From henk at amsterdamned.org Tue Jul 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 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 Tue Jul 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for June 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 53 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 47 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 33 john (at) asimere.com 28 svenpran (at) online.no 26 ehaa (at) starpower.net 25 Gampas (at) aol.com 22 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 20 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 19 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 10 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 9 hermandw (at) skynet.be 8 swillner (at) nhcc.net 8 geller (at) nifty.com 7 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 7 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 6 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 6 anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com 6 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 5 rbusch (at) ozemail.com.au 5 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 4 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 3 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 3 karel (at) esatclear.ie 3 jpgss (at) uq.net.au 3 fab.maillist (at) unetmail.nl 3 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 adam (at) tameware.com 2 wmevius (at) hotmail.com 2 t.vdlaan (at) net.hcc.nl 2 matthias.schueller (at) gmx.de 2 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 2 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 1 torsten.astrand (at) telia.com 1 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 1 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 hermandw (at) hotmail.com 1 ccw.in.nc (at) gmail.com 1 brian666 (at) frontiernet.net 1 blml (at) wrightnet.demon.co.uk From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 1 01:14:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:14:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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." Brian asked: >Richard, > >Could you please explain how you determine that any >player who does the above is doing so "for the >purpose of disconcerting an opponent", rather than to >demonstrate that any pause for thought is not >concerned with which card to play to the current >trick? > >As regards L45C4(a), doesn't that just ensure that >the player plays the face-down card? Wouldn't our all- >knowing lawmakers have written "A card must >immediately be played..." if that was what they had >intended? Richard Hills: It seems to me that Brian's second paragraph answers the question in his first paragraph. Given that Law 45C4(a) requires the designated card to be played to the current trick, the player cannot credibly assert that they are still thinking about which card they wish to play to the current trick. On the other hand, Law 74B4 uses the phrase "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent", not "which does disconcert an opponent". So unnecessarily prolonged play to a trick which disconcerts an opponent is entirely legal if one's "purpose" is pure. 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 john at asimere.com Tue Jul 1 01:38:45 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 00:38:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no><4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> <4868FC62.3080100@t-online.de> Message-ID: <003a01c8db0a$704f4be0$0901a8c0@JOHN> I'm fairly clear in my own mind that the NOs get the best of all the successive expectations and that this is what the EBU TDs are taught to do. I had a case like this one while playng with 1T (Mathias Shueller) in Wiesbaden under Kojak and Kojak was for 120, but was happy to be convinced oherwise, bearing in mind I was arguing as a probst cheat. 1T was with me on this and it entertaind the three of us for a couple of days. I talked to Max about it and he said 150 because during the hand there was a point where 150 was the expectation. With the new Laws I'd still rule this way; probst cheats cannot be allowed to prosper. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] check on revoke law 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 From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 1 01:43:05 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:43:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <4869037E.6050300@skynet.be> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> <4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> <4868FC62.3080100@t-online.de> <4869037E.6050300@skynet.be> Message-ID: My memory is that a few months ago John Probst said this was resolved in favor of treating the revokes separately. I cannot imagine any other way of doing it. 1. One of the main goals of the laws is to prevent players from gaining when they commit an irregularity. Who would want to interpret the laws otherwise? 2. I think the new laws are clear on this: 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. (emphasis mine). 3. Hmm, the old 72B1 seems to be hiding. It would have applied (or does apply) also. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jul 1 04:15:19 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:15:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] How do you confuse a Tasmanian? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200806301843.m5UIh0pY022873@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200806301843.m5UIh0pY022873@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48699337.303@nhcc.net> > From: "gesta at tiscali.co.uk" > Board 10, Dealer E, Game ALL > E: J72 Q654 4 AQ765 > E pass, S pass, W 1S, N pass > E 2S, all pass. FWIW, I agree that the 2S bid is amber. It's just enough of an underbid to be suspicious but not enough to be crazy. (As noted earlier, I'd consider 2C green.) From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jul 1 04:23:52 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:23:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws In-Reply-To: <200806302134.m5ULYStY021571@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200806302134.m5ULYStY021571@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48699538.9090304@nhcc.net> > From: Gampas at aol.com > 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. That sounds consistent with what I see at (much) lower levels. Based on this, I'd expect pauses of, say, 2 to 8 seconds seldom to carry UI but longer or shorter ones often to do so. As others have written, though, each case should be judged on its own merits. (That may not be easy unless there's a _skilled_ monitor at the table.) I'm slightly surprised no jurisdiction (as far as I know) requires mandatory pauses. > 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 think it's incredibly rude, though not everyone agrees. If you want to think, play your card face up and leave it that way. That avoids any possible deception and gives your opponent a fair chance to think, too. No need to say anything; remarks are likely to deceive. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jul 1 04:28:18 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:28:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <200806302134.m5ULYhaP021601@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200806302134.m5ULYhaP021601@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48699642.8010105@nhcc.net> > From: Matthias Sch?ller > - 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". This seems completely clear to me, both from the text and in logic. Why would anyone want to give a player who revokes multiple times a better score than a player who revokes only once?! If the EBL has been doing it the wrong way, as it seems, the rewording of several laws seems a good excuse to revise their practice. I confess I don't know of any official guidelines or case law in the ACBL. Anyone else know of any? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 1 09:11:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:11:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c8daad$42623970$c726ac50$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Where I play bridge this is a game for honorable gentlemen and fair >ladies; Richard Hills: ...and bespectacled, bearded ex-Tasmanians... Sven Pran: >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. Richard Hills: I agree. Arbitrary mechanical score adjustment "rectifications" for revokes may lead to ludicrous outcomes. For example, a grand slam making when the ace of trumps is offside. But, in fairness to blmlers on the other side of this philosophical debate, it seems to me that they are advocating ludicrous score adjustments as deterrence for deliberate infractions, when a more appropriate solution to deter such cheating would be disciplinary penalties (for example, exclusion for ten years). Alain Gottcheiner: >>L72B4 does exist, but the existence of such shenanigans can never >>be ascertained, making it void. 2007 renumbered Law 72B3: "A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely." Richard Hills: If a player's revokes are always in pairs, the player's local TDs will very soon ascertain this anomaly. A lot depends on the will and effectiveness of the player's Tournament Organizer and/or National Authority on whether anomalies suggesting cheating are investigated appropriately (including giving natural justice to the accused player). For example: EBU Law and Ethics Committee minutes, 17th December 2007, 3.2.1: Mark Reeve was prosecuted by the Committee for falsifying a result sheet in the Avon county league. The Committee received the report from the Disciplinary Committee with regard to Mark Reeve as follows: We consider that in his email dated June 2007 sent to the Laws and Ethics Committee secretary, Mark Reeve's statement "I do not deny stating on the team sheet that Mr D played..." is an admission of guilt. We acknowledge that Mark Reeve may well have been under considerable time pressure during this period as he was holding down two jobs and also trying to find a replacement team member at short notice and indeed fielded a team member "as nowhere near as high a standard" as the member he claimed played. However we consider the falsifying of a match returns sheet to be a serious breach of the behaviour expected from an EBU member; it was a dishonest act. We are imposing a 12 month period of suspension from the EBU commencing at such time that Mark Reeve applies to rejoin the EBU. The Disciplinary Committee also recommended that details of the case should be published in these minutes and also in English Bridge. (Secretary's note: the above wording will appear in the February EB) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 1 09:26:56 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:26:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no> <4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> <4868FC62.3080100@t-online.de> <4869037E.6050300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4869DC40.2020007@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick] 1. One of the main goals of the laws is to prevent players from gaining when they commit an irregularity. Who would want to interpret the laws otherwise? [Nige1] IMO "Discouraging law-breaking" *should* be a main aim of the laws but it isn't. On the contrary, the main aim is "equity": restoring the status quo. In theory such a policy is neutral, neither rewarding nor deterring law-breakers. In practice, however ... - Not all infractions attract a director call or adverse ruling. - If an infraction does attract an averse ruling, then 12C3 tends to eliminate any vestigial deterrent effect. Hence "equity" law significantly encourages and rewards law-breaking :( Furthermore, this is a conscious and deliberate policy :( From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 1 09:36:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:36:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C Message-ID: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott I replied: "The intention of the drafting committee was that such should be the accepted practice, and we selected language strong enough to mean that there is an infraction if it is not done (although one that would rarely attract a penalty). Sorting into suits is not desirable and leaving the cards in the order played is wholly undesirable. This suggests to me that it should be a matter of persistent quiet education on the basis of 'best practice' " ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 1 09:43:51 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:43:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <003a01c8db0a$704f4be0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no><4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> <4868FC62.3080100@t-online.de> <003a01c8db0a$704f4be0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4869E037.2000302@t-online.de> John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > > I'm fairly clear in my own mind that the NOs get the best of all the > successive expectations and that this is what the EBU TDs are taught to do. > I had a case like this one while playng with 1T (Mathias Shueller) in > Wiesbaden under Kojak and Kojak was for 120, but was happy to be convinced > oherwise, bearing in mind I was arguing as a probst cheat. 1T was with me > on this and it entertaind the three of us for a couple of days. I talked to > Max about it and he said 150 because during the hand there was a point where > 150 was the expectation. With the new Laws I'd still rule this way; probst > cheats cannot be allowed to prosper. John > > Get your act together, John. t Mathias Farwig tt Matthias Sch?ller ttt Matthias Berghaus Easy to remember. More t, more weight. Apart from this I agree. Cheers Matthias From geller at nifty.com Tue Jul 1 09:52:22 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:52:22 +0900 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred> References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com> The spirit of L7C is wholly commendable, but if you are using computer dealt cards and you know that the board won't be played again (for example on the last round of a pair event) there is no need to shuffle the cards, since they will be redealt by a computer that reads the bar codes.... -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 ] >"************************* > >+=+ I have been asked: >"On the subject of the new 7C,.would I be correct in >saying that the object is to achieve a different order >to the one the cards were played in - and to that end >there is nothing objectionable to sorting the cards into >suits, since it is highly unlikely to be the played order.?" >> >I replied: >"The intention of the drafting committee was that >such should be the accepted practice, and we >selected language strong enough to mean that there >is an infraction if it is not done (although one that >would rarely attract a penalty). Sorting into suits is >not desirable and leaving the cards in the order >played is wholly undesirable. > This suggests to me that it should be a matter >of persistent quiet education on the basis of 'best >practice' " > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 10:48:22 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:48:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <003a01c8db0a$704f4be0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no><4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> <4868FC62.3080100@t-online.de> <003a01c8db0a$704f4be0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4869EF56.3060708@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > I'm fairly clear in my own mind that the NOs get the best of all the > successive expectations and that this is what the EBU TDs are taught to do. > I had a case like this one while playng with 1T (Mathias Shueller) in > Wiesbaden under Kojak and Kojak was for 120, but was happy to be convinced > oherwise, bearing in mind I was arguing as a probst cheat. 1T was with me > on this and it entertaind the three of us for a couple of days. I talked to > Max about it and he said 150 because during the hand there was a point where > 150 was the expectation. With the new Laws I'd still rule this way. I understand, and follow, your reasoning, but the argument of "keeping the best of successive expectations" isn't in the rules. None vul, S dealer S W 1NT (1S) TD called ; North doesn't accept the 1S bid, because he wants to double 2S ; this works : 1NT (2S) X pass At this point, NS's expectation is, say, +500. There is a new infraction (say, East lets a card slip from his hand, and TD rules mpc). South now errs by taking out the penalty double to 3NT. There is still a new infraction (say, West leads before the other players have passed). The final contract is 3NT. Say it makes. At some point in the chain of infractions, NS were headed for +500. One might even argue that South wouldn't have erred if there hadn't been a second interruption (so that he doesn't remember Wests's first infraction, and that partner obviously wanted to double them). So this second infraction helped reduce NS's score from +500 to +400. It's even possible that East did it purposely. Now, I doubt M. Probst's ruling that the score be put back to NS's best expectation of +500 would be Lawful. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 10:52:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:52:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws In-Reply-To: <48699538.9090304@nhcc.net> References: <200806302134.m5ULYStY021571@cfa.harvard.edu> <48699538.9090304@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4869F03B.7020604@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > >> 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 think it's incredibly rude, though not everyone agrees. If you want > to think, play your card face up and leave it that way. That avoids any > possible deception and gives your opponent a fair chance to think, too. > AG : except, of course, that leaving your card face up longer than necessary for the trick to be completed might be UI ("did you see my card, partner ?"), so that I would rather avoid it. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 10:52:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:52:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws In-Reply-To: <48699538.9090304@nhcc.net> References: <200806302134.m5ULYStY021571@cfa.harvard.edu> <48699538.9090304@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4869F03B.7020604@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > >> 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 think it's incredibly rude, though not everyone agrees. If you want > to think, play your card face up and leave it that way. That avoids any > possible deception and gives your opponent a fair chance to think, too. > AG : except, of course, that leaving your card face up longer than necessary for the trick to be completed might be UI ("did you see my card, partner ?"), so that I would rather avoid it. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 1 15:01:39 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:01:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws In-Reply-To: <48699538.9090304@nhcc.net> References: <200806302134.m5ULYStY021571@cfa.harvard.edu> <48699538.9090304@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <486A2AB3.7010009@NTLworld.com> [Stever Willner] I'm slightly surprised no jurisdiction (as far as I know) requires mandatory pauses. [Nige1] I'm sure that this will be mandated in the 2018 law book. [Stever Willner] I think [detaching a card face down but not playing it, saying "I am thinking about the hand"] is incredibly rude, though not everyone agrees. If you want to think, play your card face up and leave it that way. That avoids any possible deception and gives your opponent a fair chance to think, too. No need to say anything; remarks are likely to deceive. [Nigel] As a player, I agree with Steve: the latter protocol is polite and sensible. Some senior directors have adopted the former practice at the table and have publicly defended it in Bridge fora; but other legal experts judge it to be illegal as well as impolite. Again, I'm sure that the 2018 lawbook will resolve this long-running controversy. From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 15:10:41 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 01:10:41 +1200 Subject: [blml] Unwritten Laws In-Reply-To: <486A2AB3.7010009@NTLworld.com> References: <200806302134.m5ULYStY021571@cfa.harvard.edu> <48699538.9090304@nhcc.net> <486A2AB3.7010009@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807010610o667abb46i356616ae76503f7c@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/2 Guthrie : > [Nigel] > Again, I'm sure that the 2018 lawbook will resolve this long-running > controversy. > You have a great faith Nigel. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 15:24:34 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 01:24:34 +1200 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: <200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com> References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred> <200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807010624j49d86cc9n41d22dcc1732f834@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/1 Robert Geller : > The spirit of L7C is wholly commendable, but if you are using > computer dealt cards and you know that the board won't be played > again (for example on the last round of a pair event) there is > no need to shuffle the cards, since they will be redealt by a > computer that reads the bar codes.... > > -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 ] >>"************************* >> >>+=+ I have been asked: >>"On the subject of the new 7C,.would I be correct in >>saying that the object is to achieve a different order >>to the one the cards were played in - and to that end >>there is nothing objectionable to sorting the cards into >>suits, since it is highly unlikely to be the played order.?" >>> >>I replied: >>"The intention of the drafting committee was that >>such should be the accepted practice, and we >>selected language strong enough to mean that there >>is an infraction if it is not done (although one that >>would rarely attract a penalty). Sorting into suits is >>not desirable and leaving the cards in the order >>played is wholly undesirable. >> This suggests to me that it should be a matter >>of persistent quiet education on the basis of 'best >>practice' " >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> I had this happen to me tonight at the club. After I counted my cards in some manner 3-3-3-4 or similar - I don't always count the same way - when I turned my cards so I could see their faces I had some balanced hand with only one card displaced from its suit. It seemed to me to be unlikely that my cards had been shuffled at the previous table. Should I be calling the director when this happens? Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 1 15:37:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:37:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560807010624j49d86cc9n41d22dcc1732f834@mail.gmail.com> References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred> <200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560807010624j49d86cc9n41d22dcc1732f834@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <486A3302.3010702@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a e'crit : > 2008/7/1 Robert Geller : > >> The spirit of L7C is wholly commendable, but if you are using >> computer dealt cards and you know that the board won't be played >> again (for example on the last round of a pair event) there is >> no need to shuffle the cards, since they will be redealt by a >> computer that reads the bar codes.... >> >> A wise man once said that, before giving an instruction, you'd explain why you want it to be done so. So may I ask the question : why should you shuffle your cards before the last round. Or : what's wrong with re-arranging your hand ? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 1 17:59:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:59:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] comments on disclosure procedure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001001c8db93$65e52290$adc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 4:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] comments on disclosure procedure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 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. > +=+ (Grattan) The answer to this musing lies in the final sentence of Law 40A1(b). Disclosure is to the level that the RA deems appropriate. But, of course, the opponent is protected by the safety-net in Law 40B6(b) which catches any deficiency in the regulation. +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 1 19:25:54 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:25:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: <200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com> References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred> <200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <486A68A2.1080601@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] I have been asked: On the subject of the new 7C,.would I be correct in saying that the object is to achieve a different order to the one the cards were played in - and to that end there is nothing objectionable to sorting the cards into suits, since it is highly unlikely to be the played order.?" I replied: "The intention of the drafting committee was that such should be the accepted practice, and we selected language strong enough to mean that there is an infraction if it is not done (although one that would rarely attract a penalty). Sorting into suits is not desirable and leaving the cards in the order played is wholly undesirable. [Nige1] After the play, why is *sorting* the cards into suit and rank order *illegal and undesirable*? This question is intriguing and I would be fascinated to learn the answer. Grattan's reply appears not to address the question. Sorting the cards has obvious benefits: [A} *Compliance* If you shuffle the cards, they may end up in *any order*, including sorted order or play-order. Short of an admission by the player, a director cannot tell whether a player has shuffled his cards to comply with the new law. In stark contrast, any player or director can immediately tell whether a hand has been sorted into suit and rank order. [B] *Throw-ins* Suppose that a hand is passed out. If a player is then meant to shuffle his cards, but forgets to do so, it may be obvious to the next table. If he is meant to sort them, then no player at the next table is tipped off. [C] *Handicaps* In our (typical) club we have several players who have difficulty sorting their hands and use card holders to display their hands. Is the WBFLC concerned that if they're spared the sorting chore, it may speed up the play too much for other players to cope? :) [D] *Samaritans* To anticipate a possible quibble: the handicapped player can easily ask another player at the table to sort his hand *after* he has played it but not *before*. If there is no good answer, perhaps this is another question to be considered by the 2018 committee? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 1 18:34:00 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:34:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred><200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560807010624j49d86cc9n41d22dcc1732f834@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001101c8dba5$82a94fc0$becd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C > 2008/7/1 Robert Geller : >> The spirit of L7C is wholly commendable, but if you are using >> computer dealt cards and you know that the board won't be played >> again (for example on the last round of a pair event) there is >> no need to shuffle the cards, since they will be redealt by a >> computer that reads the bar codes.... >> >> -Bob >> +=+ Even as we speak an entrepreneur is exhibiting a dealing system that requires the cards to be returned to the machine unsorted. Using two packs of cards and, I hear, no bar codes, it records the play of the previous hand as it deals the next. It is. of course, confounded if a player disturbs the order of his played cards. - Grattan - +=+ From john at asimere.com Tue Jul 1 20:56:20 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 19:56:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law References: <1KDFjn-0RWGTA0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <000301c8da9e$fcf2aef0$f6d80cd0$@no><4868E666.1000101@gmx.de> <4868FC62.3080100@t-online.de><003a01c8db0a$704f4be0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <4869EF56.3060708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002601c8dbac$26e6fff0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] check on revoke law John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > I'm fairly clear in my own mind that the NOs get the best of all the > successive expectations and that this is what the EBU TDs are taught to > do. > I had a case like this one while playng with 1T (Mathias Shueller) in > Wiesbaden under Kojak and Kojak was for 120, but was happy to be convinced > oherwise, bearing in mind I was arguing as a probst cheat. 1T was with me > on this and it entertaind the three of us for a couple of days. I talked > to > Max about it and he said 150 because during the hand there was a point > where > 150 was the expectation. With the new Laws I'd still rule this way. I understand, and follow, your reasoning, but the argument of "keeping the best of successive expectations" isn't in the rules. I believe it is in the revoke Laws. The case below is governed by different Law, and I doubt that I wouuld rule 500. John None vul, S dealer S W 1NT (1S) TD called ; North doesn't accept the 1S bid, because he wants to double 2S ; this works : 1NT (2S) X pass At this point, NS's expectation is, say, +500. There is a new infraction (say, East lets a card slip from his hand, and TD rules mpc). South now errs by taking out the penalty double to 3NT. There is still a new infraction (say, West leads before the other players have passed). The final contract is 3NT. Say it makes. At some point in the chain of infractions, NS were headed for +500. One might even argue that South wouldn't have erred if there hadn't been a second interruption (so that he doesn't remember Wests's first infraction, and that partner obviously wanted to double them). So this second infraction helped reduce NS's score from +500 to +400. It's even possible that East did it purposely. Now, I doubt M. Probst's ruling that the score be put back to NS's best expectation of +500 would be Lawful. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Jul 1 21:31:30 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:31:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred><200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com><2a1c3a560807010624j49d86cc9n41d22dcc1732f834@mail.gmail.com> <001101c8dba5$82a94fc0$becd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002101c8dbb1$1668a430$2401a8c0@p41600> What does it do with revokes, and second revokes pray tell. lnb > +=+ Even as we speak an entrepreneur is exhibiting a > dealing system that requires the cards to be returned > to the machine unsorted. Using two packs of cards and, > I hear, no bar codes, it records the play of the previous > hand as it deals the next. It is. of course, confounded if > a player disturbs the order of his played cards. > - Grattan - +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1528 - Release Date: 7/1/2008 7:26 AM From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 2 02:35:41 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 01:35:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred><200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com><2a1c3a560807010624j49d86cc9n41d22dcc1732f834@mail.gmail.com><001101c8dba5$82a94fc0$becd403e@Mildred> <002101c8dbb1$1668a430$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <000a01c8dbdc$2b0030e0$bcd4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C > What does it do with revokes, and second revokes > pray tell. > > lnb > >> +=+ Even as we speak an entrepreneur is exhibiting > a dealing system that requires the cards to be > returned to the machine unsorted. Using two packs > of cards and, I hear, no bar codes, it records the > play of the previous hand as it deals the next. It is. > of course, confounded if a player disturbs the order > of his played cards. >> - Grattan - +=+ >> From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 2 08:28:45 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:28:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <486A68A2.1080601@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >After the play, why is *sorting* the cards into suit and rank >order *illegal and undesirable*? Richard Hills: Because it is contrary to the current 2007 Law 7C, which requires randomising via a shuffle. Nigel Guthrie: >Short of an admission by the player, a director cannot tell >whether a player has shuffled his cards to comply with the new >law. Richard Hills: The best Directors do not make a habit of ignoring what the players are doing or not doing. Plus the other three players at the table are witnesses to the "nothing that the dog did in the night time". Nigel Guthrie: >If there is no good answer, perhaps this is another question >to be considered by the 2018 committee? Richard Hills: Well, if the question is measuring the current 2007 Law 7C versus a hypothetical 2018 Law 7C requiring sorting, the answer is obvious. It is easier to shuffle one's cards than to sort one's cards, so players will more frequently obey the current 2007 Law 7C than they would obey the hypothetical 2018 Law 7C. When one compares failure to comply between the current 2007 Law 7C and the hypothetical 2018 Law 7C, the answer is even more obvious. If someone fails to comply with the 2007 Law 7C, the next player will not gain any UI, since the next player will assume that their cards have been randomised by a shuffle (except in the special case of a 2007 Law 7C infraction after a passed-in deal). But if someone failed to comply with the hypothetical 2018 Law 7C, the next player would instantly get a huge amount of guaranteed UI, possibly rendering the deal unplayable. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed Jul 2 09:53:13 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:53:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> for years, i used to sort my cards, official purpose : it's kind to next player non official purpose : cheaters can't know the way i played my cards (once, a player complained during half-time because he can't know it, so kind!!!) L7C says "shuffle" not "randomize", why is sorting not a way of shuffling, witch for me is just assorting in another way, just to prevent ... etc. ? or is "randomize" include in "shuffle"? in french, it isn't, but my english is poor someitmes, so may be! Thanks Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Nigel Guthrie: > >>After the play, why is *sorting* the cards into suit and rank >>order *illegal and undesirable*? > > Richard Hills: > > Because it is contrary to the current 2007 Law 7C, which > requires randomising via a shuffle. > > Nigel Guthrie: > >>Short of an admission by the player, a director cannot tell >>whether a player has shuffled his cards to comply with the new >>law. > > Richard Hills: > > The best Directors do not make a habit of ignoring what the > players are doing or not doing. Plus the other three players > at the table are witnesses to the "nothing that the dog did in > the night time". > > Nigel Guthrie: > >>If there is no good answer, perhaps this is another question >>to be considered by the 2018 committee? > > Richard Hills: > > Well, if the question is measuring the current 2007 Law 7C > versus a hypothetical 2018 Law 7C requiring sorting, the > answer is obvious. It is easier to shuffle one's cards than > to sort one's cards, so players will more frequently obey the > current 2007 Law 7C than they would obey the hypothetical 2018 > Law 7C. > > When one compares failure to comply between the current 2007 > Law 7C and the hypothetical 2018 Law 7C, the answer is even > more obvious. If someone fails to comply with the 2007 Law 7C, > the next player will not gain any UI, since the next player > will assume that their cards have been randomised by a shuffle > (except in the special case of a 2007 Law 7C infraction after a > passed-in deal). > > But if someone failed to comply with the hypothetical 2018 Law > 7C, the next player would instantly get a huge amount of > guaranteed UI, possibly rendering the deal unplayable. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC > respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The > official departmental 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 > > > __________ Information NOD32 3234 (20080702) __________ > > Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. > http://www.nod32.com > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 2 11:08:47 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:08:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > for years, i used to sort my cards, > official purpose : it's kind to next player > non official purpose : cheaters can't know the way i played my cards > (once, > a player complained during half-time because he can't know it, so kind!!!) > L7C says "shuffle" not "randomize", > why is sorting not a way of shuffling, witch for me is just assorting in > another way, just to prevent ... etc. ? > or is "randomize" include in "shuffle"? > in french, it isn't, but my english is poor someitmes, so may be! > > Thanks > Olivix > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> Nigel Guthrie: >> >>>After the play, why is *sorting* the cards into suit and rank >>>order *illegal and undesirable*? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Because it is contrary to the current 2007 Law 7C, which >> requires randomising via a shuffle. >> >> Nigel Guthrie: >> >>>Short of an admission by the player, a director cannot tell >>>whether a player has shuffled his cards to comply with the new >>>law. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> The best Directors do not make a habit of ignoring what the >> players are doing or not doing. Plus the other three players >> at the table are witnesses to the "nothing that the dog did in >> the night time". >> >> Nigel Guthrie: >> >>>If there is no good answer, perhaps this is another question >>>to be considered by the 2018 committee? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Well, if the question is measuring the current 2007 Law 7C >> versus a hypothetical 2018 Law 7C requiring sorting, the >> answer is obvious. It is easier to shuffle one's cards than >> to sort one's cards, so players will more frequently obey the >> current 2007 Law 7C than they would obey the hypothetical 2018 >> Law 7C. >> >> When one compares failure to comply between the current 2007 >> Law 7C and the hypothetical 2018 Law 7C, the answer is even >> more obvious. If someone fails to comply with the 2007 Law 7C, >> the next player will not gain any UI, since the next player >> will assume that their cards have been randomised by a shuffle >> (except in the special case of a 2007 Law 7C infraction after a >> passed-in deal). >> >> But if someone failed to comply with the hypothetical 2018 Law >> 7C, the next player would instantly get a huge amount of >> guaranteed UI, possibly rendering the deal unplayable. >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard James Hills >> Recruitment Section >> Department of Immigration and Citizenship >> Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >> Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >> advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. >> This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, >> legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, >> retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons >> or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC >> respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. >> The >> official departmental 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 >> >> >> __________ Information NOD32 3234 (20080702) __________ >> >> Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. >> http://www.nod32.com >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 2 11:39:07 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:39:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred> <200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com><2a1c3a560807010624j49d86cc9n41d22dcc1732f834@mail.gmail.com> <486A3302.3010702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005801c8dc28$86bc2960$7ad4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C >>> A wise man once said that, before giving an instruction, you'd explain why you want it to be done so. > +=+ I do not recall the same suggestion made in respect of Law 6 or Law 8. But the explanation is self-evidently because the authors consider it desirable - as in the cases of Law 6 and Law 8. There are places in the laws where there was a consensus as to what the law should say although different members of the drafting committee presented their several varying reasons for it. ~ G ~ +=+ From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed Jul 2 11:47:12 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:47:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> ok, I don't have an english-english dictionnary, just an Harraps english-french, and shuffle is "m?langer, battre" it's seems against the word, so but is really sorting against the spirit of the law? what is wanted is that next player can't know the play by looking to his cards, Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > +=+ From the dictionary: > 'shuffle' = to mix at random (especially playing cards) > 'randomize' = to arrange in a random manner. > 'random' = haphazard, uncontrolled, chance. > See also 'sorted' in the law book definitions. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > . > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "olivier.beauvillain" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:53 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> for years, i used to sort my cards, >> official purpose : it's kind to next player >> non official purpose : cheaters can't know the way i played my cards >> (once, >> a player complained during half-time because he can't know it, so >> kind!!!) >> L7C says "shuffle" not "randomize", >> why is sorting not a way of shuffling, witch for me is just assorting in >> another way, just to prevent ... etc. ? >> or is "randomize" include in "shuffle"? >> in french, it isn't, but my english is poor someitmes, so may be! >> >> Thanks >> Olivix >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:28 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> >>> Nigel Guthrie: >>> >>>>After the play, why is *sorting* the cards into suit and rank >>>>order *illegal and undesirable*? >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Because it is contrary to the current 2007 Law 7C, which >>> requires randomising via a shuffle. >>> >>> Nigel Guthrie: >>> >>>>Short of an admission by the player, a director cannot tell >>>>whether a player has shuffled his cards to comply with the new >>>>law. >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> The best Directors do not make a habit of ignoring what the >>> players are doing or not doing. Plus the other three players >>> at the table are witnesses to the "nothing that the dog did in >>> the night time". >>> >>> Nigel Guthrie: >>> >>>>If there is no good answer, perhaps this is another question >>>>to be considered by the 2018 committee? >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Well, if the question is measuring the current 2007 Law 7C >>> versus a hypothetical 2018 Law 7C requiring sorting, the >>> answer is obvious. It is easier to shuffle one's cards than >>> to sort one's cards, so players will more frequently obey the >>> current 2007 Law 7C than they would obey the hypothetical 2018 >>> Law 7C. >>> >>> When one compares failure to comply between the current 2007 >>> Law 7C and the hypothetical 2018 Law 7C, the answer is even >>> more obvious. If someone fails to comply with the 2007 Law 7C, >>> the next player will not gain any UI, since the next player >>> will assume that their cards have been randomised by a shuffle >>> (except in the special case of a 2007 Law 7C infraction after a >>> passed-in deal). >>> >>> But if someone failed to comply with the hypothetical 2018 Law >>> 7C, the next player would instantly get a huge amount of >>> guaranteed UI, possibly rendering the deal unplayable. >>> >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Richard James Hills >>> Recruitment Section >>> Department of Immigration and Citizenship >>> Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >>> Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >>> advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. >>> This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, >>> legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, >>> retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by >>> persons >>> or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC >>> respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. >>> The >>> official departmental 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 >>> >>> >>> __________ Information NOD32 3234 (20080702) __________ >>> >>> Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. >>> http://www.nod32.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 > > > __________ Information NOD32 3234 (20080702) __________ > > Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. > http://www.nod32.com > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 2 12:58:27 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:58:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier><001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] but is really sorting against the spirit of the law? << +=+ Not being among the prime movers for this segment of the law I am not qualified to associate colleagues with a particular opinion. However, it occurs to me that anything arranged purposefully in an orderly fashion is capable of conveying information to those, recipients or others, among whom it arrives. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jul 2 13:16:10 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:16:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <000001c8dc35$0aa0b1e0$1fe215a0$@com> >what is wanted is that next player can't know the play by looking to his cards Anecdotal evidence relates to the occurrence of an ingenious method of cheating in teams-of-four matches played using the same actual boards at both tables. If North-South can make a slam, East-West sort their cards before passing the board to the other table. When their team-mates observe that their opponents do not sort their hands on picking them up, they naturally (or unnaturally) bid the slam. David Burn London, England From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 2 14:12:17 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:12:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002b01c8dc3c$e06c46c0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> I would have liked to see a clause, 'Unless the TD instructs otherwise' thus allowing for the disabled to be accommodated. Can anyone see a reason why this should not be so? Or can the TD excersise this option anyway under his duty to maintain discipline maybe, or under his authority to control the deal. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: [blml] Law 7C > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > > +=+ I have been asked: > "On the subject of the new 7C,.would I be correct in > saying that the object is to achieve a different order > to the one the cards were played in - and to that end > there is nothing objectionable to sorting the cards into > suits, since it is highly unlikely to be the played order.?" >> > I replied: > "The intention of the drafting committee was that > such should be the accepted practice, and we > selected language strong enough to mean that there > is an infraction if it is not done (although one that > would rarely attract a penalty). Sorting into suits is > not desirable and leaving the cards in the order > played is wholly undesirable. > This suggests to me that it should be a matter > of persistent quiet education on the basis of 'best > practice' " > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1527 - Release Date: 30/06/2008 18:07 From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Jul 2 15:00:29 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:00:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <48699642.8010105@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2EEE@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Steve wrote: > If the EBL has been doing it the wrong way, as it seems, the rewording > of several laws seems a good excuse to revise their practice. Despite what others have said in this thread, my recollection of the EBL seminars in 2004 and 2006 is that we were taught/instructed for multiple revokes to apply law 64C at any stage, in particular equity at point before the second revoke. As Steve said, both logic and the text of laws support this view. Probst was there in 2006 and (as I recall) was very taken with this opportunity to further do offenders. 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 Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Jul 2 15:00:29 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:00:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law In-Reply-To: <48699642.8010105@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2EEE@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Steve wrote: > If the EBL has been doing it the wrong way, as it seems, the rewording > of several laws seems a good excuse to revise their practice. Despite what others have said in this thread, my recollection of the EBL seminars in 2004 and 2006 is that we were taught/instructed for multiple revokes to apply law 64C at any stage, in particular equity at point before the second revoke. As Steve said, both logic and the text of laws support this view. Probst was there in 2006 and (as I recall) was very taken with this opportunity to further do offenders. 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 john at asimere.com Wed Jul 2 15:25:13 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:25:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] check on revoke law References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2EEE@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <003101c8dc47$0f31f4a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] check on revoke law > Steve wrote: >> If the EBL has been doing it the wrong way, as it seems, the rewording >> of several laws seems a good excuse to revise their practice. > > Despite what others have said in this thread, > my recollection of the EBL seminars in 2004 and 2006 is that we were > taught/instructed for multiple revokes to apply law 64C at any stage, > in particular equity at point before the second revoke. > > As Steve said, both logic and the text of laws support this view. > > Probst was there in 2006 and (as I recall) was very taken with this > opportunity to further do offenders. Yup, was very happy to nail probst cheats :) Multiply revoking becomes an art form for them otherwise. John > > Robin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, > Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Jul 2 15:29:47 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:29:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier><001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred><02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "olivier.beauvillain" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 10:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > but is really sorting against the spirit of the law? > << > +=+ Not being among the prime movers for this > segment of the law I am not qualified to associate > colleagues with a particular opinion. However, it > occurs to me that anything arranged purposefully > in an orderly fashion is capable of conveying > information to those, recipients or others, among > whom it arrives. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Assuming you possess 4 suits there are 24 ways of arranging them. Should be enough to convey partner's point count. John > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Jul 2 15:34:16 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:34:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred> <002b01c8dc3c$e06c46c0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> Message-ID: <005101c8dc48$52c61b50$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C >I would have liked to see a clause, 'Unless the TD instructs otherwise' >thus > allowing for the disabled to be accommodated. Can anyone see a reason why > this should not be so? Or can the TD excersise this option anyway under > his > duty to maintain discipline maybe, or under his authority to control the > deal. > Anne Are the laws of a game over-ridden by the civil Law of the jurisdiction? If so, and with the UK Laws as they are, I'm pretty sure the TD not only should but MUST so regulate. John > http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "BLML" > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:36 AM > Subject: [blml] Law 7C > > >> >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "A full cup must be carried steadily." >> [English proverb ] >> "************************* >> >> +=+ I have been asked: >> "On the subject of the new 7C,.would I be correct in >> saying that the object is to achieve a different order >> to the one the cards were played in - and to that end >> there is nothing objectionable to sorting the cards into >> suits, since it is highly unlikely to be the played order.?" >>> >> I replied: >> "The intention of the drafting committee was that >> such should be the accepted practice, and we >> selected language strong enough to mean that there >> is an infraction if it is not done (although one that >> would rarely attract a penalty). Sorting into suits is >> not desirable and leaving the cards in the order >> played is wholly undesirable. >> This suggests to me that it should be a matter >> of persistent quiet education on the basis of 'best >> practice' " >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1527 - Release Date: 30/06/2008 > 18:07 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 2 16:08:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:08:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier><001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred><02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > Assuming you possess 4 suits there are 24 ways of arranging them. Should be > enough to convey partner's point count. John > AG : do you really think that insisting on mixing cards from different suits will avoid this ? Unless you use perfectly symmetric cards like the French Federation does, there are many ways to convey such information and make it available after shuffling. I don't think this was the reason for demanding a shuffle ; rather, it was that not shuffling could pass information that the deal was passed out, or quickly claimed ; but if you always arrange suits this won't be recognizable. C****s will always be able to convey information, alas. Did you realize that one single gesture, and one that can't be avoided, was enough to give out your entire pattern, assumng that you don't hold a void ? Arrange your cards in some given order, say SCHD, then excahnge Hearts and Clubs. So it's not a matter to avoid c****ing, but rather to detect it. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 2 17:31:59 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:31:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: <486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> <486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Common sense judgment is needed in applying the laws. IMO. The classic example is the rectification to pass at one's next chance to bid, which common sense says does not apply to the next auction. (If you try to add all the common sense exceptions to the laws, the laws become longer and then you have to worry about the exceptions to the exceptions.) So, IMO, common sense is that there is no need to shuffle the hands if it is the last round (if there is no late play on this board). And of course if a handicapped player needs the hand sorted, it should be sorted. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 2 19:40:26 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:40:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <486BBD8A.9070901@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] If the question is measuring the current 2007 Law 7C versus a hypothetical 2018 Law 7C requiring sorting, the answer is obvious. [Nige1] My question can have no other sensible English interpretation :) Thank you Richard for your detailed reply. [Richard] It is easier to shuffle one's cards than to sort one's cards, so players will more frequently obey the current 2007 Law 7C than they would obey the hypothetical 2018 Law 7C. [Nige1] The 2007 protocol *wastes* time if any player at the *next* table habitually sorts his hand. It is quicker to sort the hand once (2018), than to shuffle the hand and then to sort it (2007). [Richard] When one compares failure to comply between the current 2007 Law 7C and the hypothetical 2018 Law 7C, the answer is even more obvious. If someone fails to comply with the 2007 Law 7C, the next player will not gain any UI, since the next player will assume that their cards have been randomised by a shuffle (except in the special case of a 2007 Law 7C infraction after a passed-in deal). But if someone failed to comply with the hypothetical 2018 Law 7C, the next player would instantly get a huge amount of guaranteed UI, possibly rendering the deal unplayable. [Nigel] In the 2007 protocol, the arrival of a sorted hand does present an instant problem. In the 2018 protocol, on receiving an unsorted hand, the player should immediately call the director (with no atrempt to unravel any unauthorised information). Whatever the director decides about the playability of the hand, he will at least be able to warn the player at the previous table. Thus, under the 2018 protocol, the frequency of such occurrences will diminish. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 2 19:59:16 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:59:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier><001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred><02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <486BC1F4.10807@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] but is really sorting against the spirit of the law? Not being among the prime movers for this segment of the law I am not qualified to associate colleagues with a particular opinion. However, it occurs to me that anything arranged purposefully in an orderly fashion is capable of conveying information to those, recipients or others, among whom it arrives. {Mad dog Probst] Assuming you possess 4 suits there are 24 ways of arranging them. Should be enough to convey partner's point count. [Nigel] Grattan will no doubt explain to us why you might want to communicate with your counterpart at the next table. If that is the real purpose of 2007 7C, then indeed, a shuffle does allow you to convey more information than anybody could possibly need :) Just shuffling a particular card to the bottom gives you 13 :) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 2 20:26:20 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:26:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> <486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <486BC84C.8080506@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick] IMO, common sense is that there is no need to shuffle the hands if it is the last round (if there is no late play on this board). And of course if a handicapped player needs the hand sorted, it should be sorted. [Nige1] Although Roberts's recommendation is flexible, I agree with the WBFLC that one simple rule is easier for directors to enforce and for players to understand and obey. *Sorting* your hand, after playing it, would be easy to do and easy to *detect* and *enforce*. Yesterday, I canvassed players at Reading Bridge club. I was surprised to learn that *sorting* used to be *standard practice*. Those who remember it regard sorting as ordinary *politeness* and consideration for others. They regard its replacement by shuffling as a retrograde step. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 2 23:06:05 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:06:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: <486BC84C.8080506@NTLworld.com> References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> <486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> <486BC84C.8080506@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Hi Nigel. I am getting mixed messages. Are you saying that this law is too simple and needs more exceptions and complications? This is a good law, right? Some players put their hand back without shuffling or sorting; leaving a passed out hand sorted is more common. It seems you will be compatible with the law if you also sort every hand. That is not done here and requiring it would be a MAJOR effort that would not succeed. (If you sort at your Reading club, no one will complain but then they won't fit in at a Regional.) By the way, I sort into suits but not by rank, so an already-sorted hand is an annoyance to me -- I have to shuffle and then resort it. > [Robert Frick] > IMO, common sense is that there is no need to shuffle the hands if it > is the last round (if there is no late play on this board). And of > course if a handicapped player needs the hand sorted, it should be > sorted. > > [Nige1] > Although Roberts's recommendation is flexible, I agree with the WBFLC > that one simple rule is easier for directors to enforce and for players > to understand and obey. > > *Sorting* your hand, after playing it, would be easy to do and easy to > *detect* and *enforce*. > > Yesterday, I canvassed players at Reading Bridge club. I was surprised > to learn that *sorting* used to be *standard practice*. Those who > remember it regard sorting as ordinary *politeness* and consideration > for others. They regard its replacement by shuffling as a retrograde > step. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 2 23:41:47 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:41:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> <486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> <486BC84C.8080506@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <486BF61B.5020104@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick] I am getting mixed messages. Are you saying that this law is too simple and needs more exceptions and complications? This is a good law, right? Some players put their hand back without shuffling or sorting; leaving a passed out hand sorted is more common. It seems you will be compatible with the law if you also sort every hand. That is not done here and requiring it would be a MAJOR effort that would not succeed. (If you sort at your Reading club, no one will complain but then they won't fit in at a Regional.) By the way, I sort into suits but not by rank, so an already-sorted hand is an annoyance to me -- I have to shuffle and then resort it. [Nigel] Sorry to confuse. I agree that 2007 7C is a good idea but I think sorting into suits would be better (for reasons explained in previous posts). I hope the 2018 law mandates that you sort into rank (A-2) within suit SHDC instead of shuffling. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Jul 3 00:10:00 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:10:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier><001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred><02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier><000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred><004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN><486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> <486BC84C.8080506@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002001c8dc90$61440c30$2401a8c0@p41600> ####################################### # Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana # ####################################### > is an annoyance to me -- I have to shuffle and then resort it. Is that a "last" resort. lnb From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 3 08:58:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:58:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: <486BF61B.5020104@NTLworld.com> References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> <486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> <486BC84C.8080506@NTLworld.com> <486BF61B.5020104@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <486C7878.7070307@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nigel] > Sorry to confuse. I agree that 2007 7C is a good idea but I think > sorting into suits would be better (for reasons explained in previous > posts). I hope the 2018 law mandates that you sort into rank (A-2) > within suit SHDC instead of shuffling. > > That's a simple idea, perhaps not the simplest to apply (remember part of the population is left-handed). But I fully agree with those who say that shuffling doesn't eliminate the risk of an indication to the next player ; to the contrary, you now get about 5 billion different configurations, plus the possibility of reversing any asymmetrical card.. Another idea would be to demand that players shuffle their hand *before* looking at it. Perhaps it wouldn't be 100% legerdemain-proof, but it's probably the best effort towards avoiding information. Best regards Alain From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 3 11:46:31 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:46:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> <486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> <486BC84C.8080506@NTLworld.com> <486BF61B.5020104@NTLworld.com> <486C7878.7070307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <008801c8dcf1$ad9f81c0$6401a8c0@AnnesComputer> I think that the 2007 Law7 is a good Law, I understand the projected 2018 Law 7 leaves too many chances for malpractice, but need to be able to accomodate the disabled in the field. I think I have it cracked! An EBU TD recently told me of a bridge holiday where he as TD sorted every hand for one player who had physical difficulties. There is nothing in Law which prevents him doing this. So he shall delegate to a player the responsibility of sorting a hand before passing the board. This of course after the player has shuffled the hand in accord with Law 7. Anne http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 7C Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nigel] > Sorry to confuse. I agree that 2007 7C is a good idea but I think > sorting into suits would be better (for reasons explained in previous > posts). I hope the 2018 law mandates that you sort into rank (A-2) > within suit SHDC instead of shuffling. > > That's a simple idea, perhaps not the simplest to apply (remember part of the population is left-handed). But I fully agree with those who say that shuffling doesn't eliminate the risk of an indication to the next player ; to the contrary, you now get about 5 billion different configurations, plus the possibility of reversing any asymmetrical card.. Another idea would be to demand that players shuffle their hand *before* looking at it. Perhaps it wouldn't be 100% legerdemain-proof, but it's probably the best effort towards avoiding information. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 3 15:17:13 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:17:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: <486C7878.7070307@ulb.ac.be> References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> <486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> <486BC84C.8080506@NTLworld.com> <486BF61B.5020104@NTLworld.com> <486C7878.7070307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <11BB53D2-2A8F-4012-9AB8-5FEB8C627F37@starpower.net> On Jul 3, 2008, at 2:58 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Guthrie a ?crit : >> [Nigel] >> Sorry to confuse. I agree that 2007 7C is a good idea but I think >> sorting into suits would be better (for reasons explained in previous >> posts). I hope the 2018 law mandates that you sort into rank (A-2) >> within suit SHDC instead of shuffling. > > That's a simple idea, perhaps not the simplest to apply (remember part > of the population is left-handed). > But I fully agree with those who say that shuffling doesn't eliminate > the risk of an indication to the next player ; to the contrary, you > now > get about 5 billion different configurations, plus the possibility of > reversing any asymmetrical card.. > > Another idea would be to demand that players shuffle their hand > *before* > looking at it. Perhaps it wouldn't be 100% legerdemain-proof, but it's > probably the best effort towards avoiding information. Let us not forget that the information we avoid passing by shuffling our cards after the play would be transmitted directly to an *opponent* (a direct opponent at teams or a member of the same field at pairs). That makes it absurd to worry about the fact that a clever and skilled "shuffler" could easily arrange the cards however he might want to (including "reversing" asymmetrical faces or backs) in order to transmit some prearranged message, even while appearing to be randomizing them. Simply pointing out the obvious -- that complying with L7C is in one's own interest and for one's own protection -- should provide players with sufficient incentive to make this a non-problem. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Fri Jul 4 04:10:29 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:10:29 -0700 Subject: [blml] Detroit cases posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd40805042120y1c57e40fu4e21e8f7aa5ff47e@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40805042120y1c57e40fu4e21e8f7aa5ff47e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40807031910r7989342ai5e4555621100916d@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 9:20 PM, I wrote: > The ACBL has posted initial versions of the case write-ups from the Detroit NABC here: > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Detroit2008.html > > No comments are there yet. I'll post my comments on BLML as soon as I can. All comments are available now. I've updated my summary of cases from 2001-2008: http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_casebook_summaries.html Please let me know if you disagree with my categorization of any of the cases. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 4 06:22:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:22:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Detroit cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40807031910r7989342ai5e4555621100916d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky's appeals webpage, first paragraph: >In 2002 there was a great deal of discussion as to >the role of Appeals Committees in the ACBL, with >some suggesting that ACs be eliminated entirely. >An ACBL Board of Directors motion to do just that >failed, and failed again more narrowly in 2006 or >so. The same motion is on the Board's agenda for >the 2008 Summer NABC in Las Vegas. 2007 Law 93A: "The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Appeals Committee (or alternative arrangement under Law 80B2(k)), or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament." 2007 Law 80B2(k): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to make suitable arrangements for the conduct of appeals under Law 93." Richard Hills: So now there is a duty imposed upon the Tournament Organizer to establish an ad hoc Appeals Committee if a standing Appeals Committee does not exist, unless such an ad hoc Appeals Committee "cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament". It therefore seems to me that a dislike of some controversial Appeals Committee rulings is an insufficient cause for the ACBL Board of Directors to abolish all Appeals Committees. Indeed, given that the ACBL BoD is bound by the ACBL By-Laws to obey the Duplicate Laws, it seems to me that the motion on the Board's agenda is ultra vires. ACBL By-Laws, clause 7.5: "Laws Commission. There shall be an ACBL Laws Commission which will prepare **the Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed.** These Laws may be reviewed and revised periodically by the Commission. The Commission shall consist of a minimum of nine (9) members and a maximum of fifteen (15) members. The members shall be appointed by the President of the ACBL with the approval of the Board of Directors and each shall serve for a five (5) year term." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 4 07:45:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:45:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Grattan's notebook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2547859.1213523959399.JavaMail.root@ps37.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: +== I am not in a position here in Pau. to note anything down. Reconfirm after June 30th. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Some of these suggestions must wait for the next decade's edition of the fabulous Lawbook, but others can be much more easily implemented by new WBF LC interpretations (ideally publicised in consolidated form in an updated edition of the WBF Code of Practice). My [substantially extended since initial posting] list of suggestions to (perhaps) be added to Grattan's notebook are: Introduction and Law 12B1 - when, if ever, does the singular "the infraction" include the plural "those infractions"? Is the recommended resolution of multiple infractions chronological, reverse chronological, or in an idiosyncratic order which most benefits the non-offending side? [Interpretation] Definitions, artificial call - clarify [Interpretation] Definitions, player - add [Interpretation] Laws 9A3 and 42A - clarify that preventing an opponent's irregularity is an absolute right of dummy. [Interpretation] Laws 9A4 and 72B2 - hobby-horse preference to reverse "no obligation" to "an obligation". [Law change] Laws 10C1 and 27A - explain the Law 10C1 word "explain", with particular reference to future consequences of Law 27A options. [Interpretation] Law 12A1 - how does "indemnity" differ from "equity"? [Interpretation] Law 12B2 - what is the boundary between 12B2 and 12A1? [Interpretation] Law 16D vs Law 26 - since Law 16D deals with the same topic that Law 26 does, should Law 26 be abolished? [Law change] Laws 16 and 73C - amalgamate [Law change] Law 20F5(a) - "indicate in any manner" or "indicate by any mannerism"? [Interpretation] Laws 25 and 27 - can an unintended insufficient bid have a pause for thought? [Interpretation] Law 40B3 - reverse default to prohibit variations in understandings by the offending side unless specifically permitted by Regulating Authority. [Law change] Laws 40B3 and 55A - clarify whether variations in understandings are permitted based on _which_ non-offending defender accepts / does not accept declarer's wrong lead (compared to the Law 40B3 permission to vary based on _whether_ the wrong lead is accepted). [Interpretation] 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. [Interpretation] Law 58B2 - settle trivial disagreement on minor/major penalty cards. [Interpretation] Alternatively, abolish penalty cards, out of rotation calls and insufficient bids, instead treating all of these irregularities as Law 16D cancellations. [Law change] Laws 64B2 and 64C - what is "insufficiently compensated" after two revokes in the same suit by the same player? [Interpretation] Law 64B7 - clarify whether "revokes" means "established revokes". [Interpretation] Law 68B2 - after the words "no concession" add the bracketed words "(nor claim)". [Interpretation] Law 80A1(c) - change "in whose territory" to "under whose auspices". Note that the ACBL, USBF and ABA share overlapping territories. [Interpretation] Law 80B2(e) - to what extent may the excuse of "special conditions" be used to over-ride other Laws (that is, at what point is the game so modified that it ceases to be Duplicate Bridge)? A camel's nose example would be the special condition of braille cards over-riding Law 7C. [Interpretation] Laws 82D and 93 - either change the Law 82D "Director" to "Director in charge", or change the Law 93 "Director in charge" to "Director". [Quibble] Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 4 09:06:04 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:06:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 7C References: <002401c8db4d$e14ec620$bed4403e@Mildred><200807010752.AA14394@geller204.nifty.com> <486A68A2.1080601@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00d201c8dda4$6ce65ab0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [Nige1] > Sorting the cards has obvious benefits: It also has obvious drawbacks. Having to do it will annoy lots of people. I would hate to have to sort my cards after playing a hand. Also it would not do much good; A fair proportion of people unsort their hand while they are counting it. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 4 09:21:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:21:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c8dadd$9d131440$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: Larry Bennett: >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. Richard Hills: I was taught something different. 1997 Scope: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." 2007 Introduction, first paragraph: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non- offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director." Richard Hills: Larry's implication that "going down the chute" has only just happened in the most recent Lawbook is incorrect. The 1963 mechanical revoke rectifications were softened in the 1975 Lawbook, and softened again in the 1987 Lawbook. So the further softening of the mechanical revoke rectifications in the 2007 Lawbook is merely continuing an established trend. In an ideal world all revoke laws would be abolished except for Law 64C. But in our imperfect world there is a considerable time saving for Directors and players in having soft mechanical revoke laws which usually provide equity (only occasionally do grand slams make when the ace of trumps is offside), with the time consuming Law 64C as the safety net in reserve, rather than 64C being the sole revoke Law. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 4 10:27:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:27:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 7C In-Reply-To: <11BB53D2-2A8F-4012-9AB8-5FEB8C627F37@starpower.net> References: <028a01c8dc18$ae9c64f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <001d01c8dc23$46a406e0$7ad4403e@Mildred> <02cc01c8dc28$9e1ecb80$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <000201c8dc32$fc57d7f0$dbd4403e@Mildred> <004801c8dc47$b2986660$0901a8c0@JOHN> <486B8BE4.6040805@ulb.ac.be> <486BC84C.8080506@NTLworld.com> <486BF61B.5020104@NTLworld.com> <486C7878.7070307@ulb.ac.be> <11BB53D2-2A8F-4012-9AB8-5FEB8C627F37@starpower.net> Message-ID: <486DDF0D.6000701@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Let us not forget that the information we avoid passing by shuffling > our cards after the play would be transmitted directly to an > *opponent* (a direct opponent at teams or a member of the same field > at pairs). I take you at your word. So "signalling" would against your own interest. Which means that, if you sort suits, you won't do it in such a way as to communicate anything. So what's wrong with sorting ? And what's the purpose of L7C ? Either people want to comunicate and they don't need any suit-by-suit sorting to do so, or they don't want and you shouldn't be afraid of letting them sort. Burn down that library ! Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 4 22:04:37 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:04:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Grattan's notebook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is there a wish-list someplace? The laws often refer to "calls" or "plays" when it would be better to refer to "actions", which include calls, plays, director rulings, decisions following an irregularity, and claims and concessions. One good example is when a defender revokes and then corrects it before it is established. L61C1; "1. Each member of the non-offending side may withdraw and return to his hand any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16D)." It seems like common sense that a declarer could also withdraw a claim made after the revoke but before attention is drawn to it. It is harder to construct an example for decisions, but... suppose a defender's partner won the trick, there was a penalty card so declarer forbade a heart lead, and then the revoke is corrected. The declarer should be allowed to change that decision. Would this create any problems? "Rules about calls and plays, when applicable, should also be construed as applying to director rulings, decisions made by players following an irregularity, and claims and concessions". From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jul 4 23:38:34 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:38:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <486E985A.60106@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Arbitrary mechanical score adjustment "rectifications" for revokes > may lead to ludicrous outcomes. For example, a grand slam making > when the ace of trumps is offside. Calling this "ludicrous" seems, well..., ludicrous. > But, in fairness to blmlers on the other side of this philosophical > debate, Suggesting bizarre motivations for one's opponent is a useful debating tactic, but I hope it won't fool anyone on BLML. (The reason for preferring mechanical rectifications is to give a better game.) > If a player's revokes are always in pairs, the player's local TDs > will very soon ascertain this anomaly. You haven't played much in the ACBL, have you, Richard? More to the point, an eventual disciplinary penalty is small comfort to the players who were robbed by the cheat. Much better to have rules to prevent the cheat from gaining anything. From: Alain Gottcheiner > I understand, and follow, your reasoning, but the argument of "keeping > the best of successive expectations" isn't in the rules. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the Laws about dealing with multiple infractions on the same deal, and the recent addition of "singular includes the plural" muddles things even further. If any authority writes guidelines, I'd suggest taking L23 into account is a good principle. > At some point in the chain of infractions, NS were headed for +500. One > might even argue that South wouldn't have erred if there hadn't been a > second interruption (so that he doesn't remember West's first > infraction, and that partner obviously wanted to double them). So this > second infraction helped reduce NS's score from +500 to +400. It's even > possible that East did it purposely. If the latter is the case, L23 applies. Also, L12C1b (new) may apply if the NOS committed a "serious error" that contributed to the damage. > Now, I doubt M. Probst's ruling that the score be put back to NS's best > expectation of +500 would be Lawful. Doesn't +500 conform exactly to L12C1e (assuming you believe the "second interruption" did in fact cause the NS error)? Why would you think it's not Lawful? Of course if the second infraction had nothing to do with the result, then there's no need for any adjusted score to account for it. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 5 01:35:23 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 00:35:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Grattan's notebook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002401c8de72$7217f5b0$f8d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Grattan's notebook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Is there a wish-list someplace? > The laws often refer to "calls" or "plays" when it would be better to refer to "actions", which include calls, plays, director rulings, decisions following an irregularity, and claims and concessions. > One good example is when a defender revokes and then corrects it before it is established. L61C1; "1. Each member of the non-offending side may withdraw and return to his hand any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16D)." > It seems like common sense that a declarer could also withdraw a claim made after the revoke but before attention is drawn to it. > It is harder to construct an example for decisions, but... suppose a defender's partner won the trick, there was a penalty card so declarer forbade a heart lead, and then the revoke is corrected. The declarer should be allowed to change that decision. > Would this create any problems? "Rules about calls and plays, when applicable, should also be construed as applying to director rulings, decisions made by players following an irregularity, and claims and concessions". > +=+ With respect to such a deep-seated proposal as this, instant favourable or unfavourable comment would be crazy. It is something to think upon and to explore. It calls for lengthy detailed analysis, law by law where it might apply, before surfacing with an opinion. It is quite possible, of course, that the principle would not work well in every law, and if so the areas and aspects in which application might be contemplated would need to be debated and a consensus established. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 6 10:36:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:36:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Testing Message-ID: <000701c8df43$6da3bfb0$18d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Ignoring the issue of deceptive communication (Law 73F) for the moment, what is illegal communication? It seems to me that non-deceptive communication from declarer (ground control) to dummy is always* legal. As, for example, with my favourite ice-breaking convention of Cooper Echoes. [*Almost always. I use Cooper Echoes infrequently, so as to avoid Law 74A2 annoyance of the opponents.] This is because dummy is "le mort", acting as declarer's agent, so cannot act on any UI received. Of course, communications the other way, from dummy to ground control, are strictly limited by Laws 9A3, 42, 43 and 65B3. But what about non-deceptive communication between defenders? Law 68C: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." Law 73B1: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them." In private correspondence with another blmler, he suggested that part of a defensive claim statement by one defender (Law 68C) could be an extraneous remark directed at the other defender (Law 73B1). I disagree, because of the Law 68D statement "play ceases". To painfully extend the metaphor, because of the defensive claim Major Tom has crash-landed (due to "careless or inferior" piloting), so all communications from ground control are now meaningless, thus cannot be Law 73B1 infractions. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 7 11:30:24 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:30:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001e01c8e014$1e9fb550$e8cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:40 AM Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Ignoring the issue of deceptive communication (Law > 73F) for the moment, what is illegal communication? > > It seems to me that non-deceptive communication from > declarer (ground control) to dummy is always* legal. > As, for example, with my favourite ice-breaking > convention of Cooper Echoes. > > [*Almost always. I use Cooper Echoes infrequently, > so as to avoid Law 74A2 annoyance of the opponents.] > > This is because dummy is "le mort", acting as > declarer's agent, so cannot act on any UI received. > > Of course, communications the other way, from dummy > to ground control, are strictly limited by Laws 9A3, > 42, 43 and 65B3. > > But what about non-deceptive communication between > defenders? > > Law 68C: > > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear > statement as to the order in which cards will be > played, of the line of play or defence through which > the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." > > Law 73B1: > > "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the > manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous > remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of > the opponents or alerts and explanations given or > not given to them." > > In private correspondence with another blmler, he > suggested that part of a defensive claim statement > by one defender (Law 68C) could be an extraneous > remark directed at the other defender (Law 73B1). > > I disagree, because of the Law 68D statement "play > ceases". To painfully extend the metaphor, because > of the defensive claim Major Tom has crash-landed > (due to "careless or inferior" piloting), so all > communications from ground control are now > meaningless, thus cannot be Law 73B1 infractions. > +=+ Not meaningless, perhaps, if the other defender has a choice of plays. See Law 70D2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 7 12:06:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:06:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: <486E985A.60106@nhcc.net> References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu> <486E985A.60106@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > >> At some point in the chain of infractions, NS were headed for +500. One >> might even argue that South wouldn't have erred if there hadn't been a >> second interruption (so that he doesn't remember West's first >> infraction, and that partner obviously wanted to double them). So this >> second infraction helped reduce NS's score from +500 to +400. It's even >> possible that East did it purposely. >> > > If the latter is the case, L23 applies. Also, L12C1b (new) may apply if > the NOS committed a "serious error" that contributed to the damage. > > I'm sorry. You aren't allowed to maker laws act beyond their scope. Law 23 only speaks about what to do when a mandatory pass damages the NOS. L72 is more general. >> Now, I doubt M. Probst's ruling that the score be put back to NS's best >> expectation of +500 would be Lawful. >> > > Doesn't +500 conform exactly to L12C1e (assuming you believe the "second > interruption" did in fact cause the NS error)? Why would you think it's > not Lawful? > I don't say that. To the contrary, I claim that there is a general principle that, when a second infraction lessens the penalty for the first one, we've got useful tools, most notably L72, to restore equity (and possibly penalize the offender further). And I gave an example when that would be necessary. The purpose of this was to say that, by applying this principle, you can also avoid the risk of the seconde revoke lessening the impact of the first. More generally, an infraction that causes penalties creates a new "logical result" for the deal, and if a new infraction arises, restoring equity will mean restoring that logical result. It seems you counted me on the wrong side, Steve Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 7 12:06:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:06:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: <486E985A.60106@nhcc.net> References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu> <486E985A.60106@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > >> At some point in the chain of infractions, NS were headed for +500. One >> might even argue that South wouldn't have erred if there hadn't been a >> second interruption (so that he doesn't remember West's first >> infraction, and that partner obviously wanted to double them). So this >> second infraction helped reduce NS's score from +500 to +400. It's even >> possible that East did it purposely. >> > > If the latter is the case, L23 applies. Also, L12C1b (new) may apply if > the NOS committed a "serious error" that contributed to the damage. > > I'm sorry. You aren't allowed to maker laws act beyond their scope. Law 23 only speaks about what to do when a mandatory pass damages the NOS. L72 is more general. >> Now, I doubt M. Probst's ruling that the score be put back to NS's best >> expectation of +500 would be Lawful. >> > > Doesn't +500 conform exactly to L12C1e (assuming you believe the "second > interruption" did in fact cause the NS error)? Why would you think it's > not Lawful? > I don't say that. To the contrary, I claim that there is a general principle that, when a second infraction lessens the penalty for the first one, we've got useful tools, most notably L72, to restore equity (and possibly penalize the offender further). And I gave an example when that would be necessary. The purpose of this was to say that, by applying this principle, you can also avoid the risk of the seconde revoke lessening the impact of the first. More generally, an infraction that causes penalties creates a new "logical result" for the deal, and if a new infraction arises, restoring equity will mean restoring that logical result. It seems you counted me on the wrong side, Steve Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 7 12:30:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:30:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4871F03B.5080506@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Ignoring the issue of deceptive communication (Law > 73F) for the moment, what is illegal communication? > > It seems to me that non-deceptive communication from > declarer (ground control) to dummy is always* legal. > As, for example, with my favourite ice-breaking > convention of Cooper Echoes. > > [*Almost always. I use Cooper Echoes infrequently, > so as to avoid Law 74A2 annoyance of the opponents.] > > This is because dummy is "le mort", acting as > declarer's agent, so cannot act on any UI received. > There is a linked question : if some language has been set as the official language of the tournament, does declarer need to use this language : 1) for matters that concern defenders, e.g. calling cards from the dummy ? 2) for other matters, e.g. suggesting that dummy fetch drinks ? Some fear that in 1) declarer could suggest that dummy choose a card. But surely being compelled to thank dummy on sight of his cards (or something else than thanking him) in a language that's foreign to both players would be ridiculous. I tried Basque last time, but unexpectedly, partner failed to understand either ;-) Is there anything official about this ? Concernig Cooper echoes, I like them too, but I'm wondering what to do when some middle card is the right one to play for some obscure reason. How do you intend to avoid dummy taking it as Cooper ? Notice that, generally, when Cooper is needed, it won't add much to opponents' annoyance. The lady that doubled me in 6NT because she didn't like the bidding, then forgot to lead her Ace, letting me make 14 top tricks, had enough to explain to her husband to avoid thinking anything specific about my play of the C6 from dummy. Also, Cooper or not, jettisoning some 7 or 8-spot that you don't need could be good strategy, and this means L74 doesn't apply. It could make opponents wonder what you're doing, perhaps for your benefit ; and it may mask those cases when playing som middle card is importantl. To put it shortly, it could be clever falsecarding or anti-discovery play, and who would legislate against falsecarding ? Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Mon Jul 7 12:31:01 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:31:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001001c8e01c$8d397c00$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > In an ideal world all revoke laws would be abolished > except for Law 64C. But in our imperfect world there > is a considerable time saving for Directors and > players in having soft mechanical revoke laws which > usually provide equity (only occasionally do grand > slams make when the ace of trumps is offside), with > the time consuming Law 64C as the safety net in > reserve, rather than 64C being the sole revoke Law. > I agree unreservedly. John > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC > respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The > official departmental 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 Mon Jul 7 14:36:02 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:36:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu><486E985A.60106@nhcc.net> <4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000301c8e031$61797bf0$5bd6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law Steve Willner a ?crit : > At some point in the chain of infractions, NS were headed for +500. (Alain Gottcheiner) More generally, an infraction that causes penalties creates a new "logical result" for the deal, and if a new infraction arises, restoring equity will mean restoring that logical result. (Grattan ) +=+ We are concerned, I believe, with two revokes in the same suit. We need to clear up some rather loose language in the above. If we accept Alain's contention about a new 'logical result' we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion of 'restoring equity' and to clear up Steve's phrase "at some point in the chain of infractions". The criterion is not 'restoring equity'; it is sufficiently compensating "for the damage caused". 'Damage' is defined in Law 12 as "a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred". So Alain's interpretation has us go back to the instant before the second revoke occurred to examine where the result was headed at that point. If the +500 had gone away by then it is not the consideration. However, there are more complex issues floating in my mind. "When, after any established revoke" in Law 64C embraces both the first revoke and the second. So it seems that the entitlement of the NOS has to be related to each, thus if the NOS has not recovered the value of the damage by comparison with its expectation in the instant before the first revoke (this exceeding the expectation in the instant before the second revoke) then that is the level of compensation for which 64C calls. This is not, as it were, said 'ex cathedra' - I'll have to see how my friends view it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jul 7 15:02:09 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:02:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] L16 (actions) In-Reply-To: <4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu> <486E985A.60106@nhcc.net> <4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Suppose one defender concedes and the other defender does not want to concede, so play proceeds. Is declarer allowed to use this information? As I read Law 16, the answer is no. Am I missing something? L16D would seem to say yes ("For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized..." But 16D clearly restricts itself to calls and plays ("When a call or play has been withdrawn...") From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 7 15:22:10 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:22:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4871F03B.5080506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002201c8e034$c8bed550$5bd6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "Gilles Piret" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > It seems to me that non-deceptive communication from > declarer (ground control) to dummy is always* legal. > As, for example, with my favourite ice-breaking > convention of Cooper Echoes. > > [*Almost always. I use Cooper Echoes infrequently, > so as to avoid Law 74A2 annoyance of the opponents.] > +=+ and avoiding, no doubt, creation of experience of false carding in the partnership within the meaning of Law 73E ? +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Jul 7 15:51:53 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:51:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?L16_=28actions=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu> <486E985A.60106@nhcc.net> <4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1KFr8D-0jEXo00@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > Suppose one defender concedes and the other defender does not want to > concede, so play proceeds. Is declarer allowed to use this > information? > As I read Law 16, the answer is no. Am I missing something? L16D would > seem to say yes ("For a non-offending side, all information arising > from a withdrawn action is authorized..." But 16D clearly restricts > itself to calls and plays ("When a call or play has been > withdrawn...") Law 16 A1(c): "A player may use information in the [...] play if: it is information [...] arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws [...]" A claim (or concession) is not an offence; and objecting partner's claim (or concession) isn't either. So, there is no offending side; fwiw. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Mon Jul 7 16:40:50 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:40:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] L16 (actions) References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu><486E985A.60106@nhcc.net> <4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> <1KFr8D-0jEXo00@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <018901c8e03f$73fab1f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> > > From: "Robert Frick" >> Suppose one defender concedes and the other defender does not want to >> concede, so play proceeds. Is declarer allowed to use this >> information? >> As I read Law 16, the answer is no. Am I missing something? L16D would >> seem to say yes ("For a non-offending side, all information arising >> from a withdrawn action is authorized..." But 16D clearly restricts >> itself to calls and plays ("When a call or play has been >> withdrawn...") > > Law 16 A1(c): > "A player may use information in the [...] play if: > it is information [...] arising from the legal procedures > authorized in these laws [...]" > > A claim (or concession) is not an offence; and objecting > partner's claim (or concession) isn't either. So, there is > no offending side; fwiw. Hum even more : the claim and claim's objections are both authorized informations for declarer, the claim is UI to claimer's partner the objection is UI to claimer good luck for seing if there is no use of those UIs! Olivix From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 7 17:23:21 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:23:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu><486E985A.60106@nhcc.net><4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> <000301c8e031$61797bf0$5bd6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law << Steve Willner a ?crit : > At some point in the chain of infractions, NS were headed for +500. (Alain Gottcheiner) More generally, an infraction that causes penalties creates a new "logical result" for the deal, and if a new infraction arises, restoring equity will mean restoring that logical result. (Grattan ) +=+ We are concerned, I believe, with two revokes in the same suit. We need to clear up some rather loose language in the above. If we accept Alain's contention about a new 'logical result' we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion of 'restoring equity' and to clear up Steve's phrase "at some point in the chain of infractions". The criterion is not 'restoring equity'; it is sufficiently compensating "for the damage caused". 'Damage' is defined in Law 12 as "a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred". So Alain's interpretation has us go back to the instant before the second revoke occurred to examine where the result was headed at that point. If the +500 had gone away by then it is not the consideration. However, there are more complex issues floating in my mind. "When, after any established revoke" in Law 64C embraces both the first revoke and the second. So it seems that the entitlement of the NOS has to be related to each, thus if the NOS has not recovered the value of the damage by comparison with its expectation in the instant before the first revoke (this exceeding the expectation in the instant before the second revoke) then that is the level of compensation for which 64C calls. This is not, as it were, said 'ex cathedra' - I'll have to see how my friends view it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' +=+ Further to the foregoing previous message,.how do people feel about the following (true life) incident under the 2007 laws? N/S are playing in a hopeless slam; 11 top tricks, and no sign of a 12th. However, E/W revoke. The revoke does no harm - declarer still has the same 11 tricks as he'd started with. But now the contract is set to make as there will be a 1-trick penalty for the revoke at the conclusion of play. Then the defence revokes again in the same suit. This second revoke has the effect of cutting declarer off from several tricks and he ends up making only 9 tricks. What does the Director award? 11 tricks? 12 tricks? What do we think the laws say? ~ G ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Jul 7 17:43:02 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:43:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?revoke_law?= In-Reply-To: <002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu><486E985A.60106@nhcc.net><4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> <000301c8e031$61797bf0$5bd6403e@Mildred> <002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <1KFsrm-0Y3aYi0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> From: > +=+ Further to the foregoing previous message,.how do > people feel about the following (true life) incident under > the 2007 laws? > > N/S are playing in a hopeless slam; 11 top tricks, and no > sign of a 12th. > > However, E/W revoke. The revoke does no harm - declarer > still has the same 11 tricks as he'd started with. But now the > contract is set to make as there will be a 1-trick penalty for > the revoke at the conclusion of play. > > Then the defence revokes again in the same suit. This second > revoke has the effect of cutting declarer off from several tricks and > he ends up making only 9 tricks. > > What does the Director award? ?11 tricks? ?12 tricks? What > do we think the laws say? 12 tricks - of cause :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 7 17:59:50 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:59:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: <002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu><486E985A.60106@nhcc.net><4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> <000301c8e031$61797bf0$5bd6403e@Mildred> <002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48723D76.10001@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > N/S are playing in a hopeless slam; 11 top tricks, and no > sign of a 12th. > > However, E/W revoke. The revoke does no harm - declarer > still has the same 11 tricks as he'd started with. But now the > contract is set to make as there will be a 1-trick penalty for > the revoke at the conclusion of play. > > Then the defence revokes again in the same suit. This second > revoke has the effect of cutting declarer off from several tricks > and he ends up making only 9 tricks. > > What does the Director award? 