seems to me that Law 27 is an excellent example of the Law of > Unintended Consequences. . What is the "meaning" of an asking bid? Is it just the question asked, or does it implicitly incorporate a presumption that the asker holds a hand with which he will vary his subsequent choices of actions depending on the answer? Does the answer depend on the situation? Or on the partnership's other agreements? You are about to leap to a slam early in the auction in the hope of being allowed to play a cheap save rather then defend the slam you believe the opponents will reach unless you preempt them severely. To muddy the waters, you first leap to 4NT, which is systemically Blackwood. Are you simply asking, systemically, how many aces partner has despite not caring about the answer, or are you "grossly distorting" your holding, so that 4NT should be treated as a psych? Does Stayman mean "Do you have a four-card major, pard?" or does it mean "I have a hand on which my future calls will depend on whether partner has a four-card major"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 9 13:59:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 12:59:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <009301c8c9c0$22a26130$75e765cb@your3dbe17a7c0> Message-ID: <000601c8ca46$476e6dc0$79d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 12:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: In Zone 1 (and Zone 7) wrong. Max Bavin, Zone 1 interpretation of Law 27: If the IB is rejected, the TD will need to establish what the offender was trying to do ***when he made it***. He will almost inevitably need to do this away from the table in order that the other three players remain unaware of the reason. The TD ***then*** advises the player of his options (still away from the table) > Richard Hills: > That is, the insufficient bidder truthfully tells her original intent to the TD. < +=+ What we must bear in mind is that the Director has control of the 'meaning'. The meaning has to be the same or more precise "in the Director's opinion". Directors do not believe everything they are told, and the players will be given a ruling on the basis of the Director's assessment of the facts having heard what the offender has to say. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jun 9 19:22:34 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:22:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 Example References: <44a101c8ca1c$d8255740$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> <1CA3A7ED-B07B-4BF4-B52B-44011A52A463@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00ce01c8ca55$681f1ec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Eric Landau > If player 1 gave the same reason for his bid as player 2, he would be > clearly cheating outright. When the TD instructs you to reveal your > intention, you must do so, and do so honestly [L90B8]. IF it is a proper question, and I don't think it should be. Remember TWM's director instructing the players to dance naked on the tables? > > Stefanie may be comfortable with her own desire to correct to 3C on > Kx/J10x/KJx/AQxxx in #1, but there is nothing in L27 that places any > restriction on what the IBer is actually allowed to hold. If she is > permitted to do so, there is nothing to stop the next "player 1" from > making the same 3C bid holding AQxxx/J10x/KJx/Kx. Stefanie may not > be so comfortable with this -- I know I'm not -- given that the > IBer's opponents would seem to be entitled to presume that he has a > "real" 3C RC (i.e. at least some "judgmental approximation" to what > 3C nominally shows). Well, indeed. This is one of the reasons I have always felt that the penalty-free replacement call should not be permitted to be a misbid; I think that the Law is hopeless so long as it allows the PFRC to potentially misdescribe the hand. This was an OK Law -- how many insufficient bids are there after all -- one per session over about 100 tables? Fewer? so it seems that it was not really necessary to create something so complicated. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jun 9 19:27:04 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:27:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <80A105BE-931B-4939-9FE9-BF5D3E8B06F9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00fe01c8ca56$08eee010$0100a8c0@stefanie> Eric Landau: Does Stayman mean "Do you have a four-card major, pard?" or does it mean "I have a hand on which my future calls will depend on whether partner has a four-card major"? Stefanie Rohan: Perhaps this was a poor example. I think Reg is asking about the general case when an unintentional insufficient bid is made. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jun 9 19:31:10 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:31:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> Message-ID: <010001c8ca56$9b91f010$0100a8c0@stefanie> Eric Landau: L27B1 requires the TD ("in [his] opinion") to ascribe a meaning to the IB. "No meaning" is *not* a meaning to which L27B1 can be applied. {more precise than} is a logical relationship. The relationship "A {more precise than} B" has a value of either [true] or [false], but "A {more precise than} [null]" has the value [null]. Richard is right: if the IB is "meaningless", L27B1 cannot apply to it. Stefanie Rohan: I am not convinced. I think that the above would be true if an unintended bid had zero meaning, but that is not true. It means at least that the hand has the values/shape to take positive action at the given point in the auction. So it is not very precise, but is not even close to being [null]. Stefanie Rohan London, England From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jun 9 21:35:43 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:35:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] L61B3 - EBU land In-Reply-To: <200806051610.m55GAk75010754@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200806051610.m55GAk75010754@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <484D860F.5070605@nhcc.net> >> If asking is illegal, then score adjustment could easily >> follow under L12A1. The RA could also mandate a PP. > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > Well, this is what I am hoping to see, but now that the default position in > the Laws allows asking, and most of (all?) RAs have accepted it, it would > take a lot of courage on the part of the L&E. I don't see why it would take courage. All it requires is deciding which rule they prefer. > ... much harder for players to know their requirements, and for > directors to rule, than if it were in the Laws. The same could be said of any Zonal or RA option. > All this is why I find it incomprehensible that the 1997 Law, which made it > much easier for each RA to do what they felt was best. It was a Zonal option in 1997, making it _harder_ for RAs to choose. > Anyway, we will see what happens when the new Law, as I predict it will, > proves wildly unpopular in England. The L&EC can change the rules for the EBU any time they want. P.S. not related to this topic, but the 2007 Laws take effect in the ACBL on 2008 September 8 according to the June _Bulletin_. That was decided at the Detroit BoD meeting. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jun 9 22:24:00 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:24:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <200806051731.m55HVPYZ024091@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200806051731.m55HVPYZ024091@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <484D9160.7050203@nhcc.net> > From: "Robert Frick" > The laws talk about the meaning of the IB, but they don't say whether it > is the meaning in the head of the insufficient bidder or from the > perspective of the players at the table. This is a perfect statement of the disagreement we on BLML have been struggling with. > The underlying logic of 27B1(b) > suggests that it should be the perspective of the table. That would be my thought too, but the EBU (or is it the whole EBL?) as well as several on this list disagree. > 27B1(a) almost certainly should be from the perspective of > the insufficient bidder. I don't see why. It does seem to me, though, that _consistency_ is useful. > For example, I think even with the old laws that > after 2S - 2C, 3C is nonbarring if the 2C was meant as an overcall and > barring if 2C was meant as an artificial opening bid. Consistency with the past is a strong argument, but is IBer's intention really used now? I confess to having little practical experience with IB rulings, but I did check the ACBL's _Duplicate Decisions_. The answer isn't entirely clear, but DD suggests to me that intention is irrelevant. DD says, for example, "The Director should use his own judgment in determining when an IB is conventional. He should not ask, at the table, the offender or his partner how these bids are interpreted." ("These bids" refers to the IB and to the relevant RC.) Of course this leaves open the option of asking away from the table, but there's no mention of doing so nor any other hint that IBer's intention is relevant. Could experienced ACBL directors comment? How do you now decide the "meaning" of the IB? In Robert's example, would you rule that 2C could have been conventional (because it could have been an artificial opening or perhaps an artificial overcall of 1NT) or would you rule it "incontrovertibly not conventional" if IBer really did have clubs? Two other interesting tidbits from DD: 1) The TD is supposed to investigate L25A -- "away from the table" being explicitly mandated -- before ruling on the IB. 2) The TD is supposed to explain "all options and penalties" before LHO decides whether to accept the IB or not. From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Directors in Zone 1 (Europe) and Zone 7 > (Australia / New Zealand) must abide by the interim > interpretations of Law 27 provided by their respective > Zonal Laws Committees. For both Zones the interim > interpretation is that the meaning of an insufficient > bid has a one-to-one correspondence with the IBer's > intention. Is this a Zonal option or an RA one? Either way, I doubt the wisdom of these decisions, but time will tell. Interpretations can always change if experience shows they are not working. From: Eric Landau > I see two problems with [the "table perspective" approach. > (1) Different tables will > have different "perspectives", leading to different rulings in > apparently identical situations. I don't understand that. If the facts are the same, the "table perspective" should be the same. I'm assuming "table perspective" will be decided by the TD, as DD mandates, not by the players themselves. > (2) The "perspective of the table" > could fail to include the actual "meaning" of the IB, or could add > superfluous ones (as in Robert's 2C example) What's the harm of that? The latter, especially, seems _helpful_. If the table can't tell what the IBer was thinking, don't we want to allow as many RCs as possible? In practice, the RC chosen will usually indicate what IBer's mistake was, but that's OK: either partner will be barred, or the RC itself will contain all the relevant information. The former problem will be rare, I'd expect. It can only occur if the TD overlooks IBer's actual mistake. If this really is a problem, the TD could ask the players to suggest possible meanings for the IB. It would be in the OS interest to suggest as many meanings as possible. Of course the TD would only want to do this, if at all, after cautioning the IBer to avoid any indication of what his actual mistake was. > L27B1 requires the TD ("in [his] opinion") to ascribe a meaning to > the IB. "No meaning" is *not* a meaning to which L27B1 can be > applied. On the contrary... as others have pointed out, it's trivial to apply L27B1b to "no meaning." Any RC whatever should be allowed. > "A {more precise than} [null]" For "[null]" substitute "no information." The statement will be true for any A that has meaning. What worries me is that if Eric can get the logic wrong here, ordinary TDs are going to have a terrible time making L27 rulings. And ACBL TDs... I am not optimistic. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 9 22:39:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:39:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <00fe01c8ca56$08eee010$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <80A105BE-931B-4939-9FE9-BF5D3E8B06F9@starpower.net> <00fe01c8ca56$08eee010$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <32D2CF3D-275E-4EC5-9FA1-8FB94F23283B@starpower.net> On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Eric Landau: > > Does Stayman mean "Do you have a four-card major, pard?" or does it > mean "I have a hand on which my future calls will depend on whether > partner has a four-card major"? > > Stefanie Rohan: > > Perhaps this was a poor example. I think Reg is asking about the > general > case when an unintentional insufficient bid is made. I was not referring to anything to do with unintentional bids. My question was prompted by Reg's assertion that "after 2NT-[P]-2C one would not normally allow a penalty[-]free replacement [of] 3C Stayman", which was based on the stipulated premise that "some hands which would bid 3C Stayman would not have bid 2C Stayman[, f]or example, balanced 4-7 counts with a 4-card major." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 9 22:55:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 16:55:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 Example In-Reply-To: <00ce01c8ca55$681f1ec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <44a101c8ca1c$d8255740$5c1f2bd9@stefanie> <1CA3A7ED-B07B-4BF4-B52B-44011A52A463@starpower.net> <00ce01c8ca55$681f1ec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2858F5AF-02AB-47D4-B806-A8CB070E99B2@starpower.net> On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Eric Landau > >> If player 1 gave the same reason for his bid as player 2, he would be >> clearly cheating outright. When the TD instructs you to reveal your >> intention, you must do so, and do so honestly [L90B8]. > > IF it is a proper question, and I don't think it should be. > Remember TWM's > director instructing the players to dance naked on the tables? In a hypothetical [possibly ideal?] society in which there were no possibility of criminal penalty or civil liability potentially resulting from dancing naked on the table, I would think that the TD (unless instructed to the contrary by the relevant bridge authority) would be within the authority granted by L90A if he were to impose a procedural penalty on a player who refused to do so. Too bad there's no such place, as if there were we would surely have empirical evidence of the potential consequences of this interpretation by now. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 9 23:55:51 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:55:51 EDT Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. Message-ID: In a message dated 09/06/2008 14:29:52 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: [Eric Landau] At this point in the procedure, however, he has no knowledge of (c) or (d), so it behooves him, to maximize his chance of being able to figure out what's going on, to take the time and the effort *now* to learn as much as he possibly can about (a) and (b). But if we let him do that, we will need a time machine to get the game back on schedule. [Paul Lamford] Indeed, but these arguments have no more validity than those of the person who wants full disclosure of a strong club system, including all future sequences, before deciding whether to overcall 1S. The director must decide on whether the requests are reasonable within the structure of playing 24 boards within, say, 3 hours. I would have no problem with the director forcing the NOS to decide whether to accept an insufficient bid without any supplementary information whatsoever. From Gampas at aol.com Tue Jun 10 00:13:37 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:13:37 EDT Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. Message-ID: Against a strong or intermediate Pass, I play that 1S says that I am present at the table. The 1S bid has no meaning - in fact it includes all hands in that the bid is obligatory. In theory, I would bid it on all hands, but I must confess I would expose the psyche on AKQJ AKQ AKQ AKQ. Let us say that we are playing against a pair playing a strong pass, and I bid 1S over their 1NT opening bid. The 1NT opening bid is 10-12, but I mistook the bid for Pass. Now 1S had no meaning over a strong Pass, in that it has all meanings, so the hands making the bid are the complete set, therefore all substitutions are allowed without penalty as they are all more precise. So I presume I am allowed a penalty-free RC of any bid over 1NT. Let us say that I could not explain why I bid 1S over 1NT, just like Mrs Guggenheim who didn't double 7NT and didn't lead her ace can't explain why she did what she did; It happens all the time. Now the inability to explain the meaning of the bid effectively means that the TD cannot identify the "meaning" of the bid (it also has no meaning to the table, nor to the man on the Clapham Omnibus for those who think "meaning" is how others would interpret it), and I presume the TD must therefore prohibit a penalty-free correction. I would just like to be sure this is the official position, as I am getting more and more confused. From Gampas at aol.com Tue Jun 10 00:13:37 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:13:37 EDT Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. Message-ID: Against a strong or intermediate Pass, I play that 1S says that I am present at the table. The 1S bid has no meaning - in fact it includes all hands in that the bid is obligatory. In theory, I would bid it on all hands, but I must confess I would expose the psyche on AKQJ AKQ AKQ AKQ. Let us say that we are playing against a pair playing a strong pass, and I bid 1S over their 1NT opening bid. The 1NT opening bid is 10-12, but I mistook the bid for Pass. Now 1S had no meaning over a strong Pass, in that it has all meanings, so the hands making the bid are the complete set, therefore all substitutions are allowed without penalty as they are all more precise. So I presume I am allowed a penalty-free RC of any bid over 1NT. Let us say that I could not explain why I bid 1S over 1NT, just like Mrs Guggenheim who didn't double 7NT and didn't lead her ace can't explain why she did what she did; It happens all the time. Now the inability to explain the meaning of the bid effectively means that the TD cannot identify the "meaning" of the bid (it also has no meaning to the table, nor to the man on the Clapham Omnibus for those who think "meaning" is how others would interpret it), and I presume the TD must therefore prohibit a penalty-free correction. I would just like to be sure this is the official position, as I am getting more and more confused. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 10 02:27:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:27:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Detroit NABC+ Case 1 -- What do you bid and why? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40806082225p27266f17p8240566c168a8abe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >I like the TD's ruling. South's hesitation was a bad one. To play >methods like these one must be prepared to pass in tempo. Richard Hills: I like the TD's ruling because I thought the TD's ruling was correct. Adam Wildavsky: >That said, I have no problem with the AC's ruling. It's perfectly >plausible to conclude that the UI did not suggest balancing over >passing. Richard Hills However, if (hypothetically) the AC ruling was obviously correct, then the TD should have ruled the same way as the AC. An unintended hesitation is not an infraction. Playing inferior methods is not an infraction. An unintended hesitation caused by playing inferior methods is not an infraction. Adam Wildavsky: >Some would like to see a procedural penalty assessed in cases >like this, but the laws are clear that a hesitation in and of >itself is not an infraction. >..... >It would be wrong to force EW to appeal here. Richard Hills: No, it is wrong Kaplanesque policy to force North-South to appeal, merely because South hesitated, if the hesitation did not demonstrably suggest anything to North. (Adam also implicitly assumes that an appeal will happen. If neither side can be bothered to appeal, it is even more important that the Director in charge rules correctly.) That is, avoiding "if it hesitates, shoot it!" should be the policy of both the TD and AC, not merely the AC alone. WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in a judgemental matter, having consulted appropriately, that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. The desire is that the Director shall not rule automatically in favour of the non- offending side when he is in no doubt that a true judgement requires him to rule otherwise." Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jun 10 03:14:50 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:14:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <010001c8ca56$9b91f010$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <010001c8ca56$9b91f010$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: I think Stephanie has made good arguments for both 1. Considering all possible meanings of the IB 2. That an unintended (inadvertent) bid allows a variety of nonbarring replacement calls. But if you put those together, don't you have that all replacement calls will be nonbarring by 27B1(b)? I think in any case that if you wanted to try to follow #1 above, you should consider only the plausible meanings of the IB. But wouldn't that be a difficult line to draw, especially because an insufficient unintended bid is possible? (I saw one a few months ago; I almost had to choke the player to get him to confess it was inadvertent.) > Eric Landau: > > L27B1 requires the TD ("in [his] opinion") to ascribe a meaning to > the IB. "No meaning" is *not* a meaning to which L27B1 can be > applied. {more precise than} is a logical relationship. The > relationship "A {more precise than} B" has a value of either [true] > or [false], but "A {more precise than} [null]" has the value [null]. > Richard is right: if the IB is "meaningless", L27B1 cannot apply to it. > > Stefanie Rohan: > > I am not convinced. I think that the above would be true if an unintended > bid had zero meaning, but that is not true. It means at least that the > hand > has the values/shape to take positive action at the given point in the > auction. So it is not very precise, but is not even close to being > [null]. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 10 05:02:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:02:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003201c8c7ba$b4e04420$93d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >>I don't follow your logics: a meaningless call doesn't >>deny any possible hand, so it is compatible with every >>possible hand, so any replacement call will automatically >>be more precise. how can we disagree so strongly? Grattan Endicott: >+=+ We are dealing with the situation where the player >claims he pulled the wrong bidding card and the Director >considers 25A does not apply. I agree with Jean-Pierre >and I believe Max Bavin also agrees with him. Richard Hills: This Endicott / Rocafort interpretation creates an anomaly. (1) Pulling the wrong bidding card when you have a pre- existing intention allows you to change to your original intention without pause for thought under Law 25A. (2) Pulling the wrong (but sufficient) bidding card without a pre-existing intention means that you must pause for thought in order to create an original intention, so a Law 25A change is not permitted and the wrong call must stand. (3) Pulling the wrong (but insufficient) bidding card without a pre-existing intention means that you must pause for thought, so a Law 25A change is not permitted. However, if LHO does not exercise their Law 27A right, you can correct your call under the Endicott / Rocafort version of Law 27B1(b) to absolutely anything, presumably a call you would have chosen had Law 25A applied. That is, a player making a Case (2) accidental sufficient bid will usually be worse off than a player making a Case (3) accidental insufficient bid. Another reason backing my thesis that LHOs do not exercise their Law 27A option often enough. Grattan Endicott: > The caveat is that the Director must be satisfied >that it was an unintended call. A player should not be >allowed to claim inadvertency when in the judgement >of the Director the player made the call purposefully >being under a false impression as to the level of the >auction. If in difficulty to resolve the question there >is always Law 85B. Richard Hills (prior posting): >>That is, the insufficient bidder truthfully tells her >>original intent to the TD. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ What we must bear in mind is that the Director has >control of the 'meaning'. The meaning has to be the >same or more precise "in the Director's opinion". >Directors do not believe everything they are told, and >the players will be given a ruling on the basis of the >Director's assessment of the facts having heard what >the offender has to say. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills (current posting): Yes, an error in wording by me. I should have written "should try to truthfully tell her original intent to the TD". Honest players may be honestly mistaken about their own Law 27 thought processes, just as honest players may be honestly mistaken about their own Law 16 legal logical alternatives. Grattan Endicott [big snip] >under 25B1 the change to his original intention is >allowable.] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills asks: Is there any practical difference between Law 25B1 and Law 27C in 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 rbusch at ozemail.com.au Tue Jun 10 08:44:58 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:44:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred> <484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no> Message-ID: <484E22EA.4000601@ozemail.com.au> Sven Pran wrote: >On Behalf Of Reg Busch >............... > > >>If I may summarise as I see it: after 2NT - 2C one would not normally >>allow a penalty free replacement to 3C Stayman. One exception: where the >>2C was clearly unintended (inadvertent) and meets the requirements of >>Law 25. >> >>But there is one other possibility: if the IBer can convince me that his >>2C was unintended (perhaps he was just confused as Max says) even though >>not covered by Law 25 and that he really intended to bid 3C, then there >>is something in Law 27 (or its interpretation) that allows me to permit >>the replacement where Law 25 would not. >> >> > >Could you be kind enough to tell exactly what you have found in Law 27 that makes the question of an insufficient bid being unintended relevant? >Regards Sven > > Reg: Sorry, Sven, perhaps I didn't put it well. It's not I who has found this. But I was suggesting that someone seems to have found it. If I understand Max's paper and Grattan's comments, then, if convinced by the offender that his IB of 2NT - 2C was unintended even though it doesn't conform with Law 25, we may allow him to change his call to a penalty free 3C. Is this not what the extracts from Max's paper in my original E-mail suggest?_If my understanding is correct, then I (like you) would like to know where Law 27 authorises it, because Law 25 doesn't. 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: 270.2.0/1493 - Release Date: 9/06/2008 5:25 PM > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 10 09:17:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:17:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >Against a strong or intermediate Pass, I play that 1S says that I am present >at the table. The 1S bid has no meaning - in fact it includes all hands in >that the bid is obligatory. In theory, I would bid it on all hands, but I >must confess I would expose the psyche on AKQJ AKQ AKQ AKQ. Richard Hills: Which is why Australia, normally very laissez-faire on permitting whacky conventions, has prohibited the "no meaning" 1S overcall. Paul has the negative inference that it denies a 7NT overcall, others have the negative inference that it denies a 4H overcall. With negative inferences varying between partnerships, the partner of a "no meaning" 1S overcaller could easily fall into the trap of providing less than full disclosure, due to not realising that negative inference implicit partnership understandings are disclosable. A better example of an obligatory bid would be -> West North East South 1NT 2D 2NT(1) Pass 3C (2) (4) 3D (3) (1) Lebensohl (2) Obligatory response to 2NT (3) Director! South bid 3D, not Pass, initially, so West's 3C is insufficient (4) North chooses not to exercise her Law 27A option 3C is an artificial puppet response to 2NT, so Law 27B1(a) does not apply. Paul Lamford: >Now the inability to explain the meaning of the bid effectively means that >the TD cannot identify the "meaning" of the bid (it also has no meaning to >the table, nor to the man on the Clapham Omnibus for those who think >"meaning" is how others would interpret it), Richard Hills: The auction continued -> West North East South 1NT 2D 2NT(1) Pass 3C (2) (4) 3D (3) 6H (5) Pass Pass(6) Pass East-West +1460 (5) After West was woken from her snooze by the Director call, she discovered that she had also missorted her hand, and actually held eight hearts and a void in diamonds. (6) Since West's 3C lebensohl response promised a hand consistent with a 1NT opening bid, which West did not have, while West's jump to 6H denied such a 1NT opening bid, in my opinion 6H was a Law 27B2 call, not a Law 27B1(b) call. As luck would have it, East's lebensohl was based on game-invitational values and the remaining five cards in the heart suit. If East had not been barred under Law 27B2 (if indeed Law 27B2 is applicable), East would have raised to the grand slam in hearts for +2210. How would you rule? Paul Lamford: >I am getting more and more confused. 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jun 10 09:33:47 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:33:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <484E2E5B.4080908@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Jean-Pierre Rocafort: > >>> I don't follow your logics: a meaningless call doesn't >>> deny any possible hand, so it is compatible with every >>> possible hand, so any replacement call will automatically >>> be more precise. how can we disagree so strongly? > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ We are dealing with the situation where the player >> claims he pulled the wrong bidding card and the Director >> considers 25A does not apply. I agree with Jean-Pierre >> and I believe Max Bavin also agrees with him. > > Richard Hills: > > This Endicott / Rocafort interpretation creates an anomaly. it is not an interpretation: you may regret the outcomes but i think the fact is obvious. as i see your reasoning, it follows the lines of: if god didn't exist, it would be unfortunate, so god does exist. jpr > > (1) Pulling the wrong bidding card when you have a pre- > existing intention allows you to change to your original > intention without pause for thought under Law 25A. > > (2) Pulling the wrong (but sufficient) bidding card without > a pre-existing intention means that you must pause for > thought in order to create an original intention, so a Law > 25A change is not permitted and the wrong call must stand. > > (3) Pulling the wrong (but insufficient) bidding card > without a pre-existing intention means that you must pause > for thought, so a Law 25A change is not permitted. > However, if LHO does not exercise their Law 27A right, you > can correct your call under the Endicott / Rocafort version > of Law 27B1(b) to absolutely anything, presumably a call > you would have chosen had Law 25A applied. > > That is, a player making a Case (2) accidental sufficient > bid will usually be worse off than a player making a Case > (3) accidental insufficient bid. Another reason backing > my thesis that LHOs do not exercise their Law 27A option > often enough. > > Grattan Endicott: > >> The caveat is that the Director must be satisfied >> that it was an unintended call. A player should not be >> allowed to claim inadvertency when in the judgement >> of the Director the player made the call purposefully >> being under a false impression as to the level of the >> auction. If in difficulty to resolve the question there >> is always Law 85B. > > Richard Hills (prior posting): > >>> That is, the insufficient bidder truthfully tells her >>> original intent to the TD. > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ What we must bear in mind is that the Director has >> control of the 'meaning'. The meaning has to be the >> same or more precise "in the Director's opinion". >> Directors do not believe everything they are told, and >> the players will be given a ruling on the basis of the >> Director's assessment of the facts having heard what >> the offender has to say. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills (current posting): > > Yes, an error in wording by me. I should have written > "should try to truthfully tell her original intent to > the TD". Honest players may be honestly mistaken about > their own Law 27 thought processes, just as honest > players may be honestly mistaken about their own Law 16 > legal logical alternatives. > > Grattan Endicott > > [big snip] > >> under 25B1 the change to his original intention is >> allowable.] >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills asks: > > Is there any practical difference between Law 25B1 and > Law 27C in 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 > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jun 10 10:15:50 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:15:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <484E3836.6010201@NTLworld.com> The club playing director will welcome new laws, like law 27, that rely on his expertise and subjective judgement. No longer will players be able to (illegally) apply the law-book themselves. In future they will be forced to follow correct procedure and call the director. For the director, this will come as a frequent respite from the tedium of playing at his own table. His fitness will improve as can also expect to be called back again, more often, at the end of play :) Furthermore the director can keep himself busy by calculating weighted scores based on equity principles. Grateful players will understand and appreciate how justice is done and seem to be done :) The new unambiguous law book makes the application of laws, like law 27, crystal clear, specifying a simple protocol, that is easy for the director to follow. If the director is particularly stupid, however, he can take a welcome break from work to attend helpful seminars in Italy and elsewhere, paid for out of club petty cash. :) From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 10 10:55:52 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:55:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <484E22EA.4000601@ozemail.com.au> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred> <484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no> <484E22EA.4000601@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000601c8cad7$c98e1350$5caa39f0$@no> On Behalf Of Reg Busch ............... > Sorry, Sven, perhaps I didn't put it well. It's not I who has found > this. But I was suggesting that someone seems to have found it. If I > understand Max's paper and Grattan's comments, then, if convinced by the > offender that his IB of 2NT - 2C was unintended even though it doesn't > conform with Law 25, we may allow him to change his call to a penalty > free 3C. Is this not what the extracts from Max's paper in my original > E-mail suggest?_If my understanding is correct, then I (like you) > would like to know where Law 27 authorises it, because Law 25 doesn't. > > REg Right. Law 27 is still in its infancy and it remains to see how it will eventually work. But the way I understand the 2007 laws L25A is the only applicable law allowing a substitution for an unintended call. L27 applies in all cases of insufficient bids except those that are nullified as being unintended. (L25A takes precedence over L27.) Let us look at L27B1: (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director's opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. ..... (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification ..... Be aware of the important clause in both these laws: "In the Director's opinion" and observe that it is not a question of (alleged) facts but of what in the Director's opinion are the facts! These are not necessarily the same! So the ruling on IB will to a great extent depend on how the situation is presented to the Director and his judgment. (Once the director has refused to apply L25A the question of inadvertency is no longer relevant for his ruling.) Regards Sven From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Jun 10 11:06:31 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (larry bennett) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:06:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <484E3836.6010201@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <003801c8cad9$4a4e7970$2401a8c0@p41600> Don't forget the appeals.... lnb ####################################### # I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol # ####################################### ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > The club playing director will welcome new laws, like law 27, that rely > on his expertise and subjective judgement. No longer will players be > able to (illegally) apply the law-book themselves. In future they will > be forced to follow correct procedure and call the director. For the > director, this will come as a frequent respite from the tedium of > playing at his own table. His fitness will improve as can also expect to > be called back again, more often, at the end of play :) > > Furthermore the director can keep himself busy by calculating weighted > scores based on equity principles. Grateful players will understand and > appreciate how justice is done and seem to be done :) > > The new unambiguous law book makes the application of laws, like law 27, > crystal clear, specifying a simple protocol, that is easy for the > director to follow. If the director is particularly stupid, however, he > can take a welcome break from work to attend helpful seminars in Italy > and elsewhere, paid for out of club petty cash. :) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1493 - Release Date: 6/9/2008 5:25 PM From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 10 03:24:02 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:24:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no> Message-ID: <002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Could you be kind enough to tell exactly what you have found in Law 27 that makes the question of an insufficient bid being unintended relevant? > Regards Sven > +=+ If a bidding card was inadvertently picked and placed, not conveying the player's intended bid, then if it is replaced with the intended bid the IB and the RB have an identical intended meaning. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jun 10 15:01:23 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:01:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Could you be kind enough to tell exactly what you have found in Law 27 that makes the question of an insufficient bid being unintended relevant? > Regards Sven > +=+ If a bidding card was inadvertently picked and placed, not conveying the player's intended bid, then if it is replaced with the intended bid the IB and the RB have an identical intended meaning. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Do we need this approach for any reason? I hope not, since I do not like this statement very much. ton From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 10 15:11:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:11:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <010001c8ca56$9b91f010$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <010001c8ca56$9b91f010$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <493FB234-773B-486A-A1CE-54DACB2040E0@starpower.net> On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Eric Landau: > > L27B1 requires the TD ("in [his] opinion") to ascribe a meaning to > the IB. "No meaning" is *not* a meaning to which L27B1 can be > applied. {more precise than} is a logical relationship. The > relationship "A {more precise than} B" has a value of either [true] > or [false], but "A {more precise than} [null]" has the value [null]. > Richard is right: if the IB is "meaningless", L27B1 cannot apply to > it. > > Stefanie Rohan: > > I am not convinced. I think that the above would be true if an > unintended > bid had zero meaning, but that is not true. It means at least that > the hand > has the values/shape to take positive action at the given point in the > auction. So it is not very precise, but is not even close to being > [null]. On reflection, this is entirely off point. To meet our working definition of an unintended call (using bid boxes), the caller must realize his error on first noticing the call actually made. At which point L25A1 applies. L25A2-3 restrictions are moot, as they would mean that the IB was already accepted. A genuninely "unintended" IB should never reach L27. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 10 15:30:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:30:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <484D9160.7050203@nhcc.net> References: <200806051731.m55HVPYZ024091@cfa.harvard.edu> <484D9160.7050203@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <12FEB02F-2651-47B4-A179-619030375FEF@starpower.net> On Jun 9, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Robert Frick" >> The laws talk about the meaning of the IB, but they don't say >> whether it >> is the meaning in the head of the insufficient bidder or from the >> perspective of the players at the table. > > From: Eric Landau >> I see two problems with [the "table perspective" approach. >> (1) Different tables will >> have different "perspectives", leading to different rulings in >> apparently identical situations. > > I don't understand that. If the facts are the same, the "table > perspective" should be the same. I'm assuming "table perspective" > will > be decided by the TD, as DD mandates, not by the players themselves. Robert writes of "the perspective of the players at the table". I'm not convinced he implicitly meant "...as determined by the TD without their help". Regardless, though, one could defend the above proposition with "directors" replacing "tables". >> (2) The "perspective of the table" >> could fail to include the actual "meaning" of the IB, or could add >> superfluous ones (as in Robert's 2C example) > > What's the harm of that? The latter, especially, seems _helpful_. If > the table can't tell what the IBer was thinking, don't we want to > allow > as many RCs as possible? In practice, the RC chosen will usually > indicate what IBer's mistake was, but that's OK: either partner > will be > barred, or the RC itself will contain all the relevant information. > > The former problem will be rare, I'd expect. It can only occur if the > TD overlooks IBer's actual mistake. If this really is a problem, > the TD > could ask the players to suggest possible meanings for the IB. It > would > be in the OS interest to suggest as many meanings as possible. Of > course the TD would only want to do this, if at all, after cautioning > the IBer to avoid any indication of what his actual mistake was. In the cited example, the IBer intended a natural 2C overcall, but was denied his only potentially available penalty-free replacement call, 3C, because "from the perspective of the table" 2C could have been intended as an (artifical strong) opening bid, thus was not "incontrovertably not artificial". > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 10 16:25:57 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:25:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Eric Landau] > At this point in the procedure, however, he has no knowledge of (c) > or (d), so it behooves him, to maximize his chance of being able to > figure out what's going on, to take the time and the effort *now* to > learn as much as he possibly can about (a) and (b). But if we let > him do that, we will need a time machine to get the game back on > schedule. > > [Paul Lamford] > Indeed, but these arguments have no more validity than those of > the person > who wants full disclosure of a strong club system, including all > future > sequences, before deciding whether to overcall 1S. The director > must decide on > whether the requests are reasonable within the structure of > playing 24 boards > within, say, 3 hours. I would have no problem with the director > forcing the NOS > to decide whether to accept an insufficient bid without any > supplementary > information whatsoever. The "validity" I claim for my statement derives from L10C ("Choice after Irregularity") and L84C ("Player's Option"). It depends on the fact that an irregularity has been committed and the player in question is a non-offender with an option to exercise. Paul's disclosure analogy is totally off the point; it has nothing to do with any situation covered by these particular laws. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue Jun 10 16:51:07 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:51:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no> <002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> gesta at tiscali.co.uk ............. > Could you be kind enough to tell exactly what you have > found in Law 27 that makes the question of an insufficient > bid being unintended relevant? > > > Regards Sven > > > +=+ If a bidding card was inadvertently picked > and placed, not conveying the player's intended bid, > then if it is replaced with the intended bid the IB and > the RB have an identical intended meaning. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Will this case not be entirely resolved by L25A? Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 10 17:30:37 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:30:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> Message-ID: <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > gesta at tiscali.co.uk > ............. >> Could you be kind enough to tell exactly what you have >> found in Law 27 that makes the question of an insufficient >> bid being unintended relevant? >> > >> Regards Sven >> > >> +=+ If a bidding card was inadvertently picked >> and placed, not conveying the player's intended bid, >> then if it is replaced with the intended bid the IB and >> the RB have an identical intended meaning. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Will this case not be entirely resolved by L25A? > +=+ Not if there is pause for thought. Max's guidance to TDs is then to allow this RB under 27B1(b). I was suggesting a logic for this. It does seem to me that the player's intention was incontrovertibly to convey the meaning of the RB when he mispulled the bidding card. He just picked the wrong bidding card to do what he intended. The alternative is to say the first bidding card has no meaning and that the meaning of the RB is therefore more precisely defined. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 10 19:26:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:26:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: Message-ID: <000801c8cb1f$63c66430$bbce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. > The "validity" I claim for my statement derives from L10C ("Choice after Irregularity") and L84C ("Player's Option"). It depends on the fact that an irregularity has been committed and the player in question is a non-offender with an option to exercise. Paul's disclosure analogy is totally off the point; it has nothing to do with any situation covered by these particular laws. > +=+ Explaining 'the options available' does not involve explaining the meaning of the auction to date. It means ensuring he knows what choices he has and the law (but not specific applications of it) in relation to them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 10 22:28:53 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:28:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <000801c8cb1f$63c66430$bbce403e@Mildred> References: <000801c8cb1f$63c66430$bbce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <60105DE5-99BC-4A49-B442-1F71E78D65D4@starpower.net> On Jun 10, 2008, at 1:26 PM, wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > The "validity" I claim for my statement derives > from L10C ("Choice after Irregularity") and > L84C ("Player's Option"). It depends on the > fact that an irregularity has been committed > and the player in question is a non-offender > with an option to exercise. Paul's disclosure > analogy is totally off the point; it has nothing > to do with any situation covered by these > particular laws. > > +=+ Explaining 'the options available' does not > involve explaining the meaning of the auction to > date. It means ensuring he knows what choices > he has and the law (but not specific applications > of it) in relation to them. For the last twenty years or so, it has been routine and normal, IME, for the LHO of an IBer to be told whether or not the IBer would be permitted to substitute the LSBSD without penalty if he (LHO) refused to condone the IB, before he was required to decide whether to do so. It's not clear whether Grattan is saying that this has been improper and illegal all along, or is saying that there is something in the 2007 FLB that has made it newly illegal as of this year. I am confident, however, that he is not saying that LHO has rights with regard to L27B1(a) but does not have the equivalent rights with respect to L27B1(b), as that would be just silly. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jpgss at uq.net.au Tue Jun 10 23:50:50 2008 From: jpgss at uq.net.au (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:50:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <009301c8c9c0$22a26130$75e765cb@your3dbe17a7c0> <8B3C9115-5EEA-4A7F-8764-B8B990272F26@starpower.net> Message-ID: <006401c8cb44$74870700$eae565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> > Richard Hills: > > That is, the insufficient bidder truthfully tells her original > intent to the TD. If the original intent (a.k.a. possible meanings of the > insufficient bid) causes all possible replacement calls to bar her partner > from the rest of the auction, then c'est la vie. > > Jan Peach: > How can "original intent"singular be a.k.a. "possible meanings" > plural? > > There is only one intended meaning and only the offender knows it for > certain. The other 3 players deduce the possible meanings which would > usually include the intended meaning. Could not the WBFLC have used > the singular "meaning" had they intended (sorry) only one meaning to be > considered? > > Had the WBFLC meant the intended meaning they could so easily have > written, "that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning * as, or a > more precise meaning* than what the insufficient bid was intended to > mean....." > > Is there some indication that the WBF is to issue a clarification that > "several possible" means "the one intended"? Why has "intended" > become so important when it doesn't even appear in Law 27B1(b)? > > ISTM that some zones have already rewritten 27B1(b). > > ISTM that the only reason for the director to enquire about the > intended meaning would be to make sure it is on the list of possible > meanings. > > The concept of posssible meanings plural is easily understood and > permits more auctions to continue "normally". Players should not be in a > position that telling untruths will get a better RC for their side. Eric Landau: One could just as easily interpret "the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" as an instruction that L27B1(b) may be applied when the intended insufficient bid has multiple possible meanings (some bids do, after all). The actual language suggests this for two reasons: (1) If "the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" was meant to be read as "the meanings of the possible insufficient bids" the writers could have used words to that effect. (2) If that were the case, the phrase "fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" would be hopelessly ambiguous. Does "contained within the possible meanings" mean "within *any of* the possible meanings" or "within *all of* the possible meanings? We would have radically different laws depending on which way we chose to interpret the language. I argue that if the writers had that interpretation in mind, they would have surely realized the need to resolve this ambiguity explcitly. Jan Peach: 2D alerted. What does 2D mean/What is the meaning of 2D? It's W, X, Y or Z. I don't hear local players asking, "What are the meanings of 2D?" Perhaps the style of questioning differs from region to region and is part of the problem. Yes, "fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" would be hopelessly ambiguous unless it actually means what it says. And, why should it not? I find it very easy to agree with Eric that the WBFLC would surely have been explicit had "any one of the possible meanings" been their wish. By the same token, I find it difficult to believe that they would not have been equally explicit if "what the insufficient bid was intended to mean" had been their wish. Neither happened. That only leaves what is written. An interpretation could be "fully contained within *all of* the *reasonably* possible meanings of the insufficient bid". All this again raises my question. Why has "intended" been added to 27B1(b)? Jan From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 11 01:17:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:17:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <484E2E5B.4080908@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>This Endicott/Rocafort interpretation creates an anomaly. Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >It is not an interpretation: you may regret the outcomes but >I think the fact is obvious. Richard Hills: Well, Eric Landau also thinks the fact is obvious, but Eric comes to the opposite conclusion. Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >As I see your reasoning, it follows the lines of: if god >didn't exist, it would be unfortunate, so god does exist. Richard Hills: Well, a slightly better analogy is Pascal's Wager. That is, whether or not god exists, there may be a useful cost- benefit ratio in assuming that god exists. Likewise, whether or not Hills/Landau or Endicott/Rocafort are obviously correct, there may be a useful cost-benefit ratio in the WBF LC ruling that the Hills/Landau version of the obvious fact is correct. Jan Peach: >>Players should not be in a position that telling untruths >>will get a better RC for their side. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 11 09:18:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:18:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080610134233.0E1D8120019@maildelivery013.isp.belgacom.be> References: <20080610134233.0E1D8120019@maildelivery013.isp.belgacom.be> Message-ID: <484F7C38.6070606@skynet.be> ton wrote: > > Could you be kind enough to tell exactly what you have > found in Law 27 that makes the question of an insufficient > bid being unintended relevant? > Regards Sven > +=+ If a bidding card was inadvertently picked > and placed, not conveying the player's intended bid, > then if it is replaced with the intended bid the IB and > the RB have an identical intended meaning. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Do we need this approach for any reason? > I hope not, since I do not like this statement very much. > I was reaching the same conclusion as Grattan via another way. We need to attach a "meaning" to the IB in order to be able to apply L27 (both A and B). That "meaning" has to take into account the intention of the IBer, otherwise it's just senseless. But what is the intention? Let me give an example : 2NT (pass) 2Cl. There might be (at least) three possible intentions from the IBer: 1) hey, I'm first, let's open: 2Cl (weak with both majors or strong) 2) hey, partner opens 1NT, let's ask him about majors: 2Cl (Stayman) 3) hey, partner opens 2NT, let's ask him about majors: 2Cl (insufficient Puppet) In case 1, the meaning of 2Cl is: 6-11, 4-4M (or strong, which turns out to be irrelevant) In case 2, the meaning of 2Cl is: 8+, one 4cM (supposing one plays forcing Stayman) In case 3, the meaning of 2Cl is: 3+, any distribution I believe that in case 3, a correction to 3Cl should be allowed. It may seem to be difficult to distinguish cases 2 and 3, but I believe it is very difficult for a player to see another bid than is actually on the table, so I would not mind accepting case 3 on the simple word of the IBer. > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 11 09:32:37 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:32:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <484F7F95.2020308@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: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:51 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> gesta at tiscali.co.uk >> ............. >>> Could you be kind enough to tell exactly what you have >>> found in Law 27 that makes the question of an insufficient >>> bid being unintended relevant? >>> Regards Sven >>> +=+ If a bidding card was inadvertently picked >>> and placed, not conveying the player's intended bid, >>> then if it is replaced with the intended bid the IB and >>> the RB have an identical intended meaning. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> Will this case not be entirely resolved by L25A? >> > +=+ Not if there is pause for thought. I would say it some other way. To take my example, when someone replies 2Cl to 2NT, his intention is both to ask for majors, AND to do this via the well-known bid of 2Cl. I would not call the bidding of 2Cl "inadvertent" in the same sense as taking out a 4Cl card when wanting to bid 3NT. > Max's guidance > to TDs is then to allow this RB under 27B1(b). I was > suggesting a logic for this. It does seem to me that the > player's intention was incontrovertibly to convey the > meaning of the RB when he mispulled the bidding card. > He just picked the wrong bidding card to do what he > intended. I agree with that approach - the intent was to ask for majors, opposite a 20-22 hand. I don't believe that (in the majority of cases) 2Cl is intended as Stayman and promises 8+. Since the intent of the IB and of the RB(3Cl) are the same, 3Cl ought to be allowed. > The alternative is to say the first bidding card has > no meaning and that the meaning of the RB is therefore > more precisely defined. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > That alternative is not true - the first bidding card did have an intention, so it has a meaning. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 11 13:30:31 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:30:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> gesta at tiscali.co.uk ................ > >> +=+ If a bidding card was inadvertently picked > >> and placed, not conveying the player's intended bid, > >> then if it is replaced with the intended bid the IB and > >> the RB have an identical intended meaning. > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Will this case not be entirely resolved by L25A? > > > +=+ Not if there is pause for thought. Max's guidance > to TDs is then to allow this RB under 27B1(b). I was > suggesting a logic for this. It does seem to me that the > player's intention was incontrovertibly to convey the > meaning of the RB when he mispulled the bidding card. > He just picked the wrong bidding card to do what he > intended. > The alternative is to say the first bidding card has > no meaning and that the meaning of the RB is therefore > more precisely defined. Frankly, I don't like either approach. I can hardly imagine accepting that a call was inadvertent if there has been a pause for thought. (A pause for recovering after a confusion or surprise is a different matter.) So once I am satisfied that a call was inadvertent I shall have no problem allowing that call, whether legal or illegal, to be changed under law 25A. And I certainly shall never accept that the meaning of an insufficient bid should have been "no meaning", or more explicitly showing 13 cards, any distribution and a strength in the range 0 to 37 HCP! A more interesting question is to decide how the Director should treat the following agreement in a partnership: "If we should happen to make an insufficient bid then our replacement call of DOUBLE (if available) shall have exactly the same meaning as the insufficient bid is deemed to have (or would have) had". Such a partnership agreement seems technically legal and will ensure that an IB offender can most times "save" into a Law 27B1(a) replacement call. Let me return to the Stayman 2C bid over an opening bid 2NT: If the offender intended this as a 3C bid, being aware that the opening bid was indeed 2NT, and we are convinced that 3C was his intention, then we should have no problem ruling L25A. In that case he should not have had any "pause for thought"; instead we might expect signs of confusion and surprise (quite possibly with a pause). If the offender had a "pause for thought" after he became aware of his irregularity then the 2C bid was not "inadvertent" and we must go to L27. It follows then from the bid not being inadvertent that his intention was NOT to bid 3C Stayman over 2NT but that it was to bid 2C over something else. Lacking information to the contrary I tend to assume that "something else" is 2C Stayman over 1NT, but there are of course other alternatives. The one alternative I refuse to consider is that he was aware of the opening bid and really intended to bid 3C over 2NT all the time. Do we allow an IB 2C to be corrected to 3C without further rectifications? If the 2C Stayman over 1NT can be made with distribution 4-4-4-1 or similar and a virtually valueless hand, intending to pass whatever response the 1NT opener responds I tend to accept a correction of 2C IB to 3C without further rectifications (except L27D). However, if the 2C Stayman over 1NT promises at least something like 8 HCP I don't think we can accept a change to 3C without further rectifications because the 3C (over 2NT) can be made with as little as 5, or even less HCP. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 11 13:42:43 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:42:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <000801c8cb1f$63c66430$bbce403e@Mildred> <60105DE5-99BC-4A49-B442-1F71E78D65D4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <004d01c8cbb8$49642520$54cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. > For the last twenty years or so, it has been routine and normal, IME, for the LHO of an IBer to be told whether or not the IBer would be permitted to substitute the LSBSD without penalty if he (LHO) refused to condone the IB, before he was required to decide whether to do so. It's not clear whether Grattan is saying that this has been improper and illegal all along, or is saying that there is something in the 2007 FLB that has made it newly illegal as of this year. I am confident, however, that he is not saying that LHO has rights with regard to L27B1(a) but does not have the equivalent rights with respect to L27B1(b), as that would be just silly. > +=+ While true that 'Grattan is saying', let us be clear that my purpose is to convey the guidance given in Zone 1. (It is also the case that the document is available in Zone 2 and it will be interesting to see what the ACBL makes of it.) 2. The Zone 1 guidance is that the information available to the LHO when he has to choose his option is (a) what the law says - he may ask for clarification (b) opponents' system - he may ask questions (c) the general bridge knowledge that he brought to the table. 3. The guidance says that the LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when making the IB, though LHO is entitled to guess. 4. What he will be told under 2(a) is that if he rejects the IB - if the offender makes the lowest legal call in the same denomination and neither IB nor RB is artificial the auction will continue without further rectification - if the offender makes any legal call which has either the identical meaning of the IB or has a meaning fully contained within the scope of the IB, the auction will be allowed to proceed with no further rectification. - otherwise the offender may make any legal call he wishes, other than a double or redouble, but his partner will then be silenced throughout. 5. That it may make good bridge sense to misbid slightly rather than silence partner is general bridge knowledge available to the offender and to his partner. If this knowledge is used a Law 27D adjustment may apply. (Law 27D sets such adjustments in different terms from Law 16B. For example, a 27D weighted adjustment may incorporate some percentage of the actual table result.) 6. When judging whether 27B1(b) applies the Director is told to ask himself "Would all the hands which might make the replacement call have also made the insufficient bid?". If 'yes' 27B1(b) applies. The Director is judge of the facts. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I do not believe the 1997 law called for the Director to examine or say whether he considered Law 27B1(a) to apply until after the LHO had rejected the IB. I would not go as far as to say 'improper and illegal' but IMO it does go beyond the provision of the law. Max Bavin says "Law 27B1(a) is the same as the old Law, save for the use of the word 'artificial' rather than 'conventional' (as there is no definition of the word 'conventional')." The LHO might form a view from the disclosure of the offender's system that is available to him. I expect the EBL to post the detailed seminar document on its website soon, updated and with examples. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 11 15:02:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:02:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <006401c8cb44$74870700$eae565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> References: <009301c8c9c0$22a26130$75e765cb@your3dbe17a7c0> <8B3C9115-5EEA-4A7F-8764-B8B990272F26@starpower.net> <006401c8cb44$74870700$eae565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> Message-ID: <16D1FD47-9F78-40D6-947C-6BB03AC6C703@starpower.net> On Jun 10, 2008, at 5:50 PM, Jan Peach wrote: > Eric Landau: > One could just as easily interpret "the possible meanings of the > insufficient bid" as an instruction that L27B1(b) may be applied when > the intended insufficient bid has multiple possible meanings (some > bids do, after all). The actual language suggests this for two > reasons: (1) If "the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" was > meant to be read as "the meanings of the possible insufficient bids" > the writers could have used words to that effect. (2) If that were > the case, the phrase "fully contained within the possible meanings of > the insufficient bid" would be hopelessly ambiguous. Does "contained > within the possible meanings" mean "within *any of* the possible > meanings" or "within *all of* the possible meanings? We would have > radically different laws depending on which way we chose to interpret > the language. I argue that if the writers had that interpretation in > mind, they would have surely realized the need to resolve this > ambiguity explcitly. > > Jan Peach: > > 2D alerted. What does 2D mean/What is the meaning of 2D? It's W, X, > Y or Z. > > I don't hear local players asking, "What are the meanings of 2D?" > Perhaps > the style of questioning differs from region to region and is part > of the > problem. > > Yes, "fully contained within the possible meanings of the > insufficient bid" > would be hopelessly ambiguous unless it actually means what it > says. And, > why should it not? > > I find it very easy to agree with Eric that the WBFLC would surely > have been > explicit had "any one of the possible meanings" been their wish. > > By the same token, I find it difficult to believe that they would > not have > been equally explicit if "what the insufficient bid was intended to > mean" > had been their wish. > > Neither happened. That only leaves what is written. An > interpretation could > be "fully contained within *all of* the *reasonably* possible > meanings of > the insufficient bid". It is certainly consistent and justifiable to interpret "the possible meanings of the IB" as "all of the possible meanings of the IB". But I don't see anything that makes it consistent or justifiable to get from "all of the possible meanings of the IB" to "all of the reasonably possible meanings of the IB", which perforce leaves the definition of "reasonably" to the individual TD. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jun 11 15:33:41 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:33:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <16D1FD47-9F78-40D6-947C-6BB03AC6C703@starpower.net> References: <009301c8c9c0$22a26130$75e765cb@your3dbe17a7c0> <8B3C9115-5EEA-4A7F-8764-B8B990272F26@starpower.net> <006401c8cb44$74870700$eae565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> <16D1FD47-9F78-40D6-947C-6BB03AC6C703@starpower.net> Message-ID: <484FD435.305@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] .... which perforce leaves the definition of "reasonably" to the individual TD. [Nigel] BLMLers shouldn't waste time unravelling what appears to be sloppy language by the law-makers. The WBFLC honed that language over the last ten years and it has been thoroughly vetted and approved by the all top NBO administrators, worldwide. It must exactly reflect the law-maker's intentions. The preface to the new laws confirms that Eric's comment (on L27) applies generally: Fuzziness in the language is deliberate. Its purpose is to increase the scope for subjective interpretation by players and directors. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 11 15:41:26 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:41:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> Message-ID: <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> On Behalf Of Sven Pran ..................... > A more interesting question is to decide how the Director should treat the > following agreement in a partnership: "If we should happen to make an > insufficient bid then our replacement call of DOUBLE (if available) shall > have exactly the same meaning as the insufficient bid is deemed to have (or > would have) had". Such a partnership agreement seems technically legal and > will ensure that an IB offender can most times "save" into a Law 27B1(a) > replacement call. Sorry, DOUBLE (or REDOUBLE) is of course not "available" in this position. But that does not essentially change the question: Can a partnership take advantage of the new Law 27B1(a) and legally have as part of their system agreements a replacement call that takes on the exact same meaning as a withdrawn insufficient bid? The replacement call could for example be "the lowest ranking bid that can legally be made in that position". Example: 2NT - PASS - 2C not accepted and replaced by 3C. 3C is now defined by agreements to have exactly the same "meaning" as the insufficient bid 2C (whatever that meaning is). I don't like the idea at all but I fail to find any legal objection against it? Note that the partnership does not "vary its understandings". The "understanding" of the replacement call is unchanged in that it relates directly to the last previous (insufficient) bid. Therefore Law 40B3 appears inapplicable for this situation. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 11 16:46:58 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:46:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no><004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> Message-ID: <002301c8cbd2$00769040$0901a8c0@JOHN> > > However, if the 2C Stayman over 1NT promises at least something like 8 HCP > I > don't think we can accept a change to 3C without further rectifications > because the 3C (over 2NT) can be made with as little as 5, or even less > HCP. > > Regards Sven > Yeah, I think the Frogs would have to be ruled against, since they seem to think Stayman promises values (particularly those who play Roudinesco). OTOH the Brits play Stayman on any old hand (because of the wk NT culture). Scrambling Stayman requires a yarboro' and 4-4 Maj and may not even be a pass over 2N. ... whereas Stayman over 2N could well be made on a smaller subset of hands than with the same hand over 1N. (and if this is the case, we can allow the change) ... mm, interesting. This is one where we (the Brits, at least) can decided once precedent has been extablished, and to my mind was why TPTB decided on the new L27 to allow this correction. John > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jun 11 17:21:21 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:21:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <03b601c8cbd6$cdbe74b0$661f2bd9@stefanie> Sven: > Could you be kind enough to tell exactly what you have > found in Law 27 that makes the question of an insufficient > bid being unintended relevant? >> Grattan: >> > +=+ If a bidding card was inadvertently picked > and placed, not conveying the player's intended bid, > then if it is replaced with the intended bid the IB and > the RB have an identical intended meaning. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ton: > Do we need this approach for any reason? > I hope not, since I do not like this statement very much. > I believe that what Grattan was trying to say is simply that a "mispull" is not to be treated as an insufficient bid. For example: North bids 4S and South wants to bid Key-card Blackwood. But he accidentally pulls out the 4S card. South has the right to change his bid with no penalty until partner calls, so long as he attempts to do so, or calls the director, or tries to figure out what is permitted as soon as his attention is called to the bidding card he has placed on the table. West does not have the right to accept the "insufficient bid". No restrictions are placed, provided the above conditions are met, on South's replacement call. (Although I am always suspicious of people who say they "pulled the wrong card" when the card they actually took out was from the other section of the box. It is hard to grab a Pass card when you were reaching for 4H.) Now, suppose West passes, so that it is North's turn to bid. He doesn't know whether the 4S was a brain error, for instance South thought North had cuebid or invited, or a mispull (of 4NT or 5H or 5S, etc.) The partnership is able to get back on track after the latter possibility. What is North supposed to do? Is he permitted to call attention to the irregularity? And if so, should he have done it as soon as partner placed the insufficient bidding card on the table? Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 11 19:27:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:27:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> Message-ID: <880B0FF4-5B97-43B2-950E-62377F0C8CE9@starpower.net> On Jun 11, 2008, at 7:30 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>>> +=+ If a bidding card was inadvertently picked >>>> and placed, not conveying the player's intended bid, >>>> then if it is replaced with the intended bid the IB and >>>> the RB have an identical intended meaning. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >>> Will this case not be entirely resolved by L25A? >> >> +=+ Not if there is pause for thought. Max's guidance >> to TDs is then to allow this RB under 27B1(b). I was >> suggesting a logic for this. It does seem to me that the >> player's intention was incontrovertibly to convey the >> meaning of the RB when he mispulled the bidding card. >> He just picked the wrong bidding card to do what he >> intended. >> The alternative is to say the first bidding card has >> no meaning and that the meaning of the RB is therefore >> more precisely defined. > > Frankly, I don't like either approach. > > I can hardly imagine accepting that a call was inadvertent if there > has been > a pause for thought. (A pause for recovering after a confusion or > surprise > is a different matter.) So once I am satisfied that a call was > inadvertent I > shall have no problem allowing that call, whether legal or illegal, > to be > changed under law 25A. > > And I certainly shall never accept that the meaning of an > insufficient bid > should have been "no meaning", or more explicitly showing 13 cards, > any > distribution and a strength in the range 0 to 37 HCP! I tend to agree. The following, cut and pasted from an off-list discussion, seems relevant: 'It's easy to read L25A as though "inadvertant call" and "without pause for thought" are independent conditions, but that makes no sense. What does make sense -- it's really obvious if you think about it -- is that "pause for thought" is (presumptive) evidence that the bid wasn't genuinely inadvertant. If you meant A and accidentally pulled the B card, you can't have to think about it to know you meant A.' Which means that a genuinely inadvertant call should never reach L27B. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 11 20:08:53 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:08:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <004d01c8cbb8$49642520$54cf403e@Mildred> References: <000801c8cb1f$63c66430$bbce403e@Mildred> <60105DE5-99BC-4A49-B442-1F71E78D65D4@starpower.net> <004d01c8cbb8$49642520$54cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jun 11, 2008, at 7:42 AM, wrote: > +=+ While true that 'Grattan is saying', let us be clear that my > purpose is to convey the guidance given in Zone 1. (It is also > the case that the document is available in Zone 2 and it will be > interesting to see what the ACBL makes of it.) > 2. The Zone 1 guidance is that the information available > to the LHO when he has to choose his option is > (a) what the law says - he may ask for clarification > (b) opponents' system - he may ask questions > (c) the general bridge knowledge that he brought to > the table. > 3. The guidance says that the LHO is not entitled to know > what the offender was trying to do when making the IB, though > LHO is entitled to guess. > 4. What he will be told under 2(a) is that if he rejects the IB > - if the offender makes the lowest legal call in the same > denomination and neither IB nor RB is artificial the auction will > continue without further rectification > - if the offender makes any legal call which has either > the identical meaning of the IB or has a meaning fully contained > within the scope of the IB, the auction will be allowed to proceed > with no further rectification. > - otherwise the offender may make any legal call he > wishes, other than a double or redouble, but his partner will then > be silenced throughout. > 5. That it may make good bridge sense to misbid slightly > rather than silence partner is general bridge knowledge available > to the offender and to his partner. If this knowledge is used a > Law 27D adjustment may apply. (Law 27D sets such adjustments > in different terms from Law 16B. For example, a 27D weighted > adjustment may incorporate some percentage of the actual table > result.) > 6. When judging whether 27B1(b) applies the Director is told > to ask himself > "Would all the hands which might make the replacement call > have also made the insufficient bid?". If 'yes' 27B1(b) applies. The > Director is judge of the facts. This does not appear to clarify the particular ambiguity that arose right at the beginning and is perhaps the most salient of all: Is the IBer entitled to proffer an RC to the TD and be told whether or not it will be allowed without penalty before he commits to making it? This guidance would be a whole lot less confusing (at the cost of some extra words) if the TD's initial interaction with LHO with regard to L27A and his subsequent interaction with the IBer with regard to L27B were separately addressed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 11 20:43:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:43:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <002301c8cbd2$00769040$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no><004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <002301c8cbd2$00769040$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: On Jun 11, 2008, at 10:46 AM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: >> However, if the 2C Stayman over 1NT promises at least something >> like 8 HCP >> I >> don't think we can accept a change to 3C without further >> rectifications >> because the 3C (over 2NT) can be made with as little as 5, or even >> less >> HCP. > >> > Yeah, I think the Frogs would have to be ruled against, since they > seem to > think Stayman promises values (particularly those who play > Roudinesco). OTOH > the Brits play Stayman on any old hand (because of the wk NT culture). > Scrambling Stayman requires a yarboro' and 4-4 Maj and may not even > be a > pass over 2N. ... whereas Stayman over 2N could well be made on a > smaller > subset of hands than with the same hand over 1N. (and if this is > the case, > we can allow the change) ... mm, interesting. This is one where we > (the > Brits, at least) can decided once precedent has been extablished, > and to my > mind was why TPTB decided on the new L27 to allow this correction. > John We need to be very wary of the temptation to incorporate negative inferences into the "meanings" of calls for L27B purposes, lest L27B1 (b) turn into a no-op. I bid 2H, transfer to spades, in response to 1NT. Oops, partner actually opened 2NT. I would like to bid 3H, transfer to spades, without barring my partner. May I? Well, I should certainly hope so. This is, after all, the "poster child" of the new L27, the most commonly cited example of the reason for the addition of L27B1(b). If we won't allow this one, why did we bother? But there is a significant class of hands with which I would not have bid 2H over 1NT but would bid 3H over 2NT (over 1NT I would have bid 4S, to play there, but over 2NT I want start a slam-exploring sequence), so if I bid 3H the IB will have conveyed the additional information that I do not have one of those hands. Should that inference really mean that I have no penalty-free RCs here? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 11 20:46:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:46:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <004d01c8cbb8$49642520$54cf403e@Mildred> References: <000801c8cb1f$63c66430$bbce403e@Mildred> <60105DE5-99BC-4A49-B442-1F71E78D65D4@starpower.net> <004d01c8cbb8$49642520$54cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jun 11, 2008, at 7:42 AM, wrote: > +=+ While true that 'Grattan is saying', let us be clear that my > purpose is to convey the guidance given in Zone 1. (It is also > the case that the document is available in Zone 2 and it will be > interesting to see what the ACBL makes of it.) > 2. The Zone 1 guidance is that the information available > to the LHO when he has to choose his option is > (a) what the law says - he may ask for clarification > (b) opponents' system - he may ask questions > (c) the general bridge knowledge that he brought to > the table. > 3. The guidance says that the LHO is not entitled to know > what the offender was trying to do when making the IB, though > LHO is entitled to guess. > 4. What he will be told under 2(a) is that if he rejects the IB > - if the offender makes the lowest legal call in the same > denomination and neither IB nor RB is artificial the auction will > continue without further rectification > - if the offender makes any legal call which has either > the identical meaning of the IB or has a meaning fully contained > within the scope of the IB, the auction will be allowed to proceed > with no further rectification. > - otherwise the offender may make any legal call he > wishes, other than a double or redouble, but his partner will then > be silenced throughout. This is all quite sensible and logical, but has a serious practical flaw. #3 gives LHO the right to "guess", which does not mean merely that he may flip a coin, but rather means that he may make his best attempt to figure it out. #2 gives him the right to clarify both what the law says and the opponents' system. As Herman (among others) has pointed out, if he takes full advantage of his rights in #2, he will be able to make the "guess" to which #3 entitles him with near-perfect accuracy. Which is as it should be; he is the non-offending side, and achieving proper redress for the offender's irregularity requires him to exercise his rights to his own best advantage. The problem, of course, is that bridge is a timed event, and the time required to fully exercise those #2 rights so as to claim one's #3 entitlement will, in general, be several times greater than the time available in which to play the board. So we seem to have a procedure whose logic and legality depends on LHO have certain specific rights, notwithstanding that we will be forced in practice to not allow him to exercise them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From t.vdlaan at net.hcc.nl Wed Jun 11 22:14:18 2008 From: t.vdlaan at net.hcc.nl (Timo van der Laan) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:14:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> Message-ID: <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> Sven Pran schreef: > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > ..................... > >> A more interesting question is to decide how the Director should treat the >> following agreement in a partnership: "If we should happen to make an >> insufficient bid then our replacement call of DOUBLE (if available) shall >> have exactly the same meaning as the insufficient bid is deemed to have (or would have) had". Such a partnership agreement seems technically legal and >> will ensure that an IB offender can most times "save" into a Law 27B1(a) >> replacement call. >> > Sorry, DOUBLE (or REDOUBLE) is of course not "available" in this position. > > In fact DOUBLE (or REDOUBLE) is allowed in 27B1b, if that such an agreement is allowed by the RA. However see below. > But that does not essentially change the question: Can a partnership take > advantage of the new Law 27B1(a) and legally have as part of their system > agreements a replacement call that takes on the exact same meaning as a > withdrawn insufficient bid? The replacement call could for example be "the > lowest ranking bid that can legally be made in that position". Both ways go wrong if you look at 27B1 carefully. In 27B1a law 16D is specially named. In 27B1b it is not named, so it still applies! So if you have the agreement: double (or the next bid) means the insufficient bid then that meaning is UI for your partner, because your partner may not use the information of the insufficient bid. If such agreements are not forbidden by the RA the following agreement might be of more use: Any replacement of an insufficient bid has its normal meaning plus the meaning of the insufficient bid. Then the information of the insufficient bid is UI for partner, but partner is not barred from bidding. Greetings, Timo. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 11 23:35:22 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:35:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> Message-ID: <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> On Behalf Of Timo van der Laan ............. > In fact DOUBLE (or REDOUBLE) is allowed in 27B1b, if that such an > agreement is allowed by the RA. Sure is. I thought for a moment that I had made an error, but that was an error! > However see below. > > But that does not essentially change the question: Can a partnership take > > advantage of the new Law 27B1(a) and legally have as part of their system > > agreements a replacement call that takes on the exact same meaning as a > > withdrawn insufficient bid? The replacement call could for example be "the > > lowest ranking bid that can legally be made in that position". > Both ways go wrong if you look at 27B1 carefully. In 27B1a law 16D is > specially named. In 27B1b it is not named, so > it still applies! So if you have the agreement: double (or the next bid) > means the insufficient bid then that meaning is UI > for your partner, because your partner may not use the information of > the insufficient bid. > > If such agreements are not forbidden by the RA the following agreement > might be of more use: > Any replacement of an insufficient bid has its normal meaning plus the > meaning of the insufficient bid. > Then the information of the insufficient bid is UI for partner, but > partner is not barred from bidding. However, this is an error! When you say: "Any replacement of an insufficient bid has its normal meaning plus the meaning of the insufficient bid" you apparently imply that the normal meaning of the RA is not necessarily one of the meanings of the IB. Consequently partner is barred after this RA. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jun 12 00:52:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:52:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: References: <000801c8cb1f$63c66430$bbce403e@Mildred> <60105DE5-99BC-4A49-B442-1F71E78D65D4@starpower.net> <004d01c8cbb8$49642520$54cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48505722.9060603@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > So we seem to have a procedure whose logic and legality depends on > LHO have certain specific rights, notwithstanding that we will be > forced in practice to not allow him to exercise them. > I have a solution to this problem. Why not send the partner of the IBer off the table? That way, we can have the NOS hear everything we believe they are entitled to (and perhaps a little more - but that's the IBer's problem) without having to worry about UI to the partner. Then after we've explained to the IBer everything, we can have the LHO decide about accepting, have the IBer make his decision - confirm that he knows he has barred his partner (or not), and only then allow the partner back to the table and explain if he's barred or not. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 12 01:35:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:35:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004d01c8cbb8$49642520$54cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [big snip] >I do not believe the 1997 law called for the Director to examine >or say whether he considered Law 27B1(a) to apply until after the >LHO had rejected the IB. I would not go as far as to say 'improper >and illegal' but IMO it does go beyond the provision of the law. 1997 Law 10C1: "When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available." 1997 Law 81C5: "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." Richard Hills: So when I was a Director under the 1997 Lawbook, I used the 1997 Law 81C5 to "interpret" the 1997 Law 10C1 word "explain" as meaning, for the purposes of the 1997 Law 27A, "explain whether LHO will be barred from the auction if one does not accept RHO's insufficient bid". Ergo, I dispute Grattan's opinion that that procedure was beyond the provision of 1997 Law. Of course, this debate is now moot. An Aussie TD can no longer independently interpret the 2007 Law 27, but must instead follow the official Zone 7 Laws Committee interim interpretation. 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 Thu Jun 12 02:47:41 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:47:41 EDT Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. Message-ID: In a message dated 11/06/2008 23:53:38 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be writes: [herman de wael] I have a solution to this problem. Why not send the partner of the IBer off the table? That way, we can have the NOS hear everything we believe they are entitled to (and perhaps a little more - but that's the IBer's problem) without having to worry about UI to the partner. Then after we've explained to the IBer everything, we can have the LHO decide about accepting, have the IBer make his decision - confirm that he knows he has barred his partner (or not), and only then allow the partner back to the table and explain if he's barred or not. [paul lamford] Another method is to have four sealed booths, just like the later stages of those quiz shows. Now the TD can interrogate all players separately, including someone that might have questions to ask before condoning an insufficient bid. This will allow the TD to implement his Law 27B duties without any problem, and with no UI at all.. BoothsRus are able to provide the equipment for around 5k per player. Some would say that the simpler and cheaper solution is to change Law 27B to read: "Law 27B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass. Partner is silenced throughout." But we all know that we have to endure 10 more years of pain and suffering for TDs before we can get sanity restored. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jun 12 03:25:47 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:25:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8cc2b$3e221460$ba663d20$@com> [PL] Some would say that the simpler and cheaper solution is to change Law 27B to read: "Law 27B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass. Partner is silenced throughout." [DALB] I would suggest: "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Information from the insufficient bid is unauthorised to the offending side but authorised to the non-offending side (Law 16 and Law 73 apply)." David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Thu Jun 12 03:51:22 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:51:22 EDT Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. Message-ID: In a message dated 12/06/2008 02:26:11 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Information from the insufficient bid is unauthorised to the offending side but authorised to the non-offending side (Law 16 and Law 73 apply)." [paul lamford] I would agree that your wording is much better, provided that players are of sufficient ethics and sufficient judgement to appraise the bid that they would make with the authorised information, whilst simultaneously excluding the unauthorised information from the decision-making process. I suspect that there will be a minority of players able to do that, causing extra work for TDs. In the recent Holland v Italy soccer match (with apologies to those having no interest in this sport), a goal by van Nistelrooy was allowed on a technicality (an Italian was lying injured behind the goal) whereas most pundits erroneously claimed that the goal should have been disallowed for offside. The simple rule is that if there are two defenders nearer the goal than the striker, offside does not apply. Fairness is ignored. Simplicity is preferred. So it should be with the insufficient bid, and so it should be with the inadvertent bid. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 12 04:20:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:20:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8cc2b$3e221460$ba663d20$@com> Message-ID: [DALB] I would suggest: "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Information from the insufficient bid is unauthorised to the offending side but authorised to the non-offending side (Law 16 and Law 73 apply)." David Burn London, England * * * [RJBH] I agree with David Burn's suggestion for the 2018 version of Law 27. However, if I was El Supremo of the WBF Drafting Committee in 2018, I would go further and also abolish Law 26. As David Burn has implicitly noted above, you do not need Law 26 when you have Law 16D. As El Supremo I would also rewrite the call out of rotation Laws along Burnian lines - that is, a call out of rotation which is not accepted by LHO would be simply cancelled in 2018, with Laws 16 and 73 applying. 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 jpgss at uq.net.au Thu Jun 12 09:13:56 2008 From: jpgss at uq.net.au (Jan Peach) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:13:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <009301c8c9c0$22a26130$75e765cb@your3dbe17a7c0><8B3C9115-5EEA-4A7F-8764-B8B990272F26@starpower.net><006401c8cb44$74870700$eae565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> <16D1FD47-9F78-40D6-947C-6BB03AC6C703@starpower.net> Message-ID: <05c401c8cc5e$4cb43610$aee665cb@your3dbe17a7c0> > Eric Landau: > One could just as easily interpret "the possible meanings of the > insufficient bid" as an instruction that L27B1(b) may be applied when > the intended insufficient bid has multiple possible meanings (some > bids do, after all). The actual language suggests this for two > reasons: (1) If "the possible meanings of the insufficient bid" was > meant to be read as "the meanings of the possible insufficient bids" > the writers could have used words to that effect. (2) If that were > the case, the phrase "fully contained within the possible meanings of > the insufficient bid" would be hopelessly ambiguous. Does "contained > within the possible meanings" mean "within *any of* the possible > meanings" or "within *all of* the possible meanings? We would have > radically different laws depending on which way we chose to interpret > the language. I argue that if the writers had that interpretation in > mind, they would have surely realized the need to resolve this > ambiguity explcitly. > > Jan Peach: > > 2D alerted. What does 2D mean/What is the meaning of 2D? It's W, X, > Y or Z. > > I don't hear local players asking, "What are the meanings of 2D?" > Perhaps > the style of questioning differs from region to region and is part > of the > problem. > > Yes, "fully contained within the possible meanings of the > insufficient bid" > would be hopelessly ambiguous unless it actually means what it > says. And, > why should it not? > > I find it very easy to agree with Eric that the WBFLC would surely > have been > explicit had "any one of the possible meanings" been their wish. > > By the same token, I find it difficult to believe that they would > not have > been equally explicit if "what the insufficient bid was intended to > mean" > had been their wish. > > Neither happened. That only leaves what is written. An > interpretation could > be "fully contained within *all of* the *reasonably* possible > meanings of > the insufficient bid". Eric Landau: It is certainly consistent and justifiable to interpret "the possible meanings of the IB" as "all of the possible meanings of the IB". But I don't see anything that makes it consistent or justifiable to get from "all of the possible meanings of the IB" to "all of the reasonably possible meanings of the IB", which perforce leaves the definition of "reasonably" to the individual TD. Jan Peach: Is the individual director's opinion so bad? It is the requirement earlier in 27B1(b). I wonder if consultation should happen like other judgement rulings? That should take up a bit more of a playing director's free time. I was trying to suggest that there must be some limit as to how far back in the auction the IBer lost touch with reality. Jan From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Thu Jun 12 09:46:57 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:46:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4850D471.3040803@ozemail.com.au> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: Snip >Of course, this debate is now moot. An Aussie TD can no longer >independently interpret the 2007 Law 27, but must instead follow >the official Zone 7 Laws Committee interim interpretation. > > > > > Wrong. Richard Zone 7 is the RA for events held under its own auspices. The ABF is the RA for events events within its own terrirory. But the ABF has assigned its RA rights to the states for their own events, and in Qld the QBA has assigned RA rights to clubs for their own events. An individual club could, if it so wished, make its own interpretations of Law 27 under its RA powers. It won't happen because we are all reasonable and see the need for uniformity, but it would certainly be legal 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: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date: 11/06/2008 7:13 PM > > From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Jun 12 10:22:30 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:22:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <000001c8cc2b$3e221460$ba663d20$@com> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2EAD@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> > [PL] > > Some would say that the simpler and cheaper solution is to change Law 27B > to read: > > "Law 27B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted > > If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be > corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass. > Partner is silenced throughout." > > [DALB] > > I would suggest: > > "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be > corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Information from the > insufficient bid is unauthorised to the offending side but authorised > to the non-offending side (Law 16 and Law 73 apply)." Both admirable suggestions - put them on the table for 2017. 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 rbusch at ozemail.com.au Thu Jun 12 10:47:25 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:47:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. In-Reply-To: <000001c8cc2b$3e221460$ba663d20$@com> References: <000001c8cc2b$3e221460$ba663d20$@com> Message-ID: <4850E29D.5070408@ozemail.com.au> David Burn wrote: >[PL] > >Some would say that the simpler and cheaper solution is to change Law 27B to >read: > >"Law 27B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted > >If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be >corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass. Partner >is silenced throughout." > >[DALB] > >I would suggest: > >"If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be >corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Information from the >insufficient bid is unauthorised to the offending side but authorised to the >non-offending side (Law 16 and Law 73 apply)." > >David Burn >London, England > > > [RB] Great idea. Someone said that we are stuck with this new Law 27 for 10 years. But are we really? After all, the Laws were published and it was only a matter of weeks before it was realised there were defects. Law 27 was changed and we have all been busy sticking replacement pages into our lawbooks. If it can be done once it can be done again even though it may involve much loss of face. We in Australia have already been trying to cope with the new Law 27.for two weeks. I can see the effect in my own medium sized country club. We have a group of experienced club level directors who are all playing directors. They are terrified of calls for IBs, because they have difficulty in understanding Law 27, even though they have had ,much more training than many other clubs would have.With players being taken away from the table, time is being lost at two tables (the table with the problem and the director's own table). Our directors are not necessarily strong players, and the complexities of making 27B1(b) decisions are simply beyond them. Do the WBF not realise that we re typical of a large proportion of bridge clubs worldwide? The 2007 Laws were made available to NBOs months before they were published, but with an embargo on wider release. The moment they were published, people found problems. I understand the problems with releasing them earlier, but surely some attempt should be made to get views from the grassroots before any new set of Laws is set in stone. Or is it time we had two different sets of Laws - one for the grassroots and one for the elite? I have a suggestion. The Laws now allow zonal options. Let the WBF keep their Law 27 but add a zonal option to use a simpler law along the lines of the one David proposes. It would be interesting to see the result.. Reg Busch Sunshine Coast Qld >_______________________________________________ >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: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date: 11/06/2008 7:13 PM > > From t.vdlaan at net.hcc.nl Thu Jun 12 12:35:31 2008 From: t.vdlaan at net.hcc.nl (Timo van der Laan) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:35:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> Message-ID: <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Timo van der Laan > ............. > >> If such agreements are not forbidden by the RA the following agreement >> might be of more use: >> Any replacement of an insufficient bid has its normal meaning plus the >> meaning of the insufficient bid. >> Then the information of the insufficient bid is UI for partner, but >> partner is not barred from bidding. >> > > However, this is an error! > > When you say: "Any replacement of an insufficient bid has its normal meaning > plus the meaning of the insufficient bid" you apparently imply that the > normal meaning of the RA is not necessarily one of the meanings of the IB. > Consequently partner is barred after this RA. > It is no error. Let me give a simple example. 1H-1C. The agreement is as above. That makes the meaning of a pass in this situation: I have no bid after 1H and an opening with 2 or more clubs. Double means now: I have a double and an opening with 2 or more clubs. Etcetera. These meanings are more precise as the IB, so partner is not barred. One step more: A TO has the power to make this agreement a special regulation (80B2f). Then the suggestion of David Burn, change Law 27B into: "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Information from the insufficient bid is unauthorised to the offending side but authorised to the non-offending side (Law 16 and Law 73 apply)." is almost realized. Greetings, Timo van der Laan Zaandam Holland From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 12 13:26:54 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:26:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> Message-ID: <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> On Behalf Of Timo van der Laan ............... > > However, this is an error! > > > > When you say: "Any replacement of an insufficient bid has its normal meaning > > plus the meaning of the insufficient bid" you apparently imply that the > > normal meaning of the RA is not necessarily one of the meanings of the IB. > > Consequently partner is barred after this RA. > > > It is no error. Let me give a simple example. 1H-1C. > The agreement is as above. That makes the meaning of a pass in this > situation: > I have no bid after 1H and an opening with 2 or more clubs. Would EVERY hand with which you PASS after RHO opens 1H be opened with 1C if RHO had passed? > Double means now: I have a double and an opening with 2 or more clubs. Would EVERY hand with which you DOUBLE RHO's opening bid of 1H be opened with 1C if RHO had passed? > Etcetera. > These meanings are more precise as the IB, so partner is not barred. I guess that an honest answer to both my questions is NO. PASS in the first case could show a valueless hand that would never have been opened, and DOUBLE in the second case could show a hand that for instance would have been opened in 1S or even 1NT (without stopper in hearts). Consequently your meanings are not more precise than the IB. Sorry, but your suggestion implies a misunderstanding of L27B1(b). "More precise" in L27B1(b) means that with every possible hand indicated by the replacement call the player would have made the insufficient bid if that had been legal. In addition the insufficient bid could also indicate other hands than those indicated by the replacement call. . Regards Sven > > One step more: > A TO has the power to make this agreement a special regulation (80B2f). > Then the suggestion of David Burn, change Law 27B into: > "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be > corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Information from the > insufficient bid is unauthorised to the offending side but authorised to the > non-offending side (Law 16 and Law 73 apply)." is almost realized. > > Greetings, > > Timo van der Laan > Zaandam Holland > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From fab.maillist at unetmail.nl Thu Jun 12 14:09:51 2008 From: fab.maillist at unetmail.nl (Frans Buijsen) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:09:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> Message-ID: <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Timo van der Laan > ............... >>> However, this is an error! >>> >>> When you say: "Any replacement of an insufficient bid has its normal > meaning >>> plus the meaning of the insufficient bid" you apparently imply that the >>> normal meaning of the RA is not necessarily one of the meanings of the > IB. >>> Consequently partner is barred after this RA. >>> >> It is no error. Let me give a simple example. 1H-1C. >> The agreement is as above. That makes the meaning of a pass in this >> situation: >> I have no bid after 1H and an opening with 2 or more clubs. > > Would EVERY hand with which you PASS after RHO opens 1H be opened with 1C if > RHO had passed? No, his agreement in case of an insufficient bid is this: when we make an insufficient bid, and consequently replace it by another (sufficient) bid, the replacement bid means (1) whatever it would have meant without the insufficient bid PLUS (2) whatever the insufficient bid meant. With this agreement the replacement bid, by definition, has a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid, because it comprises the IB's entire meaning into the RA's meaning. > >> Double means now: I have a double and an opening with 2 or more clubs. > > Would EVERY hand with which you DOUBLE RHO's opening bid of 1H be opened > with 1C if RHO had passed? No. But every hand with which he doubles after first making an insufficient 1C bid would be opened 1C. -- ________________________________________________________________________ Frans Buijsen Haarlem, The Netherlands ________________________________________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 12 14:49:29 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:49:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> Message-ID: <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> On Behalf Of Frans Buijsen .............. > >> It is no error. Let me give a simple example. 1H-1C. > >> The agreement is as above. That makes the meaning of a pass in this > >> situation: > >> I have no bid after 1H and an opening with 2 or more clubs. > > > > Would EVERY hand with which you PASS after RHO opens 1H be opened with > 1C if > > RHO had passed? > > No, his agreement in case of an insufficient bid is this: when we make > an insufficient bid, and consequently replace it by another (sufficient) > bid, the replacement bid means > (1) whatever it would have meant without the insufficient bid > PLUS > (2) whatever the insufficient bid meant. > > With this agreement the replacement bid, by definition, has a more > precise meaning than the insufficient bid, because it comprises the IB's > entire meaning into the RA's meaning. > > > > > >> Double means now: I have a double and an opening with 2 or more clubs. > > > > Would EVERY hand with which you DOUBLE RHO's opening bid of 1H be > opened > > with 1C if RHO had passed? > > No. But every hand with which he doubles after first making an > insufficient 1C bid would be opened 1C. Sorry Frans, "More precise" means that the complete set of hands that might be indicated by the replacement call (without the previous insufficient bid) must not include any hand that is not also included in the complete set of hands that might be indicated by the insufficient bid. (The insufficient bid may "include" hands that are not also "included" in the replacement call.) Law 27B1(b) effectively requires the director to search for at least one hand that can be shown with the (suggested) replacement call but would not be basis for making the insufficient bid. If he finds one such hand then using that replacement call will bar partner for the rest of the auction. This is for instance the reason why in the auction 2NT - pass - 2Cl, the insufficient bid 2Cl (probably Stayman over 1NT) cannot immediately under Law 27B1(b) be replaced by 3Cl (Stayman over 2NT). In many (most?) cases 2Cl over 1NT will indicate at least 8HCP while 3Cl over 2NT can be made with as little as 4HCP, i.e. with hands that would not have bid 2Cl over 1NT. The replacement call 3Cl is less precise as it includes hands with strength 4-7 HCP in addition to those hands shown by the insufficient bid 2Cl. Regards Sven From fab.maillist at unetmail.nl Thu Jun 12 15:41:13 2008 From: fab.maillist at unetmail.nl (Frans Buijsen) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:41:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> Message-ID: <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Frans Buijsen > .............. >>>> It is no error. Let me give a simple example. 1H-1C. >>>> The agreement is as above. That makes the meaning of a pass in this >>>> situation: >>>> I have no bid after 1H and an opening with 2 or more clubs. >>> Would EVERY hand with which you PASS after RHO opens 1H be opened with >> 1C if >>> RHO had passed? >> No, his agreement in case of an insufficient bid is this: when we make >> an insufficient bid, and consequently replace it by another (sufficient) >> bid, the replacement bid means >> (1) whatever it would have meant without the insufficient bid >> PLUS >> (2) whatever the insufficient bid meant. >> >> With this agreement the replacement bid, by definition, has a more >> precise meaning than the insufficient bid, because it comprises the IB's >> entire meaning into the RA's meaning. >> >> >>>> Double means now: I have a double and an opening with 2 or more clubs. >>> Would EVERY hand with which you DOUBLE RHO's opening bid of 1H be >> opened >>> with 1C if RHO had passed? >> No. But every hand with which he doubles after first making an >> insufficient 1C bid would be opened 1C. > > Sorry Frans, > > "More precise" means that the complete set of hands that might be indicated > by the replacement call (without the previous insufficient bid) must not > include any hand that is not also included in the complete set of hands that > might be indicated by the insufficient bid. (The insufficient bid may > "include" hands that are not also "included" in the replacement call.) That's what we're trying to explain here -- this agreement ALWAYS makes your replacement bid's meaning more precise. Timo has engineered his agreement (about bidding after an IB) specifically so that he always satisfies this requirement, by saying that the replacement bid can only contain hands that were in the original set of hands indicated by the IB. I really don't know another way to explain this. > > Law 27B1(b) effectively requires the director to search for at least one > hand that can be shown with the (suggested) replacement call but would not > be basis for making the insufficient bid. If he finds one such hand then > using that replacement call will bar partner for the rest of the auction. But his agreement is specifically made so that there is no such hand! > > This is for instance the reason why in the auction 2NT - pass - 2Cl, the > insufficient bid 2Cl (probably Stayman over 1NT) cannot immediately under > Law 27B1(b) be replaced by 3Cl (Stayman over 2NT). In many (most?) cases > 2Cl over 1NT will indicate at least 8HCP while 3Cl over 2NT can be made with > as little as 4HCP, i.e. with hands that would not have bid 2Cl over 1NT. The > replacement call 3Cl is less precise as it includes hands with strength 4-7 > HCP in addition to those hands shown by the insufficient bid 2Cl. Not in Timo's case. His 3C replacement bid promises at least 8 HCP. So the meaning of 3C after 2NT-pass-3C is DIFFERENT from the meaning it has after 3NT-pass-2C/oops/3C. -- ________________________________________________________________________ Frans Buijsen Haarlem, The Netherlands ________________________________________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 12 16:24:59 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:24:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> Message-ID: <000301c8cc98$18437af0$48ca70d0$@no> On Behalf Of Frans Buijsen ......... > > This is for instance the reason why in the auction 2NT - pass - 2Cl, the > > insufficient bid 2Cl (probably Stayman over 1NT) cannot immediately under > > Law 27B1(b) be replaced by 3Cl (Stayman over 2NT). In many (most?) cases > > 2Cl over 1NT will indicate at least 8HCP while 3Cl over 2NT can be made with > > as little as 4HCP, i.e. with hands that would not have bid 2Cl over 1NT. The > > replacement call 3Cl is less precise as it includes hands with strength 4-7 > > HCP in addition to those hands shown by the insufficient bid 2Cl. > > Not in Timo's case. His 3C replacement bid promises at least 8 HCP. > So the meaning of 3C after 2NT-pass-3C is DIFFERENT from the meaning it > has after 3NT-pass-2C/oops/3C. OK, i think I understand your point, and if so, then it is illegal: L27B1(b) does NOT allow a player to alter the meaning of the replacement call in order to make it fit the insufficient bid! (This possibility seems to have been one of the undesired consequences of Law 27 as it was originally written for the 2007 law revision.) The Director shall decide if in his opinion the meaning of the replacement call, without any influence of the fact that it is a replacement call, is identical or more precise than the meaning of the insufficient bid. Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Jun 12 17:29:12 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:29:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred ><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002 001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> < 004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no > <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <00040 1c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$ 37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl><000101c8cc8a$c103e430 $430bac90$@no> <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> Message-ID: <485140C8.6020709@meteo.fr> Frans Buijsen a ?crit : > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Frans Buijsen >> .............. >>>>> It is no error. Let me give a simple example. 1H-1C. >>>>> The agreement is as above. That makes the meaning of a pass in this >>>>> situation: >>>>> I have no bid after 1H and an opening with 2 or more clubs. >>>> Would EVERY hand with which you PASS after RHO opens 1H be opened with >>> 1C if >>>> RHO had passed? >>> No, his agreement in case of an insufficient bid is this: when we make >>> an insufficient bid, and consequently replace it by another (sufficient) >>> bid, the replacement bid means >>> (1) whatever it would have meant without the insufficient bid >>> PLUS >>> (2) whatever the insufficient bid meant. >>> >>> With this agreement the replacement bid, by definition, has a more >>> precise meaning than the insufficient bid, because it comprises the IB's >>> entire meaning into the RA's meaning. >>> >>> >>>>> Double means now: I have a double and an opening with 2 or more clubs. >>>> Would EVERY hand with which you DOUBLE RHO's opening bid of 1H be >>> opened >>>> with 1C if RHO had passed? >>> No. But every hand with which he doubles after first making an >>> insufficient 1C bid would be opened 1C. >> Sorry Frans, >> >> "More precise" means that the complete set of hands that might be indicated >> by the replacement call (without the previous insufficient bid) must not >> include any hand that is not also included in the complete set of hands that >> might be indicated by the insufficient bid. (The insufficient bid may >> "include" hands that are not also "included" in the replacement call.) > > That's what we're trying to explain here -- this agreement ALWAYS makes > your replacement bid's meaning more precise. this seems quite perverse: i agree that 2 successive bids will always be more precise than only one of them. i don't know systems where one bid contradicts the meaning of the previous one; its purpose is to refine the meaning of the previous one. if we follow you, every replacement call would always be acceptable without silencing partner. the very condition to meet for acceptability of the RC is that, in isolation, taking into account the meaning it would have in a normal action without any IB, it would be more precise that the IB. jpr > > Timo has engineered his agreement (about bidding after an IB) > specifically so that he always satisfies this requirement, by saying > that the replacement bid can only contain hands that were in the > original set of hands indicated by the IB. > I really don't know another way to explain this. > > >> Law 27B1(b) effectively requires the director to search for at least one >> hand that can be shown with the (suggested) replacement call but would not >> be basis for making the insufficient bid. If he finds one such hand then >> using that replacement call will bar partner for the rest of the auction. > > But his agreement is specifically made so that there is no such hand! > >> This is for instance the reason why in the auction 2NT - pass - 2Cl, the >> insufficient bid 2Cl (probably Stayman over 1NT) cannot immediately under >> Law 27B1(b) be replaced by 3Cl (Stayman over 2NT). In many (most?) cases >> 2Cl over 1NT will indicate at least 8HCP while 3Cl over 2NT can be made with >> as little as 4HCP, i.e. with hands that would not have bid 2Cl over 1NT. The >> replacement call 3Cl is less precise as it includes hands with strength 4-7 >> HCP in addition to those hands shown by the insufficient bid 2Cl. > > Not in Timo's case. His 3C replacement bid promises at least 8 HCP. > So the meaning of 3C after 2NT-pass-3C is DIFFERENT from the meaning it > has after 3NT-pass-2C/oops/3C. > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jun 12 20:55:44 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:55:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred> <484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no> <002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:41:13 -0400, Frans Buijsen wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Frans Buijsen >> .............. >>>>> It is no error. Let me give a simple example. 1H-1C. >>>>> The agreement is as above. That makes the meaning of a pass in this >>>>> situation: >>>>> I have no bid after 1H and an opening with 2 or more clubs. >>>> Would EVERY hand with which you PASS after RHO opens 1H be opened with >>> 1C if >>>> RHO had passed? >>> No, his agreement in case of an insufficient bid is this: when we make >>> an insufficient bid, and consequently replace it by another >>> (sufficient) >>> bid, the replacement bid means >>> (1) whatever it would have meant without the insufficient bid >>> PLUS >>> (2) whatever the insufficient bid meant. >>> >>> With this agreement the replacement bid, by definition, has a more >>> precise meaning than the insufficient bid, because it comprises the >>> IB's >>> entire meaning into the RA's meaning. >>> >>> >>>>> Double means now: I have a double and an opening with 2 or more >>>>> clubs. >>>> Would EVERY hand with which you DOUBLE RHO's opening bid of 1H be >>> opened >>>> with 1C if RHO had passed? >>> No. But every hand with which he doubles after first making an >>> insufficient 1C bid would be opened 1C. >> >> Sorry Frans, >> >> "More precise" means that the complete set of hands that might be >> indicated >> by the replacement call (without the previous insufficient bid) must not >> include any hand that is not also included in the complete set of hands >> that >> might be indicated by the insufficient bid. (The insufficient bid may >> "include" hands that are not also "included" in the replacement call.) > > That's what we're trying to explain here -- this agreement ALWAYS makes > your replacement bid's meaning more precise. > > Timo has engineered his agreement (about bidding after an IB) > specifically so that he always satisfies this requirement, by saying > that the replacement bid can only contain hands that were in the > original set of hands indicated by the IB. > I really don't know another way to explain this. We can't have agreements like this in ACBL-land. If you can where you are, then this system seems to be too powerful. You can outperform the pairs who do not make insufficient bids, and then L27D kicks in. From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 12 23:12:09 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:12:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <000001c8cc2b$3e221460$ba663d20$@com> Message-ID: <002201c8ccd0$fa684360$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. > [PL] > > Some would say that the simpler and cheaper solution is to change Law 27B > to > read: > > "Law 27B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted > > If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be > corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass. > Partner > is silenced throughout." > > [DALB] > > I would suggest: > > "If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be > corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Information from the > insufficient bid is unauthorised to the offending side but authorised to > the > non-offending side (Law 16 and Law 73 apply)." At last a voice of sanity. john > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 12 23:16:46 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:16:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred ><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002 001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> < 004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no > <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <00040 1c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$ 37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl><000101c8cc8a$c103e430 $430bac90$@no><48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> <485140C8.6020709@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <003f01c8ccd1$9f17d6f0$0901a8c0@JOHN> > > Not in Timo's case. His 3C replacement bid promises at least 8 HCP. > So the meaning of 3C after 2NT-pass-3C is DIFFERENT from the meaning it > has after 3NT-pass-2C/oops/3C. > > only if you're a Frog who has been brainwashed by Roudinesco. In the UK, Stayamn promises nothing. John -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From fab.maillist at unetmail.nl Thu Jun 12 23:45:34 2008 From: fab.maillist at unetmail.nl (Frans Buijsen) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:45:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <000301c8cc98$18437af0$48ca70d0$@no> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> <000301c8cc98$18437af0$48ca70d0$@no> Message-ID: <485198FE.2060704@unetmail.nl> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Frans Buijsen > ......... > >>>This is for instance the reason why in the auction 2NT - pass - 2Cl, the >>>insufficient bid 2Cl (probably Stayman over 1NT) cannot immediately > > under > >>>Law 27B1(b) be replaced by 3Cl (Stayman over 2NT). In many (most?) > > cases > >>>2Cl over 1NT will indicate at least 8HCP while 3Cl over 2NT can be made > > with > >>>as little as 4HCP, i.e. with hands that would not have bid 2Cl over 1NT. > > The > >>>replacement call 3Cl is less precise as it includes hands with strength > > 4-7 > >>>HCP in addition to those hands shown by the insufficient bid 2Cl. >> >>Not in Timo's case. His 3C replacement bid promises at least 8 HCP. >>So the meaning of 3C after 2NT-pass-3C is DIFFERENT from the meaning it >>has after 3NT-pass-2C/oops/3C. > > > OK, i think I understand your point, and if so, then it is illegal: > > L27B1(b) does NOT allow a player to alter the meaning of the replacement > call in order to make it fit the insufficient bid! But does that law disallow to have such an agreement with my partner? This has been discussed extensively in the Dutch director community on Bridgeweb, and the conclusion was it needs additional regulation by the Regulating Authority to outlaw it. As it stands, it's an easy way out. I just create a partnership agreement about bidding after insufficient bids of this sort, and I'm always good. The 2NT example is a good one why this would be bad, but I don't see an explicit rule against it right now. (Unless law 27 has been reworded again since the last time I downloaded it.) -- ________________________________________________________________________ Frans Buijsen e-mail: frans.buijsen at unetmail.nl Haarlem, The Netherlands ________________________________________________________________________ From Gampas at aol.com Fri Jun 13 00:44:52 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:44:52 EDT Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency Message-ID: In a message dated 12/06/2008 22:17:28 GMT Standard Time, john at asimere.com writes: So the meaning of 3C after 2NT-pass-3C is DIFFERENT from the meaning it has after 3NT-pass-2C/oops/3C. [paul lamford] Clearly I have not been reading my BLML emails carefully enough, as the thread on what happens after one insufficient bid is substituted for another one passed me by. Just to get me up-to-date, can someone advise me what does happen when one IB is substituted for another, please. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 13 01:26:19 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:26:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <485198FE.2060704@unetmail.nl> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> <000301c8cc98$18437af0$48ca70d0$@no> <485198FE.2060704@unetmail.nl> Message-ID: <000801c8cce3$b877ca80$29675f80$@no> On Behalf Of Frans Buijsen .................... > > L27B1(b) does NOT allow a player to alter the meaning of the replacement > > call in order to make it fit the insufficient bid! > > But does that law disallow to have such an agreement with my partner? > This has been discussed extensively in the Dutch director community on > Bridgeweb, and the conclusion was it needs additional regulation by the > Regulating Authority to outlaw it. > > As it stands, it's an easy way out. I just create a partnership > agreement about bidding after insufficient bids of this sort, and I'm > always good. The 2NT example is a good one why this would be bad, but I > don't see an explicit rule against it right now. An agreement to the effect that the understanding of a particular call shall be changed (or varied) as a consequence of an irregularity committed by own side is effectively an agreement to use such irregularity to communicate the new and changed understanding of the call in question to partner. The very existence of the agreement enables the "could have known" condition in Law 23 and raises real suspicion that the irregularity was used as a deliberate means for communication with partner. Such communication is a grave violation of Laws 73A and 73B, and in particular Law 73B2. Furthermore: In my opinion Law 40B3 ought to have distinguished between offending side and non-offending side. The option to vary a partnership understanding after an irregularity should only be available to NOS, never to OS. It makes no sense legally (by default) allowing a partnership to commit a (minor) irregularity in order to activate a prearranged change in their partnership understandings. Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 13 01:29:53 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:29:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: <485198FE.2060704@unetmail.nl> References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> <000301c8cc98$18437af0$48ca70d0$@no> <485198FE.2060704@unetmail.nl> Message-ID: <000901c8cce4$37bc0d60$a7342820$@com> [SP] L27B1(b) does NOT allow a player to alter the meaning of the replacement call in order to make it fit the insufficient bid! [DALB] L27B1(b) says nothing on the matter whatsoever. It is worth noting that the EBL guidance says (in effect) that a player may deliberately make a replacement call that does not accord with his partnership's methods, specifically in order not to bar partner, and that his partner may legally be aware of the possibility that the player may have done this. For example: A player with a 1H opening responds 1H to his partner's 1H. He may without rectification correct to 2H, and his partner with a hand that would have passed over 1H-2H is not legally bound to pass over 1H-1H/2H. Of course, this is completely barmy. But (or perhaps therefore) it is the Law. [FB] But does that law disallow to have such an agreement with my partner? [DALB] No. L27B1(b) says nothing about what agreements you may or may not have with your partner, and I have no idea why SP thinks that it does. [FB] (Unless law 27 has been reworded again since the last time I downloaded it.) [DALB, from his new bright red Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 - hang on a minute... 2007? Must have been asleep.] If... the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the insufficient bid (such meanings being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification. This Law says nothing about what the meaning of the replacement call might be, nor does it place any limitation on what a partnership might agree to be the meaning of any replacement call following an insufficient bid. In the Dutch example, an opening bid of 1C says nothing about whether the bidder might or might not have a takeout double of 1H, or a pass over 1H, so that a player who has bid 1C over an opening 1H may by agreement (as far as L27 is concerned) correct to pass (or anything else) if he would not double 1H, or to double if he would. The only Law that does address such a question is 40B3: The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings... following... any irregularity. The question remaining in my mind is: if an RA does disallow such prior agreement, does the EBL guidance allowing a player with a minimum to bid on over 1H-1H/2H still hold? No doubt Max Bavin and I will while away the nine hours or so it will take us to reach Pau tomorrow in learned discussion of such matters. Normally we would just go to the bar and discuss the football, but I am not sure I can face being told yet again why van Nistelrooy was onside, even though it is refreshing to learn that bridge is not the only game in the world governed by absurd rules. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 13 01:30:30 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:30:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000901c8cce4$4dceafe0$e96c0fa0$@no> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > Sent: 13. juni 2008 00:45 > To: blml at amsterdamned.org > Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency > > In a message dated 12/06/2008 22:17:28 GMT Standard Time, > john at asimere.com > writes: > > So the meaning of 3C after 2NT-pass-3C is DIFFERENT from the meaning it > has after 3NT-pass-2C/oops/3C. > > [paul lamford] > Clearly I have not been reading my BLML emails carefully enough, as the > thread on what happens after one insufficient bid is substituted for another one > passed me by. Just to get me up-to-date, can someone advise me what does > happen when one IB is substituted for another, please. Law 27B4 But I assume the line that triggered your curiosity was intended to be be: 2NT-pass-2C/oops/3C Regards Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 13 01:42:22 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:42:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000a01c8cce5$f69bc580$e3d35080$@com> [PL] Just to get me up-to-date, can someone advise me what does happen when one IB is substituted for another, please. [DALB] RHO opens 2S (weak) and you hold: None AKJ102 AKJ987 AK In the latest Dutch methods you first bid 1D, then you correct to 1H, then to 2C. Finally, you bid 4C to show a hand with six diamonds and five hearts that would have opened 2C and has no club losers. I should have thought this was obvious. It is certainly not illegal, unless your Regulating Authority deems otherwise, and why on Earth should it? David Burn London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 13 02:12:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:12:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> <000301c8cc98$18437af0$48ca70d0$@no><485198FE.2060704@unetmail.nl> <000901c8cce4$37bc0d60$a7342820$@com> Message-ID: <420b01c8ccea$2723f2a0$661f2bd9@stefanie> [DALB, from his new bright red Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 - hang on a minute... 2007? Must have been asleep.] > The only Law that does address such a question is 40B3: > > The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to > vary its understandings... following... any irregularity. The EBU, as you well know, have disallowed prior agreements after one's own side's irregularity. > > The question remaining in my mind is: if an RA does disallow such prior > agreement, does the EBL guidance allowing a player with a minimum to bid > on > over 1H-1H/2H still hold? I think, and hope, that it cannot. I think, and hope, that the EBU policy is, in effect, that partner cannot take into consideration the fact that your RC might not accurately decsribe partner's hand. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 13 02:36:19 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:36:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c8cce5$f69bc580$e3d35080$@com> Message-ID: [DALB] RHO opens 2S (weak) and you hold: None AKJ102 AKJ987 AK In the latest Dutch methods you first bid 1D, then you correct to 1H, then to 2C. Finally, you bid 4C to show a hand with six diamonds and five hearts that would have opened 2C and has no club losers. I should have thought this was obvious. It is certainly not illegal, unless your Regulating Authority deems otherwise, and why on Earth should it? David Burn London, England * * * [RJBH] A classic comment. I hate to spoil such an aesthetic joke with an ugly fact, but ..... Law 27B4: "if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows." Law 27B3: " ..... the attempted call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23." 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 Jun 13 03:51:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:51:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4850D471.3040803@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Of course, this debate is now moot. An Aussie TD can no longer >>independently interpret the 2007 Law 27, but must instead follow >>the official Zone 7 Laws Committee interim interpretation. Reg Busch: >Wrong. Richard > >Zone 7 is the RA for events held under its own auspices. The ABF >is the RA for events within its own territory. But the ABF >has assigned its RA rights to the states for their own events, >and in Qld the QBA has assigned RA rights to clubs for their own >events. An individual club could, if it so wished, make its own >interpretations of Law 27 under its RA powers. It won't happen >because we are all reasonable and see the need for uniformity, >but it would certainly be legal Richard Hills: Right and wrong, Reg. Under the 2007 Law 80 it is true that the Zone 7 Regulating Authority has limited powers. But ..... The By Laws of the World Bridge Federation, Revised 2003: 8.8 Laws Committee. The President shall appoint a Laws Committee and shall designate the Chairman of such Committee. The Committee shall consist of not less than seven members representing at least three Zones. The function and duty of this Committee shall be to consider and take account of all matters relating to the international laws of bridge. The Committee shall make whatever changes in the laws it deems appropriate, subject to approval by the Executive. The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically review the laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure. The Laws Committee shall fix its own rules of procedure and shall act as provided by such rules or by direction of the Executive. Richard Hills: So under clause 8.8 the WBF Laws Committee has a supreme power to interpret the Lawbook, not limited by the functional constraints that Law 80 places on Regulating Authorities. And a Minute of the WBF Laws Committee delegated its supreme interpretation power to Zonal Laws Committees on a temporary interim basis (that is, until such a Zonal interpretation is over-ruled by a later decision of the WBF LC). Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 13 04:38:09 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:38:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <428801c8ccfe$84bfc920$661f2bd9@stefanie> > Jan Peach: > >>>Players should not be in a position that telling untruths >>>will get a better RC for their side. > They should not, but this is an inevitable consequence of the new 27B. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 13 04:39:39 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:39:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no> <4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> <48512779.7090902@unetmail.nl> <000301c8cc98$18437af0$48ca70d0$@no><485198FE.2060704@unetmail.nl> <000801c8cce3$b877ca80$29675f80$@no> Message-ID: <428a01c8ccfe$ba0c8000$661f2bd9@stefanie> From: "Sven Pran" > Furthermore: In my opinion Law 40B3 ought to have distinguished between > offending side and non-offending side. The option to vary a partnership > understanding after an irregularity should only be available to NOS, never > to OS. Apparently this was an oversight, but... > > It makes no sense legally (by default) allowing a partnership to commit a > (minor) irregularity in order to activate a prearranged change in their > partnership understandings. > The EBU have corrected this by regulation, and no doubt other NBOs will follow suit. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 13 04:46:26 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:46:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <000801c8cb1f$63c66430$bbce403e@Mildred> <60105DE5-99BC-4A49-B442-1F71E78D65D4@starpower.net> <004d01c8cbb8$49642520$54cf403e@Mildred> <48505722.9060603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <42f701c8ccff$acb46750$661f2bd9@stefanie> From: "Herman De Wael" > I have a solution to this problem. > Why not send the partner of the IBer off the table? > That way, we can have the NOS hear everything we believe they are > entitled to (and perhaps a little more - but that's the IBer's > problem) without having to worry about UI to the partner. > Then after we've explained to the IBer everything, we can have the LHO > decide about accepting, have the IBer make his decision - confirm that > he knows he has barred his partner (or not), and only then allow the > partner back to the table and explain if he's barred or not. > This seems quite a good suggestion. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 13 04:48:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:48:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <732c01c8c522$ef0e4970$55719951@stefanie> <003101c8c7ba$b3d05ac0$93d2403e@Mildred><484D2767.4080900@ozemail.com.au> <000001c8ca35$7f7ec130$7e7c4390$@no><002001c8caf1$913a3820$3fcd403e@Mildred> <000701c8cb09$6a5d6930$3f183b90$@no> <004301c8cb0f$02ec7ce0$59d5403e@Mildred> <000c01c8cbb6$8ec264d0$ac472e70$@no> <000001c8cbc8$d8773d50$8965b7f0$@no> <4850321A.1090006@net.hcc.nl> <000401c8cc0b$0e0abb30$2a203190$@no> <4850FBF3.6000001@net.hcc.nl> <000001c8cc7f$37ee0dc0$a7ca2940$@no><4851120F.3060407@unetmail.nl> <000101c8cc8a$c103e430$430bac90$@no> Message-ID: <42f901c8ccff$f77b0320$661f2bd9@stefanie> Sven Pran > > Law 27B1(b) effectively requires the director to search for at least one > hand that can be shown with the (suggested) replacement call but would not > be basis for making the insufficient bid. If he finds one such hand then > using that replacement call will bar partner for the rest of the auction. This is going to be fun for playing directors who are not skilled bridge players. Surely this Law will not last a decade! Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 13 05:01:13 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:01:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <009301c8c9c0$22a26130$75e765cb@your3dbe17a7c0><8B3C9115-5EEA-4A7F-8764-B8B990272F26@starpower.net> <006401c8cb44$74870700$eae565cb@your3dbe17a7c0> Message-ID: <432701c8cd01$bdc9f5d0$661f2bd9@stefanie> From: "Jan Peach" >> Is there some indication that the WBF is to issue a clarification that >> "several possible" means "the one intended"? Why has "intended" >> become so important when it doesn't even appear in Law 27B1(b)? I wish I knew. Apparently it has been chosen in order to make some sense of the "meaning" of an IB, since of course it cannot legally have any meaning at all? > All this again raises my question. Why has "intended" been added to > 27B1(b)? I hope that eventually the tide of opinion will shift and a new interpretation will reflect that the "intention" is irrelevant and cannot be made a matter of law. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 13 06:34:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:34:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Grattan's notebook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4850E29D.5070408@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Reg Busch: >Someone said that we are stuck with this new Law 27 for 10 >years. But are we really? WBF By Law 8.8, Laws Committee: and **at least** once each decade shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure. Richard Hills: So if the WBF LC wants to bring forward its comprehensive update from 2018 to 2012, it is entitled to do so. My list of suggestions to be added to Grattan's notebook include: Laws 9A3 and 42A - clarify that preventing an opponent's irregularity is an absolute right of dummy. Laws 9A4 and 72B2 - hobby-horse preference to reverse "no obligation" to "an obligation". Laws 10C1 and 27A - explain the Law 10C1 word "explain", with particular reference to future consequences of Law 27A options. Law 16D vs Law 26 - since Law 16D deals with the same topic that Law 26 does, should Law 26 be abolished? Law 20F5(a) - "indicate in any manner" or "indicate by any mannerism"? Laws 46A and 72B1 - remove the word "should" from Law 46A, since that causes a succinct naming of a card to be an infraction, and deliberately doing so becomes a Law 72B1 severe "must" infraction. Law 58B2 - settle trivial disagreement on minor/major penalty cards. Alternatively, abolish penalty cards, out of rotation calls and insufficient bids, instead treating all of these irregularities as Law 16D cancellations. Law 64B7 - clarify whether "revokes" means "established revokes". Law 68B2 - after the words "no concession" add the bracketed words "(nor claim)". Law 80A1(c) - change "in whose territory" to "under whose auspices". Note that the ACBL, USBF and ABA share overlapping territories. Laws 82D and 93 - either change the Law 82D "Director" to "Director in charge", or change the Law 93 "Director in charge" to "Director". 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 Jun 13 09:17:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:17:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >The problem, of course, is that bridge is a timed event, Richard Hills: Is it? Because chess clocks are not used in bridge tournaments, whether or not a slow pair gets a slow play fine partly depends on whether or not their opponents play at medium speed or with celerity and panache. In a semi-final of the American Trials two decades ago, Team A received a slow play fine, leaving it exactly tied with Team B, and then Team A lost the 12-board playoff. However, in the other room Team B was also at risk of a slow play fine, but the opposing Team A pair foolishly claimed several times with celerity and panache. One less claim and there would have been two cancelling slow play penalties, giving Team A the victory. And now a new twist. A non-offending side which did not insufficiently bid could nevertheless receive a slow play fine because the _Director_ did not give a Law 27 ruling with celerity and panache (due to the convoluted process required by the Zone 7 Laws Committee). Morton's Fork -> either lose the knockout match due to a 3 imp slow play fine, or save time with a Law 27A acceptance of RHO's insufficient bid, but - because you are Karapet - such acceptance of the IB costs you 3 imps anyway. 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 Fri Jun 13 09:50:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:50:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <485226B7.70702@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Because chess clocks are not used in bridge tournaments, > whether or not a slow pair gets a slow play fine partly > depends on whether or not their opponents play at medium > speed or with celerity and panache. > > In a semi-final of the American Trials two decades ago, > Team A received a slow play fine, leaving it exactly tied > with Team B, and then Team A lost the 12-board playoff. > > However, in the other room Team B was also at risk of a > slow play fine, but the opposing Team A pair foolishly > claimed several times with celerity and panache. One > less claim and there would have been two cancelling slow > play penalties, giving Team A the victory. > > I remember that case. Wasn't it Broadway Billy who "erred" by playing fast ? But I don't agree on your (and Rubens') description of the event. If an experienced player doesn't claim when he is able to, he's giving his opponents undue problems, which could lead to him being penalized in lieu of his opponents ; see L74B4. Team A played properly in "the other room". One can only suppose that, in the first room, team A's timing problems were self-inflicted rather than caused by an opponent's stubborn will to play the deals till the end. If they forgot to appeal and mention B's tendency to avoid claiming, too bad ; but I'd be ready to bet on A's sole fault. > And now a new twist. A non-offending side which did not > insufficiently bid could nevertheless receive a slow play > fine because the _Director_ did not give a Law 27 ruling > with celerity and panache (due to the convoluted process > required by the Zone 7 Laws Committee). We had such a case, long ago, in Belgium. It was decided that the time taken by the TD to give his ruling was to be deducted, so what's the heck ? Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 13 09:56:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:56:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lingering, with boiling oil [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <484E3836.6010201@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Furthermore the director can keep himself busy by calculating >weighted scores based on equity principles. Grateful players >will understand and appreciate how justice is done and seem >to be done :) Richard Hills: Nigel is flogging a dead horse with this attempt at irony. Experience has shown that players (in tournaments where the 1997 Law 12C3 was enabled) were grateful for those equity rulings. This was proven by the vastly reduced numbers of appeals, once justice was seen to be done by letting the punishment fit the crime. W.S. Gilbert, The Mikado: MIK. Ha! ha! ha! (To Katisha.) I forget the punishment for compassing the death of the Heir Apparent. KO., POOH, and PITTI. Punishment. (They drop down on their knees again.) MIK. Yes. Something lingering, with boiling oil in it, I fancy. Something of that sort. I think boiling oil occurs in it, but I'm not sure. I know it's something humorous, but lingering, with either boiling oil or melted lead. Come, come, don't fret--I'm not a bit angry. KO. (in abject terror). If your Majesty will accept our assurance, we had no idea---- MIK. Of course---- PITTI. I knew nothing about it. POOH. I wasn't there. MIK. That's the pathetic part of it. Unfortunately, the fool of an Act says "compassing the death of the Heir Apparent." There's not a word about a mistake---- KO., PITTI., and POOH. No! MIK. Or not knowing---- KO. No! MIK. Or having no notion---- PITTI. No! MIK. Or not being there---- POOH. No! MIK. There should be, of course--- KO., PITTI., and POOH. Yes! MIK. But there isn't. KO., PITTI., and POOH. Oh! MIK. That's the slovenly way in which these Acts are always drawn. However, cheer up, it'll be all right. I'll have it altered next session. Now, let's see about your execution--will after luncheon suit you? Can you wait till then? KO., PITTI., and POOH. Oh, yes--we can wait till then! MIK. Then we'll make it after luncheon. POOH. I don't want any lunch. MIK. I'm really very sorry for you all, but it's an unjust world, and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances. 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 larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Jun 13 10:35:54 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:35:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <000a01c8cce5$f69bc580$e3d35080$@com> Message-ID: <008a01c8cd30$86236510$2401a8c0@p41600> What a pleasant way to start the day. lnb ####################################### # I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol # ####################################### ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 12:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency > [PL] > > Just to get me up-to-date, can someone advise me what does happen when one > IB is substituted for another, please. > > [DALB] > > RHO opens 2S (weak) and you hold: > > None AKJ102 AKJ987 AK > > In the latest Dutch methods you first bid 1D, then you correct to 1H, then > to 2C. Finally, you bid 4C to show a hand with six diamonds and five hearts > that would have opened 2C and has no club losers. I should have thought this > was obvious. It is certainly not illegal, unless your Regulating Authority > deems otherwise, and why on Earth should it? > > 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: 270.3.0/1498 - Release Date: 6/11/2008 7:13 PM From karel at esatclear.ie Fri Jun 13 12:20:36 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:20:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table Message-ID: Teams match, sharing boards. At the other table clearly heard by 3 people at the table, "partner why didnt you bid 7D's" or to that effect. RHO calls the TD and says this is ridiculous we are playing the same boards, can you please tell the opps to not discuss the hands. LHO btw wears a hearing aid. Td warns the other table. 2/3 boards later the opps have this auction LHO RHO S AJxx S Kxx H AKTx H - D Q D AKT8xxx C AKQT C xxxx Bidding goes 2D 3D 3NT 4D 5NT 7D 2D is art big hand strongest bid in the system. 3D is positive. 4D is slam going. Partner at the end of the auction calls the TD and says listen this is the board the opps were talking about and everyone knows what the final contract is. The TD says he'll look at the bidding and will decide whether it is warranted or not. He comes back and says good auction, lets the result stand. We appeal. Regardless of LHO's deafness - the fact the TD was called by RHO indicated that had we bid 7D he would have called the TD and asked the board be scraped. The discussion at the table when the TD was called would have been sufficient to alert LHO (regardless of deafness) and he may well have heard 7D along the way. The auction would no doubt have been the same with 6 diamonds as opposed to 7 leading to a terrible grand. Regardless of how "good" the auction was - subconsciously all 4 people knew the result and it was just a matter of getting there. We also noted 7C is an equally good if not better contract with no attempt to find it (4C instead of 4D). What do you rule ? K. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jun 13 12:42:33 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:42:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lingering, with boiling oil [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48524F19.4070104@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] Furthermore the director can keep himself busy by calculating weighted scores based on equity principles. Grateful players will understand and appreciate how justice is done and seem to be done :) [Richard Hills] Nigel is flogging a dead horse with this attempt at irony. Experience has shown that players (in tournaments where the 1997 Law 12C3 was enabled) were grateful for those equity rulings. This was proven by the vastly reduced numbers of appeals, once justice was seen to be done by letting the punishment fit the crime. [Nige2] (1) A small adjustment to a weighted score can alter the result of a competition. But committees are told not to fiddle with weighted scores. So players don't often waste time appealing. But Richard is partially right: Persistent law-breakers do welcome weighted scores. (2) At Reading Bridge Club, players clamour to go home in time to get some sleep. With complex laws, rulings may require{ (a) Several visits to a table where an infraction occurred, (b) A weighted ruling or an appeal. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 13 14:18:39 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:18:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8cd4f$9d43dd00$d7cb9700$@no> On Behalf Of Karel > Sent: 13. juni 2008 12:21 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table > > Teams match, sharing boards. At the other table clearly heard by 3 > people at the table, > "partner why didnt you bid 7D's" or to that effect. RHO calls the TD > and says this is ridiculous > we are playing the same boards, can you please tell the opps to not > discuss the hands. > LHO btw wears a hearing aid. Td warns the other table. > > 2/3 boards later the opps have this auction > > > LHO RHO > S AJxx S Kxx > H AKTx H - > D Q D AKT8xxx > C AKQT C xxxx > > > Bidding goes > > 2D 3D > 3NT 4D > 5NT 7D > > 2D is art big hand strongest bid in the system. 3D is positive. 4D > is slam going. > > Partner at the end of the auction calls the TD and says listen this is the board > the opps were talking about and everyone knows what the final contract > is. The TD > says he'll look at the bidding and will decide whether it is warranted > or not. He comes > back and says good auction, lets the result stand. > > We appeal. Regardless of LHO's deafness - the fact the TD was called > by RHO indicated > that had we bid 7D he would have called the TD and asked the board be > scraped. The discussion > at the table when the TD was called would have been sufficient to > alert LHO (regardless of deafness) > and he may well have heard 7D along the way. The auction would no > doubt have been the same > with 6 diamonds as opposed to 7 leading to a terrible grand. > > Regardless of how "good" the auction was - subconsciously all 4 people > knew the result > and it was just a matter of getting there. We also noted 7C is an > equally good if not better > contract with no attempt to find it (4C instead of 4D). > > What do you rule ? Cancel the board for this table (without any discussion) and issue a big PP to the side making the (loud) remark at the other table. The UI received at this table appears to having made the auction on this board just a formality. If it obviously has had little or no influence on the result then the board would be a push anyway, so little harm is done by just cancelling the board (under 2007 law 16C2(c) ). If the 1997 laws were still in force the director should IMO have cancelled the board immediately when summoned the first time; technically he may no longer award an adjusted score after he has permitted the board to be played in spite of the UI received at the table. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 13 16:50:02 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:50:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table In-Reply-To: <000001c8cd4f$9d43dd00$d7cb9700$@no> References: <000001c8cd4f$9d43dd00$d7cb9700$@no> Message-ID: <4852891A.8070300@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > Cancel the board for this table (without any discussion) and issue a big PP > to the side making the (loud) remark at the other table. > > The UI received at this table appears to having made the auction on this > board just a formality. If it obviously has had little or no influence on > the result then the board would be a push anyway Not in the general case. Say the loud remark was "4S should have been played by North to succeed" ; say this pair plays weak NT, making reaching 4S from the right side a formality ; if North's hand is a normal 1NT opener, hearing the ramark wouldn't influence the result at this table (they would have played it from the right side anyway), but the board wouldn't be a push. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 13 22:48:00 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:48:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table In-Reply-To: <4852891A.8070300@ulb.ac.be> References: <000001c8cd4f$9d43dd00$d7cb9700$@no> <4852891A.8070300@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901c8cd96$c4f15d40$4ed417c0$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: 13. juni 2008 16:50 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table > > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > Cancel the board for this table (without any discussion) and issue a big PP > > to the side making the (loud) remark at the other table. > > > > The UI received at this table appears to having made the auction on this > > board just a formality. If it obviously has had little or no influence on > > the result then the board would be a push anyway > Not in the general case. This was not a "general" case of loud remarks at another table; it was a remark involving a cold grand. > > Say the loud remark was "4S should have been played by North to succeed" > ; say this pair plays weak NT, making reaching 4S from the right side a > formality ; if North's hand is a normal 1NT opener, hearing the ramark > wouldn't influence the result at this table (they would have played it > from the right side anyway), but the board wouldn't be a push. Bringing alternative situations that have little in common with the actual case just confuses the issue. Sven > > Best regards > > > Alain > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jun 14 20:47:22 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:47:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Karel" writes: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:20 AM Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table > Teams match, sharing boards. At the other table clearly heard by 3 > people at the table, > "partner why didnt you bid 7D's" or to that effect. RHO calls the TD > and says this is ridiculous > we are playing the same boards, can you please tell the opps to not > discuss the hands. > LHO btw wears a hearing aid. Td warns the other table. And L16C2 should apply here; the TD awards an adjusted score if the extraneous information "may" have affected the result. (He can't cancel a board yet because he doesn't know which board.) What is the proper standard? We know what the standard is for UI from partner (L16B); if the UI makes the action chosen more attractive, and the alternative action would have been a logical alternative, then we adjust. The word "may" suggests that the standard should be similar in a L16C2 case; if there was an LA, and the result would have been *different* (rather than better) had the LA been chosen, then we adjust. And that matters in the discussion below, as I believe that both players have LAs which would have gotten to the better contract of 7NT. (On the actual hands, 7NT is strictly better; it makes whenever 7D makes for an extra 2 IMPs, and it also has a slight chance of making when 7D is down.) > 2/3 boards later the opps have this auction > > > LHO RHO > S AJxx S Kxx > H AKTx H - > D Q D AKT8xxx > C AKQT C xxxx RHO has 14 cards; I assume the spades are Kx because of the discussion, but if the clubs are xxx, it is still true that 7NT is better than 7D. > > Bidding goes > > 2D 3D > 3NT 4D > 5NT 7D > > 2D is art big hand strongest bid in the system. 3D is positive. 4D > is slam going. > > Partner at the end of the auction calls the TD and says listen this is the > board > the opps were talking about and everyone knows what the final contract > is. The TD > says he'll look at the bidding and will decide whether it is warranted > or not. He comes > back and says good auction, lets the result stand. > We appeal. Regardless of LHO's deafness - the fact the TD was called > by RHO indicated > that had we bid 7D he would have called the TD and asked the board be > scraped. The discussion > at the table when the TD was called would have been sufficient to > alert LHO (regardless of deafness) > and he may well have heard 7D along the way. This needs to be determined on the appeal. LHO may have an LA to 5NT, and also has 7NT as an LA to his final pass. Therefore, if LHO knew about the 7D call, the board is thrown out. If LHO did not know about the 7D call, how I rule depends on their agreements. I believe RHO should have bid 6S over 5NT, showing two of three diamond honors (since he bid above 6D) and a high spade honor; now LHO will bid 7NT, as he can count 13 tricks if the diamonds run. If they have a clear agreement that the only positive reply to the grand slam force is 7D, then I do not believe RHO has any LA to his calls, and there is no adjustment. If the board is fouled, a PP to the offending player in the discussion is in order; he could not have known that his discussion would gain a bundle of IMPs for his team, but he could have known that his discussion would foul the board. From john at asimere.com Sat Jun 14 23:14:51 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:14:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table References: <000001c8cd4f$9d43dd00$d7cb9700$@no><4852891A.8070300@ulb.ac.be> <000901c8cd96$c4f15d40$4ed417c0$@no> Message-ID: <001901c8ce63$af4a37a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table I cancel the board, and order a substitute to be played, fining the offenders the standard fine for the scoring method in question. I think it's pretty clear to me. One can award more than a standard fine if the NOs score is exceptionally good, but I don't like to do this, (though a Probst cheat would try it on). It's cheaper to pay the 3 imps (or 1/2 VP) than pay off to a grand. John. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: 13. juni 2008 16:50 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table > > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > Cancel the board for this table (without any discussion) and issue a big PP > > to the side making the (loud) remark at the other table. > > > > The UI received at this table appears to having made the auction on this > > board just a formality. If it obviously has had little or no influence on > > the result then the board would be a push anyway > Not in the general case. This was not a "general" case of loud remarks at another table; it was a remark involving a cold grand. > > Say the loud remark was "4S should have been played by North to succeed" > ; say this pair plays weak NT, making reaching 4S from the right side a > formality ; if North's hand is a normal 1NT opener, hearing the ramark > wouldn't influence the result at this table (they would have played it > from the right side anyway), but the board wouldn't be a push. Bringing alternative situations that have little in common with the actual case just confuses the issue. Sven > > Best regards > > > Alain > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 15 11:59:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:59:19 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Grattan's notebook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <2547859.1213523959399.JavaMail.root@ps37.mc.tiscali.sys> +== I am not in a position here in Pau. to note anything down. Reconfirm after June 30th. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Find out what Tiscali can do for you - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 15 12:46:37 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:46:37 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency Message-ID: <17474612.1213526797687.JavaMail.root@ps37.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ Although David is here with me in Pau we have not discussed anything on blml. The obvious thing to be understood is that if one IB (not accepted) is substituted with another (and the latter not accepted by LHO) the partner will be silenced. Law 27B4 leads to 27B3. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------- >----Original Message---- >From: dalburn at btopenworld.com >Date: 13/06/2008 0:42 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency > >[PL] > >Just to get me up-to-date, can someone advise me what does happen when one >IB is substituted for another, please. > >[DALB] > >RHO opens 2S (weak) and you hold: > >None AKJ102 AKJ987 AK > >In the latest Dutch methods you first bid 1D, then you correct to 1H, then >to 2C. Finally, you bid 4C to show a hand with six diamonds and five hearts >that would have opened 2C and has no club losers. I should have thought this >was obvious. It is certainly not illegal, unless your Regulating Authority >deems otherwise, and why on Earth should it? > >David Burn >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________________________________________________________ Find out what Tiscali can do for you - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 15 14:43:34 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:43:34 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. Message-ID: <19519242.1213533814400.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ Here in Pau I have restricted time to respond to comments. I do expect we will talk about various problems in Beijing. It will be contrary to all current intentions if any change in the text of the law were to be agreed. Interpretations are a different matter - there is likely to be some attempt to reach common agreement on interpretation if at all possible. That may be, of course, an agreement that a solution is open to zonal regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >----Original Message---- >From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com >Date: 13/06/2008 4:01 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. > > >From: "Jan Peach" > >>> Is there some indication that the WBF is to issue a clarification that >>> "several possible" means "the one intended"? Why has "intended" >>> become so important when it doesn't even appear in Law 27B1(b)? > >I wish I knew. Apparently it has been chosen in order to make some sense of >the "meaning" of an IB, since of course it cannot legally have any meaning >at all? > >> All this again raises my question. Why has "intended" been added to >> 27B1(b)? > >I hope that eventually the tide of opinion will shift and a new >interpretation will reflect that the "intention" is irrelevant and cannot be >made a matter of law. > >Stefanie Rohan >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________________________________________________________ Find out what Tiscali can do for you - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 15 15:01:57 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:01:57 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency Message-ID: <1412312.1213534917897.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ It has become clear, however, that a player who is kicked gracelessly to maximum effect should take care to fall in the opponents' half of the field so as to leave no scope for the Van Nistelroy method. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (DALB) I am not sure I can face being told yet again why van Nistelrooy was >onside, even though it is refreshing to learn that bridge is not the only >game in the world governed by absurd rules. > >David Burn >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________________________________________________________ Find out what Tiscali can do for you - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 15 15:23:57 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:23:57 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency Message-ID: <18980487.1213536237935.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: dalburn at btopenworld.com >Date: 13/06/2008 0:29 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > (DALB) >The question remaining in my mind is: if an RA does disallow such prior >agreement, does the EBL guidance allowing a player with a minimum to > bid on over 1H-1H/2H still hold? > >> +=+ The player may bid on if he has a hand that justifies it opposite one of the hands partner may have, given the range of the possible intentions of the offender when he violated the law, knowledge available to the player through his general bridge knowledge - Law 16A1(d). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Find out what Tiscali can do for you - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Jun 15 18:51:52 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:51:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency References: <18980487.1213536237935.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <027301c8cf08$1d3b6960$0100a8c0@stefanie> >>The question remaining in my mind is: if an RA does disallow such > prior >>agreement, does the EBL guidance allowing a player with a minimum to >> bid on over 1H-1H/2H still hold? > Grattan: > +=+ The player may bid on if he has a hand that justifies it opposite > one of the hands partner may have, given the range of the possible > intentions of the offender when he violated the law, knowledge > available to the player through his general bridge knowledge - Law > 16A1(d). > This is one of the big problems with the new Law, which could have been avoided quite simply by making the IB UI to the side that made it, instead of somehow inserting it into the legal auction. This one really does need to be changed in less than a decade, I think. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Jun 15 18:53:10 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:53:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. References: <19519242.1213533814400.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <027d01c8cf08$4be1db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> > +=+ Here in Pau I have restricted time to respond to comments. > I do expect we will talk about various problems in Beijing. > It will be contrary to all current intentions if any change > in the text of the law were to be agreed. Interpretations are a > different matter - there is likely to be some attempt to reach > common agreement on interpretation if at all possible. That may > be, of course, an agreement that a solution is open to zonal > regulation. Well, in case of the "intention" of an IBer, as it is not mentioned in the Laws, no change will mean that it is contrary to the Laws to take it into account. Right? Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 15 19:11:00 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:11:00 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. Message-ID: <8894636.1213549860976.JavaMail.root@ps27> +=+ The guidance given from Turin will stand in Europe except in the (unlikely) event it is overturned in Beijing. The Max Bavin solution has been adopted. I am afraid daisy duck has failed to impress the judges. No best in show for her. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >----Original Message---- >From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com >Date: 15/06/2008 17:53 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. > > >> +=+ Here in Pau I have restricted time to respond to comments. >> I do expect we will talk about various problems in Beijing. >> It will be contrary to all current intentions if any change >> in the text of the law were to be agreed. Interpretations are a >> different matter - there is likely to be some attempt to reach >> common agreement on interpretation if at all possible. That may >> be, of course, an agreement that a solution is open to zonal >> regulation. > >Well, in case of the "intention" of an IBer, as it is not mentioned in the >Laws, no change will mean that it is contrary to the Laws to take it into >account. Right? > >Stefanie Rohan >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________________________________________________________ Find out what Tiscali can do for you - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jun 15 19:20:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:20:56 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency Message-ID: <15712626.1213550456848.JavaMail.root@ps27> >----Original Message---- >From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com >Date: 15/06/2008 17:51 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] L27 question w/ inadvertency > >>>The question remaining in my mind is: if an RA does disallow such >> prior >>>agreement, does the EBL guidance allowing a player with a minimum to >>> bid on over 1H-1H/2H still hold? > > >Grattan: > >> +=+ The player may bid on if he has a hand that justifies it opposite >> one of the hands partner may have, given the range of the possible >> intentions of the offender when he violated the law, knowledge >> available to the player through his general bridge knowledge - Law >> 16A1(d). >> >This is one of the big problems with the new Law, which could have been >avoided quite simply by making the IB UI to the side that made it, instead >of somehow inserting it into the legal auction. This one really does need to >be changed in less than a decade, I think. > >Stefanie Rohan >London, England ~~ +=+ It is not as though that method of dealing with the IB was not discussed at some length before the law was finally written. The solution failed to gain a consensus - it remained a minority view. Your opinion of the law is something we are all aware of. It would be unfair to offer encouragement to hopes that the minority might grow to a majority, or that rewriting the law could be a hope to be fulfilled. I have no idea where we might get to, but there is little mileage in that on current expectations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________________________________________________________ Find out what Tiscali can do for you - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 16 01:10:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:10:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel: >Teams match, sharing boards. At the other table clearly heard by >3 people at the table, "partner why didn't you bid 7D's" or to >that effect. RHO calls the TD and says this is ridiculous we are >playing the same boards, can you please tell the opps to not >discuss the hands. LHO btw wears a hearing aid. TD warns the >other table. [auction to cold 7D, bypassing better 7C, snipped] >What do you rule ? > > >K. Richard Hills: I would rule Director's error. If I had been the TD, I would not have permitted the board ever to be played in the first place, but instead immediately applied the 2007 Law 16C2(b): "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made: if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants;" So if I was the Appeals Committee, I would award an artificial adjusted score of Ave+ (+3 imps) to both sides, in accordance with the 2007 Laws 82C, 86A and 86C. 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 Jun 16 01:30:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:30:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Director's error [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills (previous posting): >I would rule Director's error. If I had been the TD, I would not >have permitted the board ever to be played in the first place, >but instead immediately applied the 2007 Law 16C2(b) Richard Hills (current posting): If the Director ridiculously - but legally - uses 2007 Law 16C2(c) rather than 2007 Law 16C2(b), then ridiculously - but legally - judges not to adjust the score after using 2007 Law 16C2(c), has a Director's error been committed? That is, should the word "incorrect" in the 2007 Law 82C be interpreted as synonymous with "illegal"? 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 Mon Jun 16 08:11:04 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:11:04 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Director's error [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <24990654.1213596664455.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 16/06/2008 0:30 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: [blml] Director's error [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >That is, should the word "incorrect" in the 2007 Law 82C be >interpreted as synonymous with "illegal"? > > +=+ I think 'incorrect' should be understood to *include* rulings that are contrary to the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Find out what Tiscali can do for you - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 16 08:24:17 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:24:17 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <24804019.1213597457527.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 16/06/2008 0:10 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Karel: > >>Teams match, sharing boards. At the other table clearly heard by >>3 people at the table, "partner why didn't you bid 7D's" or to >>that effect. RHO calls the TD and says this is ridiculous we are >>playing the same boards, can you please tell the opps to not >>discuss the hands. LHO btw wears a hearing aid. TD warns the >>other table. > >[auction to cold 7D, bypassing better 7C, snipped] > >>What do you rule ? >> >> >>K. > >Richard Hills: > >I would rule Director's error. If I had been the TD, I would not >have permitted the board ever to be played in the first place, but >instead immediately applied the 2007 Law 16C2(b): > >"If the Director considers that the information could interfere >with normal play he may, before any call has been made: >if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt >for those contestants;" > >So if I was the Appeals Committee, I would award an artificial >adjusted score of Ave+ (+3 imps) to both sides, in accordance >with the 2007 Laws 82C, 86A and 86C. > +=+ It should not get to an appeals committee. The Director should correct his assistant's mistake. Laws 81C2, 81D. (You are not telling me the Director in charge made such a ruling?!) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Find out what Tiscali can do for you - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services From wmevius at hotmail.com Fri Jun 13 12:24:00 2008 From: wmevius at hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:24:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RHO had Kx of spades not KxxWillem Mevius wmevius at hotmail.com > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:20:36 +0100> From: karel at esatclear.ie> To: blml at amsterdamned.org> Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table> > Teams match, sharing boards. At the other table clearly heard by 3> people at the table,> "partner why didnt you bid 7D's" or to that effect. RHO calls the TD> and says this is ridiculous> we are playing the same boards, can you please tell the opps to not> discuss the hands.> LHO btw wears a hearing aid. Td warns the other table.> > 2/3 boards later the opps have this auction> > > LHO RHO> S AJxx S Kxx> H AKTx H -> D Q D AKT8xxx> C AKQT C xxxx> > > Bidding goes> > 2D 3D> 3NT 4D> 5NT 7D> > 2D is art big hand strongest bid in the system. 3D is positive. 4D> is slam going.> > Partner at the end of the auction calls the TD and says listen this is the board> the opps were talking about and everyone knows what the final contract> is. The TD> says he'll look at the bidding and will decide whether it is warranted> or not. He comes> back and says good auction, lets the result stand.> > We appeal. Regardless of LHO's deafness - the fact the TD was called> by RHO indicated> that had we bid 7D he would have called the TD and asked the board be> scraped. The discussion> at the table when the TD was called would have been sufficient to> alert LHO (regardless of deafness)> and he may well have heard 7D along the way. The auction would no> doubt have been the same> with 6 diamonds as opposed to 7 leading to a terrible grand.> > Regardless of how "good" the auction was - subconsciously all 4 people> knew the result> and it was just a matter of getting there. We also noted 7C is an> equally good if not better> contract with no attempt to find it (4C instead of 4D).> > What do you rule ?> > > K.> > _______________________________________________> blml mailing list> blml at amsterdamned.org> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080613/65a600cd/attachment.htm From wmevius at hotmail.com Sun Jun 15 00:54:13 2008 From: wmevius at hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:54:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To get the facts right: At the other table the contract was 6C +1. The remark came from a different match played in the same room (everybody played the same boards in the same round). The remark had no influence on the board on the other table (different part of the room). It was clear that LHO had not heard the remark due to his deafness. RHO admitted hearing the remark when the TD was called at the end of the auction.Willem Mevius wmevius at hotmail.com > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:20:36 +0100> From: karel at esatclear.ie> To: blml at amsterdamned.org> Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table> > Teams match, sharing boards. At the other table clearly heard by 3> people at the table,> "partner why didnt you bid 7D's" or to that effect. RHO calls the TD> and says this is ridiculous> we are playing the same boards, can you please tell the opps to not> discuss the hands.> LHO btw wears a hearing aid. Td warns the other table.> > 2/3 boards later the opps have this auction> > > LHO RHO> S AJxx S Kxx> H AKTx H -> D Q D AKT8xxx> C AKQT C xxxx> > > Bidding goes> > 2D 3D> 3NT 4D> 5NT 7D> > 2D is art big hand strongest bid in the system. 3D is positive. 4D> is slam going.> > Partner at the end of the auction calls the TD and says listen this is the board> the opps were talking about and everyone knows what the final contract> is. The TD> says he'll look at the bidding and will decide whether it is warranted> or not. He comes> back and says good auction, lets the result stand.> > We appeal. Regardless of LHO's deafness - the fact the TD was called> by RHO indicated> that had we bid 7D he would have called the TD and asked the board be> scraped. The discussion> at the table when the TD was called would have been sufficient to> alert LHO (regardless of deafness)> and he may well have heard 7D along the way. The auction would no> doubt have been the same> with 6 diamonds as opposed to 7 leading to a terrible grand.> > Regardless of how "good" the auction was - subconsciously all 4 people> knew the result> and it was just a matter of getting there. We also noted 7C is an> equally good if not better> contract with no attempt to find it (4C instead of 4D).> > What do you rule ?> > > K.> > _______________________________________________> blml mailing list> blml at amsterdamned.org> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080614/f2c5f150/attachment.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 16 11:27:52 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:27:52 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table Message-ID: <19925683.1213608472140.JavaMail.root@ps30> ----Original Message---- From: wmevius at hotmail.com Date: 13/06/2008 11:24 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subj: Re: [blml] Overhearing contract from next table .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } RHO had Kx of spades not Kxx Willem Mevius wmevius at hotmail.com +=+ Inclusive of your previous message, whatever Willem, in my opinion the Director in charge should not have allowed this board to stand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ___________________________________________________________ 25% off Tiscali SpyGuard from Sana only from Tiscali -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080616/cf1e5f67/attachment.htm From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jun 17 03:30:01 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:30:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] L27 In-Reply-To: <15712626.1213550456848.JavaMail.root@ps27> References: <15712626.1213550456848.JavaMail.root@ps27> Message-ID: In retrospect, it seems to me that a lot of trouble with the new Law 27 is based on the different ways that the old Law 27 was practiced. 1. It was a surprise to me to find out that the RC did not have to be "honest". (For example, that 1S - 1C could be replaced with 2C without 5 clubs.) I can't see anything in the rules to disallow this. Still it makes it harder to administer Law 27, because there is potentially more information in the insufficient bid. So "inaccurate" replacement calls are not happy news to some people. 2. It was a surprise to me to find out that some people did not use intended meaning for the old law. So, on the auction 2S - 2C, they would not allow a correction to 3C because the 2C might have been an artificial opening bid (in Standard American). If they noticed that. I don't see how it would be practical to base the new Law 27 on possible meanings, and basing it on reasonably possible meanings seems impractical. Still, those people will try to use possible meanings. They will not feel comfortable with trying to determine the intended meaning. 3. Then there is the issue of choices. I am used to accept or not accept; elsewhere they have been telling LHO whether or not there is a nonbarring replacement. I doubt that information is appropriate to give if the decision is based on intended meaning. But it seems legal (though unnecessary to me) if the decision is based on possible meanings. So, maybe people start out thinking that they are just going to incorporate L27B1(b) into how they already do Law 27. But then everyone does something different with the new part of the law because they were doing different things with the old law. Bob From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 17 08:36:22 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:36:22 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] L27 Message-ID: <13071960.1213684582951.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ The Director always has his Law 85 powers to determine facts. If he cannot be sure he makes his best estimation of them under Law 85B. He should not delay continuation of the auction and play for long. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ..................................................................................................... >----Original Message---- >From: rfrick at rfrick.info >Date: 17/06/2008 2:30 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] L27 > >In retrospect, it seems to me that a lot of trouble with the new Law 27 is >based on the different ways that the old Law 27 was practiced. > >1. It was a surprise to me to find out that the RC did not have to be >"honest". (For example, that 1S - 1C could be replaced with 2C without 5 >clubs.) I can't see anything in the rules to disallow this. Still it makes >it harder to administer Law 27, because there is potentially more >information in the insufficient bid. So "inaccurate" replacement calls are >not happy news to some people. > >2. It was a surprise to me to find out that some people did not use >intended meaning for the old law. So, on the auction 2S - 2C, they would >not allow a correction to 3C because the 2C might have been an artificial >opening bid (in Standard American). If they noticed that. I don't see how >it would be practical to base the new Law 27 on possible meanings, and >basing it on reasonably possible meanings seems impractical. Still, those >people will try to use possible meanings. They will not feel comfortable >with trying to determine the intended meaning. > >3. Then there is the issue of choices. I am used to accept or not accept; >elsewhere they have been telling LHO whether or not there is a nonbarring >replacement. I doubt that information is appropriate to give if the >decision is based on intended meaning. But it seems legal (though >unnecessary to me) if the decision is based on possible meanings. > >So, maybe people start out thinking that they are just going to >incorporate L27B1(b) into how they already do Law 27. But then everyone >does something different with the new part of the law because they were >doing different things with the old law. > >Bob > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________________________________________________________ Tiscali Security Week - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/security From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 18 00:21:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:21:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] L27 Example [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2858F5AF-02AB-47D4-B806-A8CB070E99B2@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau >>>If player 1 gave the same reason for his bid as player 2, he would >>>be clearly cheating outright. When the TD instructs you to reveal >>>your intention, you must do so, and do so honestly [L90B8]. Stefanie Rohan: >>IF it is a proper question, and I don't think it should be. >>Remember TWM's director instructing the players to dance naked on >>the tables? Eric Landau: >In a hypothetical [possibly ideal?] society in which there were no >possibility of criminal penalty or civil liability potentially >resulting from dancing naked on the table, I would think that the >TD (unless instructed to the contrary by the relevant bridge >authority) would be within the authority granted by L90A if he were >to impose a procedural penalty on a player who refused to do so. > >Too bad there's no such place, as if there were we would surely have >empirical evidence of the potential consequences of this >interpretation by now. Richard Hills: I disagree with both Stefanie and Eric. With regards to Stefanie's quibble about proper question, there is a difference between these statements: (a) "if I was TD, I would use my Law 81C2 power to interpret Law 27 one way", or (b) "if you were TD, you lack the Law 81C2 power to interpret Law 27 the other way". With regards to Eric's assertion that Law 90B8 allows the Director to give (almost) any instruction and require that instruction to be obeyed, I would argue that such an instruction must be consistent with the Director's Law 81C1 power "to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game". It seems to me undisciplined and disorderly to dance naked on the table. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 18 01:56:17 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:56:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 Example [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003101c8d0d5$bbdcf290$0901a8c0@JOHN> Richard: > > With regards to Eric's assertion that Law 90B8 allows the Director > to give (almost) any instruction and require that instruction to be > obeyed, I would argue that such an instruction must be consistent > with the Director's Law 81C1 power "to maintain discipline and to > ensure the orderly progress of the game". > > It seems to me undisciplined and disorderly to dance naked on the > table. > > I did tell a particularly happy noisy (aka drunk) player at the YC on one occasion to "drop dead" under this Law. He averred that this indeed was a reasonable request but he was currently unable to comply, so I told him I'd waive the PP :) He did quiten down so I obviously did the right thing. John From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 18 09:19:53 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:19:53 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] L27 Example [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <11736137.1213773593546.JavaMail.root@ps26> +=+ After a peaceful night, albeit struggling with some mild viral infection, I wondered with what inspiring thoughts I would be assailed this morning. Ah, well ..... Those reading the (Pau) Daily Bulletin on line will observe that at last we had an appeal to deal with. There is another scheduled for this morning. Not a bad quotient for 36 tables playing three matches of 20 boards a day Sunday through Tuesday. My own reaction to Appeal 1 is to note that the NOS were given their right to correct information while the OS were left in their state of confusion (which would deter thoughts of advancing to 5H - there was brief consideration of a weighted score including a proportion of 5H). Law 12 gives the Director a secondary power of weighting an assigned score which he 'may' use if he considers a number of potential results to exist - his primary objective is to remove any advantage gained by the OS through the infraction with the substitution of a single assigned score. The other comment I have this morning is that the laws give a contestant an absolute right of appeal and that, as hitherto, the Director "shall hear and rule upon all appeals" if there are no other arrangements. (Law 93A). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 17/06/2008 23:21 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] L27 Example [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Eric Landau > >>>>If player 1 gave the same reason for his bid as player 2, he would >>>>be clearly cheating outright. When the TD instructs you to reveal >>>>your intention, you must do so, and do so honestly [L90B8]. > >Stefanie Rohan: > >>>IF it is a proper question, and I don't think it should be. >>>Remember TWM's director instructing the players to dance naked on >>>the tables? > >Eric Landau: > >>In a hypothetical [possibly ideal?] society in which there were no >>possibility of criminal penalty or civil liability potentially >>resulting from dancing naked on the table, I would think that the >>TD (unless instructed to the contrary by the relevant bridge >>authority) would be within the authority granted by L90A if he were >>to impose a procedural penalty on a player who refused to do so. >> >>Too bad there's no such place, as if there were we would surely have >>empirical evidence of the potential consequences of this >>interpretation by now. > >Richard Hills: > >I disagree with both Stefanie and Eric. With regards to Stefanie's >quibble about proper question, there is a difference between these >statements: > >(a) "if I was TD, I would use my Law 81C2 power to interpret Law 27 >one way", > >or > >(b) "if you were TD, you lack the Law 81C2 power to interpret Law 27 >the other way". > >With regards to Eric's assertion that Law 90B8 allows the Director >to give (almost) any instruction and require that instruction to be >obeyed, I would argue that such an instruction must be consistent >with the Director's Law 81C1 power "to maintain discipline and to >ensure the orderly progress of the game". > >It seems to me undisciplined and disorderly to dance naked on the >table. > > >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 > __________________________________________________________ New online ID theft protection - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/spyguard From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 18 10:04:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:04:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pau appeal 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <11736137.1213773593546.JavaMail.root@ps26> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >My own reaction to Appeal 1 is to note that the NOS were given >their right to correct information while the OS were left in >their state of confusion (which would deter thoughts of [the OS] >advancing to 5H - there was brief consideration of a weighted >score including a proportion of 5H). [snip] Richard Hills: The general case that, while the opponents must be correctly informed, you have no right to be reminded of your own methods is laid out in 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." The special case about remembering what is written on your system cards is laid out in Law 40B2(b): "Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may not consult his own system card after the auction period commences until the end of play, except that players of the declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during the Clarification Period." The interesting exception at the end of Law 40B2(b) was (presumably) inserted to improve the chances of the declaring side complying with Law 20F5(b)(ii): "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 18 10:57:23 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:57:23 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Pau appeal 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <19716984.1213779443941.JavaMail.root@ps27> +=+ I misled you in one respect. We found we had two appeals this morning. One of them required much discussion. Reports will no doubt appear and will include an explanation of the decision carefully expressed by the excellent Barry Rigal. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 18/06/2008 9:04 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] Pau appeal 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Grattan Endicott: > >[snip] > >>My own reaction to Appeal 1 is to note that the NOS were given >>their right to correct information while the OS were left in >>their state of confusion (which would deter thoughts of [the OS] >>advancing to 5H - there was brief consideration of a weighted >>score including a proportion of 5H). > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >The general case that, while the opponents must be correctly >informed, you have no right to be reminded of your own methods is >laid out in 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." > >The special case about remembering what is written on your system >cards is laid out in Law 40B2(b): > >"Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may >not consult his own system card after the auction period >commences until the end of play, except that players of the >declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during >the Clarification Period." > >The interesting exception at the end of Law 40B2(b) was >(presumably) inserted to improve the chances of the declaring >side complying with Law 20F5(b)(ii): > >"The player must call the Director and inform his opponents >that, in his opinion, his partner?s explanation was erroneous >(see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is >for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." > > >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 > __________________________________________________________ New online ID theft protection - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/spyguard From hermandw at hotmail.com Wed Jun 18 17:57:34 2008 From: hermandw at hotmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:57:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pau Appeal 2 Message-ID: Contrary to what Grattan announced here recently, Appeal 2 will probably not be included in the Bulletin, which means you will have to wait for the publication of the booklet. The booklet of Appeals of last year has meanwhile been published on the EBL-website (follow links departments and appeals). The chairman of the AC, Jens Auken, has asked that the publoication be speeded up. Probably in a few weeks then. Barry Rigal's text was well-written though. I needed to change nothing but the words. No seriously, only a few. Greetings from a (today) sunny Pau, Pyr?n?es Atlantiques, France. Written by an open window with view on an artificial lake (at eye-level) and the snow-capped Pyrenees. Herman. _________________________________________________________________ Gratis chat, gratis blog, gratis fototool, gratis....dankzij Windows Live http://get.live.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 19 09:52:07 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:52:07 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <6937596.1213861927826.JavaMail.root@ps26> I note the report that the Peopl'e Republic of China has instituted an anti-monopoly investigation of Microsoft. ~ G ~ __________________________________________________________ New online ID theft protection - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/spyguard From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Jun 19 10:42:49 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:42:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pau Appeal 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2ECD@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Herman wrote > The booklet of Appeals of last year has meanwhile been published on the EBL-website Herman The auctions for the last two hands (Hearing 2 and Appeal 20) look wrong. I think in both cases that South and West passed and North opened the bidding. In the disciplinary hearing, shouldn't the penalty be described as a disciplinary penalty? Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 19 14:25:46 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:25:46 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Ups and downs Message-ID: <20051178.1213878346595.JavaMail.root@ps26> +=+ I have established that here in the Palais de Beaumont in Pau to find a lift (elevator) one simply has to look for a door with one of two notices on it - viz 'No Entry' or 'Sans issue'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jun 19 17:11:00 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:11:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ups and downs In-Reply-To: <20051178.1213878346595.JavaMail.root@ps26> References: <20051178.1213878346595.JavaMail.root@ps26> Message-ID: <485A7704.8020806@t-online.de> I am surprised. I would have thought "Out of order" or French words to that effect would work, too. Ignore this message if "Sans issue" happens to mean out of order in French.... Regards Matthias gesta at tiscali.co.uk schrieb: > +=+ I have established that here in the Palais de Beaumont > in Pau to find a lift (elevator) one simply has to look for a > door with one of two notices on it - viz 'No Entry' or 'Sans > issue'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 19 18:34:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:34:18 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Ups and downs Message-ID: <26017392.1213893258885.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ I decided that, on a door, it probably does not mean 'childless'. ~ G ~ +=+ >----Original Message---- >From: ziffbridge at t-online.de >Date: 19/06/2008 16:11 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] Ups and downs > >I am surprised. I would have thought "Out of order" or French words to >that effect would work, too. Ignore this message if "Sans issue" happens > to mean out of order in French.... > >Regards >Matthias > >gesta at tiscali.co.uk schrieb: >> +=+ I have established that here in the Palais de Beaumont >> in Pau to find a lift (elevator) one simply has to look for a >> door with one of two notices on it - viz 'No Entry' or 'Sans >> issue'. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co. uk/play >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > __________________________________________________________ Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Jun 19 19:27:31 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:27:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ups and downs In-Reply-To: <485A7704.8020806@t-online.de> References: <20051178.1213878346595.JavaMail.root@ps26> <485A7704.8020806@t-online.de> Message-ID: <485A9703.5070905@meteo.fr> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > I am surprised. I would have thought "Out of order" or French words to > that effect would work, too. Ignore this message if "Sans issue" happens > to mean out of order in French.... no it means dead-end jpr > > Regards > Matthias > > gesta at tiscali.co.uk schrieb: >> +=+ I have established that here in the Palais de Beaumont >> in Pau to find a lift (elevator) one simply has to look for a >> door with one of two notices on it - viz 'No Entry' or 'Sans >> issue'. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- _______________________________________________ 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jun 19 23:19:49 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:19:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ups and downs In-Reply-To: <485A9703.5070905@meteo.fr> References: <20051178.1213878346595.JavaMail.root@ps26> <485A7704.8020806@t-online.de> <485A9703.5070905@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <485ACD75.6000900@t-online.de> So the sum of human knowlegde has been increased... :) Seriously though, I regret that my command of French is barely good enough to read a menu, if the waiter helps me. My ministry of education had decided that I should learn Latin, not French. Fat lot of good it did me... Knowledge of Latin has its uses, to be sure, but there are millions of people in France and Belgium (and a couple of others, just naming my next neighbours) with French as their mother language,and me barely able to communicate with them... My Italian is better than my French, and that does not say a lot. Well, old horses do not learn new tricks, but I have always managed to get along with my colleagues from French-speaking countries, and, when all is said and done, being able to read the menu is a useful skill :) Regards Matthias Jean-Pierre Rocafort schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> Ignore this message if "Sans issue" happens >> to mean out of order in French.... > > no it means dead-end > > jpr From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jun 19 23:42:40 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:42:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] appeals booklet Message-ID: <485AD2D0.7040009@aol.com> Can someone out there give me the coordinates for the appeals booklet of last year? I'd like to download it. And it would be a fine service if we could be informed when the appeals of this year will appear, with coordinates to download them. Ciao, JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jun 19 23:44:41 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:44:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ups and downs In-Reply-To: <485A7704.8020806@t-online.de> References: <20051178.1213878346595.JavaMail.root@ps26> <485A7704.8020806@t-online.de> Message-ID: <485AD349.2090205@aol.com> ziffbridge at t-online.de schrieb: > I am surprised. I would have thought "Out of order" or French words to > that effect would work, too. Ignore this message if "Sans issue" happens > to mean out of order in French.... > > Regards > Matthias > "Sans issue" means "no exit" or "dead end". Means that it doesn't lead anywhere. > gesta at tiscali.co.uk schrieb: > >>+=+ I have established that here in the Palais de Beaumont >>in Pau to find a lift (elevator) one simply has to look for a >>door with one of two notices on it - viz 'No Entry' or 'Sans >>issue'. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> >> >>__________________________________________________________ >> >>Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 20 03:35:37 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:35:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] appeals booklet References: <485AD2D0.7040009@aol.com> Message-ID: <00d201c8d275$f2852dc0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2007.pdf ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:42 PM Subject: [blml] appeals booklet > Can someone out there give me the coordinates for the appeals booklet of > last year? I'd like to download it. And it would be a fine service if > we could be informed when the appeals of this year will appear, with > coordinates to download them. Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.0/1508 - Release Date: 18/06/2008 21:08 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 20 10:43:38 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:43:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ups and downs In-Reply-To: <485A7704.8020806@t-online.de> References: <20051178.1213878346595.JavaMail.root@ps26> <485A7704.8020806@t-online.de> Message-ID: <485B6DBA.6090609@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > I am surprised. I would have thought "Out of order" or French words to > that effect would work, too. Ignore this message if "Sans issue" happens > to mean out of order in French.... > > 'out of order' would be translated as 'hors d'usage' or 'en panne'. 'sans issue' means 'no through road'. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Jun 20 11:05:17 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:05:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ups and downs References: <20051178.1213878346595.JavaMail.root@ps26> <485A7704.8020806@t-online.de><485A9703.5070905@meteo.fr> <485ACD75.6000900@t-online.de> Message-ID: <002301c8d2b4$cde6cb60$2401a8c0@p41600> I have an extensive knowledge of French. Touraine, Muscadet, Chablis, Medoc, Bourgogne, etc., etc., (oops that last bit's Latin). ################################ # Osteopornosis is a degenerate disease # ################################ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ups and downs So the sum of human knowlegde has been increased... :) Seriously though, I regret that my command of French is barely good enough to read a menu, if the waiter helps me. My ministry of education had decided that I should learn Latin, not French. Fat lot of good it did me... Knowledge of Latin has its uses, to be sure, but there are millions of people in France and Belgium (and a couple of others, just naming my next neighbours) with French as their mother language,and me barely able to communicate with them... My Italian is better than my French, and that does not say a lot. Well, old horses do not learn new tricks, but I have always managed to get along with my colleagues from French-speaking countries, and, when all is said and done, being able to read the menu is a useful skill :) Regards Matthias Jean-Pierre Rocafort schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> Ignore this message if "Sans issue" happens >> to mean out of order in French.... > > no it means dead-end > > jpr _______________________________________________ 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: 270.4.0/1509 - Release Date: 6/19/2008 8:00 AM From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 20 11:39:21 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:39:21 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Ups and downs Message-ID: <21997508.1213954761719.JavaMail.root@ps37.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ It is still the way to the lifts here in Pau. +=+ >----Original Message---- >From: agot at ulb.ac.be >Date: 20/06/2008 9:43 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] Ups and downs > >Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> I am surprised. I would have thought "Out of order" or French words to >> that effect would work, too. Ignore this message if "Sans issue" happens >> to mean out of order in French.... >> >> >'out of order' would be translated as 'hors d'usage' or 'en panne'. >'sans issue' means 'no through road'. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________________________________________________________ Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 20 11:21:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:21:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ups and downs In-Reply-To: <485ACD75.6000900@t-online.de> References: <20051178.1213878346595.JavaMail.root@ps26> <485A7704.8020806@t-online.de> <485A9703.5070905@meteo.fr> <485ACD75.6000900@t-online.de> Message-ID: <485B7683.4000307@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > > Well, old horses do not learn new tricks, but I have always managed to > get along with my colleagues from French-speaking countries, and, when > all is said and done, being able to read the menu is a useful skill :) > For some unknown reason, Frenchmen don't care a lot about being able to read English menus :-P More seriously, French and English are quite difficult to learn, both for phonetic and stylistic reasons, and I understand why it's easier to learn a bit of Italian, even for English-speaking persons. /Travivu la lingvo/ Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080620/7e247d85/attachment.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 21 13:43:20 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:43:20 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Memories Message-ID: <24297293.1214048600790.JavaMail.root@ps29> +=+ Our thanks for them to Jane Russell who is 87 today +=+ __________________________________________________________ Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 23 08:38:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:38:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Apple ale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <11736137.1213773593546.JavaMail.root@ps26> Message-ID: Other comment by Grattan Endicott (18th June 2008): [snip] >>The other comment I have this morning is that the laws >>give a contestant an absolute right of appeal and that, as >>hitherto, the Director "shall hear and rule upon all >>appeals" if there are no other arrangements. (Law 93A). >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Caveated by Grattan Endicott (16th June 2008): >+=+ It should not get to an appeals committee. The Director >should correct his assistant's mistake. Laws 81C2, 81D. > (You are not telling me the Director in charge made >such a ruling?!) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ WBF Code of Practice, Example Appeal no. 12, WBF Comment: "This case from an ACBL tournament is included in order to make the point that with their extended powers it is appropriate for Directors to cure any obvious ills before the appeal committee becomes involved. If the Chief Director has guidelines which have not been followed in a ruling by one of his assistants, or in a ruling he has given, he has powers under Law 82C to put things right. Every opportunity should be taken to put a squeeze on the number of matters that come to committees." * * * In EBU casebook notes, an anonymous Chief Director wrote: "Regrettably both the [TD] ruling and [AC] confirmation of it are incorrect." [snip] "This is a MI problem, not illegal system. TD thought this ruling as 'easy' and did not consult. Scary that a high level AC also think this is too." [snip] Richard Hills: What I find "scary" is that this Chief Director did not bother to look at the deal until too late, then blamed the AC and the subordinate TD for the erroneous ruling. Law 81D: "The Director may delegate any of his duties to assistants, but he is **not thereby relieved of responsibility** for their correct performance." Richard Hills: Of course, if "did not bother to look at the deal" was actually "did not know about the deal", then the Chief Director was even more culpable in failing to establish due process for a ruling (e.g. a subordinate TD must always consult on judgement rulings) and/or due process for an appeal (e.g. an appeal must always be examined by the Chief Director before going to an AC). 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 Mon Jun 23 09:07:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:07:40 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Climate change Message-ID: <18326375.1214204860685.JavaMail.root@ps31> +=+ Four appeals to handle this morning. +=+ __________________________________________________________ Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 23 09:15:11 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:15:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Apple ale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <11736137.1213773593546.JavaMail.root@ps26> Message-ID: <000001c8d500$e06e9940$a14bcbc0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Other comment by Grattan Endicott (18th June 2008): > > [snip] > > >>The other comment I have this morning is that the laws > >>give a contestant an absolute right of appeal and that, as > >>hitherto, the Director "shall hear and rule upon all > >>appeals" if there are no other arrangements. (Law 93A). > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Caveated by Grattan Endicott (16th June 2008): > > >+=+ It should not get to an appeals committee. The Director > >should correct his assistant's mistake. Laws 81C2, 81D. > > (You are not telling me the Director in charge made > >such a ruling?!) > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Should there be any conflict between these two comments? Sure any player has an absolute right of appeal, which shall be made through the Director. If the Director then realizes that he (or his assistant) has made an incorrect ruling he of course has his right to correct this ruling without "bothering" the appeals committee; after which (equally "of course") the other side has its absolute right of appeal. Regards Sven From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Jun 23 09:54:15 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:54:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Memories References: <24297293.1214048600790.JavaMail.root@ps29> Message-ID: <005f01c8d506$8f8669d0$2401a8c0@p41600> ################################ # Osteopornosis is a degenerate disease # ################################ I presume that's cms !!!! > +=+ Our thanks for them to Jane Russell who is 87 today +=+ > > > > ____________________________________________________ ______ > > Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 270.4.1/1513 - Release Date: 6/22/2008 7:52 AM From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 23 17:17:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:17:55 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <15797859.1214234275411.JavaMail.root@ps28> +=+ I am seeking a Swedish contact? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play From torsten.astrand at telia.com Mon Jun 23 17:45:06 2008 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:45:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: <15797859.1214234275411.JavaMail.root@ps28> Message-ID: <003001c8d548$1c96b6e0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Hi, I don?t know if I could be helpful. Torsten ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:17 PM Subject: [blml] (no subject) > +=+ I am seeking a Swedish contact? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 24 00:58:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:58:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Apple ale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8d500$e06e9940$a14bcbc0$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Should there be any conflict between these two comments? Richard Hills: Heavens forfend that I should imply that Grattan Endicott is guilty of exegetical inconsistency. W.S. Gilbert, The Pirates of Penzance (modified): "Then I can write on appeal forms in Babylonic cuneiform, And cite the inconsistencies of exegeses scarce uniform:" Sven Pran: >Sure any player has an absolute right of appeal, which >shall be made through the Director. > >If the Director then realizes that he (or his assistant) >has made an incorrect ruling he of course has his right >to correct this ruling without "bothering" the appeals >committee; after which (equally "of course") the other >side has its absolute right of appeal. Richard Hills: Since my previous posting yesterday, I have discovered that I have been unfair to the EBU "Chief" Director I criticised for failing to apply Law 81D. Apparently it is EBU policy that they have _multiple_ Directors in charge (for Laws 81D and 93A purposes) of different segments at a major tournament, with the senior director merely having the _honorary_ title of "Chief" Director. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 25 01:55:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:55:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. You, South, do indeed hold three spades: J72 Q654 4 AQ765 Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 1S Pass ? Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla that you do not play the Drury convention. What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 25 02:54:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:54:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <485226B7.70702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>And now a new twist. A non-offending side which did not >>insufficiently bid could nevertheless receive a slow play >>fine because the _Director_ did not give a Law 27 ruling >>with celerity and panache (due to the convoluted process >>required by the Zone 7 Laws Committee). Alain Gottcheiner: >We had such a case, long ago, in Belgium. It was decided >that the time taken by the TD to give his ruling was to be >deducted, so what's the heck ? 2007 Law 78D, second sentence: "The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of Contest **in advance** of a tournament or contest." Richard Hills: Ergo, it was _illegally_ decided by that Belgian Tournament Organizer to make an ex post facto modification of the CoC's slow play rules. (The phrase "in advance" also appears in the 1997 version of Law 78D.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 25 06:22:02 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:22:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002801c8d67b$04c94580$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:55 AM Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. > > You, South, do indeed hold three spades: > > J72 > Q654 > 4 > AQ765 > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1S Pass ? > > Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major > and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla > that you do not play the Drury convention. > > What call do you make? 2C. I didn't learn to play yesterday, but that's why I don't play drury. Pays off a treat here. I'll raise a rebid to the 3-level.. No doubt I'll be in conflict with the anti-psyche-fielding brigade. > What other calls do you consider making? 2S at mps (I may get another shot), 3C at imps; 3S is ludicrous. I am playing with someone who knows that passed hand JS are jump fit I hope. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills From john at asimere.com Wed Jun 25 06:25:50 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:25:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002d01c8d67b$8c8e0be0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > >>>And now a new twist. A non-offending side which did not >>>insufficiently bid could nevertheless receive a slow play >>>fine because the _Director_ did not give a Law 27 ruling >>>with celerity and panache (due to the convoluted process >>>required by the Zone 7 Laws Committee). > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >>We had such a case, long ago, in Belgium. It was decided >>that the time taken by the TD to give his ruling was to be >>deducted, so what's the heck ? > > 2007 Law 78D, second sentence: > > "The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of > Contest **in advance** of a tournament or contest." > > Richard Hills: > > Ergo, it was _illegally_ decided by that Belgian Tournament > Organizer to make an ex post facto modification of the CoC's > slow play rules. (The phrase "in advance" also appears in > the 1997 version of Law 78D.) Hmm, play is suspended I guess. Same as if the lights went out. You can't fine people if they're not actually playing. "Director, I can't see how you can fine me for slow play as a result of stopping me from playing. That's not SLOW play". > > > 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 25 08:10:57 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:10:57 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <9701603.1214374257991.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ I am sure there is a short reply to correspondence like this. Just haven't thought of one suitable for publication. Perhaps my good friend Schoderb will supply one. ~ G ~ +=+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----Original Message---- >From: john at asimere.com >Date: 25/06/2008 5:25 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:54 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Richard Hills: >> >>>>And now a new twist. A non-offending side which did not >>>>insufficiently bid could nevertheless receive a slow play >>>>fine because the _Director_ did not give a Law 27 ruling >>>>with celerity and panache (due to the convoluted process >>>>required by the Zone 7 Laws Committee). >> >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>>We had such a case, long ago, in Belgium. It was decided >>>that the time taken by the TD to give his ruling was to be >>>deducted, so what's the heck ? >> >> 2007 Law 78D, second sentence: >> >> "The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of >> Contest **in advance** of a tournament or contest." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Ergo, it was _illegally_ decided by that Belgian Tournament >> Organizer to make an ex post facto modification of the CoC's >> slow play rules. (The phrase "in advance" also appears in >> the 1997 version of Law 78D.) > >Hmm, play is suspended I guess. Same as if the lights went out. You can't >fine people if they're not actually playing. "Director, I can't see how you >can fine me for slow play as a result of stopping me from playing. That's >not SLOW play". >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard James Hills >> Graduates and Developmental Training Section >> Department of Immigration and Citizenship >> Telephone: 02 6223 9067 >> Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >> advise >> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This >> email, >> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >> privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, >> dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities >> other >> than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and >> has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental >> privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at >> www.immi.gov.au >> See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > __________________________________________________________ Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 25 08:54:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:54:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9701603.1214374257991.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: +=+ I am sure there is a short reply to correspondence like this. Just haven't thought of one suitable for publication. Perhaps my good friend Schoderb will supply one. ~ G ~ +=+ De minimis non curat lex. 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 anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 25 10:59:52 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:59:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> 7 losers and quick control of 2 suits (12 points using Milton Work Count). I am bidding 4C if its in the system as a cue bid agreeing Spades, otherwise an immediate 4S. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:55 AM Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. > > You, South, do indeed hold three spades: > > J72 > Q654 > 4 > AQ765 > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1S Pass ? > > Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major > and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla > that you do not play the Drury convention. > > 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1515 - Release Date: 23/06/2008 19:16 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 25 12:52:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:52:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48622381.4010308@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > You, South, do indeed hold three spades: > > J72 > Q654 > 4 > AQ765 > > Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1S Pass ? > > Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major > and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla > that you do not play the Drury convention. > > What call do you make? > I guess that, if you ask the question, 2C wouldn't be forcing at all, else the answer would be obvious. Then I choose 3C, which should be understood as a raise under the circumstances, although 'should' is a dangerous word. > What other calls do you consider making? > > If 3C isn't available, I have to fall back on 3S, if a limit raise. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 25 12:58:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:58:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <486224F3.8060808@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > >>> And now a new twist. A non-offending side which did not >>> insufficiently bid could nevertheless receive a slow play >>> fine because the _Director_ did not give a Law 27 ruling >>> with celerity and panache (due to the convoluted process >>> required by the Zone 7 Laws Committee). >>> > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >> We had such a case, long ago, in Belgium. It was decided >> that the time taken by the TD to give his ruling was to be >> deducted, so what's the heck ? >> > > 2007 Law 78D, second sentence: > > "The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of > Contest **in advance** of a tournament or contest." > > Richard Hills: > > Ergo, it was _illegally_ decided by that Belgian Tournament > Organizer to make an ex post facto modification of the CoC's > slow play rules. (The phrase "in advance" also appears in > the 1997 version of Law 78D.) > AG : apparently, you're trying to induce us into thinking that if the TD and OB are much too litteral in their interpretation of slow play rules, inequity could ensue. Well, you're right, and perhaps the solution is to act logically, rather than hyper-lawfully. For example, interpret the sentence 'the side responsible for the time loss will be penalized' as not to encompass a side who called for a ruling unless they were slow aside from this. After all, this wouldn't be a change of CoC, only a decision as to who's responsible. One could always issue a PP against the TD ;-) Best regards lain From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 26 02:28:49 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:28:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >7 losers and quick control of 2 suits (12 points using Milton Work Count). >I > am bidding 4C if its in the system as a cue bid agreeing Spades, otherwise > an immediate 4S. If you insist on suicide then 4D splinter is way better. But 3C shows C and S. 4C (played your way) and 4D would show a 4 card fit. since you're suggesting 2 ruffs. In either case you don't have the hand. If partner has got a sound opener we'll get to game anyway so why overbid? I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it RHO will protect either with a double or a red suit bid and I can bid 2S, which is my EXACT hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 count). If partner bids 2D I will bid 2S (a fit but no source of tricks with enough for a passed hand 2/1), if he bids 2H I will raise, might even shoot game (and have shown a 4-4 fit and a 9 count) and if he bids 2S I will raise (showing 5C, 3S and values for 3S). Assuming partner can play bridge he'll take my invitations as constructive, since I won't have pre-empted him with a pointless overbid. . In every single case I will have shown my exact hand. He'll never raise a direct 3S since that's clearly PRE. It really isn't hard. btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I managed to get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced when i finally won my argument for 2C. John > > Anne > http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:55 AM > Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. >> >> You, South, do indeed hold three spades: >> >> J72 >> Q654 >> 4 >> AQ765 >> >> Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- Pass >> Pass 1S Pass ? >> >> Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major >> and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla >> that you do not play the Drury convention. >> >> 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 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1515 - Release Date: 23/06/2008 > 19:16 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 26 02:31:03 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:31:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <486224F3.8060808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002301c8d723$ea475630$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Let's do the time warp again [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] snip For example, interpret the sentence 'the side responsible for the time loss will be penalized' as not to encompass a side who called for a ruling unless they were slow aside from this. After all, this wouldn't be a change of CoC, only a decision as to who's responsible. One could always issue a PP against the TD ;-) I've always applied fines and adjustments against a notional TD score of 50%. I have once come a virtual 6th/30 with 57% after a very wild night :) John Best regards lain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 26 02:50:13 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:50:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <00bf01c8d726$9925f5b0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Everyone but John is a lunatic. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Jones" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:59 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>7 losers and quick control of 2 suits (12 points using Milton Work Count). >>I >> am bidding 4C if its in the system as a cue bid agreeing Spades, >> otherwise >> an immediate 4S. > > If you insist on suicide then 4D splinter is way better. But 3C shows C > and S. 4C (played your way) and 4D would show a 4 card fit. since you're > suggesting 2 ruffs. In either case you don't have the hand. If partner has > got a sound opener we'll get to game anyway so why overbid? > > I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it RHO will > protect either with a double or a red suit bid and I can bid 2S, which is > my EXACT hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 count). If partner bids 2D I will bid > 2S (a fit but no source of tricks with enough for a passed hand 2/1), if > he bids 2H I will raise, might even shoot game (and have shown a 4-4 fit > and a 9 count) and if he bids 2S I will raise (showing 5C, 3S and values > for 3S). Assuming partner can play bridge he'll take my invitations as > constructive, since I won't have pre-empted him with a pointless overbid. > . In every single case I will have shown my exact hand. He'll never raise > a direct 3S since that's clearly PRE. It really isn't hard. > > btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I managed to > get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced when i finally won my > argument for 2C. John > >> >> Anne >> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:55 AM >> Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> >>> Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. >>> >>> You, South, do indeed hold three spades: >>> >>> J72 >>> Q654 >>> 4 >>> AQ765 >>> >>> Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- --- Pass >>> Pass 1S Pass ? >>> >>> Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major >>> and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla >>> that you do not play the Drury convention. >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1515 - Release Date: >> 23/06/2008 >> 19:16 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: 25/06/2008 16:13 From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 26 03:47:39 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:47:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> <00bf01c8d726$9925f5b0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <000601c8d72e$9d8a67a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Everyone but John is a lunatic. Not at all. I freely admit I'm a lunatic, but the case for 2C is far stronger than any other bid, except perhaps for my suggested 3C at imps. I don't mind overbidding games at imps; sometimes they make. If it was this hand (and there was an Atthey hand at brighton like this) about half a dozen decent matchpoint animals said "2C, what else?" and of course opener had psyched a spade. The hang em high brigade eventually backed down once the AC had listened to the arguments. Possibly Atthey or his partner had just bid 2S and even this is better than a direct 3S, as partner may well move over this or if opponents protect you can have a 2nd go. Opponents frequently protect 2 level fit contracts, so 2S is a sensible call for that reason. 3S will just fetch a pass as it's out-and-out PRE and you'll never diagnose the thin game on the double black suit fit, nor the H game if that's available. As for counting this hand as 7 losers in spades, you need 2 ruffs and won't get them, hence driving past 3S solo is fairly suicidal. How do you seriously expect to make 4S facing a sound 12 count 5332 1S opener, which is the primary hand in the method or get to 4H facing a 5431? John > Anne > http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:28 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Anne Jones" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:59 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>>7 losers and quick control of 2 suits (12 points using Milton Work >>>Count). >>>I >>> am bidding 4C if its in the system as a cue bid agreeing Spades, >>> otherwise >>> an immediate 4S. >> >> If you insist on suicide then 4D splinter is way better. But 3C shows C >> and S. 4C (played your way) and 4D would show a 4 card fit. since you're >> suggesting 2 ruffs. In either case you don't have the hand. If partner >> has >> got a sound opener we'll get to game anyway so why overbid? >> >> I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it RHO will >> protect either with a double or a red suit bid and I can bid 2S, which is >> my EXACT hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 count). If partner bids 2D I will >> bid >> 2S (a fit but no source of tricks with enough for a passed hand 2/1), if >> he bids 2H I will raise, might even shoot game (and have shown a 4-4 fit >> and a 9 count) and if he bids 2S I will raise (showing 5C, 3S and values >> for 3S). Assuming partner can play bridge he'll take my invitations as >> constructive, since I won't have pre-empted him with a pointless overbid. >> . In every single case I will have shown my exact hand. He'll never >> raise >> a direct 3S since that's clearly PRE. It really isn't hard. >> >> btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I managed to >> get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced when i finally won my >> argument for 2C. John >> >>> >>> Anne >>> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:55 AM >>> Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. >>>> >>>> You, South, do indeed hold three spades: >>>> >>>> J72 >>>> Q654 >>>> 4 >>>> AQ765 >>>> >>>> Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable >>>> >>>> The bidding has gone: >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> --- --- --- Pass >>>> Pass 1S Pass ? >>>> >>>> Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major >>>> and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla >>>> that you do not play the Drury convention. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG. >>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1515 - Release Date: >>> 23/06/2008 >>> 19:16 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: 25/06/2008 > 16:13 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 26 04:40:10 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:40:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN><00bf01c8d726$9925f5b0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <000601c8d72e$9d8a67a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <002801c8d735$f50d7ec0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> This could go on for ever. We have a fit, and under normal circumstances a 2C bid is fine, however, opposite a partner who is known to psyche I would always make the suit raise to maximum effect, so to do otherwise is to field the psyche. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Jones" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:50 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Everyone but John is a lunatic. > > Not at all. I freely admit I'm a lunatic, but the case for 2C is far > stronger than any other bid, except perhaps for my suggested 3C at imps. I > don't mind overbidding games at imps; sometimes they make. If it was this > hand (and there was an Atthey hand at brighton like this) about half a > dozen decent matchpoint animals said "2C, what else?" and of course opener > had psyched a spade. The hang em high brigade eventually backed down once > the AC had listened to the arguments. Possibly Atthey or his partner had > just bid 2S and even this is better than a direct 3S, as partner may well > move over this or if opponents protect you can have a 2nd go. Opponents > frequently protect 2 level fit contracts, so 2S is a sensible call for > that reason. 3S will just fetch a pass as it's out-and-out PRE and you'll > never diagnose the thin game on the double black suit fit, nor the H game > if that's available. > > As for counting this hand as 7 losers in spades, you need 2 ruffs and > won't get them, hence driving past 3S solo is fairly suicidal. How do you > seriously expect to make 4S facing a sound 12 count 5332 1S opener, which > is the primary hand in the method or get to 4H facing a 5431? > > John > >> Anne >> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:28 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Anne Jones" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:59 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>>>7 losers and quick control of 2 suits (12 points using Milton Work >>>>Count). >>>>I >>>> am bidding 4C if its in the system as a cue bid agreeing Spades, >>>> otherwise >>>> an immediate 4S. >>> >>> If you insist on suicide then 4D splinter is way better. But 3C shows C >>> and S. 4C (played your way) and 4D would show a 4 card fit. since you're >>> suggesting 2 ruffs. In either case you don't have the hand. If partner >>> has >>> got a sound opener we'll get to game anyway so why overbid? >>> >>> I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it RHO will >>> protect either with a double or a red suit bid and I can bid 2S, which >>> is >>> my EXACT hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 count). If partner bids 2D I will >>> bid >>> 2S (a fit but no source of tricks with enough for a passed hand 2/1), if >>> he bids 2H I will raise, might even shoot game (and have shown a 4-4 fit >>> and a 9 count) and if he bids 2S I will raise (showing 5C, 3S and values >>> for 3S). Assuming partner can play bridge he'll take my invitations as >>> constructive, since I won't have pre-empted him with a pointless >>> overbid. >>> . In every single case I will have shown my exact hand. He'll never >>> raise >>> a direct 3S since that's clearly PRE. It really isn't hard. >>> >>> btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I managed to >>> get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced when i finally won my >>> argument for 2C. John >>> >>>> >>>> Anne >>>> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:55 AM >>>> Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. >>>>> >>>>> You, South, do indeed hold three spades: >>>>> >>>>> J72 >>>>> Q654 >>>>> 4 >>>>> AQ765 >>>>> >>>>> Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable >>>>> >>>>> The bidding has gone: >>>>> >>>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>>> --- --- --- Pass >>>>> Pass 1S Pass ? >>>>> >>>>> Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major >>>>> and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla >>>>> that you do not play the Drury convention. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> Checked by AVG. >>>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1515 - Release Date: >>>> 23/06/2008 >>>> 19:16 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: >> 25/06/2008 >> 16:13 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: 25/06/2008 16:13 From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Jun 26 06:47:33 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:47:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002801c8d735$f50d7ec0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> <00bf01c8d726$9925f5b0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <000601c8d72e$9d8a67a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <002801c8d735$f50d7ec0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080626144621.01db4660@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 12:40 PM 26/06/2008, you wrote: >This could go on for ever. We have a fit, and under normal circumstances a >2C bid is fine, however, opposite a partner who is known to psyche I would >always make the suit raise to maximum effect, so to do otherwise is to field >the psyche. I think you mean the CPU here. Perhaps you have alerted partner's 1S bid?? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >Anne >http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:47 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Anne Jones" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:50 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > >> Everyone but John is a lunatic. > > > > Not at all. I freely admit I'm a lunatic, but the case for 2C is far > > stronger than any other bid, except perhaps for my suggested 3C at imps. I > > don't mind overbidding games at imps; sometimes they make. If it was this > > hand (and there was an Atthey hand at brighton like this) about half a > > dozen decent matchpoint animals said "2C, what else?" and of course opener > > had psyched a spade. The hang em high brigade eventually backed down once > > the AC had listened to the arguments. Possibly Atthey or his partner had > > just bid 2S and even this is better than a direct 3S, as partner may well > > move over this or if opponents protect you can have a 2nd go. Opponents > > frequently protect 2 level fit contracts, so 2S is a sensible call for > > that reason. 3S will just fetch a pass as it's out-and-out PRE and you'll > > never diagnose the thin game on the double black suit fit, nor the H game > > if that's available. > > > > As for counting this hand as 7 losers in spades, you need 2 ruffs and > > won't get them, hence driving past 3S solo is fairly suicidal. How do you > > seriously expect to make 4S facing a sound 12 count 5332 1S opener, which > > is the primary hand in the method or get to 4H facing a 5431? > > > > John > > > >> Anne > >> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:28 AM > >> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> > >> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Anne Jones" > >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:59 AM > >>> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>> > >>> > >>>>7 losers and quick control of 2 suits (12 points using Milton Work > >>>>Count). > >>>>I > >>>> am bidding 4C if its in the system as a cue bid agreeing Spades, > >>>> otherwise > >>>> an immediate 4S. > >>> > >>> If you insist on suicide then 4D splinter is way better. But 3C shows C > >>> and S. 4C (played your way) and 4D would show a 4 card fit. since you're > >>> suggesting 2 ruffs. In either case you don't have the hand. If partner > >>> has > >>> got a sound opener we'll get to game anyway so why overbid? > >>> > >>> I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it RHO will > >>> protect either with a double or a red suit bid and I can bid 2S, which > >>> is > >>> my EXACT hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 count). If partner bids 2D I will > >>> bid > >>> 2S (a fit but no source of tricks with enough for a passed hand 2/1), if > >>> he bids 2H I will raise, might even shoot game (and have shown a 4-4 fit > >>> and a 9 count) and if he bids 2S I will raise (showing 5C, 3S and values > >>> for 3S). Assuming partner can play bridge he'll take my invitations as > >>> constructive, since I won't have pre-empted him with a pointless > >>> overbid. > >>> . In every single case I will have shown my exact hand. He'll never > >>> raise > >>> a direct 3S since that's clearly PRE. It really isn't hard. > >>> > >>> btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I managed to > >>> get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced when i finally won my > >>> argument for 2C. John > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Anne > >>>> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: > >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:55 AM > >>>> Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. > >>>>> > >>>>> You, South, do indeed hold three spades: > >>>>> > >>>>> J72 > >>>>> Q654 > >>>>> 4 > >>>>> AQ765 > >>>>> > >>>>> Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable > >>>>> > >>>>> The bidding has gone: > >>>>> > >>>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>>>> --- --- --- Pass > >>>>> Pass 1S Pass ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major > >>>>> and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla > >>>>> that you do not play the Drury convention. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. > >>>> Checked by AVG. > >>>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1515 - Release Date: > >>>> 23/06/2008 > >>>> 19:16 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG. > >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: > >> 25/06/2008 > >> 16:13 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: 25/06/2008 >16:13 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 26 07:35:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:35:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002801c8d735$f50d7ec0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: Anne Jones: > ..... under normal circumstances a 2C bid is fine, however, >opposite a partner who is known to psyche I would always >make the suit raise to maximum effect, so to do otherwise is >to field the psyche. Richard Hills: Anne has made an error in Law. Fielding an alleged psyche is not illegal. What is illegal is the alleged psyche actually being a non-psychic concealed partnership understanding. WBF Code of Practice, page 8: "A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." Richard Hills: Although Anne's error is natural, due to the WBU and the EBU having a misnamed Red "Psyche" (should be Red CPU) regulation which implies that fielding _creates_ a CPU. The position in Law is merely that fielding is _evidence_ of a CPU. Therefore: (a) if I had an implicit partnership understanding that pard could open 1S in third seat with S 6 H J873 D KQ98 C T942, we have an illegal CPU no matter what I choose to respond to that 1S opening, but (b) if I have no such implicit partnership understanding, then my heavy raise to 2S with S J72 H Q654 D 4 C AQ765 is entirely legal, since such a heavy raise falls within the 2007 Law 40B2(a) permission to use "style and judgement" in my personal (conservative) hand evaluation. John MadDog Probst: >>btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I >>managed to get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced >>when I finally won my argument for 2C. John Richard Hills: Yes. The TD ruled Red Psyche (CPU proven), while the AC ruled Amber Psyche (CPU not yet proven). Since blmler Paul Lamford was on the AC, perhaps he might care to comment? 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 Jun 26 08:50:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:50:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, May 2004: >>>+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I >>>recall, a regulation in any competition that actually says >>>"It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". David Stevenson, May 2004: >>Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my >>partners and team-mates. Richard Hills, June 2008: Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my RHO. John (MadDog) Probst, June 2008: >I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it >RHO will protect either with a double or a red suit bid and >I can bid 2S, which is my EXACT hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 >count). Richard Hills, June 2008: My opponents foolishly play inferior bridge by refusing to balance when we have a better fit in a higher-scoring suit. 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 Thu Jun 26 08:51:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:51:45 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <27338712.1214463105475.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ Can anyone produce a minute of a subsequent Laws & Ethics Committee review of the report? One presumes that the AC did not have evidence of a prior occasion of such an auction by this pair. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 26/06/2008 6:35 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Anne Jones: > >> ..... under normal circumstances a 2C bid is fine, however, >>opposite a partner who is known to psyche I would always >>make the suit raise to maximum effect, so to do otherwise is >>to field the psyche. > >Richard Hills: > >Anne has made an error in Law. Fielding an alleged psyche is >not illegal. What is illegal is the alleged psyche actually >being a non-psychic concealed partnership understanding. > >WBF Code of Practice, page 8: > >"A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation >that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by >claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the >possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the >partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been >entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and >timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, >since it may affect their choice of action and for this >reason the understanding must be disclosed." > >Richard Hills: > >Although Anne's error is natural, due to the WBU and the EBU >having a misnamed Red "Psyche" (should be Red CPU) regulation >which implies that fielding _creates_ a CPU. The position in >Law is merely that fielding is _evidence_ of a CPU. > >Therefore: > >(a) if I had an implicit partnership understanding that pard >could open 1S in third seat with S 6 H J873 D KQ98 C T942, we >have an illegal CPU no matter what I choose to respond to that >1S opening, > >but > >(b) if I have no such implicit partnership understanding, >then my heavy raise to 2S with S J72 H Q654 D 4 C AQ765 is >entirely legal, since such a heavy raise falls within the 2007 >Law 40B2(a) permission to use "style and judgement" in my >personal (conservative) hand evaluation. > >John MadDog Probst: > >>>btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I >>>managed to get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced >>>when I finally won my argument for 2C. John > >Richard Hills: > >Yes. The TD ruled Red Psyche (CPU proven), while the AC ruled >Amber Psyche (CPU not yet proven). Since blmler Paul Lamford >was on the AC, perhaps he might care to comment? > > >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 > __________________________________________________________ Hundreds of free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 26 09:41:16 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:41:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4863481C.9080205@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it RHO will protect > either with a double or a red suit bid and I can bid 2S, which is my EXACT > hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 count). AG : if partner passes it and opponents know with which kind of hand you could be bidding 2C, or if their philosophy is that "balancing means you suppose they know what they're doing, and they usually aren't", I don't think they'll have any reason to balance. Partner will suppose you've got a 6-carder, and he could well pass -on the expected misfit- with a singleton. And why would they reopen with clubs ? Especially without hearts ? Of course, you could bid 2C and declare that, on the balance of probability, you'll often get out unharmed. But don't take anything for granted, especially opponents' actions. My style has always been to risk a moderate overbid to describe my hand properly, so 3C it is. Of course, I might be influennced by the fact that we seldom open a light 1S (a Multi or one of our 2-suited openings will be used), but I guess that's precisely the object of the primary question. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 26 09:46:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:46:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48634969.7080400@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Anne Jones: > > >> ..... under normal circumstances a 2C bid is fine, however, >> opposite a partner who is known to psyche I would always >> make the suit raise to maximum effect, so to do otherwise is >> to field the psyche. >> > > Richard Hills: > > Anne has made an error in Law. Fielding an alleged psyche is > not illegal. Do you want to bet that, if a player raised to only 2S on this hand and found partner with a 4243 7-count, he'll have his score deleted for psyche fielding ? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 26 09:56:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:56:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <27338712.1214463105475.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: +=+ Can anyone produce a minute of a subsequent Laws & Ethics Committee review of the report? One presumes that the AC did not have evidence of a prior occasion of such an auction by this pair. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: I read all EBU L&EC minutes for 2007, and up to 5th June for 2008. I could not find any unambiguous reference to this CPU / non-CPU deal. There were two cryptic references, one stating that a particular county did not record psyches, and another saying that an Amber Psyche classification was confirmed, but either or both of these references could have been about another pair and/or another deal. An interesting development in the 5th June minutes was a rewording of section 3E of the Orange Book (which section coincidentally deals with what Aussie mainlanders rudely call "Tasmanian Asking Bids"). See attached. 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 6.2.4 Rewording of section 3E The Committee confirmed the following rewording of section 3E in the Orange Book. (Law refs changed to 2007 code) 3 E Asking Questions: Unauthorised Information and the Potential to Mislead 3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this is unauthorised information to partner. Partner must carefully avoid taking advantage, which may constrain the actions partner is permitted to take during the remainder of the auction or when on lead during the play. (Law 16C, 73C). Asking about a call of 3NT or below which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call, as may asking repeated or leading questions. Asking about alerted calls in a (potentially) competitive auction is less likely to have adverse consequences, although it is not risk free. If, therefore, at a player's turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it may be in his interests to defer all questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner's lead is facedown on the table. 3 E 2 Questions asked during the auction about the meaning of an opponent's double shall usually not be considered to pass Unauthorised Information, nor to have the potential to mislead declarer about the questioner's shape or values. However, the TD may still use his discretion to give an adjusted score if the nature of the questioning clearly provides partner with unauthorised information. 3 E 3 A player may use only information he has received from legitimate sources, such as calls, plays, opponents' convention cards, their answers to questions and their mannerisms. A player may not use information gained from his partner's explanation, uncertainty, tempo or mannerisms. (Law 73B1) 3 E 4 Perhaps an example would help. A player opens 1?C which is not alerted, and the next player, before passing, asks the meaning of the 1C, or even worse says "Is that natural?". If 3NT is reached, and the questioner's partner leads a Club from two or three small cards the questioner must expect that the TD will not allow the result to stand, but will adjust it. What reason has this player to ask? The questioner knows it is a natural bid because it was not alerted. Experience shows the questioner often happens to have several Clubs. Players sometimes say "I always ask whether I intend to bid or not". This is not recommended. 3 E 5 When a player does wish to ask a question, it is recommended to phrase this neutrally and ask simply for an explanation of the auction, or of a particular call. For example when asking about a 3C response to 2NT it is recommended to say "What does 3C mean?", rather than "Is that Stayman?" This helps to avoid confusion or misleading opponents. Only if further clarification is needed should specific questions be asked. 3 E 6 As well as giving unauthorised information to partner, questions about bidding may mislead opponents, in which case they may be entitled to redress. Similarly, declarer's questions about leads, signals and discards could illegally mislead the defenders. (Law 73F) Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 26 13:17:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:17:09 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <5389767.1214479029143.JavaMail.root@ps38> +=+ Brighton returns in August. Suppose in 'Brighton 2008' Mr Atthey, third in hand. opens 1S on S 7 H Q643 D KJT8 C T984 - with the same partner. Do they have a CPU? How is it decided? ~ Grattan ~ >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 26/06/2008 8:56 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Richard Hills: > >I read all EBU L&EC minutes for 2007, and up to 5th June for >2008. I could not find any unambiguous reference to this CPU / >non-CPU deal. > >There were two cryptic references, one stating that a >particular county did not record psyches, and another saying >that an Amber Psyche classification was confirmed, but either >or both of these references could have been about another pair >and/or another deal. > >An interesting development in the 5th June minutes was a >rewording of section 3E of the Orange Book (which section >coincidentally deals with what Aussie mainlanders rudely call >"Tasmanian Asking Bids"). See attached. > >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 > >6.2.4 Rewording of section 3E > >The Committee confirmed the following rewording of section >3E in the Orange Book. (Law refs changed to 2007 code) > >3 E Asking Questions: Unauthorised Information and the >Potential to Mislead > >3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, >but should be aware that exercising this right has >consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or >more calls of the auction, then this is unauthorised >information to partner. Partner must carefully avoid taking >advantage, which may constrain the actions partner is >permitted to take during the remainder of the auction or >when on lead during the play. (Law 16C, 73C). Asking about >a call of 3NT or below which has not been alerted may cause >more problems than asking about an alerted call, as may >asking repeated or leading questions. Asking about alerted >calls in a (potentially) competitive auction is less likely >to have adverse consequences, although it is not risk free. > >If, therefore, at a player's turn to call, he does not need >to have a call explained, it may be in his interests to >defer all questions until either he is about to make the >opening lead or his partner's lead is facedown on the table. > >3 E 2 Questions asked during the auction about the meaning >of an opponent's double shall usually not be considered to >pass Unauthorised Information, nor to have the potential to >mislead declarer about the questioner's shape or values. >However, the TD may still use his discretion to give an >adjusted score if the nature of the questioning clearly >provides partner with unauthorised information. > >3 E 3 A player may use only information he has received >from legitimate sources, such as calls, plays, opponents' >convention cards, their answers to questions and their >mannerisms. A player may not use information gained from >his partner's explanation, uncertainty, tempo or >mannerisms. (Law 73B1) > >3 E 4 Perhaps an example would help. A player opens 1?C >which is not alerted, and the next player, before passing, >asks the meaning of the 1C, or even worse says "Is that >natural?". If 3NT is reached, and the questioner's partner >leads a Club from two or three small cards the questioner >must expect that the TD will not allow the result to >stand, but will adjust it. > >What reason has this player to ask? The questioner knows >it is a natural bid because it was not alerted. >Experience shows the questioner often happens to have >several Clubs. > >Players sometimes say "I always ask whether I intend to >bid or not". This is not recommended. > >3 E 5 When a player does wish to ask a question, it is >recommended to phrase this neutrally and ask simply for >an explanation of the auction, or of a particular call. >For example when asking about a 3C response to 2NT it is >recommended to say "What does 3C mean?", rather than "Is >that Stayman?" This helps to avoid confusion or >misleading opponents. Only if further clarification is >needed should specific questions be asked. > >3 E 6 As well as giving unauthorised information to >partner, questions about bidding may mislead opponents, >in which case they may be entitled to redress. >Similarly, declarer's questions about leads, signals and >discards could illegally mislead the defenders. (Law >73F) > > >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, >dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other >than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and >has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental >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 > __________________________________________________________ Euro 2008: Who'll be in the final? - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/euro2008 __________________________________________________________ From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 26 14:38:30 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:38:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN><00bf01c8d726$9925f5b0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><000601c8d72e$9d8a67a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <002801c8d735$f50d7ec0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <001e01c8d789$89ed49a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > This could go on for ever. We have a fit, and under normal circumstances a > 2C bid is fine, however, opposite a partner who is known to psyche I > would > always make the suit raise to maximum effect, so to do otherwise is to > field > the psyche. Anne, it's stupid to cater for a psyche. It's how to get bottoms. Partner will have a normal 1S opener 95%+ of the time and you use this as an excuse to play bad bridge? Basically you're saying I'll use a concealed partnership understanding in order to punish partner. We don't play bridge like that. Alert 1S if you want to and tell opponents that partner has been known to psyche in this position, but don't stop trying to play good bridge. cheers John > Anne > http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Anne Jones" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> Everyone but John is a lunatic. >> >> Not at all. I freely admit I'm a lunatic, but the case for 2C is far >> stronger than any other bid, except perhaps for my suggested 3C at imps. >> I >> don't mind overbidding games at imps; sometimes they make. If it was this >> hand (and there was an Atthey hand at brighton like this) about half a >> dozen decent matchpoint animals said "2C, what else?" and of course >> opener >> had psyched a spade. The hang em high brigade eventually backed down once >> the AC had listened to the arguments. Possibly Atthey or his partner had >> just bid 2S and even this is better than a direct 3S, as partner may well >> move over this or if opponents protect you can have a 2nd go. Opponents >> frequently protect 2 level fit contracts, so 2S is a sensible call for >> that reason. 3S will just fetch a pass as it's out-and-out PRE and you'll >> never diagnose the thin game on the double black suit fit, nor the H game >> if that's available. >> >> As for counting this hand as 7 losers in spades, you need 2 ruffs and >> won't get them, hence driving past 3S solo is fairly suicidal. How do you >> seriously expect to make 4S facing a sound 12 count 5332 1S opener, which >> is the primary hand in the method or get to 4H facing a 5431? >> >> John >> >>> Anne >>> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:28 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Anne Jones" >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:59 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>> >>>> >>>>>7 losers and quick control of 2 suits (12 points using Milton Work >>>>>Count). >>>>>I >>>>> am bidding 4C if its in the system as a cue bid agreeing Spades, >>>>> otherwise >>>>> an immediate 4S. >>>> >>>> If you insist on suicide then 4D splinter is way better. But 3C shows C >>>> and S. 4C (played your way) and 4D would show a 4 card fit. since >>>> you're >>>> suggesting 2 ruffs. In either case you don't have the hand. If partner >>>> has >>>> got a sound opener we'll get to game anyway so why overbid? >>>> >>>> I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it RHO will >>>> protect either with a double or a red suit bid and I can bid 2S, which >>>> is >>>> my EXACT hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 count). If partner bids 2D I will >>>> bid >>>> 2S (a fit but no source of tricks with enough for a passed hand 2/1), >>>> if >>>> he bids 2H I will raise, might even shoot game (and have shown a 4-4 >>>> fit >>>> and a 9 count) and if he bids 2S I will raise (showing 5C, 3S and >>>> values >>>> for 3S). Assuming partner can play bridge he'll take my invitations as >>>> constructive, since I won't have pre-empted him with a pointless >>>> overbid. >>>> . In every single case I will have shown my exact hand. He'll never >>>> raise >>>> a direct 3S since that's clearly PRE. It really isn't hard. >>>> >>>> btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I managed to >>>> get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced when i finally won my >>>> argument for 2C. John >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anne >>>>> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: >>>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:55 AM >>>>> Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. >>>>>> >>>>>> You, South, do indeed hold three spades: >>>>>> >>>>>> J72 >>>>>> Q654 >>>>>> 4 >>>>>> AQ765 >>>>>> >>>>>> Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable >>>>>> >>>>>> The bidding has gone: >>>>>> >>>>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>>>> --- --- --- Pass >>>>>> Pass 1S Pass ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major >>>>>> and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla >>>>>> that you do not play the Drury convention. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>> Checked by AVG. >>>>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1515 - Release Date: >>>>> 23/06/2008 >>>>> 19:16 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG. >>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: >>> 25/06/2008 >>> 16:13 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: 25/06/2008 > 16:13 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 26 14:50:17 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:50:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002701c8d78b$2fa5f350$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott, May 2004: > >>>>+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as I >>>>recall, a regulation in any competition that actually says >>>>"It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". > > David Stevenson, May 2004: > >>>Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my >>>partners and team-mates. > > Richard Hills, June 2008: > > Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to my > RHO. > > John (MadDog) Probst, June 2008: > >>I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it >>RHO will protect either with a double or a red suit bid and >>I can bid 2S, which is my EXACT hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 >>count). > > Richard Hills, June 2008: > > My opponents foolishly play inferior bridge by refusing to > balance when we have a better fit in a higher-scoring suit. > I'm not worried about the psyche but I am concerned that partner's opened a ferdinand spade on 4. ... and I'm allowed to cater for that, since it's GBK that 3rd seat may be light. (and it'll be on my card anyway). Opps may well do a foolish thing but I'll play the odds and expect them to protect; the upside of 2C is enormous; the downside exists if 1) partner passes 2)opponents pass it out. ... and if he has a full opener he'll bid again. He knows that 2C won't score well and won't be passing 2C unless he has to. In all other cases I get my whole hand across EXACTLY. Likely 90%+ of the time. It's pairs; No other action gets close to this. John > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Graduates and Developmental Training Section > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 9067 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities > other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at > www.immi.gov.au > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 26 14:52:16 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:52:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4863481C.9080205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002e01c8d78b$7680d600$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it RHO will > protect > either with a double or a red suit bid and I can bid 2S, which is my EXACT > hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 count). AG : if partner passes it and opponents know with which kind of hand you could be bidding 2C, or if their philosophy is that "balancing means you suppose they know what they're doing, and they usually aren't", I don't think they'll have any reason to balance. Partner will suppose you've got a 6-carder, and he could well pass -on the expected misfit- with a singleton. And why would they reopen with clubs ? Especially without hearts ? Of course, you could bid 2C and declare that, on the balance of probability, you'll often get out unharmed. But don't take anything for granted, especially opponents' actions. Culturally (Junior, UK bridge)partner will have opened 3c with 6; he doesn't have this hand. John My style has always been to risk a moderate overbid to describe my hand properly, so 3C it is. Of course, I might be influennced by the fact that we seldom open a light 1S (a Multi or one of our 2-suited openings will be used), but I guess that's precisely the object of the primary question. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 26 15:06:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:06:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002701c8d78b$2fa5f350$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <002701c8d78b$2fa5f350$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4863944B.6010604@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > > I'm not worried about the psyche but I am concerned that partner's opened a > ferdinand spade on 4. ... and I'm allowed to cater for that, since it's GBK > that 3rd seat may be light. (and it'll be on my card anyway). AG : but if you cater for a 4-card opener while your CC says 5, you're using a concealed agreement. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 26 15:13:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:13:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002e01c8d78b$7680d600$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4863481C.9080205@ulb.ac.be> <002e01c8d78b$7680d600$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <486395DC.7020500@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > (AG) Partner will suppose you've got a 6-carder, and he could well pass -on the expected misfit- with a > singleton. And why would they reopen with clubs ? Especially without > hearts ? > Of course, you could bid 2C and declare that, on the balance of > probability, you'll often get out unharmed. But don't take anything for > granted, especially opponents' actions. > > > (John) Culturally (Junior, UK bridge)partner will have opened 3c with 6; he doesn't > have this hand. AG : if so, then you play that a 2C answer usualy won't produce 6 (unless 64, perhaps) and might well contain moderate spade support, which is an agreement to use classical Drury (not Drury raise) and is alertable. (if you claim that it isn't, please let me mention that an answer of 1S to 1C, showing 4 spades but usually denies 5, has been deemed alertable) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jun 26 16:07:14 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:07:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002801c8d735$f50d7ec0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN><00bf01c8d726$9925f5b0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <000601c8d72e$9d8a67a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <002801c8d735$f50d7ec0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <4863A292.90108@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable S: J72 H: Q654 D: 4 C: AQ765 --- --- --- _P (_P) 1S (_P) ?? Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla that you do not play the Drury convention. What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [John MadDog Probst] btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I managed to get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced when I finally won my argument for 2C. [Richard Hills] Yes. The TD ruled Red Psyche (CPU proven), while the AC ruled Amber Psyche (CPU not yet proven). Since blmler Paul Lamford was on the AC, perhaps he might care to comment? [Anne Jones] This could go on for ever. We have a fit, and under normal circumstances a 2C bid is fine, however, opposite a partner who is known to psyche I would always make the suit raise to maximum effect, so to do otherwise is to field the psyche. [Nige1] IMO 3C = 10, 3S = 9, 2C = 1. With minor quibbles, I agree with Anne. If partner isn't a passed hand then 2C is OK. It is hard to imagine what merit 2C has opposite a passed hand unless partner is prone to 3rd-in-hand psyches. We haven't been told what happened next but it seems that the TD got it right. Richard refers to "CPU proven". I understand that to mean that, on these facts (but not necessarily with these protagonists) the director judges that the balance of probability is that CPU/UI was used. Judging by past discussions on "fielded psychs", however, most BLMLers would agree with John and the AC. This would be a more reasonable stance if there were a *global database* of possible CPU/UI incidents and the psycher himself had to report the circumstanes of every psych (countersigned by opponents and director). IMO, you can't expect the putative victims or the director to take on that task. Given that directors and committees are reluctant to rule CPU, the ACBL and others feel obliged to ban psychs for practical purposes. Which is a pity because psyching is an exciting tactic. From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 26 16:47:27 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:47:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002701c8d78b$2fa5f350$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4863944B.6010604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001701c8d79b$8dfeae00$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > > I'm not worried about the psyche but I am concerned that partner's opened > a > ferdinand spade on 4. ... and I'm allowed to cater for that, since it's > GBK > that 3rd seat may be light. (and it'll be on my card anyway). AG : but if you cater for a 4-card opener while your CC says 5, you're using a concealed agreement. Oh, come on Alain, you do play bridge don't you? Lite 3rd seat majors on 4 in Std Am are GBK. It's on my CC in all partnerships where I play 5cM anyway. I really don't think you can expect to get TD sympathy here. If I agreed "Vanilla Std" playing p/u with you I'd open 1S in 3rd non-vul on AQxx xx xxx Axxx and probably Mike Lawrence would too. We're really well placed whatever happens. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 26 16:49:57 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:49:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4863481C.9080205@ulb.ac.be><002e01c8d78b$7680d600$0901a8c0@JOHN> <486395DC.7020500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001c01c8d79b$e740b760$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > (AG) Partner will suppose you've got a 6-carder, and he could well > pass -on the expected misfit- with a > singleton. And why would they reopen with clubs ? Especially without > hearts ? > Of course, you could bid 2C and declare that, on the balance of > probability, you'll often get out unharmed. But don't take anything for > granted, especially opponents' actions. > > > (John) Culturally (Junior, UK bridge)partner will have opened 3c with 6; > he doesn't > have this hand. AG : if so, then you play that a 2C answer usualy won't produce 6 (unless 64, perhaps) and might well contain moderate spade support, which is an agreement to use classical Drury (not Drury raise) and is alertable. (if you claim that it isn't, please let me mention that an answer of 1S to 1C, showing 4 spades but usually denies 5, has been deemed alertable) 2C in response to a 3rd seat 1S shows clubs and about 10 points. It says nothing about spades at all. I will shade this holding 3S of course, so would you. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jun 26 16:53:39 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:53:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN><00bf01c8d726$9925f5b0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <000601c8d72e$9d8a67a0$0901a8c0@JOHN><002801c8d735$f50d7ec0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <4863A292.90108@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002401c8d79c$6bbba9f0$0901a8c0@JOHN> > > Judging by past discussions on "fielded psychs", however, most BLMLers > would agree with John and the AC. This would be a more reasonable stance > if there were a *global database* of possible CPU/UI incidents and the > psycher himself had to report the circumstanes of every psych > (countersigned by opponents and director). IMO, you can't expect the > putative victims or the director to take on that task. My daughter-in-Law tells me every tournament hand in Croatia is available on the net. It's not rocket science. We'll get there. > > Given that directors and committees are reluctant to rule CPU, the ACBL > and others feel obliged to ban psychs for practical purposes. Which is a > pity because psyching is an exciting tactic. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 26 17:16:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:16:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c8d79b$8dfeae00$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <002701c8d78b$2fa5f350$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4863944B.6010604@ulb.ac.be> <001701c8d79b$8dfeae00$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4863B2B1.4040405@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > > Oh, come on Alain, you do play bridge don't you? Lite 3rd seat majors on 4 > in Std Am are GBK. That's why Drury raise has been invented. Now, if you play both those light 4-card openers (I don't) and NF 2C, then there is a hole in your system. It has been said here before that if you miraculously and simultaneously find the way to fill the gap, then it wasn't a gap after all. If you play sound single raises because you play light openers, that's alertable in my country. If an exttra-sound 2S isn't alerted (whence not declared as particularly conservative) and the opening was a psyche, it becomes a possible fielding. Best regards Alain From Gampas at aol.com Thu Jun 26 19:27:36 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:27:36 EDT Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 26/06/2008 06:36:10 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Richard Hills: Yes. The TD ruled Red Psyche (CPU proven), while the AC ruled Amber Psyche (CPU not yet proven). Since blmler Paul Lamford was on the AC, perhaps he might care to comment? [paul lamford] I understand that the EBU recommend that AC members do not comment on cases in which they sat. I recall seeing this in the White Book, or it might have been on the EBU web site. I would be very please to comment if this requirement were waived. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jun 26 19:41:09 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:41:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c8d79b$8dfeae00$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <002701c8d78b$2fa5f350$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4863944B.6010604@ulb.ac.be> <001701c8d79b$8dfeae00$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4863D4B5.6040302@NTLworld.com> [John (MadDog) Probst] Oh, come on Alain, you do play bridge don't you? Lite 3rd seat majors on 4 in Std Am are GBK. It's on my CC in all partnerships where I play 5cM anyway. I really don't think you can expect to get TD sympathy here. If I agreed "Vanilla Std" playing p/u with you I'd open 1S in 3rd non-vul on AQxx xx xxx Axxx and probably Mike Lawrence would too. We're really well placed whatever happens. [Nige1] *General Bridge Knowledge* in the Probst School and it also attracts support in discussion groups like BLML. Unfortunately some experts don't "play Bridge". They even believe that previous editions of the Orange Book forbade such agreements. Usually, when an opponent explains his winning tactic as GBK, you know you are about to learn something new :) Have law-makers deliberately retained the GBK concept to save players from such tedious disclosure? :) From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 26 21:50:20 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:50:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN><00bf01c8d726$9925f5b0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer><000601c8d72e$9d8a67a0$0901a8c0@JOHN><002801c8d735$f50d7ec0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <001e01c8d789$89ed49a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <012201c8d7c5$df42b840$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> I only considered that this might be a psyche John, because you said so. With a partner who has never ever psyched this would be my analysis of the value of my hand. 4S. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Jones" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:40 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> This could go on for ever. We have a fit, and under normal circumstances >> a >> 2C bid is fine, however, opposite a partner who is known to psyche I >> would >> always make the suit raise to maximum effect, so to do otherwise is to >> field >> the psyche. > > Anne, it's stupid to cater for a psyche. It's how to get bottoms. Partner > will have a normal 1S opener 95%+ of the time and you use this as an > excuse to play bad bridge? Basically you're saying I'll use a concealed > partnership understanding in order to punish partner. We don't play bridge > like that. Alert 1S if you want to and tell opponents that partner has > been known to psyche in this position, but don't stop trying to play good > bridge. cheers John > >> Anne >> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:47 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Anne Jones" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:50 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>>> Everyone but John is a lunatic. >>> >>> Not at all. I freely admit I'm a lunatic, but the case for 2C is far >>> stronger than any other bid, except perhaps for my suggested 3C at imps. >>> I >>> don't mind overbidding games at imps; sometimes they make. If it was >>> this >>> hand (and there was an Atthey hand at brighton like this) about half a >>> dozen decent matchpoint animals said "2C, what else?" and of course >>> opener >>> had psyched a spade. The hang em high brigade eventually backed down >>> once >>> the AC had listened to the arguments. Possibly Atthey or his partner >>> had >>> just bid 2S and even this is better than a direct 3S, as partner may >>> well >>> move over this or if opponents protect you can have a 2nd go. Opponents >>> frequently protect 2 level fit contracts, so 2S is a sensible call for >>> that reason. 3S will just fetch a pass as it's out-and-out PRE and >>> you'll >>> never diagnose the thin game on the double black suit fit, nor the H >>> game >>> if that's available. >>> >>> As for counting this hand as 7 losers in spades, you need 2 ruffs and >>> won't get them, hence driving past 3S solo is fairly suicidal. How do >>> you >>> seriously expect to make 4S facing a sound 12 count 5332 1S opener, >>> which >>> is the primary hand in the method or get to 4H facing a 5431? >>> >>> John >>> >>>> Anne >>>> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:28 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Anne Jones" >>>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:59 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>7 losers and quick control of 2 suits (12 points using Milton Work >>>>>>Count). >>>>>>I >>>>>> am bidding 4C if its in the system as a cue bid agreeing Spades, >>>>>> otherwise >>>>>> an immediate 4S. >>>>> >>>>> If you insist on suicide then 4D splinter is way better. But 3C shows >>>>> C >>>>> and S. 4C (played your way) and 4D would show a 4 card fit. since >>>>> you're >>>>> suggesting 2 ruffs. In either case you don't have the hand. If partner >>>>> has >>>>> got a sound opener we'll get to game anyway so why overbid? >>>>> >>>>> I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it RHO will >>>>> protect either with a double or a red suit bid and I can bid 2S, which >>>>> is >>>>> my EXACT hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 count). If partner bids 2D I will >>>>> bid >>>>> 2S (a fit but no source of tricks with enough for a passed hand 2/1), >>>>> if >>>>> he bids 2H I will raise, might even shoot game (and have shown a 4-4 >>>>> fit >>>>> and a 9 count) and if he bids 2S I will raise (showing 5C, 3S and >>>>> values >>>>> for 3S). Assuming partner can play bridge he'll take my invitations as >>>>> constructive, since I won't have pre-empted him with a pointless >>>>> overbid. >>>>> . In every single case I will have shown my exact hand. He'll never >>>>> raise >>>>> a direct 3S since that's clearly PRE. It really isn't hard. >>>>> >>>>> btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I managed >>>>> to >>>>> get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced when i finally won my >>>>> argument for 2C. John >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anne >>>>>> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: >>>>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:55 AM >>>>>> Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You, South, do indeed hold three spades: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> J72 >>>>>>> Q654 >>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>> AQ765 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The bidding has gone: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>>>>> --- --- --- Pass >>>>>>> Pass 1S Pass ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major >>>>>>> and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla >>>>>>> that you do not play the Drury convention. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>>> Checked by AVG. >>>>>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1515 - Release Date: >>>>>> 23/06/2008 >>>>>> 19:16 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> Checked by AVG. >>>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: >>>> 25/06/2008 >>>> 16:13 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: >> 25/06/2008 >> 16:13 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: 25/06/2008 16:13 From Gampas at aol.com Thu Jun 26 23:41:26 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:41:26 EDT Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 26/06/2008 06:36:10 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Richard Hills: Yes. The TD ruled Red Psyche (CPU proven), while the AC ruled Amber Psyche (CPU not yet proven). Since blmler Paul Lamford was on the AC, perhaps he might care to comment? [paul lamford] White Book 93.4.4 Members who sit on EBU Appeals Committees have a judicial role. Members of the Appeals Committee should refrain from subsequent comment or debate upon the matter adjudicated. Thata was the part I recalled in my earlier posting, so no comment, other than to confirm the ruling of the AC that the psyche was reclassified as Amber. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 27 00:18:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:18:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <012201c8d7c5$df42b840$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: Anne Jones: >With a partner who has never ever psyched this would be my >analysis of the value of my hand. 4S. Richard Hills: With a partner who has never ever psyched this would be my analysis of the value of my hand. 2S. De gustibus non est disputandum. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jun 27 00:39:19 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:39:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <012201c8d7c5$df42b840$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: Haven't been paying much attention to this, but as I recall I had some hand such as Jxx Qxxx x AQxxx and was asked what I'd respond to a third-seat 1S opening playing "plain vanilla". I would respond exactly as I would respond to a first-seat 1S opening playing "plain vanilla". That, after all, is what "plain vanilla" is supposed to mean. It seems to me that if 1S shows five cards and a 1NT opening is strong, what I have is a raise to about two and three quarters spades. Wherefore I would bid 2S except at equal vulnerability at IMPs, when I would bid 3S. The little attention I have paid to this leads me to believe that calls such as 2C, 3C, and 4S have been seriously considered. Whereas 2C might be countenanced (though it is not very sensible) if I were not a passed hand, it is truly ridiculous given that I am. 3C to show clubs and spade support is sensible. 4S is... well, it is not as bad as 2C, but neither is malaria. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 27 02:11:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:11:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4863D4B5.6040302@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>Oh, come on Alain, you do play bridge don't you? Lite 3rd seat >>majors on 4 in Std Am are GBK [general bridge knowledge]. Nigel Guthrie: >Usually, when an opponent explains his winning tactic as GBK, >you know you are about to learn something new :) > >Have law-makers deliberately retained the GBK concept to save >players from such tedious disclosure? :) Richard Hills: Partnership *understandings*, whether in general use or not, must be disclosed. It is GBK *inferences* - such as "do not raise 1S to an anti-percentage 4S when the scoring is not by imps, but rather by matchpoints" - which need not be disclosed. Law 40B6: (a) When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. (b) The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jun 27 02:46:53 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:46:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4864387D.1090608@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Partnership *understandings*, whether in general use or not, must be disclosed. It is GBK *inferences* - such as "do not raise 1S to an anti-percentage 4S when the scoring is not by imps, but rather by matchpoints" - which need not be disclosed. [Nige1] I wouldn't raise a 3rd in hand 1S to game on the given hand; but a natural 2C reply seems bizarre. John claims this to be a normal action. I question whether that is GBK. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jun 27 03:04:29 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:04:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? In-Reply-To: <200806252123.m5PLNvu5023122@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200806252123.m5PLNvu5023122@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48643C9D.6010206@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable > J72 > Q654 > 4 > AQ765 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1S Pass ? > > Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major > and strong 1NT style. I've played this style a lot, and 2C seems obvious. Partner has to be prepared for me to bid it with this hand. Other possibilities to consider are 2S, 3C, and 3S, but I don't like any of them. 2S is an underbid, while the others are overbids. Higher bids are even worse. (I would probably choose 3C vulnerable _at IMPs_, but that's a different matter entirely. In those conditions, I _want_ to bid 40% games.) I decided on the answer above before I read the part about North having psyched. I'd vote to rule the 2C bid green, obviously, but I can understand amber. Red makes no sense to me at all. From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Thu Jun 26 21:59:21 2008 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:59:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <012201c8d7c5$df42b840$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> References: <003101c8d6a1$d65c96d0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <001c01c8d723$9a6fbb20$0901a8c0@JOHN> <00bf01c8d726$9925f5b0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <000601c8d72e$9d8a67a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <002801c8d735$f50d7ec0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> <001e01c8d789$89ed49a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <012201c8d7c5$df42b840$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Anne Jones wrote: > I only considered that this might be a psyche John, because you said so. > With a partner who has never ever psyched this would be my analysis of the > value of my hand. 4S. I don't understand this. Even when not playing any form of Drury, you don't allow for a partner in third seat to have opened a hand significantly lighter than normal (but still with spades)? A partnership is not required to play Drury in order to open light. The partnership may instead accept that Responder has extra pressure on them due to the wider range of values possible. > > Anne > http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:38 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Anne Jones" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:40 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > >> This could go on for ever. We have a fit, and under normal circumstances > >> a > >> 2C bid is fine, however, opposite a partner who is known to psyche I > >> would > >> always make the suit raise to maximum effect, so to do otherwise is to > >> field > >> the psyche. > > > > Anne, it's stupid to cater for a psyche. It's how to get bottoms. Partner > > will have a normal 1S opener 95%+ of the time and you use this as an > > excuse to play bad bridge? Basically you're saying I'll use a concealed > > partnership understanding in order to punish partner. We don't play > bridge > > like that. Alert 1S if you want to and tell opponents that partner has > > been known to psyche in this position, but don't stop trying to play good > > bridge. cheers John > > > >> Anne > >> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:47 AM > >> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> > >> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Anne Jones" > >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:50 AM > >>> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>> > >>> > >>>> Everyone but John is a lunatic. > >>> > >>> Not at all. I freely admit I'm a lunatic, but the case for 2C is far > >>> stronger than any other bid, except perhaps for my suggested 3C at > imps. > >>> I > >>> don't mind overbidding games at imps; sometimes they make. If it was > >>> this > >>> hand (and there was an Atthey hand at brighton like this) about half a > >>> dozen decent matchpoint animals said "2C, what else?" and of course > >>> opener > >>> had psyched a spade. The hang em high brigade eventually backed down > >>> once > >>> the AC had listened to the arguments. Possibly Atthey or his partner > >>> had > >>> just bid 2S and even this is better than a direct 3S, as partner may > >>> well > >>> move over this or if opponents protect you can have a 2nd go. Opponents > >>> frequently protect 2 level fit contracts, so 2S is a sensible call for > >>> that reason. 3S will just fetch a pass as it's out-and-out PRE and > >>> you'll > >>> never diagnose the thin game on the double black suit fit, nor the H > >>> game > >>> if that's available. > >>> > >>> As for counting this hand as 7 losers in spades, you need 2 ruffs and > >>> won't get them, hence driving past 3S solo is fairly suicidal. How do > >>> you > >>> seriously expect to make 4S facing a sound 12 count 5332 1S opener, > >>> which > >>> is the primary hand in the method or get to 4H facing a 5431? > >>> > >>> John > >>> > >>>> Anne > >>>> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:28 AM > >>>> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>> From: "Anne Jones" > >>>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:59 AM > >>>>> Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>7 losers and quick control of 2 suits (12 points using Milton Work > >>>>>>Count). > >>>>>>I > >>>>>> am bidding 4C if its in the system as a cue bid agreeing Spades, > >>>>>> otherwise > >>>>>> an immediate 4S. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you insist on suicide then 4D splinter is way better. But 3C shows > >>>>> C > >>>>> and S. 4C (played your way) and 4D would show a 4 card fit. since > >>>>> you're > >>>>> suggesting 2 ruffs. In either case you don't have the hand. If > partner > >>>>> has > >>>>> got a sound opener we'll get to game anyway so why overbid? > >>>>> > >>>>> I'll analyse why 2C works best though. If partner passes it RHO will > >>>>> protect either with a double or a red suit bid and I can bid 2S, > which > >>>>> is > >>>>> my EXACT hand (5C, 3S and about a 10 count). If partner bids 2D I > will > >>>>> bid > >>>>> 2S (a fit but no source of tricks with enough for a passed hand 2/1), > >>>>> if > >>>>> he bids 2H I will raise, might even shoot game (and have shown a 4-4 > >>>>> fit > >>>>> and a 9 count) and if he bids 2S I will raise (showing 5C, 3S and > >>>>> values > >>>>> for 3S). Assuming partner can play bridge he'll take my invitations > as > >>>>> constructive, since I won't have pre-empted him with a pointless > >>>>> overbid. > >>>>> . In every single case I will have shown my exact hand. He'll never > >>>>> raise > >>>>> a direct 3S since that's clearly PRE. It really isn't hard. > >>>>> > >>>>> btw is this the Jon Atthey hand from last year's Brighton? I managed > >>>>> to > >>>>> get about 3 lunatic L&E members very red-faced when i finally won my > >>>>> argument for 2C. John > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anne > >>>>>> http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>> From: > >>>>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:55 AM > >>>>>> Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Answer: Show him three spades and ask him to take his pick. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You, South, do indeed hold three spades: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> J72 > >>>>>>> Q654 > >>>>>>> 4 > >>>>>>> AQ765 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The bidding has gone: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>>>>>> --- --- --- Pass > >>>>>>> Pass 1S Pass ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major > >>>>>>> and strong 1NT style. Alas, your methods are so vanilla > >>>>>>> that you do not play the Drury convention. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. > >>>>>> Checked by AVG. > >>>>>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1515 - Release Date: > >>>>>> 23/06/2008 > >>>>>> 19:16 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. > >>>> Checked by AVG. > >>>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: > >>>> 25/06/2008 > >>>> 16:13 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG. > >> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: > >> 25/06/2008 > >> 16:13 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1519 - Release Date: 25/06/2008 > 16:13 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080626/bf44464c/attachment-0001.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 27 08:50:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:50:19 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? Message-ID: <32738306.1214549419230.JavaMail.root@ps37.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: swillner at nhcc.net >Date: 27/06/2008 2:04 >To: >Subj: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? > >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Matchpoint pairs, dealer South, both vulnerable > >> J72 >> Q654 >> 4 >> AQ765 > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- Pass >> Pass 1S Pass ? >> >> Your partnership plays vanilla methods in a 5-card major >> and strong 1NT style. > >I've played this style a lot, and 2C seems obvious. Partner has to be >prepared for me to bid it with this hand. Other possibilities to >consider are 2S, 3C, and 3S, but I don't like any of them. 2S is an >underbid, while the others are overbids. Higher bids are even worse. >(I would probably choose 3C vulnerable _at IMPs_, but that's a different >matter entirely. In those conditions, I _want_ to bid 40% games.) > >I decided on the answer above before I read the part about North having >psyched. I'd vote to rule the 2C bid green, obviously, but I can >understand amber. Red makes no sense to me at all. > +=+ Without supporting historical evidence I do not think it can be red. Amber simply means it will represent supporting historical evidence in future. The third time it would red if within a short enough period to be lodged in the memory. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Euro 2008: Who'll be in the final? - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/euro2008 __________________________________________________________ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 27 08:57:03 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:57:03 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <30737042.1214549823220.JavaMail.root@ps37.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com >Date: 27/06/2008 1:46 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >[Richard Hills] >Partnership *understandings*, whether in general use or not, must be >disclosed. It is GBK *inferences* - such as "do not raise 1S to an >anti-percentage 4S when the scoring is not by imps, but rather by >matchpoints" - which need not be disclosed. > >[Nige1] >I wouldn't raise a 3rd in hand 1S to game on the given hand; but a >natural 2C reply seems bizarre. John claims this to be a normal action. >I question whether that is GBK. > +=+ If there is no CPU the player is free to bid as he wishes. As David Burn observes some dogs are more smelly than others. Which, as a friend of animals, I regret. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Euro 2008: Who'll be in the final? - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/euro2008 __________________________________________________________ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 27 09:00:30 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:00:30 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <4712858.1214550030283.JavaMail.root@ps37.mc.tiscali.sys> >----Original Message---- >From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com >Date: 26/06/2008 20:50 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >I only considered that this might be a psyche John, because you said so. >With a partner who has never ever psyched this would be my analysis of the >value of my hand. 4S. >Anne << +=+ Perhaps 3C, guaranteeing Spade fit, could be contemplated. ~ G ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Euro 2008: Who'll be in the final? - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/euro2008 __________________________________________________________ From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 27 09:22:58 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:22:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4712858.1214550030283.JavaMail.root@ps37.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <003001c8d826$a6338410$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Yes Grattan, I could live with that, but I do think 2S is a gross underbid which caters for a Ferdinand of more than a K light. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>----Original Message---- >>From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com >>Date: 26/06/2008 20:50 >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Subj: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >>I only considered that this might be a psyche John, because you said > so. >>With a partner who has never ever psyched this would be my analysis > of the >>value of my hand. 4S. >>Anne > << > +=+ Perhaps 3C, guaranteeing Spade fit, could be contemplated. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > Euro 2008: Who'll be in the final? - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/euro2008 > __________________________________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1521 - Release Date: 26/06/2008 11:20 From Gampas at aol.com Fri Jun 27 09:51:16 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:51:16 EDT Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? Message-ID: In a message dated 27/06/2008 07:51:55 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: Amber simply means it will represent supporting historical evidence in future. [lamford] This is a commonly held, but mistaken, view among eminent officials within the EBU. Recording a psyche simply means it will represent supporting historical evidence in future. The Amber classification indicates that there was "some evidence of an unauthorised understanding". From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 27 10:33:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:33:55 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? Message-ID: <17874257.1214555635940.JavaMail.root@ps38> >----Original Message---- >From: Gampas at aol.com >Date: 27/06/2008 8:51 >To: >Subj: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? > >In a message dated 27/06/2008 07:51:55 GMT Standard Time, >gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: > >Amber simply means it will represent supporting historical evidence in >future. > >[lamford] >This is a commonly held, but mistaken, view among eminent officials within >the EBU. Recording a psyche simply means it will represent supporting >historical evidence in future. The Amber classification indicates that there was "some > evidence of an unauthorised understanding". > +=+ Some evidence, but inconclusive, requiring further contributory evidence at a future time. Hence it will provide supportive evidence in future. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Euro 2008: Who'll be in the final? - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/euro2008 __________________________________________________________ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 28 09:13:03 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:13:03 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <7272880.1214637183819.JavaMail.root@ps26> +=+ I enquired about a possible minute. This what I learnt: The reviewers did not consider it worthy of putting before the whole committee. Board 10, Dealer E, Game ALL N: AK543 AK109 J73 8 E: J72 Q654 4 AQ765 S: Q1085 2 A10652 KJ3 W: 6 J873 KQ98 10942 E pass, S pass, W 1S, N pass E 2S, all pass. Result 2S - 6 by W. The TD ruled it RED and scored it 60/30 as per our regs. The AC put it to AMBER and returned the score to the table score. The chairman's comment was 'The committee thought that E had a maximum 2S. They established that E had no 3-card limit and accepted his reluctance to bid 2C as it might be passed'. .............................................................................................................. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ Get the latest on Wimbledon - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/wimbledon __________________________________________________________ From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Jun 28 09:51:18 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:51:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628174609.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> I have my gratitude on record with the new revoke law. I have a lady who has had a stroke, and must sort her cards into a tray with one hand..so there is always the risk of a revoke. She is declarer and a diamond is led, she discards. LHO continues diamonds, RHO ruffs and she over ruffs. Later she finds a diamond among her spades. I presume this is just 1 trick penalty and then L64C to mop up? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Jun 28 10:17:48 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:17:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fwd: check on revoke law Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628181722.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> >Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:51:18 +1000 >To: blml >From: Tony Musgrove >Subject: check on revoke law > >I have my gratitude on record with the new revoke law. > >I have a lady who has had a stroke, and must sort >her cards into a tray with one hand..so there is >always the risk of a revoke. > >She is declarer and a diamond is led, she discards. >LHO continues diamonds, RHO ruffs and she over ruffs. > >Later she finds a diamond among her spades. > >I presume this is just 1 trick penalty and then L64C to mop >up? > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Jun 28 12:17:53 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:17:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?check_on_revoke_law?= In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628174609.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628174609.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1KCXVB-1ktMm00@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> From: Tony Musgrove > I have my gratitude on record with the new revoke law. > > I have a lady who has had a stroke, and must sort > her cards into a tray with one hand..so there is > always the risk of a revoke. > > She is declarer and a diamond is led, she discards. > LHO continues diamonds, RHO ruffs and she over ruffs. > > Later she finds a diamond among her spades. > > I presume this is just 1 trick penalty and then L64C to mop > up? correct, but remember: you have possibly to apply L64C for the second revoke (and at the time of the second revoke) and then afterwards to transfer one trick because of the first revoke. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 28 12:50:44 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:50:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <1KCXVB-1ktMm00@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628174609.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1KCXVB-1ktMm00@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000301c8d90c$d11d4350$7357c9f0$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > From: Tony Musgrove > > I have my gratitude on record with the new revoke law. > > > > I have a lady who has had a stroke, and must sort > > her cards into a tray with one hand..so there is > > always the risk of a revoke. > > > > She is declarer and a diamond is led, she discards. > > LHO continues diamonds, RHO ruffs and she over ruffs. > > > > Later she finds a diamond among her spades. > > > > I presume this is just 1 trick penalty and then L64C to mop > > up? > > correct, but remember: > you have possibly to apply L64C for the second revoke > (and at the time of the second revoke) and then afterwards > to transfer one trick because of the first revoke. This is incorrect and/or easily misunderstood. The Director must first rule on the first revoke and then go via Law 64B2 for the second revoke. Only thereafter can he go to Law 64C on the second revoke. And L64C can never be applied before the result on the board is known. Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Jun 28 13:28:00 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:28:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?check_on_revoke_law?= In-Reply-To: <000301c8d90c$d11d4350$7357c9f0$@no> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628174609.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1KCXVB-1ktMm00@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8d90c$d11d4350$7357c9f0$@no> Message-ID: <1KCYb2-1HvSMK0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > From: Tony Musgrove > > > I have my gratitude on record with the new revoke law. > > > > > > I have a lady who has had a stroke, and must sort > > > her cards into a tray with one hand..so there is > > > always the risk of a revoke. > > > > > > She is declarer and a diamond is led, she discards. > > > LHO continues diamonds, RHO ruffs and she over ruffs. > > > > > > Later she finds a diamond among her spades. > > > > > > I presume this is just 1 trick penalty and then L64C to mop > > > up? > > > > correct, but remember: > > you have possibly to apply L64C for the second revoke > > (and at the time of the second revoke) and then afterwards > > to transfer one trick because of the first revoke. > > This is incorrect and/or easily misunderstood. The Director must first > rule on the first revoke and then go via Law 64B2 for the second > revoke. Only thereafter can he go to Law 64C on the second revoke. And > L64C can never be applied before the result on the board is known. Yes, seems you have misunderstood the law ... The first revoke leads to a one trick rectification (Law 64A2). The second revoke leads to no trick rectification (Law 64 B2), but then the TD has to examine Law 64 C (for the second revoke!!). Whether there will be any adjustment caused by Law 64 C or not, the TD after that will transfer the one trick from the first revoke to the non-offending side. Only if the TD considers, that Law 64 C has to be applied to the first revoke (because that revoke has broken down the hand for the non-offenders), then there will be no further trick rectification. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 28 17:29:46 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:29:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <1KCYb2-1HvSMK0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628174609.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1KCXVB-1ktMm00@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8d90c$d11d4350$7357c9f0$@no> <1KCYb2-1HvSMK0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000301c8d933$cbf48ba0$63dda2e0$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > Sent: 28. juni 2008 13:28 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] check on revoke law > > From: "Sven Pran" > > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > > From: Tony Musgrove > > > > I have my gratitude on record with the new revoke law. > > > > > > > > I have a lady who has had a stroke, and must sort > > > > her cards into a tray with one hand..so there is > > > > always the risk of a revoke. > > > > > > > > She is declarer and a diamond is led, she discards. > > > > LHO continues diamonds, RHO ruffs and she over ruffs. > > > > > > > > Later she finds a diamond among her spades. > > > > > > > > I presume this is just 1 trick penalty and then L64C to mop > > > > up? > > > > > > correct, but remember: > > > you have possibly to apply L64C for the second revoke > > > (and at the time of the second revoke) and then afterwards > > > to transfer one trick because of the first revoke. > > > > This is incorrect and/or easily misunderstood. The Director must first > > rule on the first revoke and then go via Law 64B2 for the second > > revoke. Only thereafter can he go to Law 64C on the second revoke. And > > L64C can never be applied before the result on the board is known. > > Yes, seems you have misunderstood the law ... > The first revoke leads to a one trick rectification (Law 64A2). > The second revoke leads to no trick rectification (Law 64 B2), but > then the TD has to examine Law 64 C (for the second revoke!!). > Whether there will be any adjustment caused by Law 64 C or not, > the TD after that will transfer the one trick from the first revoke > to the non-offending side. > Only if the TD considers, that Law 64 C has to be applied > to the first revoke (because that revoke has broken down > the hand for the non-offenders), then there will be no further > trick rectification. No I haven't misunderstood the law, but I may have misunderstood you: It could look like you were saying that because defenders were damaged one trick from the revokes then you first apply L64C on the second revoke and transfer one trick, and later you apply L64A2 on the first revoke and transfer another trick? The correct ruling is of course to handle the revokes in sequence and first award a one trick rectification under L64A2 for the first revoke, and eventually make a L84C evaluation if defenders are still considered damaged after this rectification of just one trick. Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Jun 28 18:10:31 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:10:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?check_on_revoke_law?= In-Reply-To: <000301c8d933$cbf48ba0$63dda2e0$@no> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628174609.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1KCXVB-1ktMm00@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8d90c$d11d4350$7357c9f0$@no> <1KCYb2-1HvSMK0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8d933$cbf48ba0$63dda2e0$@no> Message-ID: <1KCd0R-26T9hw0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> the old neverending story ... From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > Sent: 28. juni 2008 13:28 > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [blml] check on revoke law > > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > > > From: Tony Musgrove > > > > > I have my gratitude on record with the new revoke law. > > > > > > > > > > I have a lady who has had a stroke, and must sort > > > > > her cards into a tray with one hand..so there is > > > > > always the risk of a revoke. > > > > > > > > > > She is declarer and a diamond is led, she discards. > > > > > LHO continues diamonds, RHO ruffs and she over ruffs. > > > > > > > > > > Later she finds a diamond among her spades. > > > > > > > > > > I presume this is just 1 trick penalty and then L64C to mop > > > > > up? > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct, but remember: > > > > you have possibly to apply L64C for the second revoke > > > > (and at the time of the second revoke) and then afterwards > > > > to transfer one trick because of the first revoke. > > > > > > This is incorrect and/or easily misunderstood. The Director must > > > first rule on the first revoke and then go via Law 64B2 for the > > > second revoke. Only thereafter can he go to Law 64C on the second > > > revoke. And L64C can never be applied before the result on the > > > board is known. > > > > > > > Yes, seems you have misunderstood the law ... > > The first revoke leads to a one trick rectification (Law 64A2). > > The second revoke leads to no trick rectification (Law 64 B2), but > > then the TD has to examine Law 64 C (for the second revoke!!). > > Whether there will be any adjustment caused by Law 64 C or not, the > > TD after that will transfer the one trick from the first revoke to > > the non-offending side. > > Only if the TD considers, that Law 64 C has to be applied > > to the first revoke (because that revoke has broken down > > the hand for the non-offenders), then there will be no further trick > > rectification. > > > > No I haven't misunderstood the law, but I may have misunderstood you: > It could look like you were saying that because defenders were damaged > one trick from the revokes then you first apply L64C on the second > revoke and transfer one trick, and later you apply L64A2 on the first > revoke and transfer another trick? > > The correct ruling is of course to handle the revokes in sequence and > first award a one trick rectification under L64A2 for the first > revoke, and eventually make a L84C evaluation if defenders are still > considered damaged after this rectification of just one trick. Yes, you did misunderstand me, because I said something totally different. I'll give it one last try: Law 64 C: "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non- offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." The main words here are "any" and "insufficiently compensated for the damage caused". So, before the second revoke occurs there is a certain expectation of the ownership of the remaining tricks, including the (second) revoke trick, if the (second) revoke had not occured. (This is the well-established procedure of Law 64 C for many many years). If now the non-offending side gets less than those expected tricks, it is damaged (caused) by the (second) revoke and has to get redress for that damage. As the (second) revoke itself brings no redress, it has to be brought through Law 64 C, so that the non- offending side gets those earlier mentioned expected tricks. This is to be said about the second revoke. Now the first revoke: It will be rectified through Law 64 A2 at the end of the play through the transfer of one trick to the non-offending side. And for this (first) revoke-situation there also was a number of expected tricks, if that (first) revoke had not occured. So, perhaps Law 64 C has to be envoked a second time for the (first) revoke. I know, that this topic was (is) "discussed" very hard in the past and that that were (are) 2 diametrical positions, whether to see the whole hand or each revoke on its own merits. And I admit, that I was a supporter of the other side in my earlier days, but I'm also "sure" now that the new wording of Law 64 B2 (the second sentence "Law 64 C may apply") in a situation, where the law deals with a second revoke that is never rectified by a trick transfer shows very clear the intend of the lawmakers. That is, to deals with each revoke on its own merits. An aside: If you, Sven, follow your procedure above, i.e. to deal first with the first revoke and apply Law 64C, if neccessary, you will never come to any Law 64 C application regarding the second revoke, because you judged the outcome of the hand with no second revoke occuring of cause. In that case the wording of Laws 64 B2 ("64 C may apply)" and 64 C ("any") would be senseless. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 28 20:44:20 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:44:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <1KCd0R-26T9hw0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628174609.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1KCXVB-1ktMm00@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8d90c$d11d4350$7357c9f0$@no> <1KCYb2-1HvSMK0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8d933$cbf48ba0$63dda2e0$@no> <1KCd0R-26T9hw0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000701c8d94e$fa02c0a0$ee0841e0$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt ................ > > No I haven't misunderstood the law, but I may have misunderstood you: > > It could look like you were saying that because defenders were damaged > > one trick from the revokes then you first apply L64C on the second > > revoke and transfer one trick, and later you apply L64A2 on the first > > revoke and transfer another trick? > > > > The correct ruling is of course to handle the revokes in sequence and > > first award a one trick rectification under L64A2 for the first > > revoke, and eventually make a L84C evaluation if defenders are still > > considered damaged after this rectification of just one trick. > > Yes, you did misunderstand me, because I said something > totally different. I'll give it one last try: > Law 64 C: > "When, after any established revoke, including those not > subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non- > offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law > for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." > > The main words here are "any" and "insufficiently > compensated for the damage caused". > So, before the second revoke occurs there is a certain > expectation of the ownership of the remaining tricks, > including the (second) revoke trick, if the (second) revoke > had not occured. (This is the well-established procedure > of Law 64 C for many many years). If now the non-offending > side gets less than those expected tricks, it is damaged > (caused) by the (second) revoke and has to get redress > for that damage. As the (second) revoke itself brings no > redress, it has to be brought through Law 64 C, so that the non- > offending side gets those earlier mentioned expected tricks. > This is to be said about the second revoke. > Now the first revoke: It will be rectified through Law 64 A2 > at the end of the play through the transfer of one trick to > the non-offending side. And for this (first) revoke-situation > there also was a number of expected tricks, if that (first) > revoke had not occured. So, perhaps Law 64 C has to be > envoked a second time for the (first) revoke. > > I know, that this topic was (is) "discussed" very hard in > the past and that that were (are) 2 diametrical positions, > whether to see the whole hand or each revoke on its > own merits. And I admit, that I was a supporter of the > other side in my earlier days, but I'm also "sure" now that > the new wording of Law 64 B2 (the second sentence > "Law 64 C may apply") in a situation, where the law deals > with a second revoke that is never rectified by a trick > transfer shows very clear the intend of the lawmakers. > That is, to deals with each revoke on its own merits. > > An aside: If you, Sven, follow your procedure above, > i.e. to deal first with the first revoke and apply Law 64C, > if neccessary, you will never come to any Law 64 C > application regarding the second revoke, because > you judged the outcome of the hand with no second > revoke occuring of cause. In that case the wording of > Laws 64 B2 ("64 C may apply)" and 64 C ("any") > would be senseless. Unless my memory has completely failed me the evaluation of "damage", for instance in Law 64C shall be by comparing the table result with the expected result had there been no irregularity. One consequence of this is that there can never be more than one L64C evaluation, and it must be made at end of play. In the discussed case this means that after the first revoke we know that there will eventually be an automatic rectification of one trick (provided OS takes at least one trick subsequent to the revoke) and a possible L64C rectification when play is completed. And after the second revoke there will only be the L64C evaluation to come, but this evaluation must now take into account both revokes. Say that the first revoke gains the offending side nothing at all, but that the second revoke gained OS one trick: The L64A2 rectification for the first revoke is one trick; the total damage to NOS after both revokes is also just one trick. Therefore there is no cause for any L64C rectification in this case. Say instead that the second revoke gained OS two tricks: The L64A2 rectification for the first revoke is still one trick, but now the total damage to NOS after both revokes is two tricks; only one of which is so far compensated. Therefore now the Director shall award L64C rectification of one more trick in order to restore equity. In both cases it must be wrong to separately award the L62A2 automatic rectification of one trick for the first revoke and in addition award one, respectively two tricks under L64C for the second revoke, Regards Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Jun 28 21:09:14 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:09:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?check_on_revoke_law?= In-Reply-To: <000701c8d94e$fa02c0a0$ee0841e0$@no> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628174609.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1KCXVB-1ktMm00@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8d90c$d11d4350$7357c9f0$@no> <1KCYb2-1HvSMK0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8d933$cbf48ba0$63dda2e0$@no> <1KCd0R-26T9hw0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000701c8d94e$fa02c0a0$ee0841e0$@no> Message-ID: <1KCfnO-1Qy9560@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > ................ > > > No I haven't misunderstood the law, but I may have misunderstood > > > you: It could look like you were saying that because defenders > > > were damaged one trick from the revokes then you first apply L64C > > > on the second revoke and transfer one trick, and later you apply > > > L64A2 on the first revoke and transfer another trick? > > > > > > The correct ruling is of course to handle the revokes in sequence > > > and first award a one trick rectification under L64A2 for the > > > first revoke, and eventually make a L84C evaluation if defenders > > > are still considered damaged after this rectification of just one > > > trick. > > > > > > > Yes, you did misunderstand me, because I said something > > totally different. I'll give it one last try: > > Law 64 C: > > "When, after any established revoke, including those not > > subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non- > > offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law > > for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." > > > > The main words here are "any" and "insufficiently > > compensated for the damage caused". > > So, before the second revoke occurs there is a certain > > expectation of the ownership of the remaining tricks, > > including the (second) revoke trick, if the (second) revoke > > had not occured. (This is the well-established procedure > > of Law 64 C for many many years). If now the non-offending > > side gets less than those expected tricks, it is damaged > > (caused) by the (second) revoke and has to get redress > > for that damage. As the (second) revoke itself brings no > > redress, it has to be brought through Law 64 C, so that the non- > > offending side gets those earlier mentioned expected tricks. > > This is to be said about the second revoke. > > Now the first revoke: It will be rectified through Law 64 A2 > > at the end of the play through the transfer of one trick to > > the non-offending side. And for this (first) revoke-situation > > there also was a number of expected tricks, if that (first) > > revoke had not occured. So, perhaps Law 64 C has to be > > envoked a second time for the (first) revoke. > > > > I know, that this topic was (is) "discussed" very hard in > > the past and that that were (are) 2 diametrical positions, > > whether to see the whole hand or each revoke on its > > own merits. And I admit, that I was a supporter of the > > other side in my earlier days, but I'm also "sure" now that > > the new wording of Law 64 B2 (the second sentence > > "Law 64 C may apply") in a situation, where the law deals > > with a second revoke that is never rectified by a trick > > transfer shows very clear the intend of the lawmakers. > > That is, to deals with each revoke on its own merits. > > > > An aside: If you, Sven, ?follow your procedure above, > > i.e. to deal first with the first revoke and apply Law 64C, > > if neccessary, you will never come to any Law 64 C > > application regarding the second revoke, because > > you judged the outcome of the hand with no second > > revoke occuring of cause. In that case the wording of > > Laws ?64 B2 ("64 C may apply)" and 64 C ("any") > > would be senseless. > > Unless my memory has completely failed me the evaluation of "damage", > for instance in Law 64C shall be by comparing the table result with > the expected result had there been no irregularity. One consequence of > this is that there can never be more than one L64C evaluation, and it > must be made at end of play. perhaps you should have read instead ... Law 12 B1: "[...] Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had _the_ infraction not occurred [...]" [snip] From svenpran at online.no Sat Jun 28 22:23:56 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:23:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <1KCfnO-1Qy9560@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080628174609.01db2790@mail.optusnet.com.au> <1KCXVB-1ktMm00@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8d90c$d11d4350$7357c9f0$@no> <1KCYb2-1HvSMK0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8d933$cbf48ba0$63dda2e0$@no> <1KCd0R-26T9hw0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000701c8d94e$fa02c0a0$ee0841e0$@no> <1KCfnO-1Qy9560@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000801c8d95c$e3e6c6f0$abb454d0$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > From: "Sven Pran .................. > > Unless my memory has completely failed me the evaluation of "damage", > > for instance in Law 64C shall be by comparing the table result with > > the expected result had there been no irregularity. One consequence of > > this is that there can never be more than one L64C evaluation, and it > > must be made at end of play. > > perhaps you should have read instead ... > Law 12 B1: > "[...] Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have > been > the expectation had _the_ infraction not occurred [...]" Again depending on my memory: The two revokes in the same suit by the same player are considered interrelated in such a way that "equity" refers to the expected result had neither of the two revokes occurred. This I even more clear with Law 64B7 where we have an explicit statement from WBFLC to that effect. Sven From Gampas at aol.com Sun Jun 29 02:33:31 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:33:31 EDT Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws Message-ID: The Senior Consultant Director of the EBU indicates on IBLF that "thinking for a time at trick one provides no UI to partner.". I would presume therefore that a ruling in my favour in a Welsh Congress around 10 years ago was a mistake: ....................North ....................KQJ3 ....................98542 ....................K43 ....................2 West T9...................................A765 A7...................................6 9865................................JT AT984.............................J7653 ....................South ....................842 ....................KQJT3 ....................AQ7 ....................KQ South opened 1H and North responded 4H ending the auction. I recall it was pairs but do not recall the vulnerability. West led the ten of spades, and East thought for maybe twenty seconds when dummy played the jack (immediately, perforce), and played the seven. West won the first heart, and played a second spade and received a spade ruff to defeat the contract. The AC, which had over a century of International caps between them, ruled that West had selected from LAs once suggested by the BIT: South might have had something like Axx KQJTx xx KQx when a diamond switch would be essential. The opinion of at least two eminent directors is that there is an unwritten rule that a hesitation by the partner of the opening leader cannot convey UI, but if that were the case, then the Laws would say so. I consider the AC decision in the above case completely automatic but others do not. Comments would be welcome. From Gampas at aol.com Sun Jun 29 03:06:51 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:06:51 EDT Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: [gesta] The reviewers did not consider it worthy of putting before the whole committee. Board 10, Dealer E, Game ALL N: AK543 AK109 J73 8 E: J72 Q654 4 AQ765 S: Q1085 2 A10652 KJ3 W: 6 J873 KQ98 10942 E pass, S pass, W 1S, N pass E 2S, all pass. Result 2S - 6 by W. The TD ruled it RED and scored it 60/30 as per our regs. The AC put it to AMBER and returned the score to the table score. The chairman's comment was 'The committee thought that E had a maximum 2S. They established that E had no 3-card limit and accepted his reluctance to bid 2C as it might be passed'. [paul lamford] I am not that familiar with the methods employed by "the reviewers" in deciding which hands are put forward to the L&E whole committee. I did notice on page 10 of 10 of the L& E minutes of April 24th 2008 (on _www.ebu.co.uk_ (http://www.ebu.co.uk) ) a less contentious case in which the L&E, and everyone not on planet Zarg, agreed with the TD and the AC that the decision to forfeit the deposit was correct in a blatant misuse of UI. If that merited consideration by the whole committee, then surely the case you quote also did. I was surprised that a case in which the AC unanimously overruled a red classification of a psyche by a TD at one of the major EBU events should not have been presented to the L&E for further comment, and I trust that you will rectify that omission in your role as Vice President of the L&E, now that you are aware of details of the case. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 29 09:52:59 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:52:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8d9bd$26d811c0$74883540$@no> Gampas at aol.com > The Senior Consultant Director of the EBU indicates on IBLF that "thinking > for a time at trick one provides no UI to partner.". I would presume therefore > that a ruling in my favour in a Welsh Congress around 10 years ago was a > mistake: > > ....................North > ....................KQJ3 > ....................98542 > ....................K43 > ....................2 > West > T9...................................A765 > A7...................................6 > 9865................................JT > AT984.............................J7653 > ....................South > ....................842 > ....................KQJT3 > ....................AQ7 > ....................KQ > > South opened 1H and North responded 4H ending the auction. I recall it was > pairs but do not recall the vulnerability. > > West led the ten of spades, and East thought for maybe twenty seconds when > dummy played the jack (immediately, perforce), and played the seven. West won > the first heart, and played a second spade and received a spade ruff to > defeat the contract. > > The AC, which had over a century of International caps between them, ruled > that West had selected from LAs once suggested by the BIT: South might have > had something like Axx KQJTx xx KQx when a diamond switch would be essential. > The opinion of at least two eminent directors is that there is an unwritten > rule that a hesitation by the partner of the opening leader cannot convey UI, > but if that were the case, then the Laws would say so. I consider the AC > decision in the above case completely automatic but others do not. Comments > would > be welcome. The ruling sure was a mistake: 1: One can hardly find a bridge book on the play that doesn't stress the importance of taking a break and plan the play of the entire board immediately before playing from dummy to the first trick. The consequence is that both declarer and RHO is entitled to such break and nobody is entitled to infer that such break at trick one indicates considering what to play to this first trick. So a pause in trick one is NOT automatically a BIT (but a play without any pause sure is). 2: By playing immediately from dummy to the first trick declarer gave away the information that he apparently had no choice; for instance whether to win the first trick with the Ace in his own hand. 3: Did West really have any LA to raise with his Ace of Hearts and play his second spade? I fail to see what other logical alternatives West had to choose from. Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Sun Jun 29 12:21:37 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 06:21:37 EDT Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws Message-ID: In a message dated 29/06/2008 08:54:14 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: 3: Did West really have any LA to raise with his Ace of Hearts and play his second spade? I fail to see what other logical alternatives West had to choose from. The AC decided West could equally well play a diamond, playing for South to have Axx KQJxx xx KQx for example. I suppose it is a matter of tempo. But how much is this, and does South compromise his rights by playing fairly quickly at trick one? Everyone at the table including dummy knew that East had the ace of spades in our example. I watched many European Championship tables on BridgeBaseOnline, and noted down the estimated time for the partner of the opening leader to play at trick one. The highest I found was 20 seconds and there was something to think about on that hand; when the play was routine, the average was around 4 seconds. And when declarer had a trivial hand, he often played almost immediately from dummy at trick one. And if his name was Helgemo, he usually played immediately anyway. By the way, I agree entirely that there should be some rule that if declarer takes less than, say, ten seconds to play to trick one, then the partner should be entitled to that time; more than that, in actuality, indicates something to think about on that trick. All I am unhappy about is the belief that UI cannot be conveyed by a BIT by the partner of the opening leader. The Laws do not say that it cannot. I have seen players detach a card face down but not play it, and then say "I am thinking about the hand". Is this regarded by directors as good or bad form? From Gampas at aol.com Sun Jun 29 12:29:04 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 06:29:04 EDT Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws Message-ID: In a message dated 29/06/2008 08:54:14 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: 2: By playing immediately from dummy to the first trick declarer gave away the information that he apparently had no choice; for instance whether to win the first trick with the Ace in his own hand. [paul lamford] Not at all; exchange the AD and AS and it does not matter one iota where declarer wins the first spade, nor is there anything to think about on the hand which is still trivial. The books that recommend the declarer thinking at trick one are not law books. Some recommend a seven-card suit for a pre-empt as well and that is ignored by choice. The defender is certainly entitled to draw any inference from declarer's quick play that he chooses. However, if there is a break in tempo *compared with partner's normal speed at trick one*, then that is handled in exactly the same way as any other BIT. From Gampas at aol.com Sun Jun 29 12:34:32 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 06:34:32 EDT Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws Message-ID: In a message dated 29/06/2008 08:54:14 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: So a pause in trick one is NOT automatically a BIT (but a play without any pause sure is). [paul lamford] I did not state nor suggest that a pause was *automatically* a BIT. And I am pleased that you would adjust if the defender switched to a diamond in our example when the partner of the opening leader played a small spade faster than his normal tempo a trick one. Break in Tempo is, as you suggest, the wrong phrase, and Change in Tempo would be more appropriate. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Jun 29 12:46:22 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:46:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [PL] I did notice [...] a less contentious case in which the L&E [...] agreed with the TD and the AC that the decision to forfeit the deposit was correct in a blatant misuse of UI. If that merited consideration by the whole committee, then surely the case you quote also did. [DALB] The full L&E, as a matter of policy, reviews all cases in which deposits are kept, whether those cases are contentious or not. The reasons for this are, I hope, obvious. [PL] I was surprised that a case in which the AC unanimously overruled a red classification of a psyche by a TD at one of the major EBU events should not have been presented to the L&E for further comment, and I trust that you [gesta] will rectify that omission in your role as Vice President of the L&E, now that you are aware of details of the case. [DALB] The L&E does not have a Vice President. It has a chairman (Martin Pool) and a vice-chairman (Jeremy Dhondy). Grattan Endicott is a Vice President of the English Bridge Union, and as such entitled to attend meetings of the L&E ex officio. On countless occasions, the L&E has had cause to be very thankful that this is so. Formerly, the L&E reviewed all appeals and all reports of psyches and other unusual actions. This involved scores if not hundreds of cases, and constituted an unmanageable workload. The committee now relies on a couple of its members (and ex-members) who review everything and present to the full committee only those cases that are "contentious". Of course it's not contentious that a bloke who raises 1S to 2S with a 3-4-1-5 nine count is not attempting to field a psyche. The TD's ruling was idiotic; the AC did a sensible job. The EBU's chief TD (who also attends all L&E meetings) will no doubt have dealt with the matter as far as telling the TD concerned not to give idiotic rulings in future. But there is no reason at all why the full L&E committee should be involved with this case. David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Sun Jun 29 13:09:55 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:09:55 EDT Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 29/06/2008 11:47:36 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: The full L&E, as a matter of policy, reviews all cases in which deposits are kept, whether those cases are contentious or not. The reasons for this are, I hope, obvious. [paul lamford]. Thanks for the clarification, which shows that my comparison was invalid. And my apologies for wrongly attributing Grattan with the title of L&E Vice President. In mitigation, I took his title from the front page of the minutes, where it gives, listing those present: David Stevenson Elected Member Sally Bugden EBU Vice Chairman Grattan Endicott VicePresident Gerard Faulkner VicePresident The presence of "EBU" in the second line wrongly led to me to believe that the other titles referred to the L&E. This misconception was reinforced by my knowledge that David was an Elected Member of the L&E rather than the EBU. Thank you for clearing it up. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jun 29 14:56:56 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:56:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000401c8d9e7$9cdbea70$d693bf50$@no> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com ......... > 3: Did West really have any LA to raise with his Ace of Hearts and play his > second spade? I fail to see what other logical alternatives West had to > choose from. > > The AC decided West could equally well play a diamond, playing for South to > have Axx KQJxx xx KQx for example. I suppose it is a matter of tempo. But how > much is this, and does South compromise his rights by playing fairly quickly > at trick one? What rights? > Everyone at the table including dummy knew that East had the > ace of spades in our example. I watched many European Championship tables on > BridgeBaseOnline, and noted down the estimated time for the partner of the > opening leader to play at trick one. The highest I found was 20 seconds and > there was something to think about on that hand; when the play was routine, the > average was around 4 seconds. And when declarer had a trivial hand, he often > played almost immediately from dummy at trick one. And if his name was Helgemo, > he usually played immediately anyway. OK, but then he wouldn't dream of claiming that West had UI if East took a break before playing to trick one. Geir is a much too ethical player to do any such thing. > > By the way, I agree entirely that there should be some rule that if declarer > takes less than, say, ten seconds to play to trick one, then the partner > should be entitled to that time; more than that, in actuality, indicates > something to think about on that trick. All I am unhappy about is the belief that UI > cannot be conveyed by a BIT by the partner of the opening leader. The Laws > do not say that it cannot. I have seen players detach a card face down but not > play it, and then say "I am thinking about the hand". Is this regarded by > directors as good or bad form? RHO is generally expected at trick one to plan his defense while declarer plans his play. The faster declarer plays from dummy the longer hesitation is allowed RHO. Of course it is possible for RHO to convey UI to LHO, for instance by a BIT at the first trick, but it is important to realize that hesitation at this time is NOT automatically BIT. And to your last question: It is not acceptable if a player detaches a card from his hand (at his turn to play - see law 74B3), but instead of playing it just holds it face down for nobody to see with the explanation that he is thinking on tricks to come. Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jun 29 18:06:23 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:06:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4867B2FF.8000401@NTLworld.com> This case is not confusing to Tasmanians, like David Burn, familiar with the facts: Apparently, the actual bid was *2S* :) Richard has completely fooled the rest of us into wasting time discussing whether *2C* was evidence of a CPU :) From john at asimere.com Sun Jun 29 19:44:21 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:44:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws References: Message-ID: <002a01c8da0f$c32fbf30$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 1:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unwritten Laws > > The AC, which had over a century of International caps between them, > ruled > that West had selected from LAs once suggested by the BIT: South might > have > had something like Axx KQJTx xx KQx when a diamond switch would be > essential. > The opinion of at least two eminent directors is that there is an > unwritten > rule that a hesitation by the partner of the opening leader cannot convey > UI, > but if that were the case, then the Laws would say so. I consider the AC > decision in the above case completely automatic but others do not. > Comments would > be welcome. > I agree with the AC. EBU praxis does not. Probst cheats prosper with this "rule". John > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Jun 29 19:46:08 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:46:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws References: Message-ID: <003301c8da10$031a8260$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Unwritten Laws . The Laws > do not say that it cannot. I have seen players detach a card face down > but not > play it, and then say "I am thinking about the hand". Is this regarded by > directors as good or bad form? > > I approve. John > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Jun 29 19:50:01 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:50:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003c01c8da10$8e2d8960$0901a8c0@JOHN> . The EBU's chief TD (who also attends all > L&E meetings) will no doubt have dealt with the matter as far as telling > the > TD concerned not to give idiotic rulings in future. But there is no reason > at all why the full L&E committee should be involved with this case. > actually it's the TDs peer group sarcastic comments which have most effect. i've been on the sharp end of that once or twice, fortunately not recently. Being the TD when you're going to be the AC Chairman as at the YC for 10 years finally teaches you what the AC is going to rule even if you think they're idiots. (peace david, you're excluded) John > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Jun 29 19:57:38 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:57:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4867B2FF.8000401@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <004501c8da11$9e351fc0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > This case is not confusing to Tasmanians, like David Burn, familiar with > the facts: Apparently, the actual bid was *2S* :) > > Richard has completely fooled the rest of us into wasting time > discussing whether *2C* was evidence of a CPU :) No he wasn't. I was, but I also recognised the hand which is more than anyone else did and knew Atthey had bid 2S. I told him at the time it was ok, but 2C was better. He was moaning it had been booked as red and I told him to appeal. The hang em high brigade who'd advised the TD were duly chastened. I told the TD he was an asshole who couldn't play bridge and to talk to someone who could, next time. ( As it happened he did and I changed his mind for him which saved a second appeal and even more abuse), which is probably why he now asks me a bit more often than he did. I get em wrong too, but more often when it's MI than CPU. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jun 29 20:30:48 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:30:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws In-Reply-To: <002a01c8da0f$c32fbf30$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <002a01c8da0f$c32fbf30$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4867D4D8.7070603@NTLworld.com> Should you *always* pause for thought at trick one? It seems a good habit as it reduces the likelihood of a defender being accused of using unauthorised information; and of a declarer being accused of cunning deception. Thus, a *compulsory pause* at trick one would appear to be a good rule. Alternative protocols seem inferior. For instance, the tactic of placing a card face down, implying that you're planning the play as a whole rather than puzzling over this trick has flaws - Sometimes, it is your choice of card at trick that is critical to your overall strategy. - You might even pick up the face-down card and play another one. BLML and other groups often discuss this; and plead for official clarification. Hence, this is one of many such controversies, of which the WBFLC has been aware for years; but on which it has deliberately chosen not to legislate. Does the WBFLC think such confusion is good for the game? Or is this just another fatuous exercise in devolution of responsibility to local legislatures too busy or too lazy to do anything either? :) From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Jun 29 23:37:22 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:37:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws References: <002a01c8da0f$c32fbf30$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4867D4D8.7070603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001901c8da30$54242740$2401a8c0@p41600> We all have to make judgement decisions, that's what we are "paid" for. Ideally, declarer should *have* to pause at T1 for n seconds b4 playing from dummy, and pard-of-leader must pause for m-n secs. ie he has a period of scope, adjusted by how quickly declarer plays from dummy. If this reg is made absolute, there should be little contention. Those who have a dedicated system of "cheating" need to be addressed with a large rusty blunt instrument. Perhaps we should all start wearing six-guns... lnb ####################################### # Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana # ####################################### - > Should you *always* pause for thought at trick one? It seems a good > habit as it reduces the likelihood of a defender being accused of using > unauthorised information; and of a declarer being accused of cunning > deception. > > Thus, a *compulsory pause* at trick one would appear to be a good rule. > Alternative protocols seem inferior. > > For instance, the tactic of placing a card face down, implying that > you're planning the play as a whole rather than puzzling over this trick > has flaws > - Sometimes, it is your choice of card at trick that is critical to > your overall strategy. > - You might even pick up the face-down card and play another one. > > BLML and other groups often discuss this; and plead for official > clarification. > > Hence, this is one of many such controversies, of which the WBFLC has > been aware for years; but on which it has deliberately chosen not to > legislate. > > Does the WBFLC think such confusion is good for the game? Or is this > just another fatuous exercise in devolution of responsibility to local > legislatures too busy or too lazy to do anything either? :) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 30 02:20:15 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:20:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000001c8da47$183c7e50$f1d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > > [big snip] > >>I do not believe the 1997 law called for the Director to examine >>or say whether he considered Law 27B1(a) to apply until after the >>LHO had rejected the IB. I would not go as far as to say 'improper >>and illegal' but IMO it does go beyond the provision of the law. > > 1997 Law 10C1: > > "When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the > Director shall explain all the options available." > > 1997 Law 81C5: > > "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: > to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of > their rights and responsibilities thereunder." > > Richard Hills: > > So when I was a Director under the 1997 Lawbook, I used the 1997 > Law 81C5 to "interpret" the 1997 Law 10C1 word "explain" as > meaning, for the purposes of the 1997 Law 27A, "explain whether > LHO will be barred from the auction if one does not accept RHO's > insufficient bid". > > Ergo, I dispute Grattan's opinion that that procedure was beyond > the provision of 1997 Law. > > Of course, this debate is now moot. An Aussie TD can no longer > independently interpret the 2007 Law 27, but must instead follow > the official Zone 7 Laws Committee interim interpretation. > +=+ To explain an option is to explain what the law says; it does not require a statement of how it will apply to the specific circumstances of the current incident. There is no requirement to establish this until the offender has an option to exercise. Your past extension of the explanation was gratuitous. To refer again to EBL guidance prepared by Max Bavin: What he will be told (about the law) is - if the offender makes the lowest legal call in the same denomination and neither IB nor RB is artificial the auction will continue without further rectification - if the offender makes any legal call which has either the identical meaning of the IB or has a meaning fully contained within the scope of the IB, the auction will continue without further rectification. - otherwise the offender may make any legal call he wishes, other than a double or redouble, but his partner will then be silenced throughout. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 30 02:50:20 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:50:20 EDT Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws Message-ID: In a message dated 29/06/2008 13:58:11 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: Of course it is possible for RHO to convey UI to LHO, for instance by a BIT at the first trick, but it is important to realize that hesitation at this time is NOT automatically BIT. [paul lamford] We are in exact agreement. And I have never said anything different. Each case is viewed on its merits. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 30 02:54:45 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:54:45 EDT Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws Message-ID: In a message dated 29/06/2008 13:58:11 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: I suppose it is a matter of tempo. But how much is this, and does South compromise his rights by playing fairly quickly at trick one? What rights? [paul lamford] Perhaps I phrased it poorly. If declarer plays quickly at trick one, and RHO now takes a much longer time than normal, will declarer's quick play at trick one deny him redress when RHO's "change of tempo" over his normal speed at trick one unmistakably conveys information to his partner? From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 30 03:07:49 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:07:49 EDT Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws Message-ID: In a message dated 29/06/2008 19:32:20 GMT Standard Time, Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes: Hence, this is one of many such controversies, of which the WBFLC has been aware for years; but on which it has deliberately chosen not to legislate. [paul lamford[ I cannot agree with this. Law 16B1a is pretty much all-embracing. The idea that there is some "between the lines" assumption that UI cannot be conveyed by the partner of the opening leader by his thought at trick one is what causes your erroneous opinion. As Sven says in another posting there is no automatic conveyance of UI by thought at trick one, but in certain situations a change in tempo will convey UI, and the idea that there is a "trick-one exemption" is a wholly misconceived idea. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 30 03:18:38 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:18:38 EDT Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws Message-ID: In a message dated 29/06/2008 22:38:32 GMT Standard Time, larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk writes: We all have to make judgement decisions, that's what we are "paid" for. Ideally, declarer should *have* to pause at T1 for n seconds b4 playing from dummy, and pard-of-leader must pause for m-n secs. ie he has a period of scope, adjusted by how quickly declarer plays from dummy. If this reg is made absolute, there should be little contention. Those who have a dedicated system of "cheating" need to be addressed with a large rusty blunt instrument. Perhaps we should all start wearing six-guns... [paul lamford] If someone thinks for a few seconds when a stop card is removed prematurely, a TD will normally not provide redress to the original offender. I would have no problem in a rule that, in principle, meant that the declarer had to pause for ten seconds at trick one, and that if he played more quickly, the opponent would have those 10 seconds without the risk of conveying UI. But this is not the law, and I do not expect it to be changed in the near future. Therefore, while the law is as it stands, we are obliged to view each case on its merits, and UI must apply if there is deemed to be a "change of tempo". I was impressed with the man with terminal cancer who legally married his stepson to avoid paying inheritance tax as he was then able to pass all his property to his spouse. HMRC failed in a challenge at a tribunal. That is how law should be applied. If it is clear and unequivocal, it must be applied as it is worded, not on how some authority or other thinks it should be worded. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 30 03:22:18 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:22:18 EDT Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws Message-ID: In a message dated 29/06/2008 13:58:11 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: RHO is generally expected at trick one to plan his defense while declarer plans his play. The faster declarer plays from dummy the longer hesitation is allowed RHO. [paul lamford] Is there case law on this, as I can find no reference to it in any of the Laws, nor in any of the various appeal booklets I have? From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jun 30 03:37:09 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:37:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560806291837w30293882s48e8b1e454605810@mail.gmail.com> 2008/6/30 : > In a message dated 29/06/2008 13:58:11 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no > writes: > > RHO is generally expected at trick one to plan his defense while declarer > plans his play. The faster declarer plays from dummy the longer hesitation > is allowed RHO. > > [paul lamford] > Is there case law on this, as I can find no reference to it in any of the > Laws, nor in any of the various appeal booklets I have? > The laws provide for regulators to impose a mandatory pause at trick one "2. Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick." The fact that most if not all do not suggests to me that normal UI laws etc should apply from delays at trick one. Unwritten laws are worth the paper the are written on. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 30 04:36:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:36:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560806291837w30293882s48e8b1e454605810@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>>RHO is generally expected at trick one to plan his defense while >>>declarer plans his play. The faster declarer plays from dummy the >>>longer hesitation is allowed RHO. Paul Lamford: >>Is there case law on this, as I can find no reference to it in any >>of the Laws, nor in any of the various appeal booklets I have? Wayne Burrows: >The laws provide for regulators to impose a mandatory pause at >trick one Law 73A2: "Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick." Wayne Burrows: >The fact that most if not all do not suggests to me that normal UI >laws etc should apply from delays at trick one. > >Unwritten laws are worth the paper they are written on. EBU White Book, clause 73.2.2: "If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary. "The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of his holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one if declarer did not himself pause before playing from dummy." Richard Hills: While EBU White Book clause 73.2.2 is a binding regulation in England (pursuant to the RA power granted by Law 73A2), no such Law 73A2 regulation has been adopted by the ABF, so at trick one Aussie players must abide by Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of ..... hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton) ..... " 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 Jun 30 06:58:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:58:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c8d9e7$9cdbea70$d693bf50$@no> Message-ID: Paul Lamford asked: [snip] >>I have seen players detach a card face down but not >>play it, and then say "I am thinking about the hand". >> >>Is this regarded by directors as good or bad form? Richard Hills: If I was the Director I would order that player to immediately face the designated card. Law 45C4(a): "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." Law 74B4: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent." 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 Jun 30 09:21:20 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:21:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1KCfnO-1Qy9560@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter Eidt argues for two rectifications after two revokes: >perhaps you should have read instead ... > >Law 12B1: > >"[...] Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an >innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than >would have been the expectation had _the_ infraction not >occurred [...]" 2007 Introduction, final paragraph: "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws. Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, **the singular includes the plural** and the masculine includes the feminine, and vice versa." Richard Hills: So I would argue, for two revokes in the same suit, that context requires Law 12B1's "_the_ infraction" to be interpreted as "_those_ infractions". Peter Eidt, sure of the intent of the lawmakers: >but I'm also "sure" now that the new wording of Law 64B2 >(the second sentence "Law 64C may apply") in a situation, >where the law deals with a second revoke that is never >rectified by a trick transfer shows very clear the intent >of the lawmakers. That is, to deal with each revoke on >its own merits. 1997 Law 64B2: "The penalty for an established revoke does not apply: to a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player." 2007 Law 64B2: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. Law 64C may apply." Richard Hills, shore of the inn tent of the lore makers: But it seems to me that "Law 64C may apply" was merely inserted to remove an ambiguity. That is, under the 1997 Laws some Directors failed to apply Law 64C when only the second revoke caused damage to the non-offending side. So my interpretation of both the 1997 and 2007 Laws is aligned with Tony Musgrove. First apply all the mechanical rectifications of the revoke laws. Then, at the end of the deal, "mop up" if necessary with Law 64C. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 8962 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 30 09:36:43 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:36:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4867B2FF.8000401@NTLworld.com> <004501c8da11$9e351fc0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <001501c8da86$e5237c40$fbd2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > No he wasn't. I was, but I also recognised the hand which is more than > anyone else did and knew Atthey had bid 2S. I told him at the time it was > ok, but 2C was better. He was moaning it had been booked as red and I told > him to appeal. The hang em high brigade who'd advised the TD were duly > chastened. I told the TD he was an asshole who couldn't play bridge and to > talk to someone who could, next time. ( As it happened he did and I > changed his mind for him which saved a second appeal and even more abuse), > which is probably why he now asks me a bit more often than he did. I get > em wrong too, but more often when it's MI than CPU. John >> +=+ I think it is now established that the case was a 'momma-poppa' case and the reviewers were right to consider it one that should never go anywhere near the full L&E. ~ G ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Jun 30 11:31:55 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:31:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?check_on_revoke_law?= Message-ID: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Ok, Richard, I accept that challenge ... From: Richard Hills > Peter Eidt argues for two rectifications after two revokes: > > > perhaps you should have read instead ... > > > > Law 12B1: > > > > "[...] Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > > innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than > > would have been the expectation had _the_ infraction not > > occurred [...]" > > 2007 Introduction, final paragraph: > > "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the > Definitions that follow form part of the Laws. Finally, > unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, **the > singular includes the plural** and the masculine includes > the feminine, and vice versa." > > Richard Hills: > > So I would argue, for two revokes in the same suit, that > context requires Law 12B1's "_the_ infraction" to be > interpreted as "_those_ infractions". The introduction cited above dows not say "_all_ singular includes the plural", but "unless the context dictates otherwise". Here the context dictates otherwise, because it handles with excatly the one (second) revoke. Consider this example: In a hand a defender makes a revoke. He did not win the trick, so there's a 1 trick rectification. The revoke did not matter at this point, the outcome would have been the same if he had followed suit, so everything is ok so far. Next trick he makes another revoke in the same suit and this time it disrupts declarer's hand and leads to far less tricks then it was the original expectation. Now, following your approach, the TD applies Law 64C and assigns an (the) equitable result. The revokes are not rectified (in the sense of "penalised" here) any more. This means as a consequence, that revoking twice (or even more times) is _always_ better than revoking once, because after revoking once you'll suffer trick rectifications whereas revoking multiple times (in the same suit of cause) will lead to equity decisions _without_ any trick rectifications. The result of a player, who revokes only once in a hand, will almost always be inferior to the result of a player, who revokes multiple times. Is this, how you want the Law to be interpreted, if written ambiguously, Richard? > Peter Eidt, sure of the intent of the lawmakers: > > > but I'm also "sure" now that the new wording of Law 64B2 > > (the second sentence "Law 64C may apply") in a situation, > > where the law deals with a second revoke that is never > > rectified by a trick transfer shows very clear the intent > > of the lawmakers. That is, to deal with each revoke on > > its own merits. > > 1997 Law 64B2: > > "The penalty for an established revoke does not apply: to > a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player." > > 2007 Law 64B2: > > "There is no rectification as in A following an > established revoke: if it is a subsequent revoke in the > same suit by the same player. Law 64C may apply." > > Richard Hills, shore of the inn tent of the lore makers: > > But it seems to me that "Law 64C may apply" was merely > inserted to remove an ambiguity. ?That is, under the > 1997 Laws some Directors failed to apply Law 64C when > only the second revoke caused damage to the non-offending > side. > > So my interpretation of both the 1997 and 2007 Laws is > aligned with Tony Musgrove. ?First apply all the > mechanical rectifications of the revoke laws. ?Then, at > the end of the deal, "mop up" if necessary with Law 64C. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 30 12:49:35 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:49:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt ................ > Consider this example: > In a hand a defender makes a revoke. He did not > win the trick, so there's a 1 trick rectification. Provided the defending side wins at least one subsequent trick! > The > revoke did not matter at this point, the outcome > would have been the same if he had followed suit, > so everything is ok so far. > Next trick he makes another revoke in the same > suit and this time it disrupts declarer's hand > and leads to far less tricks then it was the > original expectation. > > Now, following your approach, the TD applies > Law 64C and assigns an (the) equitable result. > The revokes are not rectified (in the sense of > "penalised" here) any more. And why should they? [The Laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. > > This means as a consequence, that revoking > twice (or even more times) is _always_ better > than revoking once, because after revoking > once you'll suffer trick rectifications whereas > revoking multiple times (in the same suit > of cause) will lead to equity decisions > _without_ any trick rectifications. This is where you got it wrong: The (automatic) rectification for the first revoke is always carried out; the revoking side can never avoid this with a subsequent irregularity. L64C is there to ensure that NOS has been sufficiently compensated for the revoke irregularities as a whole. Most Directors are well acquainted with NOS complaining: "Shall they not be penalized for the revoke? This just gives me back the trick I should have had anyway!" And the short answer is: "NO, the revoke penalty is there to ensure that you are not damaged by the revoke, not to give you any extra tricks" This is one reason why the word "penalty" has generally been replaced by "rectification" in the 2007 laws, but the reality has not changed. > > The result of a player, who revokes only once > in a hand, will almost always be inferior to the > result of a player, who revokes multiple times. Please explain exactly how the offending side can gain on a second revoke? Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 13:13:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:13:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE revoke law In-Reply-To: <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> Message-ID: <4868BFE0.5020500@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> The >> revoke did not matter at this point, the outcome >> would have been the same if he had followed suit, >> so everything is ok so far. >> Next trick he makes another revoke in the same >> suit and this time it disrupts declarer's hand >> and leads to far less tricks then it was the >> original expectation. >> >> Now, following your approach, the TD applies >> Law 64C and assigns an (the) equitable result. >> The revokes are not rectified (in the sense of >> "penalised" here) any more. >> > > And why should they? > > [The Laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but > rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise > be damaged. > > AG : this is consistent with the fact that there be no supplementary penalty for a second revoke by the same player in the same suit : there is only one irregular situation to take care of. > Most Directors are well acquainted with NOS complaining: "Shall they not be > penalized for the revoke? This just gives me back the trick I should have > had anyway!" > > And the short answer is: "NO, the revoke penalty is there to ensure that you > are not damaged by the revoke, not to give you any extra tricks" > > AG : of course, there is always the problem of "heads they don't realize it, tails I'm even". > Please explain exactly how the offending side can gain on a second revoke? > AG : they couldn't gain, if one compares with a single revoke, but this might help the player conceal the first revoke. L72B4 does exist, but the existence of such shenanigans can never be ascertained, making it void. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 30 14:31:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:31:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE revoke law In-Reply-To: <4868BFE0.5020500@ulb.ac.be> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> <4868BFE0.5020500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000401c8daad$42623970$c726ac50$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............. > AG : of course, there is always the problem of "heads they don't realize > it, tails I'm even". > > > Please explain exactly how the offending side can gain on a second revoke? > > > AG : they couldn't gain, if one compares with a single revoke, but this > might help the player conceal the first revoke. L72B4 does exist, but > the existence of such shenanigans can never be ascertained, making it void. Where i play bridge this is a game for honorable gentlemen and fair ladies; we do care for our honor. And a player here that repeatedly attempts the "heads they don't realize it, tails I'm even" trick will soon be revealed as a cheat and be excluded from all good parties. I don't know what kind of player attitudes you are used to, but some of the entries here on blml do indeed worry me. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 30 15:49:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:49:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE revoke law In-Reply-To: <000401c8daad$42623970$c726ac50$@no> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> <4868BFE0.5020500@ulb.ac.be> <000401c8daad$42623970$c726ac50$@no> Message-ID: <4868E45E.7080206@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > And a player here that repeatedly attempts the "heads they don't realize it, > tails I'm even" trick will soon be revealed as a cheat and be excluded from > all good parties. > > AG : only if they do realize ;-) > I don't know what kind of player attitudes you are used to, but some of the > entries here on blml do indeed worry me. > So Norway is a land of milk and honey, where cheats don't exist. Some others aren't. It makes me sorry, but I have to worry about this. I mean, TFLB is made for honest persons, and cheats are to be excluded, true ? Nobody would have said this if there were no cheats at all. I just wanted to mention the fact that as they are written, the Laws are in a way a temptation. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 30 15:54:02 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:54:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] EBL Seminar: Law 27. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8da47$183c7e50$f1d5403e@Mildred> References: <000001c8da47$183c7e50$f1d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <41981282-B6BF-4397-95B0-877DA562FDB0@starpower.net> On Jun 12, 2008, at 6:49 AM, wrote: > From: > >> Grattan Endicott: >> >> [big snip] >> >>> I do not believe the 1997 law called for the Director to examine >>> or say whether he considered Law 27B1(a) to apply until after the >>> LHO had rejected the IB. I would not go as far as to say 'improper >>> and illegal' but IMO it does go beyond the provision of the law. >> >> 1997 Law 10C1: >> >> "When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the >> Director shall explain all the options available." >> >> 1997 Law 81C5: >> >> "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: >> to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of >> their rights and responsibilities thereunder." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> So when I was a Director under the 1997 Lawbook, I used the 1997 >> Law 81C5 to "interpret" the 1997 Law 10C1 word "explain" as >> meaning, for the purposes of the 1997 Law 27A, "explain whether >> LHO will be barred from the auction if one does not accept RHO's >> insufficient bid". >> >> Ergo, I dispute Grattan's opinion that that procedure was beyond >> the provision of 1997 Law. >> >> Of course, this debate is now moot. An Aussie TD can no longer >> independently interpret the 2007 Law 27, but must instead follow >> the official Zone 7 Laws Committee interim interpretation. > > +=+ To explain an option is to explain what the law says; it > does not require a statement of how it will apply to the specific > circumstances of the current incident. There is no requirement > to establish this until the offender has an option to exercise. > Your past extension of the explanation was gratuitous. > To refer again to EBL guidance prepared by Max Bavin: > What he will be told (about the law) is > - if the offender makes the lowest legal call in the same > denomination and neither IB nor RB is artificial the auction will > continue without further rectification > - if the offender makes any legal call which has either > the identical meaning of the IB or has a meaning fully contained > within the scope of the IB, the auction will continue without > further rectification. > - otherwise the offender may make any legal call he > wishes, other than a double or redouble, but his partner will > then be silenced throughout. You do not "explain" a law just by reading it repeatedly, even if you paraphrase it literally. A useful "explanation" requires communicating what happens when the law is applied. If the language of the laws was sufficiently transparent to be self-explanatory, this forum would not exist. Explanations require examples, and it seems very silly to tell TDs that they must ignore the perforce directly relevant examples before them, even if that means making up hypothetical ones to convey what the player should know. ISTM that the point of having the laws that Richard quotes is to put players who do not study the laws in depth on the same footing as the Secretary Birds who have made it a point to educate themselves on not just the laws themselves, but how they are likely to be interpreted by various adjudicating or governing bodies. The TD should be obligated to do his best to make sure that non-offenders are in a position to exercise their rights to their own best advantage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From matthias.schueller at gmx.de Mon Jun 30 15:57:58 2008 From: matthias.schueller at gmx.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_Sch=FCller?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:57:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> Message-ID: <4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > ................ >> Consider this example: >> In a hand a defender makes a revoke. He did not >> win the trick, so there's a 1 trick rectification. > > Provided the defending side wins at least one subsequent trick! > >> The >> revoke did not matter at this point, the outcome >> would have been the same if he had followed suit, >> so everything is ok so far. >> Next trick he makes another revoke in the same >> suit and this time it disrupts declarer's hand >> and leads to far less tricks then it was the >> original expectation. >> >> Now, following your approach, the TD applies >> Law 64C and assigns an (the) equitable result. >> The revokes are not rectified (in the sense of >> "penalised" here) any more. > > And why should they? > > [The Laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but > rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise > be damaged. > >> This means as a consequence, that revoking >> twice (or even more times) is _always_ better >> than revoking once, because after revoking >> once you'll suffer trick rectifications whereas >> revoking multiple times (in the same suit >> of cause) will lead to equity decisions >> _without_ any trick rectifications. > > This is where you got it wrong: > > The (automatic) rectification for the first revoke is always carried out; > the revoking side can never avoid this with a subsequent irregularity. > > L64C is there to ensure that NOS has been sufficiently compensated for the > revoke irregularities as a whole. > > Most Directors are well acquainted with NOS complaining: "Shall they not be > penalized for the revoke? This just gives me back the trick I should have > had anyway!" > > And the short answer is: "NO, the revoke penalty is there to ensure that you > are not damaged by the revoke, not to give you any extra tricks" > > This is one reason why the word "penalty" has generally been replaced by > "rectification" in the 2007 laws, but the reality has not changed. > >> The result of a player, who revokes only once >> in a hand, will almost always be inferior to the >> result of a player, who revokes multiple times. > > Please explain exactly how the offending side can gain on a second revoke? The contract is 2NT by South. The club position is: AKQJ9 854 T76 32 Dummy has no other entries; declarer holds the three other aces but nothing else in his hand. Declarer plays a club to the ace; East revokes by discarding. Now, if a) East follows suit on the second round of clubs, declarer scores +150 (5 clubs, 3 aces plus 1 penalty trick). b) East revokes again on the second round of clubs (and starts following suit on the third round), declarer scores +120 (4 clubs, 3 aces plus 1 penalty trick). By your logic, declarer is held to his +120 even in case b), because that is what he would have scored in the absence of any revokes. By Peters logic (and I agree with him completely), we adjust the score to +150 under L64C because: - the second revoke is an infraction; - per L12B1, "[d]amage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occured". It does not say "had *no* infraction occured". Prior to the second revoke, declarer's expectation was +150; because of the second revoke, he scored less than that. Thus, damage exists and we apply L64C. There is nothing to suggest that two revokes in one suit are supposed to be treated as one irregularity. The case of both sides revoking on the same board is mentioned excplicitly and has nothing to do with this kind of case. Matthias From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 30 16:06:27 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:06:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560806291837w30293882s48e8b1e454605810@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560806291837w30293882s48e8b1e454605810@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5282C784-42CA-4E40-8461-876AE111E378@starpower.net> On Jun 29, 2008, at 9:37 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2008/6/30 : >> In a message dated 29/06/2008 13:58:11 GMT Standard Time, >> svenpran at online.no >> writes: >> >> RHO is generally expected at trick one to plan his defense while >> declarer >> plans his play. The faster declarer plays from dummy the longer >> hesitation >> is allowed RHO. >> >> [paul lamford] >> Is there case law on this, as I can find no reference to it in any >> of the >> Laws, nor in any of the various appeal booklets I have? > > The laws provide for regulators to impose a mandatory pause at > trick one > > "2. Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism > or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating > Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the > auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick." > > The fact that most if not all do not suggests to me that normal UI > laws etc should apply from delays at trick one. > > Unwritten laws are worth the paper the are written on. Paul started this thread with the words, "The Senior Consultant Director of the EBU indicates on IBLF that..." So isn't the "unwritten law" we're talking about here actually EBU White Book 73.2.2? "73.2.2. Pause by third hand "If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary. "The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of his holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one if declarer did not himself pause before playing from dummy." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From matthias.schueller at gmx.de Mon Jun 30 16:37:28 2008 From: matthias.schueller at gmx.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_Sch=FCller?=) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:37:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> <4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> Message-ID: <4868EFA8.1020509@gmx.de> Matthias Sch?ller wrote: > The contract is 2NT by South. The club position is: > > AKQJ9 > 854 T76 > 32 Corrected club position: AKQJ7 432 T98 65 [otherwise declarer would attempt to finesse the second round with unknown consequences] From svenpran at online.no Mon Jun 30 17:26:10 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:26:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] RE revoke law In-Reply-To: <4868E45E.7080206@ulb.ac.be> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> <4868BFE0.5020500@ulb.ac.be> <000401c8daad$42623970$c726ac50$@no> <4868E45E.7080206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c8dac5$a0176780$e0463680$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner .................... > So Norway is a land of milk and honey, where cheats don't exist. Some > others aren't. It makes me sorry, but I have to worry about this. > I mean, TFLB is made for honest persons, and cheats are to be excluded, > true ? Nobody would have said this if there were no cheats at all. > I just wanted to mention the fact that as they are written, the Laws are > in a way a temptation. Cheats usually cheat for a reason - money. Maybe one point could be that there is not much money worth cheating for in bridge in Norway? Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 30 17:31:46 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:31:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> <4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> Message-ID: <4868FC62.3080100@t-online.de> Matthias Sch?ller schrieb: > Sven Pran wrote: >> Please explain exactly how the offending side can gain on a second revoke? > > The contract is 2NT by South. The club position is: > > AKQJ9 > 854 T76 > 32 > > Dummy has no other entries; declarer holds the three other aces but > nothing else in his hand. Declarer plays a club to the ace; East revokes > by discarding. > > Now, if > > a) East follows suit on the second round of clubs, declarer scores +150 > (5 clubs, 3 aces plus 1 penalty trick). > > b) East revokes again on the second round of clubs (and starts following > suit on the third round), declarer scores +120 (4 clubs, 3 aces plus 1 > penalty trick). > > By your logic, declarer is held to his +120 even in case b), because > that is what he would have scored in the absence of any revokes. By > Peters logic (and I agree with him completely), we adjust the score to > +150 under L64C because: > > - the second revoke is an infraction; > - per L12B1, "[d]amage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have > been the expectation had the infraction not occured". > > It does not say "had *no* infraction occured". Prior to the second > revoke, declarer's expectation was +150; because of the second revoke, > he scored less than that. Thus, damage exists and we apply L64C. > > There is nothing to suggest that two revokes in one suit are supposed to > be treated as one irregularity. The case of both sides revoking on the > same board is mentioned excplicitly and has nothing to do with this kind > of case. > > Matthias > Maybe someone better at googling the Internet can find some postings from BLML from 2000 or 2001 (before Tabiano, anyway). David Stevenson presented a hand with multiple revokes in a 4S contract. The opinion of several EBL TDs was (IIRC) that equity was judged from the beginning of the hand, not from the moment of the revoke(s), and I believe Ton confirmed that view in Tabiano. Now I may be wrong, this being several years in the past now, but I remember having a discussion with Peter (who was not a BLML member then) before Tabiano, and I think it was he who asked Ton about this case in Tabiano. I was - and still am - oposed to that notion, thereby agreeing with Peter and you, but I think Sven's approach has been the "official" view for some length of time, and maybe still is, but of that I am not sure, as I do not remember this question having been raised in 2004 or 2006 courses. The case was something like this: Declarer is in 4S, the contract being open and shut for 11 tricks. No finesses to take, no squeezes, nothing. Now it happens that declarer revokes on trick 1, ruffing the lead of a club. At this moment his expectation would be 1 off, still having to lose 2 tricks, but now being subject to a two-trick rectification (or penalty, then). By revoking again in the same suit he now manages to avoid the loser in the suit (don't remember why, probably by discarding all cards of this suit from dummy and making a trick with the singleton he held all the time, or some such), taking 12 tricks. Minus two for the revoke leaves him with 10, no big deal at teams. Had he followed when the suit was played the second time he would have managed only 11 tricks, so only 9 after the revoke. As far as I remember Stevenson and other EBL TDs wanted to rule 4S=, as this left non-offenders better off than the expectation before the first revoke, equity for the board being 11 tricks. Sorry if I misrepresented someone's statement of that time, that is how I remember it. Regards Matthias From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 30 17:51:41 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:51:41 EDT Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws Message-ID: In a message dated 30/06/2008 15:08:02 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: Paul started this thread with the words, "The Senior Consultant Director of the EBU indicates on IBLF that..." So isn't the "unwritten law" we're talking about here actually EBU White Book 73.2.2? [paul lamford] The event in question was in Wales, and posted on a thread relating to a ruling in France. I am unaware that the WBU has (or had at that time, more relevantly) used their 73A2 power to exempt the partner of the opening leader from giving UI when declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one. Richard Hills therefore believes " trick one Aussie players must abide by Law 73D2", and I therefore assume that Welsh and French players must do likewise, although there may well be a regulation of which I am not aware in those countries. And to argue that declarer is "pulling a fast one" or "being unethical" by claiming UI when there is a long hesitation at trick one by RHO is similar to those that moan about Kevin Pietersen changing his grip prior to a reverse sweep (again apologies to those that have no interest in the game of cricket). If the Laws cover it, then that should apply. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 30 18:01:14 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:01:14 EDT Subject: [blml] check on revoke law Message-ID: In a message dated 30/06/2008 15:40:14 GMT Standard Time, matthias.schueller at gmx.de writes: Corrected club position: AKQJ7 432 T98 65 [otherwise declarer would attempt to finesse the second round with unknown consequences] But even here, after East shows out on the first round, declarer will attempt to finesse on the second round with known consequences, firstly believing West has blundered, and then realising he has not. Now the TD needs to restore equity, which is only +120 I think. AKQJ7 982 1043 65 That might do the trick. Now if East fails to follow on the first round, if the wrong interpretation were applied he would do better to revoke a second time. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 30 18:02:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:02:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <4868FC62.3080100@t-online.de> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> <4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> <4868FC62.3080100@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4869037E.6050300@skynet.be> Matthias (B) remembers correctly. I don't agree with the principle either, but it is a well established one. The position hasn't changed in the new laws though, so Matthias (S) should try and find new examples where under the new laws the position is made even worse. Maybe then we can get the principle overturned. The one-trick transferrence is not meant to be a penalty, but if it is absent in too many cases, the deterrent effect will be gone. Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Matthias Sch?ller schrieb: >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> Please explain exactly how the offending side can gain on a second revoke? >> The contract is 2NT by South. The club position is: >> >> AKQJ9 >> 854 T76 >> 32 >> >> Dummy has no other entries; declarer holds the three other aces but >> nothing else in his hand. Declarer plays a club to the ace; East revokes >> by discarding. >> >> Now, if >> >> a) East follows suit on the second round of clubs, declarer scores +150 >> (5 clubs, 3 aces plus 1 penalty trick). >> >> b) East revokes again on the second round of clubs (and starts following >> suit on the third round), declarer scores +120 (4 clubs, 3 aces plus 1 >> penalty trick). >> >> By your logic, declarer is held to his +120 even in case b), because >> that is what he would have scored in the absence of any revokes. By >> Peters logic (and I agree with him completely), we adjust the score to >> +150 under L64C because: >> >> - the second revoke is an infraction; >> - per L12B1, "[d]amage exists when, because of an infraction, an >> innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have >> been the expectation had the infraction not occured". >> >> It does not say "had *no* infraction occured". Prior to the second >> revoke, declarer's expectation was +150; because of the second revoke, >> he scored less than that. Thus, damage exists and we apply L64C. >> >> There is nothing to suggest that two revokes in one suit are supposed to >> be treated as one irregularity. The case of both sides revoking on the >> same board is mentioned excplicitly and has nothing to do with this kind >> of case. >> >> Matthias >> > > Maybe someone better at googling the Internet can find some postings > from BLML from 2000 or 2001 (before Tabiano, anyway). David Stevenson > presented a hand with multiple revokes in a 4S contract. The opinion of > several EBL TDs was (IIRC) that equity was judged from the beginning of > the hand, not from the moment of the revoke(s), and I believe Ton > confirmed that view in Tabiano. Now I may be wrong, this being several > years in the past now, but I remember having a discussion with Peter > (who was not a BLML member then) before Tabiano, and I think it was he > who asked Ton about this case in Tabiano. > I was - and still am - oposed to that notion, thereby agreeing with > Peter and you, but I think Sven's approach has been the "official" view > for some length of time, and maybe still is, but of that I am not sure, > as I do not remember this question having been raised in 2004 or 2006 > courses. > > The case was something like this: > Declarer is in 4S, the contract being open and shut for 11 tricks. No > finesses to take, no squeezes, nothing. Now it happens that declarer > revokes on trick 1, ruffing the lead of a club. At this moment his > expectation would be 1 off, still having to lose 2 tricks, but now being > subject to a two-trick rectification (or penalty, then). By revoking > again in the same suit he now manages to avoid the loser in the suit > (don't remember why, probably by discarding all cards of this suit from > dummy and making a trick with the singleton he held all the time, or > some such), taking 12 tricks. Minus two for the revoke leaves him with > 10, no big deal at teams. Had he followed when the suit was played the > second time he would have managed only 11 tricks, so only 9 after the > revoke. As far as I remember Stevenson and other EBL TDs wanted to rule > 4S=, as this left non-offenders better off than the expectation before > the first revoke, equity for the board being 11 tricks. > > Sorry if I misrepresented someone's statement of that time, that is how > I remember it. > > Regards > Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Jun 30 20:17:49 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:17:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE revoke law References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> <4868BFE0.5020500@ulb.ac.be><000401c8daad$42623970$c726ac50$@no> <4868E45E.7080206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001601c8dadd$9d131440$2401a8c0@p41600> I have always been taught that the revoke law (old) contained some degree of penalty. The adjustment part caters for not enough return, and the penalty bit sometimes resulted in a bit of overkill. That was the idea. The fact that a revoke "may" be deliberate was countenanced. That (I'm afraid) has now gone down the chute. lnb So Norway is a land of milk and honey, where cheats don't exist. Some others aren't. It makes me sorry, but I have to worry about this. I mean, TFLB is made for honest persons, and cheats are to be excluded, true ? Nobody would have said this if there were no cheats at all. I just wanted to mention the fact that as they are written, the Laws are in a way a temptation. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1525 - Release Date: 6/29/2008 3:09 PM From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Jun 30 20:21:12 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:21:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] RE revoke law References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> <4868BFE0.5020500@ulb.ac.be> <000401c8daad$42623970$c726ac50$@no><4868E45E.7080206@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8dac5$a0176780$e0463680$@no> Message-ID: <006601c8dade$162f1b80$2401a8c0@p41600> There is also the matter of "paying insufficient attention to the game" etc. A late colleague at the age of 80 told me that he had never revoked, and couldn't undertand why anybody did so... lnb > Cheats usually cheat for a reason - money. > > Maybe one point could be that there is not much money worth cheating for in > bridge in Norway? > > Sven