11 tricks? 12 tricks? What > do we think the laws say? > AG: I don't know what the Laws says, but IMOCO what they should say is that, after the first revoke, NS were headed for 12 tricks, and when compensating the damage from the second revoke (which isn't an infraction in itself, but incorrect procedure, so L12A1 applies), the TD should award 12 tricks. If needed, invoke L72B1. Best regards Alain From matthias.schueller at gmx.de Mon Jul 7 19:00:28 2008 From: matthias.schueller at gmx.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_Sch=FCller?=) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:00:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: <002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu><486E985A.60106@nhcc.net><4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> <000301c8e031$61797bf0$5bd6403e@Mildred> <002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48724BAC.60808@gmx.de> gesta at tiscali.co.uk schrieb: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:36 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law > << > Steve Willner a ?crit : > At some point in the chain of infractions, NS were > headed for +500. > > (Alain Gottcheiner) > More generally, an infraction that causes penalties > creates a new "logical result" for the deal, and if a > new infraction arises, restoring equity will mean > restoring that logical result. > > (Grattan ) > +=+ We are concerned, I believe, with two revokes > in the same suit. We need to clear up some rather > loose language in the above. If we accept Alain's > contention about a new 'logical result' we need to > disabuse ourselves of the notion of 'restoring equity' > and to clear up Steve's phrase "at some point in the > chain of infractions". > The criterion is not 'restoring equity'; it is > sufficiently compensating "for the damage caused". > 'Damage' is defined in Law 12 as "a table result less > favourable than would have been the expectation had > the infraction not occurred". So Alain's interpretation > has us go back to the instant before the second revoke > occurred to examine where the result was headed at > that point. If the +500 had gone away by then it is not > the consideration. > However, there are more complex issues floating > in my mind. "When, after any established revoke" in > Law 64C embraces both the first revoke and the second. > So it seems that the entitlement of the NOS has to be > related to each, thus if the NOS has not recovered the > value of the damage by comparison with its expectation > in the instant before the first revoke (this exceeding the > expectation in the instant before the second revoke) then > that is the level of compensation for which 64C calls. This > is not, as it were, said 'ex cathedra' - I'll have to see how > my friends view it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ Further to the foregoing previous message,.how do > people feel about the following (true life) incident under > the 2007 laws? > > N/S are playing in a hopeless slam; 11 top tricks, and no > sign of a 12th. > > However, E/W revoke. The revoke does no harm - declarer > still has the same 11 tricks as he'd started with. But now the > contract is set to make as there will be a 1-trick penalty for > the revoke at the conclusion of play. > > Then the defence revokes again in the same suit. This second > revoke has the effect of cutting declarer off from several tricks > and he ends up making only 9 tricks. > > What does the Director award? 11 tricks? 12 tricks? What > do we think the laws say? I'll definitely go with 12. Matthias From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jul 7 21:02:37 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:02:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu><486E985A.60106@nhcc.net><4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be><000301c8e031$61797bf0$5bd6403e@Mildred><002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> <1KFsrm-0Y3aYi0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Might I suggest to all those who are struggling with this thread and similar ones. It is a basic tenet of the Laws that you may not benefit from an infraction, is it not? Therefore a second revoke, etc., cannot reduce the number of tricks that a player was entitled to prior to the moment when THAT REVOKE occurred. Does that help? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law Kojak > N/S are playing in a hopeless slam; 11 top tricks, and no > sign of a 12th. > > However, E/W revoke. The revoke does no harm - declarer > still has the same 11 tricks as he'd started with. But now the > contract is set to make as there will be a 1-trick penalty for > the revoke at the conclusion of play. > > Then the defence revokes again in the same suit. This second > revoke has the effect of cutting declarer off from several tricks and > he ends up making only 9 tricks. > > What does the Director award? 11 tricks? 12 tricks? What > do we think the laws say? 12 tricks - of cause :) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 7 22:23:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:23:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: <002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu><486E985A.60106@nhcc.net><4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be> <000301c8e031$61797bf0$5bd6403e@Mildred> <002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <02458323-E3AF-4099-B0F4-B5EB36331E76@starpower.net> On Jul 7, 2008, at 11:23 AM, wrote: > From: > << > Steve Willner a ?crit : >> > At some point in the chain of infractions, NS were > headed for +500. > > (Alain Gottcheiner) > More generally, an infraction that causes penalties > creates a new "logical result" for the deal, and if a > new infraction arises, restoring equity will mean > restoring that logical result. > > (Grattan ) > +=+ We are concerned, I believe, with two revokes > in the same suit. We need to clear up some rather > loose language in the above. If we accept Alain's > contention about a new 'logical result' we need to > disabuse ourselves of the notion of 'restoring equity' > and to clear up Steve's phrase "at some point in the > chain of infractions". > The criterion is not 'restoring equity'; it is > sufficiently compensating "for the damage caused". > 'Damage' is defined in Law 12 as "a table result less > favourable than would have been the expectation had > the infraction not occurred". So Alain's interpretation > has us go back to the instant before the second revoke > occurred to examine where the result was headed at > that point. If the +500 had gone away by then it is not > the consideration. > However, there are more complex issues floating > in my mind. "When, after any established revoke" in > Law 64C embraces both the first revoke and the second. > So it seems that the entitlement of the NOS has to be > related to each, thus if the NOS has not recovered the > value of the damage by comparison with its expectation > in the instant before the first revoke (this exceeding the > expectation in the instant before the second revoke) then > that is the level of compensation for which 64C calls. This > is not, as it were, said 'ex cathedra' - I'll have to see how > my friends view it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ Further to the foregoing previous message,.how do > people feel about the following (true life) incident under > the 2007 laws? > > N/S are playing in a hopeless slam; 11 top tricks, and no > sign of a 12th. > > However, E/W revoke. The revoke does no harm - declarer > still has the same 11 tricks as he'd started with. But now the > contract is set to make as there will be a 1-trick penalty for > the revoke at the conclusion of play. > > Then the defence revokes again in the same suit. This second > revoke has the effect of cutting declarer off from several tricks > and he ends up making only 9 tricks. > > What does the Director award? 11 tricks? 12 tricks? What > do we think the laws say? I'd say 12. I'm reading "after any established revoke" as applying to the situation immediately after, not at the end of the hand during which "any established revoke" occurred. And I'm reading "the damaged caused" as the damage caused by "any established revoke", not the damage caused collectively by however many infractions the OS may have committed. That means I'm looking at the damage from each of the two revokes separately, serially, "including [the one] not subject to rectification". As the initial revoke (after rectification) caused no damage, I use L64C to rectify the damage from the second revoke only, which gets me "back" to 12 tricks. L64B2 apples to "a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player", to which "Law 64C may apply". It could have been written to refer instead to "multiple revokes in the same suit by the same player", in which case we would clearly apply it to the hand as a whole and award 11 tricks in Grattan's example, but it wasn't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 8 03:01:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:01:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01c8e014$1e9fb550$e8cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Richard Hills (painfully extended metaphor): >>I disagree, because of the Law 68D statement "play >>ceases". To painfully extend the metaphor, because >>of the defensive claim Major Tom has crash-landed >>(due to "careless or inferior" piloting), so all >>communications from ground control are now >>meaningless, thus cannot be Law 73B1 infractions. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Not meaningless, perhaps, if the other defender >has a choice of plays. See Law 70D2. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 70D2: The Director does not accept any part of a defender's claim that depends on his partner's selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Richard Hills (punfully mixed metaphor): Since ground CONTROL's communication to Major Tom that he re-enter the atmosphere via careful and/or superior piloting is a defensive claim statement, the message is automatically intercepted by the KAOS satellite orbited by Law 70D2, which commands a careless and/or inferior re-entry. How, then, can ground CONTROL's message be described as anything but meaningless, so therefore not a Law 73B1 infraction? Perhaps Grattan should Get Smart? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 8 06:07:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:07:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02458323-E3AF-4099-B0F4-B5EB36331E76@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >'Damage' is defined in Law 12 as "a table result less >favourable than would have been the expectation had >the infraction not occurred". Richard Hills: But what is "a table result" defined as? Grattan Endicott: >N/S are playing in a hopeless slam; 11 top tricks, >and no sign of a 12th. > >However, E/W revoke. The revoke does no harm - >declarer still has the same 11 tricks as he'd started >with. But now the contract is set to make as there >will be a 1-trick penalty for the revoke at the >conclusion of play. Richard Hills: I would argue, at the conclusion of play, that N/S are getting "the table result plus one arbitrary bonus trick", while E/W are getting "the table result minus one arbitrary penalty trick". Grattan Endicott: >Then the defence revokes again in the same suit. This >second revoke has the effect of cutting declarer off >from several tricks and he ends up making only 9 >tricks. > >What does the Director award? 11 tricks? 12 tricks? >What do we think the laws say? > > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: 11 tricks. Headings are not part of the Laws, but I do notice the word "equity" in the Law 64C heading, and arbitrary bonus tricks are not equitable. (A point with which the Chief Director of Australia agrees.) However, if one gets down to the nitty-gritty of the actual words of Law 64C, key words are "insufficiently compensated". Including arbitrary bonus tricks in a Law 64C ruling is "over-sufficiently compensating" the non-offending side. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 8 11:04:22 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:04:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000d01c8e0d9$bc4ee030$24cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Richard Hills states: Headings are not part of the Laws, < What the 2007 law book actually says is: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jul 8 16:36:11 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:36:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL and L27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The July issue of the ACBL has "A Player's Guide to the Changes in the Laws." In case anyone is interested... Concerning L27: "A player who makes a natural insufficient bid may still make it sufficient at the lowest sufficient level without any bidding restriction on partner. Law 27 has been amended such that the director may permit an insufficient bid to be corrected, without rectification/penalty (i.e. bidding restriction), by another call that has, in the director's opinion, the same meaning or a more precise meaning. For example: 2NT - Pass - 2D (over 1NT is this a transfer to hearts), the 2D bid may be corrected to 3D without a bidding restriction (rectification) on partner if the 3D bid is also a transfer to hearts. However, part D of Law 27 allows the director to assign an adjusted score if without the insufficient bid the outcome (result) may well have been different and the non-offending side was damaged. Also the withdrawn 2D call is regarded as unauthorized information, but this will rarely matter because the legal 3D replacement conveys essentially the same information." Then there is a caution about not making your replacement call until the director arrives because you will be stuck with that call. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Jul 8 17:07:20 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:07:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL and L27 References: Message-ID: <00cc01c8e10c$51a8c010$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> > > The July issue of the ACBL has "A Player's Guide to the Changes in the > Laws." In case anyone is interested... Concerning L27: > > "A player who makes a natural insufficient bid may still make it > sufficient at the lowest sufficient level without any bidding restriction > on partner. > > Law 27 has been amended such that the director may permit an insufficient > bid to be corrected, without rectification/penalty (i.e. bidding > restriction), by another call that has, in the director's opinion, the > same meaning or a more precise meaning. For example: 2NT - Pass - 2D (over > 1NT is this a transfer to hearts), the 2D bid may be corrected to 3D > without a bidding restriction (rectification) on partner if the 3D bid is > also a transfer to hearts. However, part D of Law 27 allows the director > to assign an adjusted score if without the insufficient bid the outcome > (result) may well have been different and the non-offending side was > damaged. Also the withdrawn 2D call is regarded as unauthorized > information, but this will rarely matter because the legal 3D replacement > conveys essentially the same information." > > Then there is a caution about not making your replacement call until the > director arrives because you will be stuck with that call. Do you mean that in other cases you act before TD comes and tells you what to do??? in this case, it is better to check privately with the TD what substitute bods will be allowed, it is this way we teach our TD in France till one month :) Olivix From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 8 19:15:21 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:15:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004901c8e11e$399eb530$7ecb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 5:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > I would argue, at the conclusion of play, that N/S are > getting "the table result plus one arbitrary bonus > trick", while E/W are getting "the table result minus > one arbitrary penalty trick". > +=+ The counter to this is possibly in the language of Law 64A. The key words are "is transferred" and "at the end of the play". I construe the language to mean that the rectification, passing a trick or two tricks from one side to the other, occurs before the result of the board is established. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 9 07:50:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:50:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4871F03B.5080506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >There is a linked question : if some language has been set as the >official language of the tournament, does declarer need to use this >language : >1) for matters that concern defenders, e.g. calling cards from the dummy? >2) for other matters, e.g. suggesting that dummy fetch drinks? > >Some fear that in 1) declarer could suggest that dummy choose a card. >But surely being compelled to thank dummy on sight of his cards (or >something else than thanking him) in a language that's foreign to both >players would be ridiculous. >I tried Basque last time, but unexpectedly, partner failed to understand >either ;-) > >Is there anything official about this ? Richard Hills: The ABF has a sensible regulation. During the auction and play the official language of Aussie English (Strine) must be used. But between deals players may use Basque (or any other language) to order drinks or conduct post-mortems. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 9 08:00:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 16:00:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4871F03B.5080506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asked: >Concerning Cooper echoes, [snip] >who would legislate against falsecarding? Richard Hills: Yes, the authors of the WBF Code of Practice had insufficient imagination, since they only legislated against falsecarding by defenders, not by declarer. Although when I play Dorothy Acol with the eponymous Dorothy, she carefully pre-Alerts the opponents to the fact that not only do we play Cooper Echoes, we also play Psychic Cooper Echoes. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 9 09:27:57 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:27:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] language at tournaments Message-ID: <4874687D.3070802@aol.com> Hola! I direct numerous tournaments in which players from up to 30 or 35 countries play (and speak almost as many languages). The general ruling is: when you have the cards in your hand you speak only the official tournament language (usually English), unless you are playing against a pair with whom you have a common language. (When an Austrian pair plays against a German pair they may agree to use German at the table.) As long as no one has any cards in his hands the players can use any language desired. This seems to function in practice although there may be a few theoretical quibbles and there is the occasional embarrassing situation (an Austrian pair, between hands, once made some insulting and very uncomplimenatry comments about one of the Hungarian opponents. It turned out he spoke fluent German). Ahoy, JE From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 9 10:19:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:19:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48747491.7040204@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > The ABF has a sensible regulation. During the auction and play the > official language of Aussie English (Strine) must be used. But between > deals players may use Basque (or any other language) to order drinks or > conduct post-mortems. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship We always knew the Australians do not really want immigration. Now they're even asking impossible language demands. Strine! Even after 25 years of faithfully watching neighbours I could not meet that demand! Oh well, count me out - I would not want to be an aussie cricket supporter anyway - far too few opportunities of drinking a cold to forget a loss. Ehm, neighbours, cricket world champions, cold beer? what am I thinking? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 9 10:23:31 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:23:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] language at tournaments In-Reply-To: <4874687D.3070802@aol.com> References: <4874687D.3070802@aol.com> Message-ID: <48747583.2080709@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola! I direct numerous tournaments in which players from up to 30 or > 35 countries play (and speak almost as many languages). The general > ruling is: when you have the cards in your hand you speak only the > official tournament language (usually English), unless you are playing > against a pair with whom you have a common language. (When an Austrian > pair plays against a German pair they may agree to use German at the > table.) As long as no one has any cards in his hands the players can > use any language desired. This seems to function in practice although > there may be a few theoretical quibbles and there is the occasional > embarrassing situation (an Austrian pair, between hands, once made some > insulting and very uncomplimenatry comments about one of the Hungarian > opponents. It turned out he spoke fluent German). Ahoy, JE > I think you have that story backwards, Jeff. Most Hungarians would understand German, even when spoken by an Austrian - I have heard many such stories in the reverse though. A friend of mine, of Hungarian extraction, once heard a couple of Hungarians at his table ask for the lead of a particular suit. Rather than call the director, he said to them in Hungarian: "if you lead ..., I'll punch your nose". Of course I told him off. And of course there's the famous Bermuda Bowl match in the sixties where Argentina met Australia (IIRC) and all 4 players spoke Hungarian. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Jul 9 11:03:47 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:03:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48747491.7040204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001e01c8e1a2$d4bcbe70$2401a8c0@p41600> Struuuth, that might explain a lot... Even after 25 > years of faithfully watching neighbours I could not meet that demand! From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 9 11:09:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:09:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu><486E985A.60106@nhcc.net><4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be><000301c8e031$61797bf0$5bd6403e@Mildred><002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> <1KFsrm-0Y3aYi0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <48748051.2060503@ulb.ac.be> WILLIAM SCHODER a ?crit : > Might I suggest to all those who are struggling with this thread and > similar ones. It is a basic tenet of the Laws that you may not benefit from > an infraction, is it not? Therefore a second revoke, etc., cannot reduce > the number of tricks that a player was entitled to prior to the moment when > THAT REVOKE occurred. Does that help? > > Yes, it does, as it formalizes the feeling most of us had. I think the main obstacle to this formalization is the confusion between "a second revoke in he same suit isn't penalized as such" (L64B2) and "a second revoke isn't an infraction". It definitely is, and we have enough tools to deal with it. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 9 11:36:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:36:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] language at tournaments In-Reply-To: <4874687D.3070802@aol.com> References: <4874687D.3070802@aol.com> Message-ID: <48748695.8060607@ulb.ac.be> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > Hola! I direct numerous tournaments in which players from up to 30 or > 35 countries play (and speak almost as many languages). The general > ruling is: when you have the cards in your hand you speak only the > official tournament language (usually English), unless you are playing > against a pair with whom you have a common language. (When an Austrian > pair plays against a German pair they may agree to use German at the > table.) Right. But wrong in Belgium. The fact that you know a common nlanguage doesn't ensure that opponents will let you use it. And if they do, there is no guarantee that the organizing team will let you. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 9 16:22:12 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:22:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain Message-ID: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> Hola! I'm afraid I don't understand the problem in Belgium (as you state it, at least imply it). The usual procedure in the tournaments I direct is, as I said, that pairs playing against each other at the same table can use whatever language they choose, as long as they agree on this. If they don't they must use the "official" language. So, to quote Richard, "what is the problem?". As far as the permission of the organiser is concerned: (1) generally he/it has no way of knowing what language is used at the table; he can hardly monitor 150 tables simultaneously and (2) if the organiser (probably better the regulating authority under the 2007 laws) decides that there are special rules concerning usage of language (and these are included in the tournament regulations) the players must follow them. But I have never heard of an organiser that forbid players to use a language of their choice while playing against each other. Does this happen in Belgium? (Herman, where are you when we need you?) Remember, we are dealing only with the time in which the players have cards in their hands. But, of course, the conditions of contest for the specific tournament apply to all tables and players. If these conditions are idiotic enough the tournament will probably suffer. So, again, what is the problem? Ciao, JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 9 16:28:55 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:28:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] some more anecdotes? (language at tournaments) Message-ID: <4874CB27.1010203@aol.com> Hola Herman, thanks for the commentary. Yes, of course, there are many such incidents, of varying seriousness. Indeed, I also know of the opposite situation where an Austrian understood Hungarian. I chose the example at random. There are many such anecdotes but to start recounting them would mean opening a new thread. Even at a local club in my (relative) youth a player started to hum a Russian (or Armenian) folk song while his partner was on lead. The title of the song included the word "heart" and guess what suit he wanted his partner to lead. Unfortunately one of the opponents knew the song and the language and started singing the text before calling the TD. Ciao, JE From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 9 18:18:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:18:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain In-Reply-To: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> Message-ID: <4874E4E2.5080600@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola! I'm afraid I don't understand the problem in Belgium (as you > state it, at least imply it). Alain was (somewhat) joking. Language troubles sometimes do happen in Belgium. And sometimes they are more political than actual. Remember that the official table language at Belgian championships is English, but the only time I've actually used English at a table during a championship was with German visitors (and then only because the french speaking opponents had no German). > The usual procedure in the tournaments I > direct is, as I said, that pairs playing against each other at the same > table can use whatever language they choose, as long as they agree on > this. That is the same in Belgium, except that the default is not used. So most of the talk will go on in French, a language few Flemish players will state they do not speak. > If they don't they must use the "official" language. They don't, they just speak their own language, and the others understand. No problems, ever, about the bridge. > So, to quote > Richard, "what is the problem?". As far as the permission of the > organiser is concerned: (1) generally he/it has no way of knowing what > language is used at the table; he can hardly monitor 150 tables > simultaneously and (2) if the organiser (probably better the regulating > authority under the 2007 laws) decides that there are special rules > concerning usage of language (and these are included in the tournament > regulations) the players must follow them. But I have never heard of an > organiser that forbid players to use a language of their choice while > playing against each other. Does this happen in Belgium? (Herman, > where are you when we need you?) > Remember, we are dealing only with the time in which the players have > cards in their hands. Well, it would be impossible (politically) to enforce a rule that two Flemings would not be allowed to speak Flemish at a table when the opponents state they do not know that language. I was once involved in a hassle where the two francophones were actually French (giving them a small excuse for not knowing Dutch - but having lived in Belgium for decades) and I had to intervene, but I would not have made the others switch off their Dutch. > But, of course, the conditions of contest for the specific tournament > apply to all tables and players. If these conditions are idiotic enough > the tournament will probably suffer. So, again, what is the problem? > Ciao, JE > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From henk at ripe.net Wed Jul 9 17:20:16 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:20:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain In-Reply-To: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> Message-ID: <4874D730.4050408@ripe.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola! I'm afraid I don't understand the problem in Belgium (as you > state it, at least imply it). The usual procedure in the tournaments I > direct is, as I said, that pairs playing against each other at the same > table can use whatever language they choose, as long as they agree on > this. If they don't they must use the "official" language. So, to quote > Richard, "what is the problem?". The problem is that in day-to-day life, Belgiums from different parts of the country cannot agree on which language they should use. If you pick one of the 3 official languages, two out of 3 players will refuse to use that one (even though all 3 are taught in school and they have at least a basic knowledge sufficient for bridge). And picking a 4th language isn't that trivial either. (As a test, try asking for traffic directions in English in Bruxelles). Why would this be different at the bridge table? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 9 20:47:59 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:47:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain In-Reply-To: <4874D730.4050408@ripe.net> References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> <4874D730.4050408@ripe.net> Message-ID: <487507DF.7080100@aol.com> This might well be, I'll accept your word for it, but it is irrelevant. I wrote that a common language could be used if all players at the table agreed. If they didn't agree the official language (according to rules of sponsoring organisation) would be used. So, once again, what is the problem? Ciao, JE Henk Uijterwaal schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Hola! I'm afraid I don't understand the problem in Belgium (as you >> state it, at least imply it). The usual procedure in the tournaments I >> direct is, as I said, that pairs playing against each other at the same >> table can use whatever language they choose, as long as they agree on >> this. If they don't they must use the "official" language. So, to quote >> Richard, "what is the problem?". > > The problem is that in day-to-day life, Belgiums from different parts > of the country cannot agree on which language they should use. If you > pick one of the 3 official languages, two out of 3 players will refuse > to use that one (even though all 3 are taught in school and they have > at least a basic knowledge sufficient for bridge). And picking a 4th > language isn't that trivial either. (As a test, try asking for traffic > directions in English in Bruxelles). > > Why would this be different at the bridge table? > > Henk > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jul 9 20:54:54 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:54:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain In-Reply-To: <4874E4E2.5080600@skynet.be> References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> <4874E4E2.5080600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4875097E.108@aol.com> You say it would be impossible to enforce a rule at the table (in Belgium) that two flemish speakers not speak flemish at the table. If the opponents don't understand flemish it is fundamental for any tournament that it not be spoken when the players have cards in their hands. I find it hard to believe that this can't be enforced in Belgium. (If the language is flemish or swahili is irrelevant: it is a fundamental rule (as far as I know) that no players with cards in their hands employ a language the opponents don't understand. (Although I can see the difficulty when two players maintain they don't understand flemish (or any language) and you have a strong suspicion that they do.) Ciao, JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Hola! I'm afraid I don't understand the problem in Belgium (as you >> state it, at least imply it). > > Alain was (somewhat) joking. > > Language troubles sometimes do happen in Belgium. And sometimes they > are more political than actual. > > Remember that the official table language at Belgian championships is > English, but the only time I've actually used English at a table > during a championship was with German visitors (and then only because > the french speaking opponents had no German). > >> The usual procedure in the tournaments I >> direct is, as I said, that pairs playing against each other at the same >> table can use whatever language they choose, as long as they agree on >> this. > > That is the same in Belgium, except that the default is not used. So > most of the talk will go on in French, a language few Flemish players > will state they do not speak. > >> If they don't they must use the "official" language. > > They don't, they just speak their own language, and the others > understand. No problems, ever, about the bridge. > >> So, to quote >> Richard, "what is the problem?". As far as the permission of the >> organiser is concerned: (1) generally he/it has no way of knowing what >> language is used at the table; he can hardly monitor 150 tables >> simultaneously and (2) if the organiser (probably better the regulating >> authority under the 2007 laws) decides that there are special rules >> concerning usage of language (and these are included in the tournament >> regulations) the players must follow them. But I have never heard of an >> organiser that forbid players to use a language of their choice while >> playing against each other. Does this happen in Belgium? (Herman, >> where are you when we need you?) >> Remember, we are dealing only with the time in which the players have >> cards in their hands. > > Well, it would be impossible (politically) to enforce a rule that two > Flemings would not be allowed to speak Flemish at a table when the > opponents state they do not know that language. I was once involved in > a hassle where the two francophones were actually French (giving them > a small excuse for not knowing Dutch - but having lived in Belgium for > decades) and I had to intervene, but I would not have made the others > switch off their Dutch. > >> But, of course, the conditions of contest for the specific tournament >> apply to all tables and players. If these conditions are idiotic enough >> the tournament will probably suffer. So, again, what is the problem? >> Ciao, JE >> > From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 9 21:43:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:43:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain In-Reply-To: <4874D730.4050408@ripe.net> References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> <4874D730.4050408@ripe.net> Message-ID: <000101c8e1fc$065f82b0$131e8810$@no> Henk Uijterwaal ............. > The problem is that in day-to-day life, Belgiums from different parts > of the country cannot agree on which language they should use. If you > pick one of the 3 official languages, two out of 3 players will refuse > to use that one (even though all 3 are taught in school and they have > at least a basic knowledge sufficient for bridge). And picking a 4th > language isn't that trivial either. (As a test, try asking for traffic > directions in English in Bruxelles). > > Why would this be different at the bridge table? > > Henk Back in 1964 I was working in Antwerp at a sister company to our Norwegian and stayed at a pension run by a French-only speaking couple. As every Belgian knows Antwerp is absolutely Flemish, and they told me that they generally had language trouble any time they had deliveries or servicemen to their house. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 9 21:29:38 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:29:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> <4874D730.4050408@ripe.net> <487507DF.7080100@aol.com> Message-ID: <000d01c8e202$e7588810$74cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Email from Alain This might well be, I'll accept your word for it, but it is irrelevant. I wrote that a common language could be used if all players at the table agreed. If they didn't agree the official language (according to rules of sponsoring organisation) would be used. So, once again, what is the problem? Ciao, JE > +=+ Don't tell me. I have enough problems with English. But suppose the regulations do not specify an official language? Oh, yes, of course, 81B1. That could be an interesting exercise in De Wael Land. ~ G ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 10 00:54:18 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 23:54:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law References: <200807011507.m61F7Yln025284@cfa.harvard.edu><486E985A.60106@nhcc.net><4871EABD.50105@ulb.ac.be><000301c8e031$61797bf0$5bd6403e@Mildred><002a01c8e045$8a7de1d0$12c8403e@Mildred> <1KFsrm-0Y3aYi0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> <48748051.2060503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002701c8e216$b81aef70$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law WILLIAM SCHODER a ?crit : > Might I suggest to all those who are struggling with this thread and > similar ones. It is a basic tenet of the Laws that you may not benefit > from > an infraction, is it not? Therefore a second revoke, etc., cannot reduce > the number of tricks that a player was entitled to prior to the moment > when > THAT REVOKE occurred. Does that help? > Thank God for Kojak. He doesn't let the Probst cheat prosper. John > Yes, it does, as it formalizes the feeling most of us had. I think the main obstacle to this formalization is the confusion between "a second revoke in he same suit isn't penalized as such" (L64B2) and "a second revoke isn't an infraction". It definitely is, and we have enough tools to deal with it. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 10 00:59:04 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 23:59:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> <4874E4E2.5080600@skynet.be> <4875097E.108@aol.com> Message-ID: <003801c8e217$62d12ce0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Email from Alain asking 4 Englishmen to speak in English does not guarantee comprehension either :) John > You say it would be impossible to enforce a rule at the table (in > Belgium) that two flemish speakers not speak flemish at the table. If > the opponents don't understand flemish it is fundamental for any > tournament that it not be spoken when the players have cards in their > hands. I find it hard to believe that this can't be enforced in > Belgium. (If the language is flemish or swahili is irrelevant: it is a > fundamental rule (as far as I know) that no players with cards in their > hands employ a language the opponents don't understand. (Although I can > see the difficulty when two players maintain they don't understand > flemish (or any language) and you have a strong suspicion that they do.) > Ciao, JE > > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Jeff Easterson wrote: >>> Hola! I'm afraid I don't understand the problem in Belgium (as you >>> state it, at least imply it). >> >> Alain was (somewhat) joking. >> >> Language troubles sometimes do happen in Belgium. And sometimes they >> are more political than actual. >> >> Remember that the official table language at Belgian championships is >> English, but the only time I've actually used English at a table >> during a championship was with German visitors (and then only because >> the french speaking opponents had no German). >> >>> The usual procedure in the tournaments I >>> direct is, as I said, that pairs playing against each other at the same >>> table can use whatever language they choose, as long as they agree on >>> this. >> >> That is the same in Belgium, except that the default is not used. So >> most of the talk will go on in French, a language few Flemish players >> will state they do not speak. >> >>> If they don't they must use the "official" language. >> >> They don't, they just speak their own language, and the others >> understand. No problems, ever, about the bridge. >> >>> So, to quote >>> Richard, "what is the problem?". As far as the permission of the >>> organiser is concerned: (1) generally he/it has no way of knowing what >>> language is used at the table; he can hardly monitor 150 tables >>> simultaneously and (2) if the organiser (probably better the regulating >>> authority under the 2007 laws) decides that there are special rules >>> concerning usage of language (and these are included in the tournament >>> regulations) the players must follow them. But I have never heard of an >>> organiser that forbid players to use a language of their choice while >>> playing against each other. Does this happen in Belgium? (Herman, >>> where are you when we need you?) >>> Remember, we are dealing only with the time in which the players have >>> cards in their hands. >> >> Well, it would be impossible (politically) to enforce a rule that two >> Flemings would not be allowed to speak Flemish at a table when the >> opponents state they do not know that language. I was once involved in >> a hassle where the two francophones were actually French (giving them >> a small excuse for not knowing Dutch - but having lived in Belgium for >> decades) and I had to intervene, but I would not have made the others >> switch off their Dutch. >> >>> But, of course, the conditions of contest for the specific tournament >>> apply to all tables and players. If these conditions are idiotic enough >>> the tournament will probably suffer. So, again, what is the problem? >>> Ciao, JE >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 10 02:46:49 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:46:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> <4874E4E2.5080600@skynet.be><4875097E.108@aol.com> <003801c8e217$62d12ce0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <001401c8e226$8b836d60$6cd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> fundamental rule (as far as I know) that no players with cards in their >> hands employ a language the opponents don't understand. >> +=+ It is a matter of regulation, not of law. Regulations are arbitrary. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 10 04:24:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:24:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <486E985A.60106@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Arbitrary mechanical score adjustment "rectifications" for revokes >>may lead to ludicrous outcomes. For example, a grand slam making >>when the ace of trumps is offside. Steve Willner: >Calling this "ludicrous" seems, well..., ludicrous. Richard Hills: And Steve's statement, "Calling this 'ludicrous' seems, well...., ludicrous," seems, well..., ludicrous. Steve Willner: >The reason for preferring mechanical rectifications is to give a >better game. Richard Hills: The reason for preferring equity rectifications is to give a better game. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 10 07:44:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:44:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48747491.7040204@skynet.be> Message-ID: Partner, having just flown from Canberra to Surfers Paradise, arrives jet-lagged at the table for the first board of the Asia Cup. >From previous partnership experience you know that your pard averages one revoke per deal when jet- lagged, so is more likely than usual to infract Law 64B2 by revoking twice in the same suit. In accordance with Law 40A1 you pre-Alert pard's re-vocation to the opponents. The opponents then bid to 7H in an uncontested auction. You hold 5432 A 5432 5432, so elect to double. Unlucky, you are declarer's RHO. Unlucky, pard does not pick your double as anti- Lightner, so fails to lead trumps. You then employ a safety play in the fourth dimension by claiming at trick one. Question 1: Is your defensive claim legal? Question 2: Is your defensive claim ethical? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 10 08:41:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:41:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Off with her heading [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c8e0d9$bc4ee030$24cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Lewis Carroll: The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, began screaming "Off with her head! Off with...." "Nonsense!" said Alice, very loudly and decidedly Richard Hills misstates: >>Headings are not part of the Laws, Grattan Endicott corrects: >What the 2007 law book actually says is: > >"Where headings remain they do not limit the >application of any law" > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills oopses: Oops. I was quoting the 1997 Scope. But since the (surviving) headings are now part of their corresponding Law, what purpose do those headings serve since they do not limit the application of their corresponding Law? When a Bill is presented to the Australian Parliament it is traditional for the corresponding Minister to make a Second Reading Speech describing the Bill's purpose. If that Bill is enacted into Law, the Second Reading Speech does not limit the application of the Act of Parliament. However... If the Australian High Court is interpreting and applying that Act, and the High Court discovers a clause which is ambiguous, the High Court chooses to resolve the ambiguity by obeying Parliament's intent as described in the Second Reading Speech. So... If a particular Duplicate Law is ambiguous, one way to resolve that ambiguity is to examine the intent of that Duplicate Law as described in its heading. A controversial example would be the (alleged) ambiguity of Law 20F5(a), which (allegedly) can be sensibly interpreted to require one to lie to the opponents when asked about the meaning of partner's call. "Nonsense!" said Alice, very loudly and decidedly Since the heading of Law 20F is "Explanation of Calls", not "Explanation and Misexplanation of Calls", that heading is another straw in the wind breaking the camel's back. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From will-t at online.no Wed Jul 9 18:13:14 2008 From: will-t at online.no (Willy Teigen) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:13:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? Message-ID: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> >From club play yesterday. -------KQT85 -------Q3 -------K73 -------KQ5 742 J9 KJ975 T62 JT8652 J9872 A4 -------A63 -------A84 -------AQ94 -------T63 N, S and W are all very experienced players. Bidding: S W N E 1D P 1S P 1NT P 2D* P P!! 2H 3H P 3NT All pass 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership. However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" his partner must have some cards. With the help of this bid NS reaches game. Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. How do you adjust? J _________________________ Regards, Willy Teigen Toppen 1 8515 Narvik Norway Mail: will-t at online.no _________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080709/9c35792f/attachment-0001.htm From will-t at online.no Wed Jul 9 20:21:51 2008 From: will-t at online.no (Willy Teigen) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:21:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bidding Message-ID: <00b901c8e1f0$a8b0aa50$fa11fef0$@no> >From club play yesterday. -------KQT85 -------Q3 -------K73 -------KQ5 742 J9 KJ975 T62 JT8652 J9872 A4 -------A63 -------A84 -------AQ94 -------T63 N, S and W are all very experienced players. Bidding: S W N E 1D P 1S P 1NT P 2D* P P!! 2H 3H P 3NT All pass 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership. However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" his partner must have some cards. With the help of this bid NS reaches game. Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. How do you adjust? J _________________________ Regards, Willy Teigen Toppen 1 8515 Narvik Norway Mail: will-t at online.no _________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080709/98f7c9c1/attachment.htm From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Jul 10 10:09:22 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:09:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> Message-ID: <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> Willy Teigen a ?crit : > > >>From club play yesterday. > > -------KQT85 > -------Q3 > -------K73 > -------KQ5 > > > 742 J9 > KJ975 T62 > - JT8652 > J9872 A4 > > > -------A63 > -------A84 > -------AQ94 > -------T63 > > > > N, S and W are all very experienced players. > > Bidding: S W N E > > 1D P 1S P > 1NT P 2D* P > P!! 2H 3H P > 3NT All pass > > > > 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but > was not discussed in this occasional partnership. > > However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. > > W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" his partner > must have some cards. > > With the help of this bid NS reaches game. > > Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. > 12 seems routine after this lead > > How do you adjust? J > from your description NS had no agreement about 2D, so nothing to disclose, and no scope for any adjustment. S and W were in the same dark and both guessed wrong. jpr > > _________________________ > Regards, > Willy Teigen > Toppen 1 > 8515 Narvik > Norway > > Mail: will-t at online.no > _________________________ > _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 10 09:49:04 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:49:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> Message-ID: <004301c8e261$83521980$b6c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <48747491.7040204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c8e265$cd3e3700$67baa500$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ... > Partner, having just flown from Canberra to Surfers > Paradise, arrives jet-lagged at the table for the > first board of the Asia Cup. > > >From previous partnership experience you know that > your pard averages one revoke per deal when jet- > lagged, so is more likely than usual to infract > Law 64B2 by revoking twice in the same suit. > > In accordance with Law 40A1 you pre-Alert pard's > re-vocation to the opponents. > > The opponents then bid to 7H in an uncontested > auction. You hold 5432 A 5432 5432, so elect to > double. > > Unlucky, you are declarer's RHO. > Unlucky, pard does not pick your double as anti- > Lightner, so fails to lead trumps. > > You then employ a safety play in the fourth > dimension by claiming at trick one. > > Question 1: Is your defensive claim legal? It sure is; why shouldn't it be? > Question 2: Is your defensive claim ethical? Why not? But you could find yourself in trouble if partner unfortunately (believes he) also has a trick, applies Law 68B2 and immediately objects to your (implied) concession of 12 tricks. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 10 10:43:00 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:43:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Willy Teigen a ?crit : >> >> >> >From club play yesterday. >> >> -------KQT85 >> -------Q3 >> -------K73 >> -------KQ5 >> >> >> 742 J9 >> KJ975 T62 >> - JT8652 >> J9872 A4 >> >> >> -------A63 >> -------A84 >> -------AQ94 >> -------T63 >> >> >> >> N, S and W are all very experienced players. >> >> Bidding: S W N E >> >> 1D P 1S P >> 1NT P 2D* P >> P!! 2H 3H P >> 3NT All pass >> >> >> >> 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but >> was not discussed in this occasional partnership. >> >> However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. >> >> W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" his partner >> must have some cards. >> >> With the help of this bid NS reaches game. >> >> Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. >> > 12 seems routine after this lead >> How do you adjust? J >> > from your description NS had no agreement about 2D, so nothing to > disclose, and no scope for any adjustment. S and W were in the same dark > and both guessed wrong. > That won't do, jp. Since this pair cannot produce evidence that they are not playing this (apparently fairly common) agreement, we rule that they are playing it and that opponents have been misinformed. As to the adjustment, if any, I am not so firm. > jpr >> _________________________ >> Regards, >> Willy Teigen >> Toppen 1 >> 8515 Narvik >> Norway >> >> Mail: will-t at online.no >> _________________________ >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 10:57:08 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:57:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain In-Reply-To: <4874D730.4050408@ripe.net> References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> <4874D730.4050408@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4875CEE4.3020907@ulb.ac.be> Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Hola! I'm afraid I don't understand the problem in Belgium (as you >> state it, at least imply it). The usual procedure in the tournaments I >> direct is, as I said, that pairs playing against each other at the same >> table can use whatever language they choose, as long as they agree on >> this. If they don't they must use the "official" language. So, to quote >> Richard, "what is the problem?". >> > > The problem is that in day-to-day life, Belgiums from different parts > of the country cannot agree on which language they should use. If you > pick one of the 3 official languages, two out of 3 players will refuse > to use that one (even though all 3 are taught in school and they have > at least a basic knowledge sufficient for bridge) Well, not really. German isn't taught at school, excepted in some specific curricula. And even in those, you're still allowed to choose Spanish (why not ?). But here, I'm speaking, not of disagreement betwen players, but of two pairs (one from Liege, one from Tournai IIRC) who agreed to speak French, except that the organizing body disallowed them because the only allowed languages were the official language of bridge (English) and the language of the city where the event happened (Flemish). Don't tell me it sounds absurd. I know it too well. > . And picking a 4th > language isn't that trivial either. (As a test, try asking for traffic > directions in English in Bruxelles). > /Travivu la lingvo. /Best regards Alain From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jul 10 11:04:28 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:04:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain In-Reply-To: <003801c8e217$62d12ce0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> <4874E4E2.5080600@skynet.be> <4875097E.108@aol.com> <003801c8e217$62d12ce0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <4875D09C.6060606@aol.com> Hola John! In my very limited experience, especially if at least one of them comes from the Northeast (Middlesborough or somewhere like that). Ahoy, JE John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:54 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Email from Alain > > asking 4 Englishmen to speak in English does not guarantee comprehension > either :) John > > >> You say it would be impossible to enforce a rule at the table (in >> Belgium) that two flemish speakers not speak flemish at the table. If >> the opponents don't understand flemish it is fundamental for any >> tournament that it not be spoken when the players have cards in their >> hands. I find it hard to believe that this can't be enforced in >> Belgium. (If the language is flemish or swahili is irrelevant: it is a >> fundamental rule (as far as I know) that no players with cards in their >> hands employ a language the opponents don't understand. (Although I can >> see the difficulty when two players maintain they don't understand >> flemish (or any language) and you have a strong suspicion that they do.) >> Ciao, JE >> >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>> Hola! I'm afraid I don't understand the problem in Belgium (as you >>>> state it, at least imply it). >>> Alain was (somewhat) joking. >>> >>> Language troubles sometimes do happen in Belgium. And sometimes they >>> are more political than actual. >>> >>> Remember that the official table language at Belgian championships is >>> English, but the only time I've actually used English at a table >>> during a championship was with German visitors (and then only because >>> the french speaking opponents had no German). >>> >>>> The usual procedure in the tournaments I >>>> direct is, as I said, that pairs playing against each other at the same >>>> table can use whatever language they choose, as long as they agree on >>>> this. >>> That is the same in Belgium, except that the default is not used. So >>> most of the talk will go on in French, a language few Flemish players >>> will state they do not speak. >>> >>>> If they don't they must use the "official" language. >>> They don't, they just speak their own language, and the others >>> understand. No problems, ever, about the bridge. >>> >>>> So, to quote >>>> Richard, "what is the problem?". As far as the permission of the >>>> organiser is concerned: (1) generally he/it has no way of knowing what >>>> language is used at the table; he can hardly monitor 150 tables >>>> simultaneously and (2) if the organiser (probably better the regulating >>>> authority under the 2007 laws) decides that there are special rules >>>> concerning usage of language (and these are included in the tournament >>>> regulations) the players must follow them. But I have never heard of an >>>> organiser that forbid players to use a language of their choice while >>>> playing against each other. Does this happen in Belgium? (Herman, >>>> where are you when we need you?) >>>> Remember, we are dealing only with the time in which the players have >>>> cards in their hands. >>> Well, it would be impossible (politically) to enforce a rule that two >>> Flemings would not be allowed to speak Flemish at a table when the >>> opponents state they do not know that language. I was once involved in >>> a hassle where the two francophones were actually French (giving them >>> a small excuse for not knowing Dutch - but having lived in Belgium for >>> decades) and I had to intervene, but I would not have made the others >>> switch off their Dutch. >>> >>>> But, of course, the conditions of contest for the specific tournament >>>> apply to all tables and players. If these conditions are idiotic enough >>>> the tournament will probably suffer. So, again, what is the problem? >>>> Ciao, JE >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 11:05:20 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:05:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> Message-ID: <4875D0D0.9030508@ulb.ac.be> Willy Teigen a ?crit : > > From club play yesterday. > > -------KQT85 > > -------Q3 > > -------K73 > > -------KQ5 > > 742 J9 > > KJ975 T62 > > JT8652 > > J9872 A4 > > -------A63 > > -------A84 > > -------AQ94 > > -------T63 > > N, S and W are all very experienced players. > > Bidding: S W N E > > 1D P 1S P > > 1NT P 2D* P > > P!! 2H 3H P > > 3NT All pass > > 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), > but was not discussed in this occasional partnership. > > However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. > > W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he ?knows? his > partner must have some cards. > > With the help of this bid NS reaches game. > > Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. > > How do you adjust? J > AG : not the right question. Rather, it's "do you adjust" ? Look at their convention card, ask them their system, try to find any item of evidence. If there is sufficient evidence that 2D would have been NF in their system (or that it's undiscussed, which means North was wrong), ther will be no adjustment at all. North has every right to err, and EW have every right to be unlucky ;-) In case there is doubt as to the meaning of 2D in their methods, pull back to 2D scoring whatever is deduced from the analysis (I guess +110). Not necessarily a bottom, since some will go down in 4S. Who was it who said : "I don't like to balance, because that's assuming they know what they're doing" ? (BTW, isn't that an acceptable 1H overcall at MPs ?) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 11:17:02 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:17:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain In-Reply-To: <4874E4E2.5080600@skynet.be> References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> <4874E4E2.5080600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4875D38E.1090804@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Hola! I'm afraid I don't understand the problem in Belgium (as you >> state it, at least imply it). >> > > Alain was (somewhat) joking. > Language troubles sometimes do happen in Belgium. And sometimes they > are more political than actual. > > Remember that the official table language at Belgian championships is > English, but the only time I've actually used English at a table > during a championship was with German visitors (and then only because > the french speaking opponents had no German). > > I'm sory, Herman, but it seems like you're the joker. It's not a recent developement ; 25 years ago, I came across a pair (in Kortrijk) who demanded that we spoke Flemish. No TD was available, not even by phone, so that we had to comply. As a result, we lost 11 IMPs when my partner (who was, BTW, from Rouen, so that you can't pretend he should know that language) heard "twee klaveren" and interpreted it as "2D". The matter came in front of the Federation, who penalized *both* sides 2 VPs. It seems like it's that incident which made my partner's wife join the FDF. >> The usual procedure in the tournaments I >> direct is, as I said, that pairs playing against each other at the same >> table can use whatever language they choose, as long as they agree on >> this. That is the same in Belgium, except that the default is not used. Somost of the talk will go on in French, a language few Flemish players will state they do not speak. >> AG : or in some mix of the languages. But the recent incident I'm referring to wasn't caused by the players, nor by the TD, but by the organizer. > Well, it would be impossible (politically) to enforce a rule that two > Flemings would not be allowed to speak Flemish at a table when the > opponents state they do not know that language. I was once involved in > a hassle where the two francophones were actually French (giving them > a small excuse for not knowing Dutch - but having lived in Belgium for > decades) and I had to intervene, but I would not have made the others > switch off their Dutch. > > And you're telling that it works in Belgium like in any other country ?? In a 'normal' country, they would have been warned, then penalized. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 11:19:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:19:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Email from Alain In-Reply-To: <4875097E.108@aol.com> References: <4874C994.1000309@aol.com> <4874E4E2.5080600@skynet.be> <4875097E.108@aol.com> Message-ID: <4875D434.3070902@ulb.ac.be> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > I find it hard to believe that this can't be enforced in > Belgium. (If the language is flemish or swahili is irrelevant: it is a > fundamental rule (as far as I know) that no players with cards in their > hands employ a language the opponents don't understand. (Although I can > see the difficulty when two players maintain they don't understand > flemish (or any language) and you have a strong suspicion that they do.) > AG : don't forget to take into account that the language that it taught at school in Belgium is Dutch, not Ostend or Hasselt dialect. So that the latter claim will seldom be false. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 10 11:31:36 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:31:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? That won't do, jp. Since this pair cannot produce evidence that they are not playing this (apparently fairly common) agreement, we rule that they are playing it and that opponents have been misinformed. As to the adjustment, if any, I am not so firm. +=+ You want to say there is a CPU? Where is the evidence for that? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 11:34:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:34:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4875D78D.1090701@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Partner, having just flown from Canberra to Surfers > Paradise, arrives jet-lagged at the table for the > first board of the Asia Cup. > > >From previous partnership experience you know that > your pard averages one revoke per deal when jet- > lagged, so is more likely than usual to infract > Law 64B2 by revoking twice in the same suit. > > In accordance with Law 40A1 you pre-Alert pard's > re-vocation to the opponents. > > The opponents then bid to 7H in an uncontested > auction. You hold 5432 A 5432 5432, so elect to > double. > > Unlucky, you are declarer's RHO. > Unlucky, pard does not pick your double as anti- > Lightner, so fails to lead trumps. > > You then employ a safety play in the fourth > dimension by claiming at trick one. > > Question 1: Is your defensive claim legal? > AG : yes, you're always allowed to claim. But remember that a claim of 1 trick is also a concession of the other twelve, so that partner might occasionally be deprived of a probable trick. > Question 2: Is your defensive claim ethical? > > It has been said more than once that doing what's better for your side (like choosing the best option after an irregularity, or doubling weak opponents but not strong ones) is perfectly ethical, as it makes the contest more regular. What would other pairs in their side think of a score of 7H, making ? Also, shortening the deal could be right, if only to avoid players at other tables hearing your opponents' 5 minutes of discourteous comments to eachother while the deal unfolds. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 10 13:53:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:53:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > > > That won't do, jp. > Since this pair cannot produce evidence that they are not playing this > (apparently fairly common) agreement, we rule that they are playing it > and that opponents have been misinformed. > As to the adjustment, if any, I am not so firm. > > +=+ You want to say there is a CPU? No, and yes. What is the difference between this case and any other that is mentioned in the former footnote? "The Director is to assume MI rather than misbid". So no, this is not CPU, it is MI. And yes, every piece of MI _is_ a case of CPU. There is some idea floating that CPU is a worse case of MI. It is not. The laws do not deal with MI, they only deal with CPU. It is not the concealment itself which forms the "worse" crime, it is the intention of the players. What I'm trying to say is: when a player forgets to alert, he has made exactly the same error as when he deliberately omits an alert - the rectification will be the same. Only if we can believe the intent was to mislead, shall we give additional penalties. Some people seem to think that only this worse crime is called CPU. It is not. > Where is the evidence for that? Well, you have the burden of proof wrong there - it is up to the pair to provide evidence that they do _not_ play the convention that one player apparently believes they are. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 10 14:14:41 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:14:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> Message-ID: <4875FD31.8060508@NTLworld.com> [Willy Teigen] From club play yesterday. S Deals. -------KQT85 -------Q3 -------K73 -------KQ5 742 ........... J9 KJ975 ......... T62 - ............. JT8652 J9872 ......... A4 -------A63 -------A84 -------AQ94 -------T63 .W..N..E..S -- -- -- 1D _P 1S _P 1N _P 2D _P _P 2H 3H _P 3N 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership. However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he ?knows? his partner must have some cards. With the help of this bid NS reaches game. Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. How do you adjust? J [Nigel] A unanumous verdict is to be expected from BLMLers: The director should revert to 2H-1 by West. Ostensibly, from North's point of view, South has passed a conventional forcing bid. Manifestly, South has psyched a 1D opener with say S:x H:xxx D:AQxxxx C:xxx The 1N rebid was safe in the knowledge that North was likely to use X-Y, and then South could pass. The unauthorised information from South's failure to alert makes this obvious interpretation less likely; but North is not entitled to use it by bidding 3H when Pass is a logical alternative. If South's pass was a mechanical mistake, after all, the 2H bid would give South a chance to recover. The director should impose a PP on North. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 14:16:52 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:16:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4875FDB4.2040301@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > And yes, every piece of MI _is_ a case of CPU. > > There is some idea floating that CPU is a worse case of MI. It is not. > The laws do not deal with MI, they only deal with CPU. It is not the > concealment itself which forms the "worse" crime, it is the intention > of the players. > > AG : I don't understand yet. Do you pretend there is something like unintentionally concealing an understanding ? I can't buy this. Concealing is an intentional act, though not explaining could be unintentional. MI is the latter, CPU is the former. (compare with sseing vs looking, or hearing vs listening, and perhaps some Hindoustani-speaking blmlist could confirm that "concealing" uses the agentive construction) > What I'm trying to say is: when a player forgets to alert, he has made > exactly the same error as when he deliberately omits an alert - the > rectification will be the same. Only if we can believe the intent was > to mislead, shall we give additional penalties. And why would somebody deliberately omit to alert, if not to mislead ? Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jul 10 14:24:06 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:24:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> Message-ID: On 09/07/2008 18:13, "Willy Teigen" wrote: > > From club play yesterday. > > [hand snipped because West appeared to have about nineteen cards, making his > assertion that he knew East must have some a little dubious] > > N, S and W are all very experienced players. > Bidding: S W N E > 1D P 1S P > 1NT P 2D* P > P!! 2H 3H P > 3NT All pass > > 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but was > not discussed in this occasional partnership. > However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. > W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he ?knows? his partner > must have some cards. > With the help of this bid NS reaches game. > Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. > > How do you adjust? > > Don?t know. Is this 2D convention alertable in Norway? If so, North has UI > from South?s failure to alert it, and can?t bid 3H. He might bid 3D, because > he has decent support for a psyche with long diamonds, so one could adjust to > 3D by NS or 2H by EW ? no strong views as to which. > > David Burn > London, England -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080710/d39af241/attachment.htm From henk at ripe.net Thu Jul 10 14:34:52 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:34:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4875FD31.8060508@NTLworld.com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875FD31.8060508@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <487601EC.5070400@ripe.net> Guthrie wrote: > [Nigel] > A unanumous verdict is to be expected from BLMLers: I doubt that this will ever happen. Certaintly not in this case, where 2 or 3 people have already said that they won't adjust. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jul 10 14:46:28 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:46:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487601EC.5070400@ripe.net> Message-ID: On 10/07/2008 14:34, "Henk Uijterwaal" wrote: > Guthrie wrote: > >> [Nigel] >> A unanumous verdict is to be expected from BLMLers: > > I doubt that this will ever happen. Certaintly not in this case, where > 2 or 3 people have already said that they won't adjust. The two or three people who said that have (as usual) missed the point, which is that North has UI from South's failure to alert 2D. Instead they are blethering on about CPUs and MI and the like, because when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 15:03:20 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:03:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4875FD31.8060508@NTLworld.com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875FD31.8060508@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48760898.8010601@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nigel] > A unanumous verdict is to be expected from BLMLers: > The director should revert to 2H-1 by West. > Ostensibly, from North's point of view, South has passed a conventional > forcing bid. Manifestly, South has psyched a 1D opener with say > S:x H:xxx D:AQxxxx C:xxx > The 1N rebid was safe in the knowledge that North was likely to use X-Y, > and then South could pass. > That's rough, to say the least. Seen from North's side he most plausible explanation for South's not alerting, than passing, is that he didn't see 2D, or saw something else, for example a NF 3D. At least for most Souths. The second most plausible is that he forgot the system. The third most plausible is that North himself forgot the system. In all three cases, North has every right to bid again. Tackling MI (in cases 1 and 2) is another story. Seeing psyches everywhere and using this interpretation to penalize for the sake of penalizing is catastrophic. I even had a similar case at the EEC Championships in 1980. Partner passed my forcing 1S response. He was (and is) of the highest ethics, the son of a great TD. Also, he wouldn't have even thought of psyching. 1C X 1S p p 1S (NF) wasn't alertable. 1S (forcing) was. So I had UI. Or had I ? Forget about psyches. He had just heard 2S (NF and not alertable). Yes, heard. That's 1980, remember. Regars Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 10 15:16:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:16:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > On 10/07/2008 14:34, "Henk Uijterwaal" wrote: > > >> Guthrie wrote: >> >> >>> [Nigel] >>> A unanumous verdict is to be expected from BLMLers: >>> >> I doubt that this will ever happen. Certaintly not in this case, where >> 2 or 3 people have already said that they won't adjust. >> > > The two or three people who said that have (as usual) missed the point, > which is that North has UI from South's failure to alert 2D. But why on Earth do you deduce from this that South psyched ? Tackling the UI, compelling North to consider South has psyched is ridiculous, except with some uncommon Souths. The one thing he should consider is that partner didn't understand (or see) his bid. That's UI in the first case. But there ain't no LAs to making a forcing bid (3H) or a game bid (3NT). No other LA, whence no use of UI, whence no penalty. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 10 15:17:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:17:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <660E07F6-CF2E-470A-9390-6D24399023B5@starpower.net> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:43 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >> >> That won't do, jp. >> Since this pair cannot produce evidence that they are not playing >> this >> (apparently fairly common) agreement, we rule that they are >> playing it >> and that opponents have been misinformed. >> As to the adjustment, if any, I am not so firm. >> >> +=+ You want to say there is a CPU? > > No, and yes. > > What is the difference between this case and any other that is > mentioned in the former footnote? "The Director is to assume MI rather > than misbid". > So no, this is not CPU, it is MI. > > And yes, every piece of MI _is_ a case of CPU. > > There is some idea floating that CPU is a worse case of MI. It is not. > The laws do not deal with MI, they only deal with CPU. It is not the > concealment itself which forms the "worse" crime, it is the intention > of the players. > > What I'm trying to say is: when a player forgets to alert, he has made > exactly the same error as when he deliberately omits an alert - the > rectification will be the same. Only if we can believe the intent was > to mislead, shall we give additional penalties. Some people seem to > think that only this worse crime is called CPU. It is not. > >> Where is the evidence for that? > > Well, you have the burden of proof wrong there - it is up to the pair > to provide evidence that they do _not_ play the convention that one > player apparently believes they are. "CPU" is an abbreviation for "concealed partnership understanding". A partnership understanding -- or anything else -- cannot be "concealed" unless someone has done something to "conceal" it. AHD gives, "Conceal: To hide or keep from observation, discovery, or understanding; keep secret". So you cannot call something a CPU unless "it is the intention of the players". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 10 15:20:06 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:20:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> Herman De Wael .................. > And yes, every piece of MI _is_ a case of CPU. > > There is some idea floating that CPU is a worse case of MI. It is not. > The laws do not deal with MI, they only deal with CPU. It is not the > concealment itself which forms the "worse" crime, it is the intention > of the players. > > What I'm trying to say is: when a player forgets to alert, he has made > exactly the same error as when he deliberately omits an alert - the > rectification will be the same. Only if we can believe the intent was > to mislead, shall we give additional penalties. Some people seem to > think that only this worse crime is called CPU. It is not. Am I to understand that you do not distinguish between a deliberate action and an accidental action? Usually MI is accidental; a player has forgotten partnership understandings. CPU can never be accidental. By its nature it requires some sort of understanding common to both players and concealed from opponents, so any explanation not conforming with this understanding (MI) must be deliberate. It is completely irrelevant whether this MI is in the form of a forgotten alert or a deliberate failure to alert. But the difference in consequences are (or should be) dramatic. If only you had claimed that any case of CPU is also a case of MI I could have agreed with you, but then there hadn't been much point left in your post? Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 10 15:24:43 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:24:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48760898.8010601@ulb.ac.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875FD31.8060508@NTLworld.com> <48760898.8010601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48760D9B.20504@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] A unanumous verdict is to be expected from BLMLers: The director should revert to 2H-1 by West. Ostensibly, from North's point of view, South has passed a conventional forcing bid. Manifestly, South has psyched a 1D opener with say S:x H:xxx D:AQxxxx C:xxx The 1N rebid was safe in the knowledge that North was likely to use X-Y, and then South could pass. [Alain Gottcehiner] That's rough, to say the least. Seen from North's side he most plausible explanation for South's not alerting, than passing, is that he didn't see 2D, or saw something else, for example a NF 3D. At least for most Souths. The second most plausible is that he forgot the system. The third most plausible is that North himself forgot the system. In all three cases, North has every right to bid again. {SNIP] [Nigel] Of course, I realise that there has rarely been a unanimous verdict on BLML - I should have inserted a smiley :). The new laws with their emphasis of subjective equity judgements will ensure that there will be no agreement in the future, either. Alain's explanations for South's failure to alert 2D and pass are quite reasonable, but in those cases North is safe to pass: Opponent's 2H overcall will give South another shot, if he has made a mistake. Rather than the logical alternative of Pass, North chose a 3H cue-bid, which clarifies that 2D was, in fact, artificial and forcing. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Jul 10 15:43:06 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:43:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487611EA.4030804@meteo.fr> David Burn a ?crit : > On 09/07/2008 18:13, "Willy Teigen" wrote: > >> >> From club play yesterday. >> >> [hand snipped because West appeared to have about nineteen cards, making his >> assertion that he knew East must have some a little dubious] >> >> N, S and W are all very experienced players. >> Bidding: S W N E >> 1D P 1S P >> 1NT P 2D* P >> P!! 2H 3H P >> 3NT All pass >> >> 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but was >> not discussed in this occasional partnership. >> However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. >> W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he ?knows? his partner >> must have some cards. >> With the help of this bid NS reaches game. >> Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. >> >> How do you adjust? >> >> Don?t know. Is this 2D convention alertable in Norway? If so, North has UI >> from South?s failure to alert it, and can?t bid 3H. He might bid 3D, because >> he has decent support for a psyche with long diamonds, so one could adjust to >> 3D by NS or 2H by EW ? no strong views as to which. i thought fielding a psyche was a crime in UK. if south had psyched 1D and 1NT and north passed 2H, would you not be the one to require north to be hung? jpr >> >> David Burn >> London, England > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 10 17:36:48 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:36:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> Message-ID: <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Herman De Wael > .................. >> And yes, every piece of MI _is_ a case of CPU. >> >> There is some idea floating that CPU is a worse case of MI. It is not. >> The laws do not deal with MI, they only deal with CPU. It is not the >> concealment itself which forms the "worse" crime, it is the intention >> of the players. >> >> What I'm trying to say is: when a player forgets to alert, he has made >> exactly the same error as when he deliberately omits an alert - the >> rectification will be the same. Only if we can believe the intent was >> to mislead, shall we give additional penalties. Some people seem to >> think that only this worse crime is called CPU. It is not. > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Am I to understand that you do not distinguish between a deliberate action > and an accidental action? > > Usually MI is accidental; a player has forgotten partnership understandings. > > CPU can never be accidental. No Sven, There is a very bad crime we could be calling "deliberate hiding of agreements". We both agree that it is very bad. But it is not what the laws call CPU. CPU is every occurence of MI, whether accidental or not, and, as regulated by L40B4, opponents shall be compensated for damage occuring. > By its nature it requires some sort of > understanding common to both players and concealed from opponents, so any > explanation not conforming with this understanding (MI) must be deliberate. > It is completely irrelevant whether this MI is in the form of a forgotten > alert or a deliberate failure to alert. But the difference in consequences > are (or should be) dramatic. > > If only you had claimed that any case of CPU is also a case of MI I could > have agreed with you, but then there hadn't been much point left in your > post? > But that is exactly what I wrote! repeated: >> And yes, every piece of MI _is_ a case of CPU. > Sven > What prompted my reply was Grattan's assertion that when I ruled against the Norwegian who forgot his partner was not playing the particular convention he used, that this was a CPU. Yes, that is a CPU: a concealed partnership understanding. Now Grattan may have been meaning one of two things with his remark: -either Grattan meant CPU as I did, as a synonym for MI, in which case he was right; -or Grattan meant CPU as you do, as a worse crime entirely; then I don't see what he's saying - I don't need "deliberate concealment" in order to rule MI, do I? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jul 10 17:38:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:38:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <660E07F6-CF2E-470A-9390-6D24399023B5@starpower.net> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <660E07F6-CF2E-470A-9390-6D24399023B5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48762CEA.2040108@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> >>> Grattan Endicott>> >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:43 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >>> >>> That won't do, jp. >>> Since this pair cannot produce evidence that they are not playing >>> this >>> (apparently fairly common) agreement, we rule that they are >>> playing it >>> and that opponents have been misinformed. >>> As to the adjustment, if any, I am not so firm. >>> >>> +=+ You want to say there is a CPU? >> No, and yes. >> >> What is the difference between this case and any other that is >> mentioned in the former footnote? "The Director is to assume MI rather >> than misbid". >> So no, this is not CPU, it is MI. >> >> And yes, every piece of MI _is_ a case of CPU. >> >> There is some idea floating that CPU is a worse case of MI. It is not. >> The laws do not deal with MI, they only deal with CPU. It is not the >> concealment itself which forms the "worse" crime, it is the intention >> of the players. >> >> What I'm trying to say is: when a player forgets to alert, he has made >> exactly the same error as when he deliberately omits an alert - the >> rectification will be the same. Only if we can believe the intent was >> to mislead, shall we give additional penalties. Some people seem to >> think that only this worse crime is called CPU. It is not. >> >>> Where is the evidence for that? >> Well, you have the burden of proof wrong there - it is up to the pair >> to provide evidence that they do _not_ play the convention that one >> player apparently believes they are. > > "CPU" is an abbreviation for "concealed partnership understanding". > A partnership understanding -- or anything else -- cannot be > "concealed" unless someone has done something to "conceal" it. AHD > gives, "Conceal: To hide or keep from observation, discovery, or > understanding; keep secret". So you cannot call something a CPU > unless "it is the intention of the players". > > And please mention me where the laws make the distinction between deliberate and non-deliberate concealment? And please tell me where in my original ruling I spoke of deliberate? And please tell me why my ruling should be any different if it is not deliberate? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 10 20:24:01 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:24:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > > If only you had claimed that any case of CPU is also a case of MI I could > > have agreed with you, but then there hadn't been much point left in your > > post? > > > > But that is exactly what I wrote! > repeated: > > >> And yes, every piece of MI _is_ a case of CPU. "Every man is a human" is a true statement "Every human is a man" is not. "Every CPU is MI" is a true statement (I think) "Every MI is CPU" is definitely not. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 11 01:04:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:04:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>Where is the evidence for that? Herman De Wael: >Well, you have the burden of proof wrong there - it >is up to the pair to provide evidence that they do >_not_ play the convention that one player apparently >believes they are. Richard Hills: A player has a right to misbid. Law 40A3: A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1). Richard Hills: A player's right to misbid shall not be arbitrarily over-ruled by a Director demanding that that player "prove" a negative (due to that Director having a personal philosophy that it is more "truthful" to describe partner's cards than it is to describe the actual partnership non-agreement). Law 85A1: When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. Richard Hills: Note that "is able to collect" is non-synonymous with "prefers to collect". Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 11 02:52:52 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:52:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> [DALB] The two or three people who said that have (as usual) missed the point, which is that North has UI from South's failure to alert 2D. [AG] But why on Earth do you deduce from this that South psyched ? [DALB] Because that is an entirely possible explanation of South's actions consistent with what I believe to be our partnership agreement and disregarding any unauthorised information (as I am bound to do). If I had this sequence with Brian Callaghan, for example, I would know beyond any shadow of a doubt that he had psyched (and I would of course alert his pass to 2D and explain it as anti-systemic). [AG] But there ain't no LAs to making a forcing bid (3H) or a game bid (3NT). [DALB] Of course there are. Suppose that South had alerted 2D, explained it as artificial and forcing to game, and then passed it. Why would North bid 3H or 3NT, since his hand is nowhere near strong enough to insist on game facing a psyche? David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 11 05:21:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:21:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8e265$cd3e3700$67baa500$@no> Message-ID: The first board of the Asia Cup (jetlagged pard prone to revoke): >>The opponents then bid to 7H in an uncontested >>auction. You hold 5432 A 5432 5432, so elect to >>double. >> >>Unlucky, you are declarer's RHO. >>Unlucky, pard does not pick your double as anti- >>Lightner, so fails to lead trumps. >> >>You then employ a safety play in the fourth >>dimension by claiming at trick one. >> >>Question 1: Is your defensive claim legal? Sven Pran: >It sure is; why shouldn't it be? Richard Hills: >>Question 2: Is your defensive claim ethical? Sven Pran: >Why not? The second board of the Asia Cup (jetlagged pard prone to discard aces): >>After the opponents bid to 7H in an uncontested >>auction, pard makes a Lightner Double, so the >>opponents switch to 7NT, which pard also doubles. >>Pard's Lightner double of 7H was indeed based on >>a spade void, --- A 765432 765432. But pard was >>too jetlagged to notice that 7H would fail >>without the spade lead, while 7NT might make on >>the wrong lead. >> >>Expecting pard to hold the ace of spades for his >>double, you lead a spade. As soon as the ace of >>spades appears in dummy you realise your mistake >>and claim one off, with pard's ace of hearts as >>the eventual setting trick. >> >>If you had not claimed, your bleary eyed partner >>would have mistaken your spade lead for a heart >>lead, so "won" the first spade trick in 7NT with >>the ace of hearts, thus giving declarer 14 >>tricks instead of 12. >> >>Question 3: Is it legal for a defensive claim >>statement by one partner to include a play by >>the other partner? >> >>Question 4: Can a procedural penalty be applied >>to a defensive claim statement? >> >>Question 5: Does the legality of a defensive >>claim statement depend upon its motivation? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jul 11 06:35:42 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:35:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] deja vu all over again Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080711142850.01d964f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Today I had another double revoke. Declarer playing 4S X found that LHO was out on the second lead of trumps. Declarer played no more trumps and later LHO ruffed declarer's winning diamond. Declarer panicked somewhat on finding trumps 5:1 and went three off. Deep finesse finds a line for 1 off but not routine. I adjust to one off, essentially giving two tricks adjustment under revoke + L64C. However, if declarer were Deep Finesse I would have to adjust to contract making I presume? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 11 06:42:23 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 05:42:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4876E4AF.1070509@NTLworld.com> [richard.hills] Partner, having just flown from Canberra to Surfers Paradise, arrives jet-lagged at the table for the first board of the Asia Cup. From previous partnership experience you know that your pard averages one revoke per deal when jet- lagged, so is more likely than usual to infract Law 64B2 by revoking twice in the same suit. In accordance with Law 40A1 you pre-Alert pard's re-vocation to the opponents. The opponents then bid to 7H in an uncontested auction. You hold 5432 A 5432 5432, so elect to double. Unlucky, you are declarer's RHO. Unlucky, pard does not pick your double as anti- Lightner, so fails to lead trumps. You then employ a safety play in the fourth dimension by claiming at trick one. Question 1: Is your defensive claim legal? Question 2: Is your defensive claim ethical? After the opponents bid to 7H in an uncontested auction, pard makes a Lightner Double, so the opponents switch to 7NT, which pard also doubles. Pard's Lightner double of 7H was indeed based on a spade void, --- A 765432 765432. But pard was too jetlagged to notice that 7H would fail without the spade lead, while 7NT might make on the wrong lead. Expecting pard to hold the ace of spades for his double, you lead a spade. As soon as the ace of spades appears in dummy you realise your mistake and claim one off, with pard's ace of hearts as the eventual setting trick. If you had not claimed, your bleary eyed partner would have mistaken your spade lead for a heart lead, so "won" the first spade trick in 7NT with the ace of hearts, thus giving declarer 14 tricks instead of 12. Question 3: Is it legal for a defensive claim statement by one partner to include a play by the other partner? Question 4: Can a procedural penalty be applied to a defensive claim statement? Question 5: Does the legality of a defensive claim statement depend upon its motivation? [Nige1] Questions 1-3. Yes. You deserve a Bols Bridge Tip prize rather than an adverse ruling. Question 4, Yes. Question 5. Sometimes yes. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jul 11 07:46:35 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:46:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?deja_vu_all_over_again?= In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080711142850.01d964f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080711142850.01d964f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1KHBSl-1xM4Ce0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> > Today I had another double revoke. reading the rest, I can see no double revoke ... > Declarer playing 4S X found that LHO was out on the > second lead of trumps. Declarer played no more > trumps and later LHO ruffed declarer's winning diamond. That's (a) simple > Declarer panicked somewhat on finding trumps 5:1 and went > three off. ?Deep finesse finds a line for 1 off but not routine. > > I adjust to one off, essentially giving two tricks adjustment > under revoke + L64C. ?However, if declarer were Deep > Finesse I would have to adjust to contract making I > presume? hardly. It looks like one off or two off ... or some proportion of each. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jul 11 07:51:14 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:51:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] burden of proof, your ruling please Message-ID: <4876F4D2.5060107@aol.com> Hola blml! I agree with Herman and really don't see the reason this discussion has become so involved and so drawn out. But then I don't seem to have ever understood the internal dynamic of blml. As TD: you check the convention (or system) card of the pair. If they don't have one you assume misinformation; it is up to them (as Herman said) to prove the opposite. And, if there is misinfo there is a possibility to adjust (if there is damage). I don't think Herman mentioned it (but am sure he agrees) you would also check to see if the treatment is to be alerted at the venue involved (possible UI). It seems to me that this is the way things are done in the real world. Ahoy, JE From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 11 08:10:53 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:10:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4876F96D.5020801@NTLworld.com> Richard's claim problems remind me of a case at the Melville Bridge Club in Edinburgh, a long time ago The ending was something like this ... ......... North ......... S: Q West .... C: xx .... East S: AJT ............. S: K ......... South..... D: AK ......... C: xxx Spades are trumps with Dummy (North) on lead. As a defender (West) I made a defensive claim. Declarer insisted that she "play on". "Partner" brightly ruffed North's club lead with S:K. I dodged the uppercut by under-ruffing. That just postponed my fate. On the next trick "Partner"'s D:A inflicted a coup en passant. From henk at ripe.net Fri Jul 11 08:07:19 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:07:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> Message-ID: <4876F897.10609@ripe.net> David Burn wrote: > Because that is an entirely possible explanation of South's actions > consistent with what I believe to be our partnership agreement and > disregarding any unauthorised information (as I am bound to do). If I had > this sequence with Brian Callaghan, for example, I would know beyond any > shadow of a doubt that he had psyched (and I would of course alert his pass > to 2D and explain it as anti-systemic). It is a possible explanation but it is just too improbable to happen for my taste. A psyche in first hand is very infrequent, a psyche where somebody bids again is infrequent as well. The combination of the two is so unlikely that I cannot remember having seen it in the 30-odd years that I've been playing bridge. If something is that unlikely, I'm not going to use that against NS. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From AlLevy at aol.com Fri Jul 11 01:40:08 2008 From: AlLevy at aol.com (AlLevy at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:40:08 EDT Subject: [blml] ACBL and L27 Message-ID: It is interesting to note that the example given does not address that the replacement bid can be a different suit/NT/Dbl then the original bid. For example, 1C-1S-1H can be replaced by 1C-1S-Dbl Al Levy **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080710/44af03e1/attachment.htm From Gampas at aol.com Fri Jul 11 09:38:19 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:38:19 EDT Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? Message-ID: In a message dated 11/07/2008 07:51:25 GMT Standard Time, henk at ripe.net writes: It is a possible explanation but it is just too improbable to happen for my taste. A psyche in first hand is very infrequent, a psyche where somebody bids again is infrequent as well. The combination of the two is so unlikely that I cannot remember having seen it in the 30-odd years that I've been playing bridge. [paul lamford] You don't really need to assess South's motives in passing 2D. North had UI from South's presumed failure to alert, and he used it to conclude that South had either not seen his bid correctly or had forgotten the system. But I think that the correct decision is to go back to 2D, as without the first infraction, the presumed MI, West would not have balanced. Which brings an interesting question into play; when there is both UI and MI, does the TD adjust to what would have happened had there been neither, chronologically, or does he adjust to that which is more or most favourable for the non-offenders? There must be some case law on this. I was also surprised that there would be anyone who would not adjust. Grattan's comment "What infraction?" certainly took the biscuit. From henk at ripe.net Fri Jul 11 09:49:43 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:49:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48771097.3050705@ripe.net> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/07/2008 07:51:25 GMT Standard Time, henk at ripe.net > writes: > > It is a possible explanation but it is just too improbable to happen for > my taste. A psyche in first hand is very infrequent, a psyche where > somebody bids again is infrequent as well. The combination of the two is > so unlikely that I cannot remember having seen it in the 30-odd years that > I've been playing bridge. > > [paul lamford] You don't really need to assess South's motives in passing > 2D. North had UI from South's presumed failure to alert, and he used it to > conclude that South had either not seen his bid correctly or had forgotten the > system. But I think that the correct decision is to go back to 2D, as without > the first infraction, the presumed MI, West would not have balanced. I don't think that there is MI. The original poster said that NS had not discussed this sequence and thus no agreement that 2D would be conventional or forcing. North just thought that South would play 2D as forcing. > I was also surprised that there would be anyone who would not adjust. > Grattan's comment "What infraction?" certainly took the biscuit. I agree with Grattan, Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri Jul 11 09:44:27 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:44:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL and L27 References: Message-ID: <008301c8e329$f2cee9f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> Yes can be a double, conventional, or another suit, i made a complete revue of L27 for french TD annd get another example : instead of Double, witch MUST promise at least 4 cards in hearts, you can remove to 2C witch means : 5+ hearts 7-10HCP, a convention used in France more and more, does anybody knows it's name? In France, its "Rodrigue" (Le Cid - Corneille "Rodrigue as-tu du coeur") i have a complete but in french course on this, if you need ... Cheers, Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: AlLevy at aol.com To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 1:40 AM Subject: [blml] ACBL and L27 It is interesting to note that the example given does not address that the replacement bid can be a different suit/NT/Dbl then the original bid. For example, 1C-1S-1H can be replaced by 1C-1S-Dbl Al Levy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! __________ Information NOD32 3260 (20080710) __________ Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information NOD32 3260 (20080710) __________ Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080711/72a30747/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 11 10:04:36 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:04:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> Message-ID: <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. >>> If only you had claimed that any case of CPU is also a case of MI I > could >>> have agreed with you, but then there hadn't been much point left in your >>> post? >>> >> But that is exactly what I wrote! >> repeated: >> >> >> And yes, every piece of MI _is_ a case of CPU. > > "Every man is a human" is a true statement > "Every human is a man" is not. > > "Every CPU is MI" is a true statement (I think) > "Every MI is CPU" is definitely not. > Sven is of the opinion that CPU is a separate crime, the one of deliberate concealment. Sven is wrong. I urge Sven to read the lawbook (1997 edition) and come up with a reasoning why his interpretation is the right one. I urge Sven to read the new lawbook and find the words CPU in there. As an alternative, Sven may let it rest, since the question is moot under the 2007 laws. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Fri Jul 11 10:05:20 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:05:20 EDT Subject: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 11/07/2008 00:04:47 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities [paul lamford] In the example we were given, where 2D is commonly played in that area as an artificial game force, and the player had an artificial game force, and the player thought he was making an artificial game force, and the CC was silent on the matter, while the only dissenting opinion was the person who passed it, is that not the balance of probabilities? There was an example on IBLF where someone bid 3C over a natural 1C intending it as some sort of Super Michaels, even though the pair did play Michaels. His partner thought it asked for a club stop, and bid 3D, his longest suit. The hand opposite did not have any of those so bid his longer major, unsurprisingly. Here the balance of probabilities was that the 3C bidder had misbid, and that the belief that they had agree to play 3C as Super Michaels was a figment of his and only his imagination. The principle that TDs and ACs assume misexplanation rather than misbid seems to have been established, but only when the CC is silent on the issue, and the explanation is believed to be the most likely implied agreement in possibly irregular partnerships. That is exactly what they are supposed to do: use the balance of probabilities. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri Jul 11 11:06:23 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:06:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be><000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00c301c8e335$64af21b0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> and why not put everything face up and try to "rule"? N : 2D is GF S : not ... that's a # meaning don't know if it is a mistake by N (misbid, no ruling) or S (MI, ruling) So TD looks after that : N = commin meaning in this part of the world S = undiscussed, so not using the convention You have all conventions that you use without speaking with partner (says a 2H transfert to spades over a 1NT opening is a ~100% one) Of course, TD connot established that they use this convention, but either he cannot establish the opposite, so he can rule either way he wants because both options are possible/probable (?) NS is offending side, remember, even if you can't know who did wrong, Says you have a screen with WN on one side (that common tactic when ruling) and N explain : i have a game force, do you think W will balance if S passes? psychic is possible, but rarely in 1st, and when you do, you pass the response sometimes partner rebid some 6NT ... so S doesn't know the convention for sure! so the ruling, for me, is : 2D S making +1, losing 1H, 2D, 1C, making 2S, 2H, 4D, 1C that's 13 Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> .............. >>>> If only you had claimed that any case of CPU is also a case of MI I >> could >>>> have agreed with you, but then there hadn't been much point left in >>>> your >>>> post? >>>> >>> But that is exactly what I wrote! >>> repeated: >>> >>> >> And yes, every piece of MI _is_ a case of CPU. >> >> "Every man is a human" is a true statement >> "Every human is a man" is not. >> >> "Every CPU is MI" is a true statement (I think) >> "Every MI is CPU" is definitely not. >> > > Sven is of the opinion that CPU is a separate crime, the one of > deliberate concealment. > Sven is wrong. > I urge Sven to read the lawbook (1997 edition) and come up with a > reasoning why his interpretation is the right one. > I urge Sven to read the new lawbook and find the words CPU in there. > As an alternative, Sven may let it rest, since the question is moot > under the 2007 laws. > >> Sven >> > > -- > 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 > > > __________ Information NOD32 3260 (20080710) __________ > > Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. > http://www.nod32.com > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 11 11:30:38 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:30:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48760D9B.20504@NTLworld.com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875FD31.8060508@NTLworld.com> <48760898.8010601@ulb.ac.be> <48760D9B.20504@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4877283E.1010000@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > Alain's explanations for South's failure to alert 2D and pass are quite > reasonable, but in those cases North is safe to pass: Opponent's 2H > overcall will give South another shot, if he has made a mistake. Rather > than the logical alternative of Pass, North chose a 3H cue-bid, which > clarifies that 2D was, in fact, artificial and forcing. > > Put yourself in North's shoes. You made a forcing bid. Partner forgot to alert. That's UI to you. Partner passed. That's AI to you. Partner's nonalert "unmistakably suggests" that a wheel has gone off, but so does his pass. Those who pretend it "unmistakably suggests" that partner psyched are playing a stange game of bridge indeed, one in which psyches are more frequent than misunderstandings. Could it be one of those cases where AI = UI, so that you're allowed to use it and know you have to do something ? If partner had been asked an explanation, on paper (so there can't be UI), then passed, aren't you allowed to deduce from his pass that he's wrong, and act correspondingly ? Now imagine you realize from his pass that you made the wrong bid (AI). You have no added UI through the nonalert, which means you're not compelled to produce a ridiculous result by passing. Now there is the issue of MI. I'd have expected blmlists to focus on that part of the problem, which is interesting indeed. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 11 11:42:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:42:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> Message-ID: <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [DALB] > > The two or three people who said that have (as usual) missed the point, > which is that North has UI from South's failure to alert 2D. > > [AG] > > But why on Earth do you deduce from this that South psyched ? > > [DALB] > > Because that is an entirely possible explanation of South's actions > I'm sorry, but that doesn't suffice. UI must "unmistakably" or "incontrovertibly" suggest something. There are many possible explanations, and a psyche isn't the most plausible where I live, especially given the 1NT rebid. In my view, it is absurd to say South could have psyched, then rebid 1NT knowing he could pass 2D, for what would he have done over a semipositive relay 2C ? (think about it : if there are several explanations for the bidding, you aren't allowed to assume a psyche) > Suppose that South had alerted 2D, explained it as > artificial and forcing to game, and then passed it. Why would North bid 3H > or 3NT, since his hand is nowhere near strong enough to insist on game > facing a psyche? > Suppose that South had alerted 2D, not being asked, and passed. That's one common course of action. Notice that a very-constructive-but-not-forcing 2D is alertable in Belgium, as would be 1C-1S-1NT-2D (showing longer diamonds). Why would North pass, since his hand is still game-going facing a partner that misundersood his bid ? The UI is the non-alert. Not the fact that South didn't have to explain. Best regards Alain From torsten.astrand at telia.com Fri Jul 11 11:39:50 2008 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:39:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy Message-ID: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace holding A,Q,J. After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? Torsten -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080711/b3d69bc5/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 11 11:45:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:45:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] deja vu all over again In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080711142850.01d964f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080711142850.01d964f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <48772B9F.1010802@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > Today I had another double revoke. > Declarer playing 4S X found that LHO was out on the > second lead of trumps. Declarer played no more > trumps and later LHO ruffed declarer's winning diamond. > > Declarer panicked somewhat on finding trumps 5:1 and went > three off. Deep finesse finds a line for 1 off but not routine. > > I adjust to one off, essentially giving two tricks adjustment > under revoke + L64C. However, if declarer were Deep > Finesse I would have to adjust to contract making I > presume? > No. you have to adjust by one trick, or to declarer's expected favorable result, whichever is better to the NOS, but NOT both. Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jul 11 11:49:16 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:49:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Wrongly_sorted_cards_by_dummy?= In-Reply-To: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <1KHFFc-280Zg80@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Law 12 A1 From: Torsten ?strand > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of ?hearts. > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played ? > the ace holding A,Q,J. > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. ? > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I ?think. > Where in the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain > my ?ruling? ? Torsten From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri Jul 11 12:03:06 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:03:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <1KHFFc-280Zg80@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <00ed01c8e33d$517a2a10$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> L41D can do it, Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy Law 12 A1 From: Torsten ?strand > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played > the ace holding A,Q,J. > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. > Where in the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain > my ruling? Torsten _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information NOD32 3261 (20080711) __________ Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 11 12:53:16 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:53:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .................. > Sven is of the opinion that CPU is a separate crime, the one of > deliberate concealment. > Sven is wrong. > I urge Sven to read the lawbook (1997 edition) and come up with a > reasoning why his interpretation is the right one. > I urge Sven to read the new lawbook and find the words CPU in there. Herman is correct on one single point: "Concealed" partnership understanding no longer appears in the laws. The term has been replaced by "Undisclosed" partnership understanding. That change however, is not material. It is still a major difference between "misinformation" which can be (and most often is) accidental, and the use of "undisclosed partnership understanding" which most often is deliberate. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 11 13:33:51 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:33:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> Message-ID: <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> Sven, The word "concealed" carried an additional meaning of deliberate. The word "undisclosed" carries less of such a meaning, but still you read it in there. However, I don't find it in the new Laws. Enlighten me. And then: read the laws and tell me which one you use with unintended misexplanations. OK, so read L Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .................. >> Sven is of the opinion that CPU is a separate crime, the one of >> deliberate concealment. >> Sven is wrong. >> I urge Sven to read the lawbook (1997 edition) and come up with a >> reasoning why his interpretation is the right one. >> I urge Sven to read the new lawbook and find the words CPU in there. > > Herman is correct on one single point: "Concealed" partnership understanding > no longer appears in the laws. The term has been replaced by "Undisclosed" > partnership understanding. That change however, is not material. > > It is still a major difference between "misinformation" which can be (and > most often is) accidental, and the use of "undisclosed partnership > understanding" which most often is deliberate. > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 11 13:44:35 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:44:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] Suppose that South had alerted 2D, not being asked, and passed. That's one common course of action. Notice that a very-constructive-but-not-forcing 2D is alertable in Belgium, as would be 1C-1S-1NT-2D (showing longer diamonds). Why would North pass, since his hand is still game-going facing a partner that misundersood his bid The UI is the non-alert. Not the fact that South didn't have to explain. [Nige1] I agree with Alain that "not being asked" is the heart of our dispute. Your partnership hasn't discussed X-Y (the forcing version) but you are confident enough that it is your *implicit agreement* to bid 2D. Now, IMO, after your 2D bid you must pretend that partner: - Alerted 2D. - *Explained 2D as artificial and forcing* and then - Passed. Partner fails to alert so you know that he's singing from a different hymn-book. All agree that is unauthorised information. A likely explanation for that sequence of events is that partner has psyched. I agree it is barely possible that partner has simply pulled a wrong bidding-box card; but then he will be able to recover easily, when opponent's 2H is passed round to him. Hence, for you, pass is a logical alternative, not suggested by UI. You might even argue that it is your only logical alternative. As you well know, Alain, I'm not a director or legal guru so please explain the flaw in that reasoning. Are you arguing that you *don't* have to pretend that partner correctly alerted and explained what you thought was your agreement? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 11 14:10:24 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:10:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: Message-ID: <008901c8e352$bcb8f300$7ccf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > Grattan's comment "What infraction?" certainly > took the biscuit. > +=+ Yes. It was impetuous and needed some qualification. However, it remains to be determined that North did not have sufficient evidence that South had not psyched his opener. The rebid is abnormal and remarkably dangerous if he had. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 11 14:26:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:26:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <008a01c8e352$bd72f430$7ccf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [paul lamford] In the example we were given, where 2D is commonly played in that area as an artificial game force, and the player had an artificial game force, and the player thought he was making an artificial game force, and the CC was silent on the matter, while the only dissenting opinion was the person who passed it, is that not the balance of probabilities? > +=+ Reportedly the matter was undiscussed; the system card made no mention of it; the player made an artificial bid in these circumstances and the partner treated it as natural. The balance of probabilities is overwhelmingly in my opinion that there was no agreement and that an alert would have been an error. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 11 14:59:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:59:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .......... > However, I don't find it in the new Laws. Enlighten me. L40A3, L40C1 and indirectly in 40B4 and 40C3(b) Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 11 15:23:13 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:23:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] burden of proof, your ruling please In-Reply-To: <4876F4D2.5060107@aol.com> References: <4876F4D2.5060107@aol.com> Message-ID: <3646FC05-A004-4544-A8F8-25AFDF5DD4A7@starpower.net> On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:51 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola blml! I agree with Herman and really don't see the reason this > discussion has become so involved and so drawn out. But then I don't > seem to have ever understood the internal dynamic of blml. > As TD: you check the convention (or system) card of the pair. If they > don't have one you assume misinformation; it is up to them (as Herman > said) to prove the opposite. And, if there is misinfo there is a > possibility to adjust (if there is damage). I don't think Herman > mentioned it (but am sure he agrees) you would also check to see if > the > treatment is to be alerted at the venue involved (possible UI). It > seems to me that this is the way things are done in the real world. The reason for the vigorous dissent from Herman's views stems from the wording of L85A1: "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." So it is *not* "up to them (as Herman said) to prove the opposite"; it is up to them to supply evidence for it, which is a very different thing. Sometimes the only evidence they have is their unsupported word, which, as it is clearly self-serving, we are told by regulation to "discount", but not ignore. Even discounted, though, it is sufficient to constitute "the weight of the evidence" when measured against zero evidence for the MI. When a pair has a misunderstanding and claims to have misbid, and the director can find no evidence to suggest that they are not telling the truth, the BLML majority will accept their statement based on "the weight of the evidence", while Herman will reject it for lack of "proof". That's what we're debating here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 11 15:33:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:33:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom In-Reply-To: <4876F96D.5020801@NTLworld.com> References: <4876F96D.5020801@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Jul 11, 2008, at 2:10 AM, Guthrie wrote: > Richard's claim problems remind me of a case at the Melville > Bridge Club in Edinburgh, a long time ago > The ending was something like this ... > > ......... North > ......... S: Q > West .... C: xx .... East > S: AJT ............. S: K > ......... South..... D: AK > ......... C: xxx > > Spades are trumps with Dummy (North) on lead. As a defender (West) > I made a defensive claim. Declarer insisted that she "play on". > "Partner" brightly ruffed North's club lead with S:K. I dodged the > uppercut by under-ruffing. That just postponed my fate. On the next > trick "Partner"'s D:A inflicted a coup en passant. ...for, one assumes, in the same result as would have been the case if play had stopped at the claim and the director been called immediately. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 11 15:38:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:38:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBL and L27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89E4EFBB-4F98-4CBE-8D3C-4B18A05AFDB8@starpower.net> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:40 PM, AlLevy at aol.com wrote: > It is interesting to note that the example given does not address > that the replacement bid can be a different suit/NT/Dbl then the > original bid. For example, 1C-1S-1H can be replaced by 1C-1S-Dbl You mean "Ruling the Game" stuck to the most trivial examples and neglected to mention any of the complexities or difficulties involved? Is anyone surprised? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 11 16:54:34 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] burden of proof, your ruling please In-Reply-To: <3646FC05-A004-4544-A8F8-25AFDF5DD4A7@starpower.net> References: <4876F4D2.5060107@aol.com> <3646FC05-A004-4544-A8F8-25AFDF5DD4A7@starpower.net> Message-ID: The laws go out of their way, bend over backwards, to avoid self-serving unverifiable testimony. We don't ask someone if they knew at the time of their infraction if they might benefit from it. We don't allow a player to bid 4S without penalty because they say they were planning on bidding it even before their partner hesitated. We don't ask someone if they knew a trump was out when they claimed. The only exception I can think of right now is for inadvertent bids. Frankly, I am disgusted by all the times I have been lied to concerning this. My impression is that there are clubs where the accepted norm is to lie about this following an insufficient bid. But that's the consequence of allowing people to cheat. So, Easterson suggests a good policy -- look on their card for evidence of a misbid. I would not like to be a director or play bridge where people could just announce their conventional agreements after the fact. > On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:51 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Hola blml! I agree with Herman and really don't see the reason this >> discussion has become so involved and so drawn out. But then I don't >> seem to have ever understood the internal dynamic of blml. >> As TD: you check the convention (or system) card of the pair. If they >> don't have one you assume misinformation; it is up to them (as Herman >> said) to prove the opposite. And, if there is misinfo there is a >> possibility to adjust (if there is damage). I don't think Herman >> mentioned it (but am sure he agrees) you would also check to see if >> the >> treatment is to be alerted at the venue involved (possible UI). It >> seems to me that this is the way things are done in the real world. > > The reason for the vigorous dissent from Herman's views stems from > the wording of L85A1: "In determining the facts the Director shall > base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in > accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." > So it is *not* "up to them (as Herman said) to prove the opposite"; > it is up to them to supply evidence for it, which is a very different > thing. Sometimes the only evidence they have is their unsupported > word, which, as it is clearly self-serving, we are told by regulation > to "discount", but not ignore. Even discounted, though, it is > sufficient to constitute "the weight of the evidence" when measured > against zero evidence for the MI. > > When a pair has a misunderstanding and claims to have misbid, and the > director can find no evidence to suggest that they are not telling > the truth, the BLML majority will accept their statement based on > "the weight of the evidence", while Herman will reject it for lack of > "proof". That's what we're debating here. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 11 16:59:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:59:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> Message-ID: <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .......... >> However, I don't find it in the new Laws. Enlighten me. > > L40A3, L40C1 and indirectly in 40B4 and 40C3(b) > > Sven OK Sven, let's see: L40A3 "Undisclosed Partnership Understanding" Do you agree with me or not that this law concerns both deliberate and inadvertent omissions of disclosure? L40C1 "Undisclosed knowledge" Do you agree with me or not that this law concerns both deliberate and inadvertent omissions of disclosure? L40B4 "Failure to Provide disclosure" Do you agree with me or not that this law concerns both deliberate and inadvertent omissions of disclosure? L40C3(b) "repeated violations may be penalized" I think we agree that there are two possible levels of infractions: Misinformation (MI) and Deliberate Misinformation. (DMI) What I am saying is that DMI will be punished according to L73B2. This law does not provide for any rectification, but by calling it "the gravest possible infraction", it is clear that some extra punishment will be given according to other laws than L12. All other misinformation is simple MI, which is dealt with under L40. As such, I believe that UPU (the previous CPU) is synonimous with MI. This thread started with Grattan asking if I rule CPU. My answer was yes and no. If Grattan intended CPU as being DMI, my answer is of course no. If Grattan intended CPU as being MI, my answer is of course yes. I do not believe there are three categories of infringements. There is MI and DMI. MI is dealt with under L40, with a rectification under L12. DMI is dealt with under L73, with a rectification under L12 (via L40) and a procedural penalty under L90 or L91. If there is a third category in between these two, I would like Sven to tell me where he finds the difference in the laws, and what difference he sees in rectification/penalty with the two categories I name. Furthermore, I believe that UPU should be synonimous with MI, not with DMI, since UPU is mentioned in L40, which deals with MI, not with DMI. Lastly, I prefer the abbreviation MI to UPU, which to philatelists like me is the Universal Postal Union. And let's put the CPU (Central Processing Unit) back into our computers while we're at it - that is no longer in the laws. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 11 17:35:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:35:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48777DD4.2090704@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Sven, > > The word "concealed" carried an additional meaning of deliberate. > I'm sorry, Sir, I interrupt you on the grounds of Estoppel. Your former messages said just the contrary. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 11 18:03:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:03:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] burden of proof, your ruling please In-Reply-To: <3646FC05-A004-4544-A8F8-25AFDF5DD4A7@starpower.net> References: <4876F4D2.5060107@aol.com> <3646FC05-A004-4544-A8F8-25AFDF5DD4A7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4877846D.10000@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > The reason for the vigorous dissent from Herman's views stems from > the wording of L85A1: "In determining the facts the Director shall > base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in > accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." > So it is *not* "up to them (as Herman said) to prove the opposite"; > it is up to them to supply evidence for it, which is a very different > thing. Sometimes the only evidence they have is their unsupported > word, which, as it is clearly self-serving, we are told by regulation > to "discount", but not ignore. Even discounted, though, it is > sufficient to constitute "the weight of the evidence" when measured > against zero evidence for the MI. > > When a pair has a misunderstanding and claims to have misbid, and the > director can find no evidence to suggest that they are not telling > the truth, the BLML majority will accept their statement based on > "the weight of the evidence", while Herman will reject it for lack of > "proof". That's what we're debating here. > I'll disagree mildly. When the only evidence they have is their declaration, we have to assume MI. Isn't that written somewhere ? Assume there is no CC, or the sequence is too uncommon to be listed there. You'll need some other, stronger, evidence. Some have said that local bidding or carding customs can be, but that's a bit dangerous sometimes. There is exactly one pair, in our club, that play classical signalling (high = E). Other possibilities are : testimony of somebody who knows their system (I used this on two occasions, once as a TD, once as a potential OS) ; general knowledge of the players' style (some are very well known to play only penalty doubles, for example) ; and general verisimilitude (how probable is it that one would have dared to make that bid if there was some risk of a doubt ?). Best regards Alain From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jul 11 18:09:29 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:09:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] burden of proof, your ruling please In-Reply-To: <3646FC05-A004-4544-A8F8-25AFDF5DD4A7@starpower.net> References: <4876F4D2.5060107@aol.com> <3646FC05-A004-4544-A8F8-25AFDF5DD4A7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <487785B9.8050805@aol.com> Hola Eric! There may be a difference between standard operating procedure for TDs in the ACBL and Europe (where I usually direct -- although I am an ACBL member, directed ACBL games for years and have a few of the ACBL TD certificates). Standard procedure for us in such situations is: after listening to the players we check the conv./system card. Also system notes if available. If we can find nothing (other than the previous self-serving statements of the involved players which we discount (but don't totally ignore) and there is nothing more, no evidence either way, we are instructed in such cases to decide misinfo. The players are obliged to convince the TD that there is a more probable alternative. I have encountered this and thus decided that it wasn't misinfo in, (rough estimate) about 5 cases in 40 years of directing. That is something like 0.05% of the time. (That is probably an exaggeration, but surely not more than 20 times and less than 1% of the cases.) I agree with the balance of probability clause and am aware of it but have very rarely encountered a case in which the balance of probability was that there was not misinfo. The most frequent situation (90% of the cases) is that there is no balance of probability (in the sense that there is no evidence either way). Then, for us, it is misinfo. Ahoy, JE Eric Landau schrieb: > On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:51 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Hola blml! I agree with Herman and really don't see the reason this >> discussion has become so involved and so drawn out. But then I don't >> seem to have ever understood the internal dynamic of blml. >> As TD: you check the convention (or system) card of the pair. If they >> don't have one you assume misinformation; it is up to them (as Herman >> said) to prove the opposite. And, if there is misinfo there is a >> possibility to adjust (if there is damage). I don't think Herman >> mentioned it (but am sure he agrees) you would also check to see if >> the >> treatment is to be alerted at the venue involved (possible UI). It >> seems to me that this is the way things are done in the real world. > > The reason for the vigorous dissent from Herman's views stems from > the wording of L85A1: "In determining the facts the Director shall > base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in > accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." > So it is *not* "up to them (as Herman said) to prove the opposite"; > it is up to them to supply evidence for it, which is a very different > thing. Sometimes the only evidence they have is their unsupported > word, which, as it is clearly self-serving, we are told by regulation > to "discount", but not ignore. Even discounted, though, it is > sufficient to constitute "the weight of the evidence" when measured > against zero evidence for the MI. > > When a pair has a misunderstanding and claims to have misbid, and the > director can find no evidence to suggest that they are not telling > the truth, the BLML majority will accept their statement based on > "the weight of the evidence", while Herman will reject it for lack of > "proof". That's what we're debating here. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 11 18:12:33 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:12:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > I think we agree that there are two possible levels of infractions: > Misinformation (MI) and Deliberate Misinformation. (DMI) > > What I am saying is that DMI will be punished according to L73B2. This > law does not provide for any rectification, but by calling it "the > gravest possible infraction", it is clear that some extra punishment > will be given according to other laws than L12. > > All other misinformation is simple MI, which is dealt with under L40. > As such, I believe that UPU (the previous CPU) is synonimous with MI. UPU is NOT synonymous with MI; it cannot possibly be because we can have MI that is not also UPU. The simplest form of such MI is when a player has forgotten a partnership agreement and gives an incorrect disclosure. The fact is that UPU is always also MI, but MI is not necessarily also UPU. In mathematical terms: UPU is a subset of MI. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 11 18:32:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:32:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> Message-ID: <48778B1E.4000706@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > UPU is NOT synonymous with MI; it cannot possibly be because we can have MI > that is not also UPU. The simplest form of such MI is when a player has > forgotten a partnership agreement and gives an incorrect disclosure. > > AG : and another is when you explain a specific agreement, when in fact there is none. that's MI, but you could hardly have an undisclosed agreement that you don't have any, could you ? > The fact is that UPU is always also MI, but MI is not necessarily also UPU. > In mathematical terms: UPU is a subset of MI. > > AG : it's my bitter experience that making the right difference, in common life situations, between one-sided implication, other-sided implication, and equivalency (two-sided implication) is very difficult. Remember our problems about L25 ? Best regards Alain From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 19:11:44 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:11:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008a01c8e352$bd72f430$7ccf403e@Mildred> References: <008a01c8e352$bd72f430$7ccf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0807111011k58f50c11y867d9d4d302ba0d4@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:26 AM, wrote: > +=+ Reportedly the matter was undiscussed; the system card > made no mention of it; the player made an artificial bid in these > circumstances and the partner treated it as natural. The balance > of probabilities is overwhelmingly in my opinion that there was > no agreement and that an alert would have been an error. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Overwhelmingly? What if the convention card is incompletely filled out, or if the pair have already played some agreements not on the card that should have been? Also, is your statement intended to apply specifically to the case under study, or is it intended as a general guide to director procedure? Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 11 19:20:37 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:20:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> Message-ID: <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> I think we agree that there are two possible levels of infractions: >> Misinformation (MI) and Deliberate Misinformation. (DMI) >> >> What I am saying is that DMI will be punished according to L73B2. This >> law does not provide for any rectification, but by calling it "the >> gravest possible infraction", it is clear that some extra punishment >> will be given according to other laws than L12. >> >> All other misinformation is simple MI, which is dealt with under L40. >> As such, I believe that UPU (the previous CPU) is synonimous with MI. > > UPU is NOT synonymous with MI; it cannot possibly be because we can have MI > that is not also UPU. The simplest form of such MI is when a player has > forgotten a partnership agreement and gives an incorrect disclosure. > > The fact is that UPU is always also MI, but MI is not necessarily also UPU. > In mathematical terms: UPU is a subset of MI. > Well Sven, then please tell me: what is the ruling in (your interpretation of) UPU? what is the ruling in (your interpretation of) MI? If you fail to find a difference in ruling, then tell me why you need a difference in wording? If you do find a difference in ruling, then tell me if you have considered my case for there being something called DMI - and is your UPU equal to my DMI or not? And if you do manage to believe that there is something between MI and DMI, then please describe clearly to me the three different laws that regulate your three different cases. Barring that, please accept that UPU and MI are one and the same thing. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jul 11 19:22:37 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:22:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48777DD4.2090704@ulb.ac.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <48777DD4.2090704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <487796DD.3080605@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Sven, >> >> The word "concealed" carried an additional meaning of deliberate. >> > I'm sorry, Sir, I interrupt you on the grounds of Estoppel. > > Your former messages said just the contrary. No they did not. I said that CPU did not carry the additional meaning of deliberate. I agree with Sven that the word "concealed" may make you believe that suche an additional meaning is implied. Sadly, the word concealed appeared in the heading, not in the text, and the text did not carry any implication of deliberateness. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 11 19:47:29 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:47:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................... > > UPU is NOT synonymous with MI; it cannot possibly be because we can have MI > > that is not also UPU. The simplest form of such MI is when a player has > > forgotten a partnership agreement and gives an incorrect disclosure. > > > > The fact is that UPU is always also MI, but MI is not necessarily also UPU. > > In mathematical terms: UPU is a subset of MI. > > > > Well Sven, then please tell me: > > what is the ruling in (your interpretation of) MI? Rectification if NOS is damaged > what is the ruling in (your interpretation of) UPU? Rectification if NOS is damaged, and PP > > If you fail to find a difference in ruling, then tell me why you need > a difference in wording? > If you do find a difference in ruling, then tell me if you have > considered my case for there being something called DMI - and is your > UPU equal to my DMI or not? I can hardly imagine UPU that is not deliberate. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 11 20:12:04 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:12:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487796DD.3080605@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <48777DD4.2090704@ulb.ac.be> <487796DD.3080605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c8e381$a1402100$e3c06300$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> Sven, > >> > >> The word "concealed" carried an additional meaning of deliberate. > >> > > I'm sorry, Sir, I interrupt you on the grounds of Estoppel. > > > > Your former messages said just the contrary. > > No they did not. > I said that CPU did not carry the additional meaning of deliberate. You are of course aware that the word "concealed" is a verb and as such implies a deliberate activity or deliberate omission of a compulsory activity? > I agree with Sven that the word "concealed" may make you believe that > suche an additional meaning is implied. Sadly, the word concealed > appeared in the heading, not in the text, and the text did not carry > any implication of deliberateness. NO? 1997 L40B: Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." If this is not a description of the deliberate failure to disclose agreements, also known as "Concealed Partnership Understandings", and establishes that the use of such undisclosed (concealed) understandings is illegal I don't know what it is. For simplicity we have used the heading as synonym for the text in L40B for at least twenty years with no problem. I just don't understand what you want to accomplish with your crusade against Law 40, but then I really don't think that I care. Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 12 01:00:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be><000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c8e3b2$f8671c50$35cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott>> I think we agree that there are two possible levels of infractions: >>> Misinformation (MI) and Deliberate Misinformation. (DMI) >>> >>> What I am saying is that DMI will be punished according to >>> L73B2. < +=+ I am having difficulty understanding what is being said here. Law 73B2 is concerned with prearranged methods of communication between partners. Misinformation, whether inadvertently or knowingly given, is incorrect information conveyed to opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 12 02:01:32 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:01:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <48777DD4.2090704@ulb.ac.be><487796DD.3080605@skynet.be> <000b01c8e381$a1402100$e3c06300$@no> Message-ID: <000301c8e3b2$f9615ad0$35cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott I agree with Sven that the word "concealed" may make you > believe that such an additional meaning is implied. Sadly, the > word concealed appeared in the heading, not in the text, and > the text did not carry any implication of deliberateness. << +=+ Well that is as may be, but 'undisclosed' is concerned only with a question of fact - the matter is disclosed or it is not disclosed, without regard to intent. Of course, to be 'undisclosed' a partnership understanding must first exist. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 11 17:50:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:50:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be> <487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > I agree with Alain that "not being asked" is the heart of our dispute. > > Your partnership hasn't discussed X-Y (the forcing version) but you are > confident enough that it is your *implicit agreement* to bid 2D. > > Now, IMO, after your 2D bid you must pretend that partner: > - Alerted 2D. > - *Explained 2D as artificial and forcing* and then > - Passed. > > Partner fails to alert so you know that he's singing from a different > hymn-book. All agree that is unauthorised information. > > A likely explanation for that sequence of events is that partner has > psyched. I agree it is barely possible that partner has simply pulled a > wrong bidding-box card; but then he will be able to recover easily, when > opponent's 2H is passed round to him. > > Hence, for you, pass is a logical alternative, not suggested by UI. You > might even argue that it is your only logical alternative. > > As you well know, Alain, I'm not a director or legal guru so please > explain the flaw in that reasoning. > > Are you arguing that you *don't* have to pretend that partner correctly > alerted and explained what you thought was your agreement? > > Not at all. I'm arguing that : 1) UI that we're not on the same wavelength is obvious. 2) pretending partner has psyched and rebid, or that he pulled the wrong card and didn't realize, means we're invoking something very, very unusual. In fact, there is no 'alternate possibility' that we have to consider. 3) UI available from the non-alert (partner misunderstood our bid) matches AI from his pass in a forcing (for us) sequence. We should act according to the rational explanation for his pass, but there isn't any except that he misunderstood (whoever is right about the system), if you agree to limit yourself to plausible events. And it has been said before on blml that, *when all UI is also AI, there are no restrictions*. But of course MI considerations still have to be tackled. 2D+1 it is for me, unless they can prove they don't play the gadget.And may I add that, when some well-known gadget that will occur frequently isn't present on their CC, then it might be assumed their agreement is something else. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080711/e84135cb/attachment-0001.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 12 00:31:05 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:31:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <000101c8e3b2$f70171d0$35cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <002a01c8e3c4$b6727a30$0901a8c0@JOHN> 2D just made (give or take trick which will make NO differene to the score). West would have passed if he'd known that 2D was forcing, and in the absence of proof otherwise we assume that to be the case. Not difficult. John ----- Original Message ----- From: Willy Teigen To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:21 PM Subject: [blml] Bidding From club play yesterday. -------KQT85 -------Q3 -------K73 -------KQ5 742 J9 KJ975 T62 JT8652 J9872 A4 -------A63 -------A84 -------AQ94 -------T63 N, S and W are all very experienced players. Bidding: S W N E 1D P 1S P 1NT P 2D* P P!! 2H 3H P 3NT All pass 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership. However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" his partner must have some cards. With the help of this bid NS reaches game. Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. How do you adjust? J _________________________ Regards, Willy Teigen Toppen 1 8515 Narvik Norway Mail: will-t at online.no _________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20080712/c9443833/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 12 11:33:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:33:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> Message-ID: <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................... >>> UPU is NOT synonymous with MI; it cannot possibly be because we can have > MI >>> that is not also UPU. The simplest form of such MI is when a player has >>> forgotten a partnership agreement and gives an incorrect disclosure. >>> >>> The fact is that UPU is always also MI, but MI is not necessarily also > UPU. >>> In mathematical terms: UPU is a subset of MI. >>> >> Well Sven, then please tell me: >> >> what is the ruling in (your interpretation of) MI? > > Rectification if NOS is damaged > >> what is the ruling in (your interpretation of) UPU? > > Rectification if NOS is damaged, and PP > >> If you fail to find a difference in ruling, then tell me why you need >> a difference in wording? >> If you do find a difference in ruling, then tell me if you have >> considered my case for there being something called DMI - and is your >> UPU equal to my DMI or not? > > I can hardly imagine UPU that is not deliberate. > OK Sven, we have managed to agree on something: there are two distinct crimes, not three. I call those crimes MI and DMI. You call those crimes MI and UPU. So far, so good. No problem, just a name. Now please read L40A3 again. Do we need that law in order to rule against MI? I believe yes. Then read L73B2 again. Is this the law dealing with the harsher crime of DMI/UPU? I believe yes. So why would you use a word that the laws employ for MI to describe DMI? Or let me put it another way - do you agree that MI and DMI are appropriate names for these two crimes? And don't you also see that UPU is an inappropriate name for the harsher crime? The words are used in the law that describes the smaller crime but not in the law that describes the harsher one? Do you not then agree that it is misleading to use the name UPU for the harsher crime? So let's either drop the name altogether, or use it in its L40 meaning, which is synonimous to MI. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 12 11:38:56 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:38:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000b01c8e381$a1402100$e3c06300$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <48777DD4.2090704@ulb.ac.be> <487796DD.3080605@skynet.be> <000b01c8e381$a1402100$e3c06300$@no> Message-ID: <48787BB0.2030306@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > You are of course aware that the word "concealed" is a verb and as such > implies a deliberate activity or deliberate omission of a compulsory > activity? > No, the word concealed is an adjective. Or at least a form of a verb used in an adjectival form. (I forget the correct grammatical term) As such, it describes a state. The information is not available to the others. How it got there is not important. The choice of word was unlucky - concealed has a connotiation of active concealment, which (IMO) is unintended. But do remark that: a) the word was only used in the title - and is not therefore part of the laws; b) the law it titled makes no reference whatsoever to any deliberate act of concealment, only of the resulting non-information to opponents; c) the word has been changed in the 2007 laws into undisclosed, which also implies some action, that of non-discolsure, but which can be intended or inadvertent. So this argument is both FAR too late and totally useless. Let's drop the subject. >> I agree with Sven that the word "concealed" may make you believe that >> suche an additional meaning is implied. Sadly, the word concealed >> appeared in the heading, not in the text, and the text did not carry >> any implication of deliberateness. > > NO? > > 1997 L40B: Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited > > "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership > understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to > understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or > play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." > > If this is not a description of the deliberate failure to disclose > agreements, also known as "Concealed Partnership Understandings", and > establishes that the use of such undisclosed (concealed) understandings is > illegal I don't know what it is. For simplicity we have used the heading as > synonym for the text in L40B for at least twenty years with no problem. > > I just don't understand what you want to accomplish with your crusade > against Law 40, but then I really don't think that I care. > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 12 12:44:46 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:44:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com> <4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> But of course MI considerations still have to be tackled. 2D+1 it is for me, unless they can prove they don't play the gadget. >> +=+ Are we to understand that the Director may make the assumption that they play this convention when there is not a single piece of evidence that the partnership has any agreement whatsoever as to the meaning of the bid? What is the principle? My thought is that when a player has one belief and his partner another the Director must look for other evidence than their conflicting beliefs. If he finds no evidence of an agreement in what circumstances can he find that there is one? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Sat Jul 12 13:19:21 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:19:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be> <001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: There you go again, Grattan........ interjecting sanity into a thread! Seems a lot to me like many TDs welcome opportunities to be active "players" when something happens at the table and they are given the chance to show their astute and comprehensive ability to project what they think should have happened over the reality of what did happened. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:50 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > >> > But of course MI considerations still have to be tackled. > 2D+1 it is for me, unless they can prove they don't play > the gadget. > >> > +=+ Are we to understand that the Director may make > the assumption that they play this convention when there > is not a single piece of evidence that the partnership has > any agreement whatsoever as to the meaning of the bid? > What is the principle? > My thought is that when a player has one belief > and his partner another the Director must look for other > evidence than their conflicting beliefs. If he finds no > evidence of an agreement in what circumstances can he > find that there is one? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 12 13:28:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:28:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c8e412$730dd610$59298230$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > So let's either drop the name altogether, or use it in its L40 > meaning, which is synonimous to MI. Let me repeat: "I just don't understand what you want to accomplish with your crusade against Law 40, but then I really don't think that I care." (And I see no problem with L40) Sven From daniel.amiguet at urbanet.ch Sat Jul 12 13:42:24 2008 From: daniel.amiguet at urbanet.ch (Daniel AMIGUET) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:42:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Minima for a takeout In-Reply-To: <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <487898A0.6020007@urbanet.ch> Does exists a rule for the minima of a takeout (HCP or distribution)? From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 12 13:49:08 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:49:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com> <4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be> <001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <48789A34.8030101@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: Alain Gottcheiner > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:50 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > But of course MI considerations still have to be tackled. > 2D+1 it is for me, unless they can prove they don't play > the gadget. > +=+ Are we to understand that the Director may make > the assumption that they play this convention when there > is not a single piece of evidence that the partnership has > any agreement whatsoever as to the meaning of the bid? > What is the principle? > My thought is that when a player has one belief > and his partner another the Director must look for other > evidence than their conflicting beliefs. If he finds no > evidence of an agreement in what circumstances can he > find that there is one? In the fact that one of them thought there was this agreement? If one player believes he is playing a certain convention, and the other one does not believe so - that is 50/50. I believe that is more than enough primary evidence to be able to rule "the director is to assume misexplanation rather than misbid in the absence of other evidence". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jul 12 14:04:20 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:04:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <001201c8e412$730dd610$59298230$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> <001201c8e412$730dd610$59298230$@no> Message-ID: <48789DC4.8060609@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> So let's either drop the name altogether, or use it in its L40 >> meaning, which is synonimous to MI. > > Let me repeat: > > "I just don't understand what you want to accomplish with your crusade > against Law 40, but then I really don't think that I care." > > (And I see no problem with L40) > I have no crusade, I believe we have exactly the same idea about these laws. My only problem is you who insists on calling crime B (which we both recognise) by a name that is defined by the laws as crime A. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 12 15:46:48 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:46:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48789DC4.8060609@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> <001201c8e412$730dd610$59298230$@no> <48789DC4.8060609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c8e425$bb6cc610$32465230$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ...................... > > Let me repeat: > > > > "I just don't understand what you want to accomplish with your crusade > > against Law 40, but then I really don't think that I care." > > > > (And I see no problem with L40) > > > > I have no crusade, I believe we have exactly the same idea about these > laws. > My only problem is you who insists on calling crime B (which we both > recognise) by a name that is defined by the laws as crime A. All I am saying (and have described) is that there is a major difference between using an undisclosed (or concealed) partnership understanding and giving misinformation. By their nature the former is most often deliberate while the latter is usually accidental. If you still cannot see the difference then I think that will have to be your problem (only). Sven From Gampas at aol.com Sat Jul 12 15:55:50 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:55:50 EDT Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? Message-ID: In a message dated 12/07/2008 11:46:36 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: My thought is that when a player has one belief and his partner another the Director must look for other evidence than their conflicting beliefs. If he finds no evidence of an agreement in what circumstances can he find that there is one? [paul lamford]. In all circumstances when he fails to find evidence to the contrary, he must apply 25B1(b): (b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Note that it uses the expression "absence of evidence", so where the TD can find no evidence to corroborate either view, he is to presume Mistaken Explanation. The form "is to" surely mandates the TD to act in this way. In the example quoted there was no evidence to the contrary on the convention card. There was no evidence to the contrary in the standard methods in the area. There was no evidence to the contrary in the the hand of the person making the bid. There was no evidence to the contrary, period. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Jul 12 16:26:58 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:26:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000001c8e425$bb6cc610$32465230$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> <001201c8e412$730dd610$59298230$@no> <48789DC4.8060609@skynet.be> <000001c8e425$bb6cc610$32465230$@no> Message-ID: <000301c8e42b$5897f720$09c7e560$@com> [SP] All I am saying (and have described) is that there is a major difference between using an undisclosed (or concealed) partnership understanding and giving misinformation. [DALB] Not necessarily. If you deliberately misinform your opponents, you are concealing your partnership understandings. Of course, if you accidentally misinform your opponents, you are also concealing your partnership understandings. The difference is that if you do the former, you are deliberately making use of a concealed understanding, whereas if you do the latter, you are not. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 12 18:44:13 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:44:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000301c8e42b$5897f720$09c7e560$@com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> <001201c8e412$730dd610$59298230$@no> <48789DC4.8060609@skynet.be> <000001c8e425$bb6cc610$32465230$@no> <000301c8e42b$5897f720$09c7e560$@com> Message-ID: <000101c8e43e$8406c2c0$8c144840$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn > [SP] > > All I am saying (and have described) is that there is a major difference > between using an undisclosed (or concealed) partnership understanding and > giving misinformation. > > [DALB] > > Not necessarily. If you deliberately misinform your opponents, you are > concealing your partnership understandings. Of course, if you accidentally > misinform your opponents, you are also concealing your partnership > understandings. The difference is that if you do the former, you are > deliberately making use of a concealed understanding, whereas if you do the > latter, you are not. That is precisely why I wrote the words "using" (UPU) and "giving" (MI). Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Jul 12 21:37:53 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:37:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701c8e456$c74705a0$55d510e0$@com> [paul lamford]. In all circumstances when he fails to find evidence to the contrary, he must apply 25B1(b): (b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Note that it uses the expression "absence of evidence", so where the TD can find no evidence to corroborate either view, he is to presume Mistaken Explanation. The form "is to" surely mandates the TD to act in this way. In the example quoted there was no evidence to the contrary on the convention card. There was no evidence to the contrary in the standard methods in the area. There was no evidence to the contrary in the the hand of the person making the bid. There was no evidence to the contrary, period. [DALB] The difficulty with this is that innocent players might on occasion be required to prove a negative, which is more or less impossible. Suppose I had sat down in a tournament in Norway, opened 1D, heard 1S, rebid 1NT and heard 2D. Now, I might guess that partner intended this as X-Y, because I have some experience of Norwegian methods, but I would not know whether my partner expected me to know that it was X-Y (because he knows that I have some experience of Norwegian methods) or whether he expected me to pass (because he knows that we did not discuss X-Y before we began play, and thus expects me to know that we are not playing it). If it transpired that North intended the call as X-Y, is the Director to assume that I have misexplained it when I fail to alert it? Or is the notion that I should alert it and, if asked, say that I do not know what it means, but... Will it count as "evidence" if I say "if my partner wanted me to play X-Y he should have discussed it with me before we started; since he didn't, we are not playing it, and his call was a mistake"? David Burn London, England From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 12 23:12:41 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:12:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? Message-ID: <48791E49.8040503@nhcc.net> As in all such cases, the MI part of the ruling comes down to "What was the true agreement?" That's in general a difficult question to answer, but many pieces of evidence should be available. The question is what weight to give each type of evidence, and it's not surprising that there is disagreement on this question. Nevertheless, the fact that North chose the 2D bid, expecting (or at least hoping) it would be understood, has to count for something. Other issues: From: "Sven Pran" > Usually MI is accidental; a player has forgotten partnership understandings. > > CPU can never be accidental. As Herman has pointed out, that last is not so at all, but this is a disagreement over semantics and not substance. I suggest we abolish all use of "CPU" and "UPU" and use only the terms "Misinformation" (MI) and "Intentional Misinformation" (which probably should be written intentional MI, not IMI, because it will be rare). > UPU is NOT synonymous with MI; it cannot possibly be because we can have MI > that is not also UPU. Which fallacy is this: "assuming the conclusion" or "begging the question?" > 1997 L40B: Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited > > "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership > understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to > understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or > play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." What in the above text, other than "concealed" in the heading, makes you think the infraction has to be deliberate? For example, suppose the "filed in advance" system card gets lost in the mail. Wouldn't the above text apply? Anyway, the new laws remove all doubt. > From: Gampas at aol.com > ... when there is both UI and MI, does the > TD adjust to what would have happened had there been neither, > chronologically, or does he adjust to that which is more or most favourable for the > non-offenders? There must be some case law on this. In my opinion, there _should_ be written law on this, but there isn't. Nor do I know of case law. I think the right procedure in the ACBL is to give the NOS the best and OS the worst score under L12C1e (2007). If weighted scores are allowed, I don't know what one would do, but it seems undesirable to give a better score for two infractions than for a single one. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 13 00:11:22 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48791E49.8040503@nhcc.net> References: <48791E49.8040503@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000201c8e46c$3826ffe0$a874ffa0$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner ................ > > UPU is NOT synonymous with MI; it cannot possibly be because we can have MI > > that is not also UPU. > > Which fallacy is this: "assuming the conclusion" or "begging the question?" UPU requires the existence of a partnership understanding that has been kept secret for opponents. MI is simply incorrect information whether or not there is any partnership understanding. If the two partners have different understanding of a particular situation the result will easily be MI but hardly any use of UPU. Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 13 01:16:50 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:16:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: Message-ID: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > In a message dated 12/07/2008 11:46:36 GMT Standard Time, > gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: > My thought is that when a player has one belief and his partner another the Director must look for other evidence than their conflicting beliefs. If he finds no evidence of an agreement in what circumstances can he find that there is one? > [paul lamford]. In all circumstances when he fails to find evidence to the contrary, he must apply 25B1(b): > (b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > Note that it uses the expression "absence of evidence", so where the TD can find no evidence to corroborate either view, he is to presume Mistaken Explanation. The form "is to" surely mandates the TD to act in this way. In the example quoted there was no evidence to the contrary on the convention card. There was no evidence to the contrary in the standard methods in the area. There was no evidence to the contrary in the hand of the person making the bid. There was no evidence to the contrary, period. > +=+ Ah, thank you. Let us now go back to the beginning. I quote: "2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership." This, according to the record we are given, was the evidence obtained. It supports a view that there was no agreement, no partnership understanding to disclose. North has made a call without prior announcement that, as a simple matter of fact on this evidence, was not based on a partnership understanding. The next question, of course, then becomes whether North is allowed to become aware from partner's pass that such is the case. The information used by North derives from a call ('pass') in the legal auction; it may be used if the information derived from it is - Law16A1(a) - "unaffected by unauthorized information from another source". Well, did the UI from the lack of an alert affect - change - in some way the information derived from the pass? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 13 01:38:31 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:38:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:16:50 -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: > To: > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 2:55 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > >> In a message dated 12/07/2008 11:46:36 GMT Standard Time, >> gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: >> > My thought is that when a player has one belief > and his partner another the Director must look for other > evidence than their conflicting beliefs. If he finds no > evidence of an agreement in what circumstances can he > find that there is one? >> > [paul lamford]. In all circumstances when he fails to find evidence to > the > contrary, he must apply 25B1(b): >> > (b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken > Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. >> > Note that it uses the expression "absence of evidence", so where the > TD can find no evidence to corroborate either view, he is to presume > Mistaken Explanation. The form "is to" surely mandates the TD to > act in this way. In the example quoted there was no evidence to the > contrary on the convention card. There was no evidence to the > contrary in the standard methods in the area. There was no evidence > to the contrary in the hand of the person making the bid. There > was no evidence to the contrary, period. >> > +=+ Ah, thank you. Let us now go back to the beginning. I quote: > "2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as > X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership." > This, according to the record we are given, was the evidence > obtained. It supports a view that there was no agreement, no > partnership understanding to disclose. North has made a call > without prior announcement that, as a simple matter of fact on > this evidence, was not based on a partnership understanding. > The next question, of course, then becomes whether North is > allowed to become aware from partner's pass that such is the > case. > The information used by North derives from a call ('pass') in > the legal auction; it may be used if the information derived from > it is - Law16A1(a) - "unaffected by unauthorized information > from another source". Well, did the UI from the lack of an alert > affect - change - in some way the information derived from the > pass? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I need more information. We know that if the 2D call had been alerted as forcing and then was passed, that would be taken as a psych. We know that if the situation was nonalertable, then the pass of 2D would be taken as evidence of partnership misunderstanding of the meaning of the 2D bid. So what do I compare the lack of alert to? Is the lack of alert to be compared to an alert or to silence? I have never heard an answer to this, sorry. I think this is the same question -- suppose South alerts the 2D and then passes. Then North assumes South has psyched. Is that fielding the psych by using unauthorized information? Bob From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jul 13 03:15:55 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:15:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4879574B.50401@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] The information used by North derives from a call ('pass') in the legal auction; it may be used if the information derived from it is - Law16A1(a) - "unaffected by unauthorized information from another source". Well, did the UI from the lack of an alert affect - change - in some way the information derived from the pass? [Nige1] Why did South pass? I agree with Grattan that there are many likely explanations. For example ... [A] South thinks 2D is natural rather than X-Y. [B] South pulled the wrong bidding-card from the box. [C] South misread the auction (e.g North's 2D as 2S). [D] South psyched 1D (1N rebid safe because of X-Y agreement). The lack of an alert is unauthorised information that indicates [A] and suggests that North urgently make a forcing bid to wake partner up. The authorised information from the pass is consistent with other explanations, in which cases, Pass is a logical alternative. Notice that in cases [B] and [C] there is no need for North to bid because RHO's 2H bid has given partner a chance to recover. There are at least 3 plausible positions germane to tnis controversy: (1) There was no agreement (or the agreement was *2D Natural*): in which case North was in receipt of UI (as above) (2) The actual agreement was "2D X-Y" (and, arguably, if there is no evidence either way, then that is what the TD is to assume); in which case, South should have alerted it. So West was misinformed. (3) There was no agreement: North's 2D was an aberration (or a deliberate random bid just to confuse the issue); and South believed it to be natural. In which case, table result stands. The laws seems to leave the decision between these three options to the judgement of the director and his relationship with the players. Had the law-committee adopted some of the many suggestions to drastically simplify disclosure law, then there would be no such cases. One last thought: more and more frequently, when asked about a call like 2D, opponents answer "undiscussed" or "no agreement". You may well have devised defences to "2D Natural" and "2D Transfer" and "2D Kickback" and "2D X-Y" but it is hard to defend against "2D no agreement". It is especially annoying when, as usual, opponents, miraculously guess right and your special defence would have been the perfect counter :) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 07:31:04 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:31:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Minima for a takeout In-Reply-To: <487898A0.6020007@urbanet.ch> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> <487898A0.6020007@urbanet.ch> Message-ID: 2008/7/12 Daniel AMIGUET : > Does exists a rule for the minima of a takeout (HCP or distribution)? > No. But you have to disclose your agreements on this. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 13 12:06:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:06:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000001c8e425$bb6cc610$32465230$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> <000a01c8e37e$3196ccd0$94c46670$@no> <48787A7D.90509@skynet.be> <001201c8e412$730dd610$59298230$@no> <48789DC4.8060609@skynet.be> <000001c8e425$bb6cc610$32465230$@no> Message-ID: <4879D3A9.4020508@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ...................... >>> Let me repeat: >>> >>> "I just don't understand what you want to accomplish with your crusade >>> against Law 40, but then I really don't think that I care." >>> >>> (And I see no problem with L40) >>> >> I have no crusade, I believe we have exactly the same idea about these >> laws. >> My only problem is you who insists on calling crime B (which we both >> recognise) by a name that is defined by the laws as crime A. > > All I am saying (and have described) is that there is a major difference > between using an undisclosed (or concealed) partnership understanding and > giving misinformation. By their nature the former is most often deliberate > while the latter is usually accidental. > Yes Sven, and all _I_ am saying is that this major difference is translated into two crimes, one of which is called MI and the other of which needs a different name. That different name _cannot_ be UPU, since the words UPU are used in the laws to descrive the first of the two crimes. > If you still cannot see the difference then I think that will have to be > your problem (only). > And if you still cannot understand what I am saying that will have to be your problem (only). > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 13 12:12:12 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:12:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000701c8e456$c74705a0$55d510e0$@com> References: <000701c8e456$c74705a0$55d510e0$@com> Message-ID: <4879D4FC.10703@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [paul lamford]. In all circumstances when he fails to find evidence to the > contrary, he must apply 25B1(b): > > (b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken > Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > > Note that it uses the expression "absence of evidence", so where the TD can > find no evidence to corroborate either view, he is to presume Mistaken > Explanation. The form "is to" surely mandates the TD to act in this way. In > the example quoted there was no evidence to the contrary on the convention > card. There was no evidence to the contrary in the standard methods in the > area. There was no evidence to the contrary in the the hand of the person > making the bid. There was no evidence to the contrary, period. > > [DALB] > > The difficulty with this is that innocent players might on occasion be > required to prove a negative, which is more or less impossible. > > Suppose I had sat down in a tournament in Norway, opened 1D, heard 1S, rebid > 1NT and heard 2D. Now, I might guess that partner intended this as X-Y, > because I have some experience of Norwegian methods, but I would not know > whether my partner expected me to know that it was X-Y (because he knows > that I have some experience of Norwegian methods) or whether he expected me > to pass (because he knows that we did not discuss X-Y before we began play, > and thus expects me to know that we are not playing it). > > If it transpired that North intended the call as X-Y, is the Director to > assume that I have misexplained it when I fail to alert it? Or is the notion > that I should alert it and, if asked, say that I do not know what it means, > but... Will it count as "evidence" if I say "if my partner wanted me to play > X-Y he should have discussed it with me before we started; since he didn't, > we are not playing it, and his call was a mistake"? > David, I understand your dilemma. But turn it around. Suppose you _do_ end up making the right decision, would you then not expect to have explained to your opponents what the bid meant? Why should it then be any different if you do _not_ end up on the same page? Whatever he was thinking, he was hoping you would get it right. Even that hope is the basis of some "understanding" and should be exlained to opponents. After all, whether you get it right or not, you cannot provide evidence that you _have not_ had a small discussion about the whole thing, three years ago on-line, have you? And if you really hadn't, would you expect a TD to trust you because you are trustworthy, while he should not trust the lying cheating bastard at the next table, of course? > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 13 12:15:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:15:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ Ah, thank you. Let us now go back to the beginning. I quote: > "2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as > X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership." > This, according to the record we are given, was the evidence > obtained. No Grattan, that was not the evidence obtained. That is what we are told, and it is what the players told the Director. The Director who asked for our advice has not been able to find any evidence (other than their saying so) that the bid was not discussed. Anyway, something need not be discussed for it to be an agreement. When we sit opposite one another, I will gladly assume that your 2Cl over my 2NT is (some form of) Stayman, and I will not hide behind "undiscussed" when explaining it to opponents. > It supports a view that there was no agreement, no > partnership understanding to disclose. North has made a call > without prior announcement that, as a simple matter of fact on > this evidence, was not based on a partnership understanding. > The next question, of course, then becomes whether North is > allowed to become aware from partner's pass that such is the > case. > The information used by North derives from a call ('pass') in > the legal auction; it may be used if the information derived from > it is - Law16A1(a) - "unaffected by unauthorized information > from another source". Well, did the UI from the lack of an alert > affect - change - in some way the information derived from the > pass? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 13 12:20:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:20:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000201c8e46c$3826ffe0$a874ffa0$@no> References: <48791E49.8040503@nhcc.net> <000201c8e46c$3826ffe0$a874ffa0$@no> Message-ID: <4879D6DA.5070703@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > ................ >>> UPU is NOT synonymous with MI; it cannot possibly be because we can have > MI >>> that is not also UPU. >> Which fallacy is this: "assuming the conclusion" or "begging the > question?" > > UPU requires the existence of a partnership understanding that has been kept > secret for opponents. > > MI is simply incorrect information whether or not there is any partnership > understanding. If the two partners have different understanding of a > particular situation the result will easily be MI but hardly any use of UPU. > Yes Sven, but please change the words UPU in your sentence to DMI (or IMI - as Steve proposes). Then I have absolutely no problem with your view. The words UPU are used in the laws in a place where intent plays no role whatsoever. So your sentence above makes no sense. Replace UPU by L40A3 and you see what I mean. Try again: see where MI is defined: it's L40A3. Then see where the words UPU are used: it's L40A3. Ergo, UPU=MI, and you need some othere abbreviation to indicate the stronger crime, such as DMI or IMI. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From schoderb at msn.com Sun Jul 13 14:00:35 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:00:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan, why do you spend the mental energy and time to try to educate those who will forever refuse education? See today's postings for a new set of givens. (I.e. 2 Diamonds was alerted, should have been alerted,etc.) which change the facts to fit ridiculous presumptions about the original "facts". DeWael goes on ad naseum with drivel to support his concept of what our game is, manufacturing "facts" to suit his inanity. I WAS WRONG - I LEARNED SOMETHING - or THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION are foreign to self-styled experts. They OWN the holy grail. Once a position is selected it becomes imperative to move heaven and earth to support it..... no matter how silly. If there ever was an "Exercise in Obfuscation" then BLML is a shoe-in to win the grand prize! My hope is that our game will continue to prosper, enjoy, remain relevant, and be a source of pleasure despite those who would make it otherwise. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 2:55 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > > > In a message dated 12/07/2008 11:46:36 GMT Standard Time, > > gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: > > > My thought is that when a player has one belief > and his partner another the Director must look for other > evidence than their conflicting beliefs. If he finds no > evidence of an agreement in what circumstances can he > find that there is one? > > > [paul lamford]. In all circumstances when he fails to find evidence to > the > contrary, he must apply 25B1(b): > > > (b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken > Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > > > Note that it uses the expression "absence of evidence", so where the > TD can find no evidence to corroborate either view, he is to presume > Mistaken Explanation. The form "is to" surely mandates the TD to > act in this way. In the example quoted there was no evidence to the > contrary on the convention card. There was no evidence to the > contrary in the standard methods in the area. There was no evidence > to the contrary in the hand of the person making the bid. There > was no evidence to the contrary, period. > > > +=+ Ah, thank you. Let us now go back to the beginning. I quote: > "2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as > X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership." > This, according to the record we are given, was the evidence > obtained. It supports a view that there was no agreement, no > partnership understanding to disclose. North has made a call > without prior announcement that, as a simple matter of fact on > this evidence, was not based on a partnership understanding. > The next question, of course, then becomes whether North is > allowed to become aware from partner's pass that such is the > case. > The information used by North derives from a call ('pass') in > the legal auction; it may be used if the information derived from > it is - Law16A1(a) - "unaffected by unauthorized information > from another source". Well, did the UI from the lack of an alert > affect - change - in some way the information derived from the > pass? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 13 14:59:48 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:59:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4879FC44.1080801@skynet.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > I WAS WRONG - I LEARNED SOMETHING - or THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION are I have been known to utter phrases like this. Kojak, you have read my posts and Sven's. They have opposite views. Rather than continue to rant about the content of blml, you might educate either or both of us by telling us who you believe is right. Maybe then, some sanity might return. Just ranting on about other posts without contributing seems to me to merely add to the amount of drivel. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 13 15:01:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:01:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4879FCC3.3070600@skynet.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > DeWael goes on ad naseum with > drivel to support his concept of what our game is, manufacturing "facts" to > suit his inanity. > Do we really want posts like this? Even from the great and good of the game? Why does Kojak single me out for manufacturing facts? Did Grattan not read different facts than I did - why am I the one who is wrong? I appreciate Kojak's input, but he too might polish up his posts with the occasional "IMO". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From schoderb at msn.com Sun Jul 13 15:06:47 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:06:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879FC44.1080801@skynet.be> Message-ID: DeWael, Re-read what Grattan has told us, and you might understand. For those who do get and contribute something of value on BLML, my apologies for the ranting -- I just got tired of the amount of times something has to be repeated to make sense. I was forgetting that "threads" invariably digress into areas that have nothing to do with the original facts. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > > I WAS WRONG - I LEARNED SOMETHING - or THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION are > > I have been known to utter phrases like this. > > Kojak, you have read my posts and Sven's. They have opposite views. > > Rather than continue to rant about the content of blml, you might > educate either or both of us by telling us who you believe is right. > Maybe then, some sanity might return. > Just ranting on about other posts without contributing seems to me to > merely add to the amount of drivel. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 13 15:10:22 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:10:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> +=+ Ah, thank you. Let us now go back to the beginning. >> I quote: >> "2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as >> X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership." >> This, according to the record we are given, was the evidence >> obtained. > > No Grattan, that was not the evidence obtained. That is what > we are told, and it is what the players told the Director. The > Director who asked for our advice has not been able to find > any evidence (other than their saying so) that the bid was not discussed. << +=+ Herman is in inventive mode. He makes an assumption. This information was included as part of the data and it says nothing about who said what. The Director may well have relevant knowledge. We can assume that the fact is included with the data given us as being relevant - the statement is not qualified and it fits with what else we know. But if he finds nothing to contradict it that in any case constitutes the weight of the evidence the Director is able to collect. I have left open the real decision in this case which has to do with whether the unauthorized information from the non-alert has affected, has made a difference to, the information from the pass within the meaning of 2007 Law 16A1(a). This I consider to be an intriguing question of bridge judgement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 13 17:21:12 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:21:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be> <000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487A1D68.9040003@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:15 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > >> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >>> +=+ Ah, thank you. Let us now go back to the beginning. >>> I quote: >>> "2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as >>> X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership." >>> This, according to the record we are given, was the evidence >>> obtained. >> No Grattan, that was not the evidence obtained. That is what >> we are told, and it is what the players told the Director. The >> Director who asked for our advice has not been able to find >> any evidence (other than their saying so) that the bid was not > discussed. > << > +=+ Herman is in inventive mode. He makes an assumption. Yes he is. Yes he does, and so do you. > This information was included as part of the data and it > says nothing about who said what. Of course, and as a reader, I believe it to be true. Even as director, I might believe it to be true. But the original poster did not put it down as fact, or else his ruling would have been simple and he did not need to ask for our advice. > The Director may well have > relevant knowledge. He may have, but if he does, he did not tell us. So I prefer to believe he does not have such knowledge. As said, the ruling is trivial then. > We can assume that the fact is included > with the data given us as being relevant - the statement is not > qualified and it fits with what else we know. But if he finds > nothing to contradict it that in any case constitutes the weight of > the evidence the Director is able to collect. Well, you may assume one thing, I have assumed another. You should not criticise me for doing so. > I have left open the real decision in this case which has to > do with whether the unauthorized information from the non-alert > has affected, has made a difference to, the information from the > pass within the meaning of 2007 Law 16A1(a). This I consider > to be an intriguing question of bridge judgement. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Neither did I. You may note that I have said nothing on this isssue altogether. I only reacted to the very short answer (from someone in France, IIRC) that since there was no agreement, there was no MI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 13 20:05:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:05:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <000701c8e456$c74705a0$55d510e0$@com> <4879D4FC.10703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c8e513$72cdac00$bdc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >> David, I understand your dilemma. But turn it around. Suppose you _do_ end up making the right decision, would you then not expect to have explained to your opponents what the bid meant? Why should it then be any different if you do _not_ end up on the same page? Whatever he was thinking, he was hoping you would get it right. Even that hope is the basis of some "understanding" and should be exlained to opponents. After all, whether you get it right or not, you cannot provide evidence that you _have not_ had a small discussion about the whole thing, three years ago on-line, have you? And if you really hadn't, would you expect a TD to trust you because you are trustworthy, while he should not trust the lying cheating bastard at the next table, of course? > +=+ Herman finds for David Burn a "dilemma" he does not know he possesses. David has given an intelligent exposition of the factors that require us to accept that such evidence as there is points clearly to the simple fact that the pair has no partnership understanding on this matter. North's bid is not a misbid. That would require there to be a partnership understanding with which his call is in conflict. South is not required to alert because there is no partnership understanding to disclose. Neither of these players has committed any infraction to this point. We are in Law 40A3 territory. The only question that requires a Director's ruling is whether North has a good case to argue that his subsequent action is based on authorized information. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 13 21:04:10 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:04:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be><000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> <487A1D68.9040003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c8e51b$3e1b18a0$bdc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >> >> >>> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> +=+ Herman is in inventive mode. He makes an assumption. > > Yes he is. Yes he does, and so do you. > +=+ I think all I have done is to recall that even when evidence comes from the players the Director is entitled to believe it - and this is especially so when it fits with all else he knows. Looking at the North and South hands here he will see that neither player is psychic and it is entirely credible, given the way each has bid, that a partnership understanding is undiscussed and absent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jul 13 21:57:16 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:57:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bids (from Al Levy) In-Reply-To: <001301c8e51b$3e1b18a0$bdc8403e@Mildred> References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be> <000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> <487A1D68.9040003@skynet.be> <001301c8e51b$3e1b18a0$bdc8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Al Levy (from the ACBL board of directors) asked me to post this. -------------------------------------------- I have uncovered an overlooked interesting twist on Law 27. Insufficient bids will now be accepted! Law 27 - Insufficient Bid The new law allows the insufficient bidder to change his call to a call whose meaning is the same or more precise than the insufficient bid. So in the auction: 1D-1S-1H, 1H can be replaced with either Dbl or 2H (or in France, 1D-1S-2C showing 5+ hearts, 7-10 hcp). Now take the corrected auction 1D-1S-Dbl/2H-2S/3S/4S. Opener now knows partner's hand more precisely than if the insufficient bid was accepted. So, at least in cases where the partner of overcaller intends to raise partner's suit, the insufficient bid should almost always be accepted. There will be many more examples of the benefit of accepting an insufficient bid under the new law 27. OK...who will write the first article on "When to accept an insufficient bid." Under the old Law 27, there was no provision for responder to describe his hand more precisely, as the corrected bid (without barring partner) was limited to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination. Further, if the bid was corrected, opener didn't know when partner was "stretching" in correcting his bid, and if the bid wasn't corrected, opener was barred. So, under the old 27A accepting the insufficient bid was almost never to your advantage. BTW...The fly in the ointment is intentionally allowing insufficient bids to be accepted. If that is removed, then bridge can once again take place. As in the card play, if a card of a different suit is played, and the player noticed that he could have followed suit, the opponents don't have the option to accept the wrong card thus establishing a revoke. Al Levy From matthias.schueller at gmx.de Sun Jul 13 23:00:02 2008 From: matthias.schueller at gmx.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_Sch=FCller?=) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:00:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL and L27 In-Reply-To: <008301c8e329$f2cee9f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> References: <008301c8e329$f2cee9f0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <487A6CD2.3060200@gmx.de> olivier.beauvillain schrieb: > Yes can be a double, conventional, or another suit, > i made a complete revue of L27 for french TD annd get another example : > instead of Double, witch MUST promise at least 4 cards in hearts, you can remove to 2C witch means : 5+ hearts 7-10HCP, a convention used in France more and more, > does anybody knows it's name? > In France, its "Rodrigue" (Le Cid - Corneille "Rodrigue as-tu du coeur") > i have a complete but in french course on this, if you need ... > Cheers, > Olivix > ----- Original Message ----- > From: AlLevy at aol.com > To: blml at amsterdamned.org > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 1:40 AM > Subject: [blml] ACBL and L27 > > > It is interesting to note that the example given does not address that the replacement bid can be a different suit/NT/Dbl then the original bid. For example, 1C-1S-1H can be replaced by 1C-1S-Dbl > > Al Levy Interestingly, even these often-used examples for L27B1b seem to be incorrect. 86432, AQ95, J3, K6 will make the replacement call of double (guaranteeing four hearts), but would not have bid 1H. 86432, AQ952, 6, K3 might well make the replacement call of 2C (showing five hearts), but would not have bid 1H either. The longer I think about it, I believe that there will be hardly any L27B1b corrections if we apply the law strictly (and why shouldn't we?) except in coded auctions like responses to Blackwood. Matthias From john at asimere.com Mon Jul 14 00:34:08 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:34:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be> <001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002701c8e538$90d13c60$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:50 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >>> > But of course MI considerations still have to be tackled. > 2D+1 it is for me, unless they can prove they don't play > the gadget. >>> > +=+ Are we to understand that the Director may make > the assumption that they play this convention when there > is not a single piece of evidence that the partnership has > any agreement whatsoever as to the meaning of the bid? > What is the principle? > My thought is that when a player has one belief > and his partner another the Director must look for other > evidence than their conflicting beliefs. If he finds no > evidence of an agreement in what circumstances can he > find that there is one? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan, is there any difference between this case and ghestem abuse? I don't see any, yet we routinely assume the worst case scenario for ghestem abusers. Is it not the same here? john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 00:45:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:45:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000201c8e513$72cdac00$bdc8403e@Mildred> References: <000701c8e456$c74705a0$55d510e0$@com> <4879D4FC.10703@skynet.be> <000201c8e513$72cdac00$bdc8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487A8577.3090502@skynet.be> There is one thing here that is simply too wrong to bear belief: gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > North's bid is not a misbid. That would require there to be a partnership > understanding with which his call is in conflict. North has bid 2Di without anything in diamonds. To suggest that this is not a bid that means "majors" (or whatever) is beyond belief. IF South does not alert this, he explains it as "diamonds". To suggest that this is anything else than either a misbid or a misexplanation is -IMO- ludicrous. Grattan has gone to great pains to transform the footnote into the full L75. It contains three sections: a general explanation A, and sections B and C, titled "mistaken explanation" and "mistaken call". If Grattan suggests that in this Norwegian case a call can be "not a misbid" and yet not rule misinformation, then I am greatly awaiting the section D that tells the Director what to do. > South is not required to > alert because there is no partnership understanding to disclose. Neither > of these players has committed any infraction to this point. We are in > Law 40A3 territory. The only question that requires a Director's ruling > is whether North has a good case to argue that his subsequent action is > based on authorized information. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 00:51:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:51:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <001301c8e51b$3e1b18a0$bdc8403e@Mildred> References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be><000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> <487A1D68.9040003@skynet.be> <001301c8e51b$3e1b18a0$bdc8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487A86DF.5070006@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:21 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > >>> >>>> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >>> +=+ Herman is in inventive mode. He makes an > assumption. >> Yes he is. Yes he does, and so do you. >> > +=+ I think all I have done is to recall that even when > evidence comes from the players the Director is entitled > to believe it - and this is especially so when it fits with all > else he knows. No Grattan, what you have done is told the whole of blml that my ruling is ridiculous. I don't like that. We may disagree, but if you do not intersperse your posts with you customary "personal opinion, not the opinion of the WBF", then you make it seem as if my views are heretic. YOU are the one who is inventing fact here. YOU are the one who is believing one single player over all the other evidence. You have the right to do so, but you should state that this is your personal opinion about this case. You do not do that, but rather speak as if the laws are unambiguous and my ruling is completely wrong. This is far too common an occurence for you to speak so unambiguous over. I believe you have done blml a disservice here. > Looking at the North and South hands here he will > see that neither player is psychic and it is entirely credible, > given the way each has bid, that a partnership understanding > is undiscussed and absent. Credible, maybe. Certain, I am not. Ruling on the balance of evidence, I should not be able to, not having gotten the evidence first-hand. But neither should you be able to do so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jul 14 01:29:02 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:29:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be><000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> <487A1D68.9040003@skynet.be><001301c8e51b$3e1b18a0$bdc8403e@Mildred> <487A86DF.5070006@skynet.be> Message-ID: And so who is clogging up the BLML with opinions and comments not ad rem? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 6:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott > [following address discontinued: > > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > ************************* > > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > > [English proverb ] > > "************************* > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:21 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > > > > >>> > >>>> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >>> +=+ Herman is in inventive mode. He makes an > > assumption. > >> Yes he is. Yes he does, and so do you. > >> > > +=+ I think all I have done is to recall that even when > > evidence comes from the players the Director is entitled > > to believe it - and this is especially so when it fits with all > > else he knows. > > No Grattan, what you have done is told the whole of blml that my > ruling is ridiculous. I don't like that. We may disagree, but if you > do not intersperse your posts with you customary "personal opinion, > not the opinion of the WBF", then you make it seem as if my views are > heretic. > > YOU are the one who is inventing fact here. YOU are the one who is > believing one single player over all the other evidence. You have the > right to do so, but you should state that this is your personal > opinion about this case. You do not do that, but rather speak as if > the laws are unambiguous and my ruling is completely wrong. This is > far too common an occurence for you to speak so unambiguous over. > > I believe you have done blml a disservice here. > > > Looking at the North and South hands here he will > > see that neither player is psychic and it is entirely credible, > > given the way each has bid, that a partnership understanding > > is undiscussed and absent. > > Credible, maybe. > Certain, I am not. > Ruling on the balance of evidence, I should not be able to, not having > gotten the evidence first-hand. > But neither should you be able to do so. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 14 02:49:04 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:49:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be><001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> <002701c8e538$90d13c60$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <003901c8e54d$7ef09e40$2cd4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >>>> > > Grattan, is there any difference between this case > and ghestem abuse? I don't see any, yet we routinely > assume the worst case scenario for ghestem abusers. > Is it not the same here? john >> +=+ There is a considerable difference between a case where an agreement exists and a player simply gets it wrong, and a case on the other hand where no agreement exists. The example floating in this thread is undoubtedly one of the latter kind. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 14 03:02:26 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:02:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be><000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> <487A1D68.9040003@skynet.be><001301c8e51b$3e1b18a0$bdc8403e@Mildred> <487A86DF.5070006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003a01c8e54d$7fdc84e0$2cd4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:21 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >> > YOU are the one who is inventing fact here. YOU are the > one who is believing one single player over all the other > evidence. You have the right to do so, but you should state > that this is your personal opinion about this case. You do > not do that, but rather speak as if the laws are unambiguous > and my ruling is completely wrong. This is far too common > an occurence for you to speak so unambiguous over. > +=+ I am not 'believing one single player' - I am quoting the data given in the original report of the case (which does not quote any player). As for the remainder of what you say, no comment. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 14 03:43:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:43:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008a01c8e352$bd72f430$7ccf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Reportedly the matter was undiscussed; the system card >>made no mention of it; the player made an artificial bid >>in these circumstances and the partner treated it as >>natural. The balance of probabilities is overwhelmingly in >>my opinion that there was no agreement and that an alert >>would have been an error. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >Also, is your statement intended to apply specifically to >the case under study, or is it intended as a general guide >to director procedure? Richard Hills: I fully agree with Grattan's assessment of the balance of probabilities in the _specific_ case. In the _general_ case, I note that when Player A believes that the partnership has agreement X, and when Player B believes that the partnership has agreement Y, the TD should not restrict her assessment of facts to a choice between X and Y, but she should also assess the probability of "no agreement" being the truth. Plus rare but possibly true (has occurred several times in my super-scientific partnership) is that both partners have simultaneously forgotten that their mutual partnership understanding is agreement Z. By the way, I also agree with David Burn and Nigel Guthrie that the non-Alert is UI. Extract from 2007 Law 16B1(a) plus footnote: "...an unexpected* alert or failure to alert..." "* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 14 06:04:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:04:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bids (from Al Levy) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Al Levy: >So, under the old 27A accepting the insufficient bid was >almost never to your advantage. Richard Hills: No, under the old 27A accepting the insufficient bid was very frequently to your advantage. In competitive auctions accepting an insufficient bid often gave you an extra level of bidding space. One real-life example: Pard RHO Me 1NT 1H 1S On the other hand, refusing to condone the insufficient bid under the new Law 27 is very frequently to your advantage. As under the old Law, it is possible that any sensible replacement call will necessarily require the insufficient bidder's partner to pass for the rest of the auction. Al Levy: >BTW...The fly in the ointment is intentionally allowing >insufficient bids to be accepted. If that is removed, Richard Hills: Will not happen earlier than the next decade's Lawbook. Unlikely to happen then, since the right to accept RHO's insufficient bid is in the tradition of the right to accept RHO's call out of rotation, right to accept RHO's change of call, and right to accept RHO's play out of turn. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From AlLevy at aol.com Sun Jul 13 05:38:58 2008 From: AlLevy at aol.com (AlLevy at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:38:58 EDT Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid Message-ID: An interesting twist on Law 27. Insufficient bids will now be accepted! Law 27 - Insufficient Bid The new law allows the insufficient bidder to change his call to a call whose meaning is the same or more precise than the insufficient bid. So in the auction: 1D-1S-1H, 1H can be replaced with either Dbl or 2H (or in France, 1D-1S-2C showing 5+ hearts, 7-10 hcp). Now take the corrected auction 1D-1S-Dbl/2H-2S/3S/4S. Opener now knows partner's hand more precisely than if the insufficient bid was accepted. So, at least in cases where the partner of overcaller intends to raise partner's suit, the insufficient bid should almost always be accepted. There will be many more examples of the benefit of accepting an insufficient bid under the new law 27. OK...who will write the first article on "When to accept an insufficient bid." Under the old Law 27, there was no provision for responder to describe his hand more precisely, as the corrected bid (without barring partner) was limited to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination. Further, if the bid was corrected, opener didn't know when partner was "stretching" in correcting his bid, and if the bid wasn't corrected, opener was barred. So, under the old 27A accepting the insufficient bid was almost never to your advantage. Al Levy **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080712/4ce232a9/attachment-0001.htm From torsten.astrand at telia.com Sun Jul 13 12:18:52 2008 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:18:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <000101c8e3b2$f70171d0$35cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001f01c8e4d1$da16bc40$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> I interpret your answer in the following way: All are responsable in this case. No correction of played score. According to Law 74.B.1 Torsten ----- Original Message ----- From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy Grattan Endicott References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com> Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an adjustment is in order. Wayne 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace holding A,Q,J. > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in the new > Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > Torsten > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 10:22:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:22:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <003901c8e54d$7ef09e40$2cd4403e@Mildred> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be><001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> <002701c8e538$90d13c60$0901a8c0@JOHN> <003901c8e54d$7ef09e40$2cd4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487B0CB7.1020409@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: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:34 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > > >> Grattan, is there any difference between this case >> and ghestem abuse? I don't see any, yet we routinely >> assume the worst case scenario for ghestem abusers. >> Is it not the same here? john > +=+ There is a considerable difference between a case > where _an agreement exists_ and a player simply gets it > wrong, and a case on the other hand where no agreement > exists. The example floating in this thread is undoubtedly > one of the latter kind. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > (underline mine) Grattan - the main question in this thread is "does an agreement exist?". Of course there is a huge difference between cases where an agreement exists and wher it doesn't. But how do we decide if an agreement exists or not? If one partner bids 3Cl holding spades and diamonds, and the other does not alert - how shall we decide whether an agreement about Ghestem exists? And do you automatically assume there is no such agreement if the partner says so? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 10:45:23 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:45:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings Message-ID: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed discussion. Let me describe the standard case: Two players are playing together. They know oneanother, but are not a regular partnership. They sat down at the start of the session and held a system discussion of a few minutes. For the rest they rely on common ground to fill in the gaps. Tbey may or may not have played together in the past, but in any case that is longer ago than recent memory. One player has a hand which is very well suited for a particular call if the pair were playing convention A. However, within the common background of the two players, convention A and convention B are both present. The pair did not discuss this particular auction, so if the player makes the call, the possible meanings are restricted to A or B. The player who wants to make this call realizes this (another case would be that he does not realize it - that would make for another interesting case), but he decides that the chances are sufficiently good that his partner will make the correct guess. He makes the call. The partner also knows that the explanations A and B are the two possibilities. He holds a hand which does not give him the opportunity of making a call that caters to both possibilities, and so he has to chose which of the two systems to believe. He does so, and he makes the appropriate call under that system. What should he explain to his opponents? Of course he is allowed to explain the existence of two possible meanings. Some may even argue that he is obliged to give both meanings (I'm not certain about that). But I also believe he should tell his opponents one meaning, and one meaning only. After all, the "understanding" cannot be 2 conventions (that would probably be an illegal system), and the opponents are entitled to one single meaning, upon which they can build their defence. It would seem strange to me that the player would choose to believe one option, and bid accordingly, and yet explain to opponents the other one. So the partner chooses an option, bids accordingly, and tells the opponents which option he has chosen to believe. Now there can be two possibilities (remember that the bidder has a hand consistent with option A): - The partner has explained option A - The partner has explained option B In the first case, there is no Director call. In the second case, the Director will be called. Now according to Grattan, this pair have no agreements, and so "no agreements" should have been the correct explanation. Now IMO, that means that the player who explained B has given MI as well. But it also means that the player in case A has given MI, since the same story applied there - this pair did not have an agreement. Yet they have the same idea. In a theoretical sense, Grattan is right. But in practice, a Director will never be able to confirm that there is in fact no agreement, and that all this was merely a lucky guess. Nor can the pair provide evidence for the non-existence of any previous discussion that led to both guessing/knowing the same thing. Which also means that I believe one has to rule MI (and A being the correct explanation) if the partner chooses to explain B. "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is." (from a Belgian Beer Mat) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 10:58:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:58:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <001601c8e355$fe568ef0$fb03acd0$@no> <4877754F.3000606@skynet.be> <000601c8e370$ee12f040$ca38d0c0$@no> <48779665.2090406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <487B1548.2090303@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Well Sven, then please tell me: > May I answer ? > what is the ruling in (your interpretation of) UPU? > Rectification of the score and disciplinary action. > what is the ruling in (your interpretation of) MI? > Rectification of the score and possibly PP. > If you do find a difference in ruling, then tell me if you have > considered my case for there being something called DMI - and is your > UPU equal to my DMI or not? > I don't need a third denomination. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 11:00:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:00:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487796DD.3080605@skynet.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <4875C3B2.7020409@meteo.fr> <4875CB94.3050102@skynet.be> <001401c8e26f$c2d89440$accb403e@Mildred> <4875F857.3040109@skynet.be> <000601c8e28f$ab5a4640$020ed2c0$@no> <48762C90.3040902@skynet.be> <000d01c8e2ba$20bfe320$623fa960$@no> <48771414.2060004@skynet.be> <001501c8e344$52c3bce0$f84b36a0$@no> <4877451F.3080202@skynet.be> <48777DD4.2090704@ulb.ac.be> <487796DD.3080605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <487B15B4.6030008@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> Sven, >>> >>> The word "concealed" carried an additional meaning of deliberate. >>> >>> >> I'm sorry, Sir, I interrupt you on the grounds of Estoppel. >> >> Your former messages said just the contrary. >> > > No they did not. > I said that CPU did not carry the additional meaning of deliberate. > I agree with Sven that the word "concealed" may make you believe that > suche an additional meaning is implied. Sadly, the word concealed > appeared in the heading, not in the text, and the text did not carry > any implication of deliberateness. > > Perhaps, Herman, you should consider that, when there is an obvious implication of meaning from the title and you don't find it in the text, then iy is at least possible that you, not the text, is responsible for that. From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 11:04:16 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:04:16 +1200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807140204u613be79o3b99a1c7f6ea6431@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/14 Herman De Wael : > The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed discussion. > > Let me describe the standard case: > > Two players are playing together. They know oneanother, but are not a > regular partnership. They sat down at the start of the session and > held a system discussion of a few minutes. For the rest they rely on > common ground to fill in the gaps. Tbey may or may not have played > together in the past, but in any case that is longer ago than recent > memory. > > One player has a hand which is very well suited for a particular call > if the pair were playing convention A. However, within the common > background of the two players, convention A and convention B are both > present. The pair did not discuss this particular auction, so if the > player makes the call, the possible meanings are restricted to A or B. > > The player who wants to make this call realizes this (another case > would be that he does not realize it - that would make for another > interesting case), but he decides that the chances are sufficiently > good that his partner will make the correct guess. He makes the call. > > The partner also knows that the explanations A and B are the two > possibilities. He holds a hand which does not give him the opportunity > of making a call that caters to both possibilities, and so he has to > chose which of the two systems to believe. He does so, and he makes > the appropriate call under that system. > > What should he explain to his opponents? > > Of course he is allowed to explain the existence of two possible > meanings. Some may even argue that he is obliged to give both meanings > (I'm not certain about that). But I also believe he should tell his > opponents one meaning, and one meaning only. After all, the > "understanding" cannot be 2 conventions (that would probably be an > illegal system), and the opponents are entitled to one single meaning, > upon which they can build their defence. > > It would seem strange to me that the player would choose to believe > one option, and bid accordingly, and yet explain to opponents the > other one. > > So the partner chooses an option, bids accordingly, and tells the > opponents which option he has chosen to believe. > > Now there can be two possibilities (remember that the bidder has a > hand consistent with option A): > - The partner has explained option A > - The partner has explained option B > > In the first case, there is no Director call. > In the second case, the Director will be called. > > Now according to Grattan, this pair have no agreements, and so "no > agreements" should have been the correct explanation. Now IMO, that > means that the player who explained B has given MI as well. > > But it also means that the player in case A has given MI, since the > same story applied there - this pair did not have an agreement. Yet > they have the same idea. > > In a theoretical sense, Grattan is right. But in practice, a Director > will never be able to confirm that there is in fact no agreement, and > that all this was merely a lucky guess. Nor can the pair provide > evidence for the non-existence of any previous discussion that led to > both guessing/knowing the same thing. > > Which also means that I believe one has to rule MI (and A being the > correct explanation) if the partner chooses to explain B. > > "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in > practice, there is." (from a Belgian Beer Mat) > -- Say partner has made a bid and I am sure that it is either convention A or convention B. From my knowledge of our partnership experience and my partner's assumed knowledge of what I play in other partnerships and my knowledge of what my partner plays in other partnerships etc etc I think that it is most like that partner would play convention A. However from the actual hand I hold and other bids made (perhaps by the opponents) it seems that convention A is extremely unlikely so I guess that partner is playing convention B which a priori I would have thought was unlikely. Do we have an agreement? I think not. I just got lucky if my guess is right or unlucky if my guess is wrong. In my view the whole notion of an implicit understanding is flawed. Since in many situations it is impossible before an occurrence for a player to say with certainty that they have an implicit understanding. In order for there to be an implicit agreement then it needs to be certain - 100% - that both partners will interpret the bid the same way without reference to additional facts like the cards actually held or any subsequent bidding by the opponents. Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 11:07:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:07:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bidding In-Reply-To: <002a01c8e3c4$b6727a30$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <00b901c8e1f0$a8b0aa50$fa11fef0$@no> <002a01c8e3c4$b6727a30$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <487B175B.2020908@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > *2D just made (give or take trick which will make NO differene to the > score). * AG : of course it will. IIRC, EW weren't vulnerable, so that 2H*-1 for NS +100 is a pluausible score. And I can find you many others, from some Norths going down after advancing a honor (ruffed) on a diamond lead and erring afterwards to some being in 5S-1. Everybody plays and makes a game ? Not in my circles. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 14 11:46:50 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:46:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Two players are playing together. They know oneanother, but are not a > regular partnership. They sat down at the start of the session and > held a system discussion of a few minutes. For the rest they rely on > common ground to fill in the gaps. Tbey may or may not have played > together in the past, but in any case that is longer ago than recent > memory. > > One player has a hand which is very well suited for a particular call > if the pair were playing convention A. However, within the common > background of the two players, convention A and convention B are both > present. The pair did not discuss this particular auction, so if the > player makes the call, the possible meanings are restricted to A or B. Or even C, but let that be, at least for the moment > What should he explain to his opponents? > > Of course he is allowed to explain the existence of two possible > meanings. Some may even argue that he is obliged to give both meanings > (I'm not certain about that). But I also believe he should tell his > opponents one meaning, and one meaning only. After all, the > "understanding" cannot be 2 conventions (that would probably be an > illegal system), and the opponents are entitled to one single meaning, > upon which they can build their defence. Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is either A or B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." What this player has done here is to comply with 2007 Law 40B6(a) and disclose completely all he knows relevant to the call made by partner. (In addition he has given his partner the UI that he is unsure, but I hope we at last have reached a consensus that giving UI in such situations is no violation of law?) > > It would seem strange to me that the player would choose to believe > one option, and bid accordingly, and yet explain to opponents the > other one. Exactly, so he explains "everything" that is relevant. The net effect of this is of course that there is no definite agreement on the situation; consequently it cannot be any question of MI. But opponents have all available information that can be relevant; nothing has been concealed (or undisclosed). ............. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 11:51:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:51:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bids (from Al Levy) In-Reply-To: References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be> <000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> <487A1D68.9040003@skynet.be> <001301c8e51b$3e1b18a0$bdc8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487B21A9.4010207@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > BTW...The fly in the ointment is intentionally allowing insufficient bids > to be accepted. If that is removed, then bridge can once again take > place. As in the card play, if a card of a different suit is played, and > the player noticed that he could have followed suit, the opponents don't > have the option to accept the wrong card thus establishing a revoke. > AG : you can't dispense with the fly. There will be too frequent occasions when the insufficient bid is instinctively condoned, so that you'd need another law to deal with correcting that. Not a big deal. And providing the NOS with one more possibility is very much in the spirit of L72A4. I think L72A is one of the most important in this game. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 11:34:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:34:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487B1D9D.4070206@ulb.ac.be> AlLevy at aol.com a ?crit : > An interesting twist on Law 27. Insufficient bids will now be accepted! > > Law 27 - Insufficient Bid > > The new law allows the insufficient bidder to change his call to a > call whose meaning is the same or more precise than the insufficient > bid. So in the auction: 1D-1S-1H, 1H can be replaced with either Dbl > or 2H (or in France, 1D-1S-2C showing 5+ hearts, 7-10 hcp). > > Now take the corrected auction 1D-1S-Dbl/2H-2S/3S/4S. Opener now > knows partner's hand more precisely than if the insufficient bid was > accepted. So, at least in cases where the partner of overcaller > intends to raise partner's suit, the insufficient bid should almost > always be accepted. There will be many more examples of the benefit > of accepting an insufficient bid under the new law 27. > > OK...who will write the first article on "When to accept an > insufficient bid." I have enough material for this, I thnik. In general, accepting an insufficient bid will work well is competitive situations where you want to give information about your ODR. It isn't conventional, but CBK, that accepting the insufficient 1H to raise to 1S will tell you can't bid more but still wish to raise. Partenr can figure your hand. Also, repeating your previous bid to insist on suit quality has worked before. Perhaps there should be something written somewhere about the use of bidding boxes in such cases. NB : I just saw at the table the first case where a redouble as a substitution call would make sense. The new laws aren't implemented yet, alas. N E S W 1C 1D 1S Double 1S 1C = catchall 11-17, no 5cM Double = hearts with some diamond fit NS play T-Walsh, but revert to natural after an overcall (not optimal, perhaps). North has a blind spot and, in considering what he would have done over a T-W 1H, bid 1S, showing exactly 3 cards in that context. Unless I missed some hidden inference, North may now make a support radouble, showing 3 spades. Best regards alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 12:47:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:47:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> Message-ID: <487B2EC2.50909@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > >> What should he explain to his opponents? >> >> Of course he is allowed to explain the existence of two possible >> meanings. Some may even argue that he is obliged to give both meanings >> (I'm not certain about that). But I also believe he should tell his >> opponents one meaning, and one meaning only. After all, the >> "understanding" cannot be 2 conventions (that would probably be an >> illegal system), and the opponents are entitled to one single meaning, >> upon which they can build their defence. >> > > Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? > "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is either A or > B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." > > What this player has done here is to comply with 2007 Law 40B6(a) and > disclose completely all he knows relevant to the call made by partner. > (In addition he has given his partner the UI that he is unsure, but I hope > we at last have reached a consensus that giving UI in such situations is no > violation of law?) > > AG : and there is another case, less frequent, but still possible : a player faced with a new bidding situation may suddenly realize that his system contains contradictory information about the meaning of his partner's bid : two meta-agreements seem to apply here and give different answers. In that case, I think he should explain this all, rather than try to guess which one partner applied, unless, of course, there is a meat-meta-agreement to solve it. Here is a simple case : - when opponents' double of our 1NT is penalties (or otherwise strong), we play A (say, transfers beginning with Rdbl) - when opponents' double of 1NT shows an unknown one-suiter, we play B (say, system on) Now, say we encounter a pair that plays double as "penalty, based on a long, strong suit". What is our agreement ? Surely it is either A or B. This is critical behind screens, where we can't know exactly which words were used to describe the double (or anything) to our partner. And remember it's written that slight variations in the wording of explanations don't necessarily constitute MI, so that opponents will have to find their way from there. But the most frequent case for "either A or B" will probably be borderline cases, e.g. pairs who play A againts weak NTs and B against strong ones could be at bay when they encounter Blue Team for the first time (1NT is usually 15-17, but may be 13-14 with 5 clubs). Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 13:05:47 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:05:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560807140204u613be79o3b99a1c7f6ea6431@mail.gmail.com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560807140204u613be79o3b99a1c7f6ea6431@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <487B330B.8040808@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2008/7/14 Herman De Wael : >> The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed discussion. >> >> Let me describe the standard case: >> >> Two players are playing together. They know oneanother, but are not a >> regular partnership. They sat down at the start of the session and >> held a system discussion of a few minutes. For the rest they rely on >> common ground to fill in the gaps. Tbey may or may not have played >> together in the past, but in any case that is longer ago than recent >> memory. >> >> One player has a hand which is very well suited for a particular call >> if the pair were playing convention A. However, within the common >> background of the two players, convention A and convention B are both >> present. The pair did not discuss this particular auction, so if the >> player makes the call, the possible meanings are restricted to A or B. >> >> The player who wants to make this call realizes this (another case >> would be that he does not realize it - that would make for another >> interesting case), but he decides that the chances are sufficiently >> good that his partner will make the correct guess. He makes the call. >> >> The partner also knows that the explanations A and B are the two >> possibilities. He holds a hand which does not give him the opportunity >> of making a call that caters to both possibilities, and so he has to >> chose which of the two systems to believe. He does so, and he makes >> the appropriate call under that system. >> >> What should he explain to his opponents? >> >> Of course he is allowed to explain the existence of two possible >> meanings. Some may even argue that he is obliged to give both meanings >> (I'm not certain about that). But I also believe he should tell his >> opponents one meaning, and one meaning only. After all, the >> "understanding" cannot be 2 conventions (that would probably be an >> illegal system), and the opponents are entitled to one single meaning, >> upon which they can build their defence. >> >> It would seem strange to me that the player would choose to believe >> one option, and bid accordingly, and yet explain to opponents the >> other one. >> >> So the partner chooses an option, bids accordingly, and tells the >> opponents which option he has chosen to believe. >> >> Now there can be two possibilities (remember that the bidder has a >> hand consistent with option A): >> - The partner has explained option A >> - The partner has explained option B >> >> In the first case, there is no Director call. >> In the second case, the Director will be called. >> >> Now according to Grattan, this pair have no agreements, and so "no >> agreements" should have been the correct explanation. Now IMO, that >> means that the player who explained B has given MI as well. >> >> But it also means that the player in case A has given MI, since the >> same story applied there - this pair did not have an agreement. Yet >> they have the same idea. >> >> In a theoretical sense, Grattan is right. But in practice, a Director >> will never be able to confirm that there is in fact no agreement, and >> that all this was merely a lucky guess. Nor can the pair provide >> evidence for the non-existence of any previous discussion that led to >> both guessing/knowing the same thing. >> >> Which also means that I believe one has to rule MI (and A being the >> correct explanation) if the partner chooses to explain B. >> >> "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in >> practice, there is." (from a Belgian Beer Mat) >> -- > > Say partner has made a bid and I am sure that it is either convention > A or convention B. From my knowledge of our partnership experience > and my partner's assumed knowledge of what I play in other > partnerships and my knowledge of what my partner plays in other > partnerships etc etc I think that it is most like that partner would > play convention A. However from the actual hand I hold and other bids > made (perhaps by the opponents) it seems that convention A is > extremely unlikely so I guess that partner is playing convention B > which a priori I would have thought was unlikely. > > Do we have an agreement? > > I think not. I just got lucky if my guess is right or unlucky if my > guess is wrong. > > In my view the whole notion of an implicit understanding is flawed. > Since in many situations it is impossible before an occurrence for a > player to say with certainty that they have an implicit understanding. > > In order for there to be an implicit agreement then it needs to be > certain - 100% - that both partners will interpret the bid the same > way without reference to additional facts like the cards actually held > or any subsequent bidding by the opponents. > > Wayne > True Wayne, but what do you explain to opponents? And what do you do as Director with regards to that explanation? I repeat: in theory, there is no agreement. But in practice, as Director, when partners end up on the same wavelength, you cannot make the distinction between a lucky guess and some form of agreement. And when partners do not seem to end up on the same wavelength, you don't know if it is because they were unlucky or if one of them forgot some agreement they made long ago. And they won't tell you if that was the case. And as for players who refuge to divulge whether they think it's A or B, I believe they are being deliberately unhelpful. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 13:08:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:08:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> Message-ID: <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Or even C, but let that be, at least for the moment > let's not complicate the case and just stick with two possibilities. >> What should he explain to his opponents? >> > > Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? > "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is either A or > B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." > I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI whatever the intention was. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 13:12:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:12:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> Message-ID: <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > The net effect of this is of course that there is no definite agreement on > the situation; consequently it cannot be any question of MI. But opponents > have all available information that can be relevant; nothing has been > concealed (or undisclosed). > > ............. > > Sven > Yes, the actual holding. If the partner then guesses correctly, how are you going to decide, as Director, whether the player told the truth and he made a lucky guess, or whether he remembered something more about his partner's habits, and made a decision based thereupon? In my environment, players know they cannot get away with this. As a consequence, they are perhaps a bit more careful about making more complete agreements. Maybe you give your players more leeway - are you sure they are not using that? Are you sure they are not being less careful about agreeing? In fact - do you often come accross this situation? I do, it is quite common in my club. And people accept that they will be judged having given MI if they guess incorrectly. I believe my way is better on opponents as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 13:22:58 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:22:58 +1200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B330B.8040808@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560807140204u613be79o3b99a1c7f6ea6431@mail.gmail.com> <487B330B.8040808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807140422j4bd985a7sbfabe0aee8eaf690@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/14 Herman De Wael : > Wayne Burrows wrote: >> 2008/7/14 Herman De Wael : >>> The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed discussion. >>> >>> Let me describe the standard case: >>> >>> Two players are playing together. They know oneanother, but are not a >>> regular partnership. They sat down at the start of the session and >>> held a system discussion of a few minutes. For the rest they rely on >>> common ground to fill in the gaps. Tbey may or may not have played >>> together in the past, but in any case that is longer ago than recent >>> memory. >>> >>> One player has a hand which is very well suited for a particular call >>> if the pair were playing convention A. However, within the common >>> background of the two players, convention A and convention B are both >>> present. The pair did not discuss this particular auction, so if the >>> player makes the call, the possible meanings are restricted to A or B. >>> >>> The player who wants to make this call realizes this (another case >>> would be that he does not realize it - that would make for another >>> interesting case), but he decides that the chances are sufficiently >>> good that his partner will make the correct guess. He makes the call. >>> >>> The partner also knows that the explanations A and B are the two >>> possibilities. He holds a hand which does not give him the opportunity >>> of making a call that caters to both possibilities, and so he has to >>> chose which of the two systems to believe. He does so, and he makes >>> the appropriate call under that system. >>> >>> What should he explain to his opponents? >>> >>> Of course he is allowed to explain the existence of two possible >>> meanings. Some may even argue that he is obliged to give both meanings >>> (I'm not certain about that). But I also believe he should tell his >>> opponents one meaning, and one meaning only. After all, the >>> "understanding" cannot be 2 conventions (that would probably be an >>> illegal system), and the opponents are entitled to one single meaning, >>> upon which they can build their defence. >>> >>> It would seem strange to me that the player would choose to believe >>> one option, and bid accordingly, and yet explain to opponents the >>> other one. >>> >>> So the partner chooses an option, bids accordingly, and tells the >>> opponents which option he has chosen to believe. >>> >>> Now there can be two possibilities (remember that the bidder has a >>> hand consistent with option A): >>> - The partner has explained option A >>> - The partner has explained option B >>> >>> In the first case, there is no Director call. >>> In the second case, the Director will be called. >>> >>> Now according to Grattan, this pair have no agreements, and so "no >>> agreements" should have been the correct explanation. Now IMO, that >>> means that the player who explained B has given MI as well. >>> >>> But it also means that the player in case A has given MI, since the >>> same story applied there - this pair did not have an agreement. Yet >>> they have the same idea. >>> >>> In a theoretical sense, Grattan is right. But in practice, a Director >>> will never be able to confirm that there is in fact no agreement, and >>> that all this was merely a lucky guess. Nor can the pair provide >>> evidence for the non-existence of any previous discussion that led to >>> both guessing/knowing the same thing. >>> >>> Which also means that I believe one has to rule MI (and A being the >>> correct explanation) if the partner chooses to explain B. >>> >>> "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in >>> practice, there is." (from a Belgian Beer Mat) >>> -- >> >> Say partner has made a bid and I am sure that it is either convention >> A or convention B. From my knowledge of our partnership experience >> and my partner's assumed knowledge of what I play in other >> partnerships and my knowledge of what my partner plays in other >> partnerships etc etc I think that it is most like that partner would >> play convention A. However from the actual hand I hold and other bids >> made (perhaps by the opponents) it seems that convention A is >> extremely unlikely so I guess that partner is playing convention B >> which a priori I would have thought was unlikely. >> >> Do we have an agreement? >> >> I think not. I just got lucky if my guess is right or unlucky if my >> guess is wrong. >> >> In my view the whole notion of an implicit understanding is flawed. >> Since in many situations it is impossible before an occurrence for a >> player to say with certainty that they have an implicit understanding. >> >> In order for there to be an implicit agreement then it needs to be >> certain - 100% - that both partners will interpret the bid the same >> way without reference to additional facts like the cards actually held >> or any subsequent bidding by the opponents. >> >> Wayne >> > > True Wayne, but what do you explain to opponents? > And what do you do as Director with regards to that explanation? > > I repeat: in theory, there is no agreement. > But in practice, as Director, when partners end up on the same > wavelength, you cannot make the distinction between a lucky guess and > some form of agreement. > And when partners do not seem to end up on the same wavelength, you > don't know if it is because they were unlucky or if one of them forgot > some agreement they made long ago. And they won't tell you if that was > the case. > And as for players who refuge to divulge whether they think it's A or > B, I believe they are being deliberately unhelpful. > Honesty is the best policy. You tell them what your agreement is or that you don't have an agreement. You tell them when partner has forgotten an agreement. We had a situation come up yesterday and while we had an agreement that agreement was vague - "majors" we had never discussed details - (2C) X ... . The opponents quizzed me about minimum lengths etc and I could honestly say this has never come up in five or so years of playing together. I also added "We have some similar situations in which we have agreed at least 5-4 but maybe she thinks that doesnt apply or maybe she thinks she needs a little extra distribution at the two-level over a strong opening" I would normally try to give as much accurate information as possible. Anything else including pretending to have an agreement when you do not is deliberate MI. Wayne From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 14:13:14 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:13:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560807140422j4bd985a7sbfabe0aee8eaf690@mail.gmail.com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560807140204u613be79o3b99a1c7f6ea6431@mail.gmail.com> <487B330B.8040808@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560807140422j4bd985a7sbfabe0aee8eaf690@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <487B42DA.8070208@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: >> And as for players who refuge to divulge whether they think it's A or >> B, I believe they are being deliberately unhelpful. >> > > Honesty is the best policy. > > You tell them what your agreement is or that you don't have an agreement. > > You tell them when partner has forgotten an agreement. > All well and true in theory - but in practice. > We had a situation come up yesterday and while we had an agreement > that agreement was vague - "majors" we had never discussed details - > (2C) X ... . The opponents quizzed me about minimum lengths etc and I > could honestly say this has never come up in five or so years of > playing together. I also added "We have some similar situations in > which we have agreed at least 5-4 but maybe she thinks that doesnt > apply or maybe she thinks she needs a little extra distribution at the > two-level over a strong opening" > This is _not_ the kind of situation we were talking about. You have an agreement that it is majors, but not if this starts at 54 or 55. This is very little difference (although of course you need to divulge it if you do know it). What I was talking about is things like: 1He - 3Cl meaning either natural or Ghestem. Now the bidder either has clubs or spades and diamonds, and opponents are entitled to know which, IMO. > I would normally try to give as much accurate information as possible. > Anything else including pretending to have an agreement when you do > not is deliberate MI. > Sorry Wayne, you need not have an "agreement" when bidding majors with either a 54 or 55. But you do need an "agreement" when bidding 3Cl with diamonds and spades. (or even when holding clubs). > Wayne > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 14 14:14:28 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:14:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c8e5ab$2c4d4950$84e7dbf0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ......... > > But opponents > > have all available information that can be relevant; nothing has been > > concealed (or undisclosed). > > > > ............. > > > > Sven > > > > Yes, the actual holding. Really Herman, you know better than that: "All relevant information about an auction" NEVER EVER includes "The actual holding". Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 14:17:51 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:17:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> [HdW] The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed discussion. [detailed discussion not repeated here] [DALB] In the actual case, where the sequence was 1D-1S-1NT-2D, there are (at least) two sub-cases: (A) South knew that 2D might have been intended as an artificial game force, but guessed that it was not so intended and passed it (in effect explaining it to his opponents as natural and non-forcing). (B) South had no idea that 2D was intended as an artificial game force, and passed it (also in effect explaining it to his opponents as natural and non-forcing). In case (B) there is no agreement, nothing to disclose, nothing to explain. One might take the view that West was unlucky when he chose to re-open, giving North another chance. One might also take the view that North acted illegally when he took his second chance - that is not what I propose to discuss here. In case (A) there is some implicit agreement, something to disclose, something to explain. South should (in my opinion) alert and say "he might intend that as an artificial game force" and then pass it. Now West knows as much as South knows, which is part of his entitlement under the current Laws. What South should emphatically not do is explain only the possible meaning of 2D consistent with the guess he is about to take. But in case (A) it seems to me that West is also entitled to know as much as North knows, which is that 2D was intended as an artificial game force and that North had at least some reason, by virtue of an implicit agreement, to hope that South would so understand it. It has always seemed to me arbitrary and wholly undesirable that if West were on the same side of the screen as North, he would always pass and defend 2D, whereas if he were on the same side of the screen as a de Waelite South, he would always bid and defend 4S or 3NT. I believe that such cases would be most equitably resolved if West were presumed to have heard both North and South's explanations of 2D before selecting his call. I am aware that this would require one or more changes to the present Laws, but I think those changes would be a good thing. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 14:19:49 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:19:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <001301c8e5ab$2c4d4950$84e7dbf0$@no> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> <001301c8e5ab$2c4d4950$84e7dbf0$@no> Message-ID: <000101c8e5ab$ed812010$c8836030$@com> [SP] Really Herman, you know better than that: "All relevant information about an auction" NEVER EVER includes "The actual holding". [DALB] Oh, it has been known for players occasionally to make calls that conform not only to their partnership agreements but to their actual hands. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 14 14:19:30 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:19:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? > > "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is either A or > > B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." > > > > I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a > "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. > I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI > whatever the intention was. Please explain in what way my suggested statement is giving MI? (And don't bother with what you "believe"; that is entirely irrelevant.) Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 14:44:08 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:44:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> Message-ID: <487B4A18.7050105@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > > (A) South knew that 2D might have been intended as an artificial game force, > but guessed that it was not so intended and passed it (in effect explaining > it to his opponents as natural and non-forcing). > > (B) South had no idea that 2D was intended as an artificial game force, and > passed it (also in effect explaining it to his opponents as natural and > non-forcing). > > In case (B) there is no agreement, nothing to disclose, nothing to explain. > One might take the view that West was unlucky when he chose to re-open, > giving North another chance. One might also take the view that North acted > illegally when he took his second chance - that is not what I propose to > discuss here. > > In case (A) there is some implicit agreement, something to disclose, > something to explain. South should (in my opinion) alert and say "he might > intend that as an artificial game force" and then pass it. Now West knows as > much as South knows, which is part of his entitlement under the current > Laws. What South should emphatically not do is explain only the possible > meaning of 2D consistent with the guess he is about to take. > > AG : azbsolutely true, but (A) isn't relevant here, because, even ithough there may well be such doubt in South's mind, he would never, never pass in such a case. "When in doubt, don't pass" is largely accepted. And that's part of the evidence the TD might be able to use. (of course, some meta-agreements might be written on the CC and make this easier) Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 14 14:55:05 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:55:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] burden of proof, your ruling please In-Reply-To: References: <4876F4D2.5060107@aol.com> <3646FC05-A004-4544-A8F8-25AFDF5DD4A7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <483BA72D-A3A7-489B-A09E-AE4E31D605C8@starpower.net> On Jul 11, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > The laws go out of their way, bend over backwards, to avoid self- > serving > unverifiable testimony. We don't ask someone if they knew at the > time of > their infraction if they might benefit from it. We don't allow a > player to > bid 4S without penalty because they say they were planning on > bidding it > even before their partner hesitated. We don't ask someone if they > knew a > trump was out when they claimed. > > The only exception I can think of right now is for inadvertent bids. > Frankly, I am disgusted by all the times I have been lied to > concerning > this. My impression is that there are clubs where the accepted norm > is to > lie about this following an insufficient bid. But that's the > consequence > of allowing people to cheat. > > So, Easterson suggests a good policy -- look on their card for > evidence of > a misbid. I would not like to be a director or play bridge where > people > could just announce their conventional agreements after the fact. > >> On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:51 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> >>> Hola blml! I agree with Herman and really don't see the reason this >>> discussion has become so involved and so drawn out. But then I >>> don't >>> seem to have ever understood the internal dynamic of blml. >>> As TD: you check the convention (or system) card of the pair. If >>> they >>> don't have one you assume misinformation; it is up to them (as >>> Herman >>> said) to prove the opposite. And, if there is misinfo there is a >>> possibility to adjust (if there is damage). I don't think Herman >>> mentioned it (but am sure he agrees) you would also check to see if >>> the >>> treatment is to be alerted at the venue involved (possible UI). It >>> seems to me that this is the way things are done in the real world. >> >> The reason for the vigorous dissent from Herman's views stems from >> the wording of L85A1: "In determining the facts the Director shall >> base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in >> accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." >> So it is *not* "up to them (as Herman said) to prove the opposite"; >> it is up to them to supply evidence for it, which is a very different >> thing. Sometimes the only evidence they have is their unsupported >> word, which, as it is clearly self-serving, we are told by regulation >> to "discount", but not ignore. Even discounted, though, it is >> sufficient to constitute "the weight of the evidence" when measured >> against zero evidence for the MI. >> >> When a pair has a misunderstanding and claims to have misbid, and the >> director can find no evidence to suggest that they are not telling >> the truth, the BLML majority will accept their statement based on >> "the weight of the evidence", while Herman will reject it for lack of >> "proof". That's what we're debating here. The laws don't say anything about self-serving testimony. Some directors, in some contests, do go out of their way to avoid it as Robert describes. That is entirely appropriate at a national championship. It is entirely inappropriate at the sort of club games I direct. That's why the laws are left open to interpretation, to the dismay of Nigel and others. But if we insist on coming up with a one-size-fits-all interpretation on stuff like this that means we must rule by the same standards at national championships and friendly club games, one or the other will surely suffer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 14:56:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:56:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> Message-ID: <487B4CF9.7090307@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. > >>> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? >>> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is either A >>> > or > >>> B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." >>> >>> >> I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a >> "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. >> I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI >> whatever the intention was. >> > > Please explain in what way my suggested statement is giving MI? > (And don't bother with what you "believe"; that is entirely irrelevant.) > AG : I'm going one step further : in cases like I mentioned earlier today, where there is contradictory evidence as to the meaning because of conflicting meta-agreements, NOT mentioning that would be MI. And there are even worse cases : when the sum (or rather, product) of meta-agreements mean that the bid is impossible, you have to say exactly that ... and then, barring an earthquake, you're compelled to guess something. I guess I've mentioned it before, but when your meta-agreements are : 1) weak NT 2) rubensohl over natural 2-level overcalls 3) if everything else fails, it's natural and nonforcing Then 1C (2C nat) 2NT is an impossible bid. I know it. That's even discussed. So I have to say it (L75C). And what am I to do next ? lock myself in the loo ? Could that be the explanation for that unfounded bomb alert in Birmingham ? . Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 14 14:58:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:58:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000101c8e5ab$ed812010$c8836030$@com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> <001301c8e5ab$2c4d4950$84e7dbf0$@no> <000101c8e5ab$ed812010$c8836030$@com> Message-ID: <487B4D59.5090808@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [SP] > > Really Herman, you know better than that: > > "All relevant information about an auction" NEVER EVER includes "The actual > holding". > > [DALB] > > Oh, it has been known for players occasionally to make calls that conform > not only to their partnership agreements but to their actual hands. > AG : and it has even been said before that the actual hand is part of the evidence a TD could gather to ascertain the meaning of a bid, so we should indeed acknowledge a link. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 14 13:54:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:54:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be><001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> <002701c8e538$90d13c60$0901a8c0@JOHN><003901c8e54d$7ef09e40$2cd4403e@Mildred> <487B0CB7.1020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006201c8e5b2$b2442950$10c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > 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: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:34 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >> >> >> >>> Grattan, is there any difference between this case >>> and ghestem abuse? I don't see any, yet we routinely >>> assume the worst case scenario for ghestem abusers. >>> Is it not the same here? john >> +=+ There is a considerable difference between a case >> where _an agreement exists_ and a player simply gets it >> wrong, and a case on the other hand where no agreement >> exists. The example floating in this thread is undoubtedly >> one of the latter kind. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > (underline mine) > > Grattan - the main question in this thread is "does an agreement exist?". > Of course there is a huge difference between cases where an agreement > exists and wher it doesn't. > But how do we decide if an agreement exists or not? > > If one partner bids 3Cl holding spades and diamonds, and the other > does not alert - how shall we decide whether an agreement about > Ghestem exists? > And do you automatically assume there is no such agreement if the > partner says so? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > +=+ Each case is treated on the basis of the evidence that the Director/AC is able to educe. In the case in this thread part of the information we were given on which to base our replies was that the partnership was 'occasional' and that it had not discussed the meaning of the 2D bid. We do not know how the Director obtained this knowledge but it stands part of the case. The actions of the players on the hands that they hold is consistent with their having no understanding and this piece of evidence points to that situation also. Given what we are told the Director has no reason to think otherwise and it is not his role to invent a partnership understanding for the players. As for Ghestem breakdowns the system card and the players will normally tell the Director that they are playing Ghestem. A properly completed card will detail the calls involved and indicate the meaning of each. Or the card may show a natural meaning for the 3C and provide evidence that the player has forgotten his agreement. If the card is silent on the subject the partner's subsequent action may provide a clue whether there is an undisclosed partnership understanding. The Director is to seek evidence as to the facts. If there is doubt about these he follows Law 85. Otherwise he follows Law 84. The criteria for his rulings are the same in cases of Ghestem 'disruption' as in any other case requiring similar determination of the facts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 14 15:03:57 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:03:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006301c8e5b2$b36e2a60$10c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:45 AM Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings > The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed discussion. > > Let me describe the standard case: ............................. omissis ......................... > > Now according to Grattan, this pair have no agreements, > and so "no agreements" should have been the correct > explanation. ............................ omissis ........................... +=+ I would prefer, Herman, that you did not make statements "according to Grattan". Your understanding of my opinions is, to say the least, approximate. I much prefer to state my position for myself and, for readers, my view expressed by me will offer a more accurate and useful basis for discussion. For the moment please have your responders disregard your statement here on my behalf. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 14 15:05:04 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:05:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006401c8e5b2$b44e5130$10c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:45 AM Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings One player has a hand which is very well suited for a particular call if the pair were playing convention A. However, within the common background of the two players, convention A and convention B are both present. The pair did not discuss this particular auction, so if the player makes the call, the possible meanings are restricted to A or B. >> The player who wants to make this call realizes this (another case would be that he does not realize it - that would make for another interesting case), but he decides that the chances are sufficiently good that his partner will make the correct guess. He makes the call. >> The partner also knows that the explanations A and B are the two possibilities. <<<< +=+ A question. Is there no possibility that apart from conventions A and B, it may be the case that the call is natural, the player having realized that partner may believe they have not agreed upon any conventional meaning? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 14 15:16:08 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:16:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> Message-ID: <487B5198.7070204@NTLworld.com> David Burn wrote: In the actual case, where the sequence was 1D-1S-1NT-2D, there are (at least) two sub-cases: (A) South knew that 2D might have been intended as an artificial game force, but guessed that it was not so intended and passed it (in effect explaining it to his opponents as natural and non-forcing). (B) South had no idea that 2D was intended as an artificial game force, and passed it (also in effect explaining it to his opponents as natural and non-forcing). In case (B) there is no agreement, nothing to disclose, nothing to explain. One might take the view that West was unlucky when he chose to re-open, giving North another chance. One might also take the view that North acted illegally when he took his second chance - that is not what I propose to discuss here. [Nige1] I think that is what David (& I) assumed in the original analysis. [David] In case (A) there is some implicit agreement, something to disclose, something to explain. South should (in my opinion) alert and say "he might intend that as an artificial game force" and then pass it. Now West knows as much as South knows, which is part of his entitlement under the current Laws. What South should emphatically not do is explain only the possible meaning of 2D consistent with the guess he is about to take. But in case (A) it seems to me that West is also entitled to know as much as North knows, which is that 2D was intended as an artificial game force and that North had at least some reason, by virtue of an implicit agreement, to hope that South would so understand it. It has always seemed to me arbitrary and wholly undesirable that if West were on the same side of the screen as North, he would always pass and defend 2D, whereas if he were on the same side of the screen as a de Waelite South, he would always bid and defend 4S or 3NT. I believe that such cases would be most equitably resolved if West were presumed to have heard both North and South's explanations of 2D before selecting his call. I am aware that this would require one or more changes to the present Laws, but I think those changes would be a good thing. [Nigel] David's suggestion is excellent, IMO! Roll on 2018! :) From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 14 15:27:57 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:27:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48791E49.8040503@nhcc.net> References: <48791E49.8040503@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1071787D-D368-4800-8E49-28E7017C5001@starpower.net> On Jul 12, 2008, at 5:12 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > As in all such cases, the MI part of the ruling comes down to "What > was > the true agreement?" That's in general a difficult question to > answer, > but many pieces of evidence should be available. The question is what > weight to give each type of evidence, and it's not surprising that > there > is disagreement on this question. Nevertheless, the fact that North > chose the 2D bid, expecting (or at least hoping) it would be > understood, > has to count for something. > > Other issues: > From: "Sven Pran" >> Usually MI is accidental; a player has forgotten partnership >> understandings. >> >> CPU can never be accidental. > > As Herman has pointed out, that last is not so at all, but this is a > disagreement over semantics and not substance. I suggest we > abolish all > use of "CPU" and "UPU" and use only the terms "Misinformation" (MI) > and > "Intentional Misinformation" (which probably should be written > intentional MI, not IMI, because it will be rare). > >> UPU is NOT synonymous with MI; it cannot possibly be because we >> can have MI >> that is not also UPU. > > Which fallacy is this: "assuming the conclusion" or "begging the > question?" > >> 1997 L40B: Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited >> >> "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership >> understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to >> understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of >> such call or >> play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring >> organisation." > > What in the above text, other than "concealed" in the heading, > makes you > think the infraction has to be deliberate? For example, suppose the > "filed in advance" system card gets lost in the mail. Wouldn't the > above text apply? > > Anyway, the new laws remove all doubt. When the bidder's understanding of his call doesn't match the explainer's, there are three possibilities: (1) the partnership understanding (PU) is what the bidder thinks it is, (2) the PU is what the explainer thinks it is, or (3) there is no PU about the bid. When there is evidence as to the actual meaning of the call, we readily distinguish between (1) and (2), and apply L75B or L75C accordingly. When there is no evidence, we apply the "presumption of MI" dictated by the parenthetical in L75C by assuming (3): the explanation given was mistaken, because the correct explanation was "we do not have an understanding". IME, when there is no evidence of either understanding to be found, the latter assumption matches the reality 99% of the time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 14 15:49:31 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:49:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4879D4FC.10703@skynet.be> References: <000701c8e456$c74705a0$55d510e0$@com> <4879D4FC.10703@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 13, 2008, at 6:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > David, I understand your dilemma. But turn it around. Suppose you _do_ > end up making the right decision, would you then not expect to have > explained to your opponents what the bid meant? Why should it then be > any different if you do _not_ end up on the same page? Whatever he was > thinking, he was hoping you would get it right. Even that hope is the > basis of some "understanding" and should be exlained to opponents. > After all, whether you get it right or not, you cannot provide > evidence that you _have not_ had a small discussion about the whole > thing, three years ago on-line, have you? And if you really hadn't, > would you expect a TD to trust you because you are trustworthy, while > he should not trust the lying cheating bastard at the next table, of > course? Perhaps. If the TD has evidence from prior experience that David is trustworthy while the player at the next table is a lying, cheating bastard, he'd be derelict in his duty not to take that knowledge into account when ruling. In weighing the balance of the evidence, the laws do not restrict us exclusively to the evidence available from the particular deal in question. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 15:52:19 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:52:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> Message-ID: <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >>> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? >>> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is either A > or >>> B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." >>> >> I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a >> "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. >> I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI >> whatever the intention was. > > Please explain in what way my suggested statement is giving MI? > (And don't bother with what you "believe"; that is entirely irrelevant.) > In the way that the Director may judge you to have more of an agreement than than. Maybe it's true that you don't have an agreement - but why should the TD rule that you don't. Especially if one of you makes a call that seems to be based on an agreement and the other makes a call that seems to -at least- cater for the possibility that this was the meaning. > Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 15:59:09 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:59:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> Message-ID: <487B5BAD.6060808@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed discussion. > > [detailed discussion not repeated here] > > [DALB] > > In the actual case, where the sequence was 1D-1S-1NT-2D, there are (at > least) two sub-cases: > > (A) South knew that 2D might have been intended as an artificial game force, > but guessed that it was not so intended and passed it (in effect explaining > it to his opponents as natural and non-forcing). > > (B) South had no idea that 2D was intended as an artificial game force, and > passed it (also in effect explaining it to his opponents as natural and > non-forcing). > > In case (B) there is no agreement, nothing to disclose, nothing to explain. > One might take the view that West was unlucky when he chose to re-open, > giving North another chance. One might also take the view that North acted > illegally when he took his second chance - that is not what I propose to > discuss here. > > In case (A) there is some implicit agreement, something to disclose, > something to explain. South should (in my opinion) alert and say "he might > intend that as an artificial game force" and then pass it. Now West knows as > much as South knows, which is part of his entitlement under the current > Laws. What South should emphatically not do is explain only the possible > meaning of 2D consistent with the guess he is about to take. > And pray tell - how does the TD decide which of the two it is? But I agree you have a point. I recently directed in a lowly tournament and had a player who bid 2Di over opponent's 1Cl and told us that he intended that as showing 8 tricks in any suit. If he would have said afterwards "of course I was mistaken there", I could have ruled that this was totally wrong and that there was no MI (misbid). It seems to me that the Norwegian case is not of that sort. Partner knows about the convention, although he never plays it. I believe the case is (A) here, and David is right to state that there is "something to explain". > But in case (A) it seems to me that West is also entitled to know as much as > North knows, which is that 2D was intended as an artificial game force and > that North had at least some reason, by virtue of an implicit agreement, to > hope that South would so understand it. It has always seemed to me arbitrary > and wholly undesirable that if West were on the same side of the screen as > North, he would always pass and defend 2D, whereas if he were on the same > side of the screen as a de Waelite South, he would always bid and defend 4S > or 3NT. I believe that such cases would be most equitably resolved if West > were presumed to have heard both North and South's explanations of 2D before > selecting his call. I am aware that this would require one or more changes > to the present Laws, but I think those changes would be a good thing. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 16:01:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:01:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <006401c8e5b2$b44e5130$10c9403e@Mildred> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <006401c8e5b2$b44e5130$10c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487B5C42.3010707@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:45 AM > Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings > > > One player has a hand which is very well suited for a particular call > if the pair were playing convention A. However, within the common > background of the two players, convention A and convention B are both > present. The pair did not discuss this particular auction, so if the > player makes the call, the possible meanings are restricted to A or B. > The player who wants to make this call realizes this (another case > would be that he does not realize it - that would make for another > interesting case), but he decides that the chances are sufficiently > good that his partner will make the correct guess. He makes the call. > The partner also knows that the explanations A and B are the two > possibilities. > <<<< > +=+ A question. Is there no possibility that apart from > conventions A and B, it may be the case that the call is > natural, the player having realized that partner may > believe they have not agreed upon any conventional > meaning? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > In my hypothetical case there are only two possible meanings. One of these may well be a natural one. I believe that few people play the meta-agreement "if we haven't discussed it, it's natural". Most people would not discuss Stayman yet play it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 14 16:09:21 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:09:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <006201c8e5b2$b2442950$10c9403e@Mildred> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be><001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> <002701c8e538$90d13c60$0901a8c0@JOHN><003901c8e54d$7ef09e40$2cd4403e@Mildred> <487B0CB7.1020409@skynet.be> <006201c8e5b2$b2442950$10c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487B5E11.3030907@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] As for Ghestem breakdowns the system card and the players will normally tell the Director that they are playing Ghestem. A properly completed card will detail the calls involved and indicate the meaning of each. Or the card may show a natural meaning for the 3C and provide evidence that the player has forgotten his agreement. If the card is silent on the subject the partner's subsequent action may provide a clue whether there is an undisclosed partnership understanding. The Director is to seek evidence as to the facts. If there is doubt about these he follows Law 85. Otherwise he follows Law 84. The criteria for his rulings are the same in cases of Ghestem 'disruption' as in any other case requiring similar determination of the facts. [Nigel] TFLB may treat all undiscussed bids the same way but IMO there are differences in kind. I'm relieved to learn that some Scandinavian jurisdictions have started to treat conventions like Ghestem more realistically. When not vulnerable, many partnerships seem to employ random jump overcalls, under the umbrella of "Ghestem". Vulnerable opponents are between rock and a hard place. Especially as, in most jurisdictions, they must avoid anything that a TD may judge to be "Wild and Gambling" to preserve any hope of redress. Often this will inhibit them from successful actions that they would otherwise regard as normal. "Guessed em" exponents are accustomed to the ensuing confusion, so usually escape unscathed. Although, occasionally, they do miss a 6-6 fit :) As far as I remember, David Burn wrote a superb Ghestem expos? but I've googled for it, in vain. Can anybody provide a link to it? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 14 16:13:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:13:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> Message-ID: <00a901c8e5bc$4fd12ca0$10c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > But in case (A) it seems to me that West is also entitled to know as much as North knows, which is that 2D was intended as an artificial game force and that North had at least some reason, by virtue of an implicit agreement, to hope that South would so understand it. It has always seemed to me arbitrary and wholly undesirable that if West were on the same side of the screen as North, he would always pass and defend 2D, whereas if he were on the same side of the screen as a de Waelite South, he would always bid and defend 4S or 3NT. <<<<<<< +=+ However, without screens North would not alert and explain his own bid. I wonder whether he would alert South's pass. For example, under Zone 1 Championship regulations would the pass be deemed a call "which has a special or artificial meaning" or (a call) "which has a partnership meaning that may not be understood by opponents" ? Or would his first opportunity to hear of the problem be as Law 20F5(b) specifies ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 16:18:54 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:18:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <006201c8e5b2$b2442950$10c9403e@Mildred> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be><001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> <002701c8e538$90d13c60$0901a8c0@JOHN><003901c8e54d$7ef09e40$2cd4403e@Mildred> <487B0CB7.1020409@skynet.be> <006201c8e5b2$b2442950$10c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487B604E.6000203@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > "A full cup must be carried steadily." > [English proverb ] > "************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:22 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > >> 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: "John (MadDog) Probst" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:34 PM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Grattan, is there any difference between this case >>>> and ghestem abuse? I don't see any, yet we routinely >>>> assume the worst case scenario for ghestem abusers. >>>> Is it not the same here? john >>> +=+ There is a considerable difference between a case >>> where _an agreement exists_ and a player simply gets it >>> wrong, and a case on the other hand where no agreement >>> exists. The example floating in this thread is undoubtedly >>> one of the latter kind. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> (underline mine) >> >> Grattan - the main question in this thread is "does an agreement exist?". >> Of course there is a huge difference between cases where an agreement >> exists and wher it doesn't. >> But how do we decide if an agreement exists or not? >> >> If one partner bids 3Cl holding spades and diamonds, and the other >> does not alert - how shall we decide whether an agreement about >> Ghestem exists? >> And do you automatically assume there is no such agreement if the >> partner says so? >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> > +=+ Each case is treated on the basis of the evidence that the > Director/AC is able to educe. In the case in this thread part of > the information we were given on which to base our replies > was that the partnership was 'occasional' and that it had not > discussed the meaning of the 2D bid. We do not know how > the Director obtained this knowledge but it stands part of the > case. The actions of the players on the hands that they hold is > consistent with their having no understanding and this piece > of evidence points to that situation also. Given what we are > told the Director has no reason to think otherwise and it is not > his role to invent a partnership understanding for the players. South thought 2Di was natural, and passed it. Suppose North was of the same idea and did indeed have diamonds - would you then feel it was OK for South to say "no agreement"? Really: no agreement, not "no agreement, therefore natural". Because that is what was said at the table: "no special agreement, therefore natural". I do not read it in so many words, but I sincerely believe the South player thought the agreement was "natural". As such, this is misinformation. Even if you believe the true partnership understanding is "no agreement", and even if you believe that such a partnership understanding is possible, that is not what was said at the table. > As for Ghestem breakdowns the system card and the > players will normally tell the Director that they are playing > Ghestem. A properly completed card will detail the calls > involved and indicate the meaning of each. Or the card may > show a natural meaning for the 3C and provide evidence that > the player has forgotten his agreement. If the card is silent on > the subject the partner's subsequent action may provide a clue > whether there is an undisclosed partnership understanding. Most of the Ghestem problems in Belgium are without any SC. How are we to deal with those? > The Director is to seek evidence as to the facts. If there > is doubt about these he follows Law 85. Otherwise he follows > Law 84. The criteria for his rulings are the same in cases of > Ghestem 'disruption' as in any other case requiring similar > determination of the facts. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > That is true - our discussion is merely about what the truth can possibly be. I believe there can be only two possible true "understandings" in this case. 2Di is natural or X-Y. I do not believe "no agreement" is a valid Partnership Understanding. Well, not in cases like this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jul 14 16:34:01 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:34:01 EDT Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? Message-ID: In a message dated 12/07/2008 20:38:34 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: [paul lamford]. In all circumstances when he fails to find evidence to the contrary, he [the TD] must apply 25B1(b): (b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. [DALB] The difficulty with this is that innocent players might on occasion be required to prove a negative, which is more or less impossible. [paul lamford] If you imply: "The unfairness of this is that innocent players might on occasion ..." then I would agree. I am, however, now persuaded by the views of those who concluded that "on the evidence presented by the original poster" that "mistaken bid" was the case here. I would have wanted to ask the pair what they did actually agree - perhaps to play "the usual Hammerfest methods or something like that". However, assuming that "they had not discussed this convention" is deemed to mean that there was neither an actual nor an implicit agreement, then I change my vote to misuse of UI, which now seems to be the majority view. Recently when I was host at a local club, I agreed to play methods not dissimilar to "Standard Young Chelsea", with four card majors, three weak twos and Landy. There was much undiscussed but we felt that "common sense methods" would apply where we had not talked about it. I ventured a 2NT response to her takeout double of a weak two with some trepidation, and after two passes the next chap, in the pass out seat, asked her "natural?" with a slight element of suprise. "Oh", she said, "maybe that is the Lavinthal convention I can never remember." It could be argued by some that we had an implied agreement to play Lebensohl, as that would be "common sense methods"; others would say that, as we had not specifically discussed it, there was "no agreement". 25b(1) effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the misbidder, or misexplainer. But if there is evidence of a misbid, then, of course, that will be used. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 16:36:35 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:36:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487B5E11.3030907@NTLworld.com> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be><001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> <002701c8e538$90d13c60$0901a8c0@JOHN><003901c8e54d$7ef09e40$2cd4403e@Mildred> <487B0CB7.1020409@skynet.be> <006201c8e5b2$b2442950$10c9403e@Mildred> <487B5E11.3030907@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c8e5bf$0518ba40$0f4a2ec0$@com> [NG] As far as I remember, David Burn wrote a superb Ghestem expos? but I've googled for it, in vain. Can anybody provide a link to it? [DALB] David Burn had completely forgotten about this article, but regrettably David Stevenson has preserved it for posterity here: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brx_brn0.htm David Burn London, England From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jul 14 10:45:23 2008 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:45:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 13 Jul 2008, at 04:38, AlLevy at aol.com wrote: > Under the old Law 27, there was no provision for responder to > describe his hand more precisely, as the corrected bid (without > barring partner) was limited to the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination. 1C-(1S)-2H usually defines a hand more precisely than 1C-(P)-1H > Further, if the bid was corrected, opener didn't know when > partner was "stretching" in correcting his bid, and if the bid > wasn't corrected, opener was barred. Nor will opener know now whether responder is stretching. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080714/878cad86/attachment-0001.htm From richard at sunnexgroup.com Mon Jul 14 16:20:16 2008 From: richard at sunnexgroup.com (richard at sunnexgroup.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B5BAD.6060808@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> <487B5BAD.6060808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2306.209.113.218.90.1216045216.squirrel@webmail1.web.com> > David Burn wrote: >> [HdW]??? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SEE THE SAME REPLY? >> >> The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed discussion. >> >> [detailed discussion not repeated here] >> >> [DALB] >> >> In the actual case, where the sequence was 1D-1S-1NT-2D, there are (at >> least) two sub-cases: >> >> (A) South knew that 2D might have been intended as an artificial game >> force, >> but guessed that it was not so intended and passed it (in effect >> explaining >> it to his opponents as natural and non-forcing). >> >> (B) South had no idea that 2D was intended as an artificial game force, >> and >> passed it (also in effect explaining it to his opponents as natural and >> non-forcing). >> >> In case (B) there is no agreement, nothing to disclose, nothing to >> explain. >> One might take the view that West was unlucky when he chose to re-open, >> giving North another chance. One might also take the view that North >> acted >> illegally when he took his second chance - that is not what I propose to >> discuss here. >> >> In case (A) there is some implicit agreement, something to disclose, >> something to explain. South should (in my opinion) alert and say "he >> might >> intend that as an artificial game force" and then pass it. Now West >> knows as >> much as South knows, which is part of his entitlement under the current >> Laws. What South should emphatically not do is explain only the possible >> meaning of 2D consistent with the guess he is about to take. >> > > And pray tell - how does the TD decide which of the two it is? > But I agree you have a point. > I recently directed in a lowly tournament and had a player who bid 2Di > over opponent's 1Cl and told us that he intended that as showing 8 > tricks in any suit. If he would have said afterwards "of course I was > mistaken there", I could have ruled that this was totally wrong and > that there was no MI (misbid). > It seems to me that the Norwegian case is not of that sort. Partner > knows about the convention, although he never plays it. > I believe the case is (A) here, and David is right to state that there > is "something to explain". > >> But in case (A) it seems to me that West is also entitled to know as >> much as >> North knows, which is that 2D was intended as an artificial game force >> and >> that North had at least some reason, by virtue of an implicit agreement, >> to >> hope that South would so understand it. It has always seemed to me >> arbitrary >> and wholly undesirable that if West were on the same side of the screen >> as >> North, he would always pass and defend 2D, whereas if he were on the >> same >> side of the screen as a de Waelite South, he would always bid and defend >> 4S >> or 3NT. I believe that such cases would be most equitably resolved if >> West >> were presumed to have heard both North and South's explanations of 2D >> before >> selecting his call. I am aware that this would require one or more >> changes >> to the present Laws, but I think those changes would be a good thing. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080714/40cd1df6/attachment-0001.htm From richard at sunnexgroup.com Mon Jul 14 16:20:16 2008 From: richard at sunnexgroup.com (richard at sunnexgroup.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B5BAD.6060808@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> <487B5BAD.6060808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2306.209.113.218.90.1216045216.squirrel@webmail1.web.com> > David Burn wrote: >> [HdW]??? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SEE THE SAME REPLY? >> >> The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed discussion. >> >> [detailed discussion not repeated here] >> >> [DALB] >> >> In the actual case, where the sequence was 1D-1S-1NT-2D, there are (at >> least) two sub-cases: >> >> (A) South knew that 2D might have been intended as an artificial game >> force, >> but guessed that it was not so intended and passed it (in effect >> explaining >> it to his opponents as natural and non-forcing). >> >> (B) South had no idea that 2D was intended as an artificial game force, >> and >> passed it (also in effect explaining it to his opponents as natural and >> non-forcing). >> >> In case (B) there is no agreement, nothing to disclose, nothing to >> explain. >> One might take the view that West was unlucky when he chose to re-open, >> giving North another chance. One might also take the view that North >> acted >> illegally when he took his second chance - that is not what I propose to >> discuss here. >> >> In case (A) there is some implicit agreement, something to disclose, >> something to explain. South should (in my opinion) alert and say "he >> might >> intend that as an artificial game force" and then pass it. Now West >> knows as >> much as South knows, which is part of his entitlement under the current >> Laws. What South should emphatically not do is explain only the possible >> meaning of 2D consistent with the guess he is about to take. >> > > And pray tell - how does the TD decide which of the two it is? > But I agree you have a point. > I recently directed in a lowly tournament and had a player who bid 2Di > over opponent's 1Cl and told us that he intended that as showing 8 > tricks in any suit. If he would have said afterwards "of course I was > mistaken there", I could have ruled that this was totally wrong and > that there was no MI (misbid). > It seems to me that the Norwegian case is not of that sort. Partner > knows about the convention, although he never plays it. > I believe the case is (A) here, and David is right to state that there > is "something to explain". > >> But in case (A) it seems to me that West is also entitled to know as >> much as >> North knows, which is that 2D was intended as an artificial game force >> and >> that North had at least some reason, by virtue of an implicit agreement, >> to >> hope that South would so understand it. It has always seemed to me >> arbitrary >> and wholly undesirable that if West were on the same side of the screen >> as >> North, he would always pass and defend 2D, whereas if he were on the >> same >> side of the screen as a de Waelite South, he would always bid and defend >> 4S >> or 3NT. I believe that such cases would be most equitably resolved if >> West >> were presumed to have heard both North and South's explanations of 2D >> before >> selecting his call. I am aware that this would require one or more >> changes >> to the present Laws, but I think those changes would be a good thing. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080714/40cd1df6/attachment-0002.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 14 16:47:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:47:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 14, 2008, at 4:45 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed > discussion. > > Let me describe the standard case: > > Two players are playing together. They know oneanother, but are not a > regular partnership. They sat down at the start of the session and > held a system discussion of a few minutes. For the rest they rely on > common ground to fill in the gaps. Tbey may or may not have played > together in the past, but in any case that is longer ago than recent > memory. > > One player has a hand which is very well suited for a particular call > if the pair were playing convention A. However, within the common > background of the two players, convention A and convention B are both > present. The pair did not discuss this particular auction, so if the > player makes the call, the possible meanings are restricted to A or B. > > The player who wants to make this call realizes this (another case > would be that he does not realize it - that would make for another > interesting case), but he decides that the chances are sufficiently > good that his partner will make the correct guess. He makes the call. > > The partner also knows that the explanations A and B are the two > possibilities. He holds a hand which does not give him the opportunity > of making a call that caters to both possibilities, and so he has to > chose which of the two systems to believe. He does so, and he makes > the appropriate call under that system. > > What should he explain to his opponents? > > Of course he is allowed to explain the existence of two possible > meanings. Some may even argue that he is obliged to give both meanings > (I'm not certain about that). But I also believe he should tell his > opponents one meaning, and one meaning only. After all, the > "understanding" cannot be 2 conventions (that would probably be an > illegal system), and the opponents are entitled to one single meaning, > upon which they can build their defence. > > It would seem strange to me that the player would choose to believe > one option, and bid accordingly, and yet explain to opponents the > other one. > > So the partner chooses an option, bids accordingly, and tells the > opponents which option he has chosen to believe. > > Now there can be two possibilities (remember that the bidder has a > hand consistent with option A): > - The partner has explained option A > - The partner has explained option B > > In the first case, there is no Director call. > In the second case, the Director will be called. > > Now according to Grattan, this pair have no agreements, and so "no > agreements" should have been the correct explanation. Now IMO, that > means that the player who explained B has given MI as well. > > But it also means that the player in case A has given MI, since the > same story applied there - this pair did not have an agreement. Yet > they have the same idea. Herman's interpretation of the disclosure laws, which have been debated in this forum for many years, follow logically and directly from the patently false premise expressed above: that "they have the same idea" and "they have an agreement" are presumed to be equivalent, synonymous statements. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 14 17:00:25 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:00:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> <001301c8e5ab$2c4d4950$84e7dbf0$@no><000101c8e5ab$ed812010$c8836030$@com> <487B4D59.5090808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00e601c8e5c2$5fadf030$10c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings David Burn a ?crit : > [SP] > > Really Herman, you know better than that: > > "All relevant information about an auction" NEVER EVER > includes "The actual holding". > > [DALB] > > Oh, it has been known for players occasionally to make calls > that conform not only to their partnership agreements but to > their actual hands. > AG : and it has even been said before that the actual hand is part of the evidence a TD could gather to ascertain the meaning of a bid, so we should indeed acknowledge a link. < [GE] +=+ The actual hands may also assist the Director (and/or the players) to form a view whether a mutual understanding is reflected in the actions of a partnership. +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 14 17:03:54 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:03:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000101c8e5ab$ed812010$c8836030$@com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> <001301c8e5ab$2c4d4950$84e7dbf0$@no> <000101c8e5ab$ed812010$c8836030$@com> Message-ID: <000001c8e5c2$d550d640$7ff282c0$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn > [SP] > > Really Herman, you know better than that: > > "All relevant information about an auction" NEVER EVER includes "The actual > holding". > > [DALB] > > Oh, it has been known for players occasionally to make calls that conform > not only to their partnership agreements but to their actual hands. > > David Burn > London, England Sure, but the fact that he may have done so is irrelevant and not part of the information given when explaining an understanding. You know that, don't you? Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Mon Jul 14 17:11:01 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:11:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] David Burn on Ghestem; was RE: Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487B5E11.3030907@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2F20@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> > As far as I remember, David Burn wrote a superb Ghestem expos? but > I've googled for it, in vain. Can anybody provide a link to it? Conventions you don't need to know by David Burn, London, England http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brx_brn0.htm 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 14 17:27:05 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:27:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c8e5c6$128e2550$37aa6ff0$@no> Of Herman De Wael > >>> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? > >>> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is either A > >>> or B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." > >>> > >> I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a > >> "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. > >> I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI > >> whatever the intention was. > > > > Please explain in what way my suggested statement is giving MI? > > (And don't bother with what you "believe"; that is entirely irrelevant.) > > > > In the way that the Director may judge you to have more of an > agreement than than. > Maybe it's true that you don't have an agreement - but why should the > TD rule that you don't. Especially if one of you makes a call that > seems to be based on an agreement and the other makes a call that > seems to -at least- cater for the possibility that this was the meaning. I have read this five times (I believe) and still haven't got the faintest idea of what you are saying, and I hardly see any point in prolonging this thread. Do you really claim that if I explain an agreement the way I have selected to believe and use it, but add a warning that I am unsure; there is an equal chance that the agreement is some other (and even specifying the alternative) then I have automatically given misinformation (apparently because one of my alternatives must be wrong)? I don't believe it. (My explanation is of course UI to partner, but that is not part of this discussion). Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 14 17:30:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:30:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be><001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> <002701c8e538$90d13c60$0901a8c0@JOHN><003901c8e54d$7ef09e40$2cd4403e@Mildred> <487B0CB7.1020409@skynet.be><006201c8e5b2$b2442950$10c9403e@Mildred> <487B604E.6000203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <012c01c8e5c6$c0ce4cd0$10c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >>> >> +=+ Each case is treated on the basis of the evidence that the >> Director/AC is able to educe. In the case in this thread part of >> the information we were given on which to base our replies >> was that the partnership was 'occasional' and that it had not >> discussed the meaning of the 2D bid. We do not know how >> the Director obtained this knowledge but it stands part of the >> case. The actions of the players on the hands that they hold is >> consistent with their having no understanding and this piece >> of evidence points to that situation also. Given what we are >> told the Director has no reason to think otherwise and it is not >> his role to invent a partnership understanding for the players. > > South thought 2Di was natural, and passed it. Suppose North was of the > same idea and did indeed have diamonds - would you then feel it was OK > for South to say "no agreement"? Really: no agreement, not "no > agreement, therefore natural". > > Because that is what was said at the table: "no special agreement, > therefore natural". I do not read it in so many words, but I sincerely > believe the South player thought the agreement was "natural". > +=+ Herman, you must have a different version of the case from the one I have. There is no mention in the latter of anything said at the table. This account of the matter merely says (I quote): "2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership. However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" his partner must have some cards. With the help of this bid NS reaches game." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 18:14:08 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:14:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487B7B50.4070001@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > It could be argued by some that we had an implied agreement to > play Lebensohl, as that would be "common sense methods"; others would say > that, as we had not specifically discussed it, there was "no agreement". > Since "it could be argued by some" that is what should be argued by the Director. The pair cannot provide evidence what "common sense" entails, so it entails that Lebensohl is the system, and there was MI (at first). > 25b(1) effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the misbidder, or > misexplainer. But if there is evidence of a misbid, then, of course, that will be > used. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 18:16:21 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:16:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <487B7BD5.1070009@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 14, 2008, at 4:45 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The recent thread on the Norwegian case deserves a detailed >> discussion. >> >> Let me describe the standard case: >> >> Two players are playing together. They know oneanother, but are not a >> regular partnership. They sat down at the start of the session and >> held a system discussion of a few minutes. For the rest they rely on >> common ground to fill in the gaps. Tbey may or may not have played >> together in the past, but in any case that is longer ago than recent >> memory. >> >> One player has a hand which is very well suited for a particular call >> if the pair were playing convention A. However, within the common >> background of the two players, convention A and convention B are both >> present. The pair did not discuss this particular auction, so if the >> player makes the call, the possible meanings are restricted to A or B. >> >> The player who wants to make this call realizes this (another case >> would be that he does not realize it - that would make for another >> interesting case), but he decides that the chances are sufficiently >> good that his partner will make the correct guess. He makes the call. >> >> The partner also knows that the explanations A and B are the two >> possibilities. He holds a hand which does not give him the opportunity >> of making a call that caters to both possibilities, and so he has to >> chose which of the two systems to believe. He does so, and he makes >> the appropriate call under that system. >> >> What should he explain to his opponents? >> >> Of course he is allowed to explain the existence of two possible >> meanings. Some may even argue that he is obliged to give both meanings >> (I'm not certain about that). But I also believe he should tell his >> opponents one meaning, and one meaning only. After all, the >> "understanding" cannot be 2 conventions (that would probably be an >> illegal system), and the opponents are entitled to one single meaning, >> upon which they can build their defence. >> >> It would seem strange to me that the player would choose to believe >> one option, and bid accordingly, and yet explain to opponents the >> other one. >> >> So the partner chooses an option, bids accordingly, and tells the >> opponents which option he has chosen to believe. >> >> Now there can be two possibilities (remember that the bidder has a >> hand consistent with option A): >> - The partner has explained option A >> - The partner has explained option B >> >> In the first case, there is no Director call. >> In the second case, the Director will be called. >> >> Now according to Grattan, this pair have no agreements, and so "no >> agreements" should have been the correct explanation. Now IMO, that >> means that the player who explained B has given MI as well. >> >> But it also means that the player in case A has given MI, since the >> same story applied there - this pair did not have an agreement. Yet >> they have the same idea. > > Herman's interpretation of the disclosure laws, which have been > debated in this forum for many years, follow logically and directly > from the patently false premise expressed above: that "they have the > same idea" and "they have an agreement" are presumed to be > equivalent, synonymous statements. > They are not. But how do you expect the Director to rule that they don't have "understanding" if they do have the "same idea"? > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 14 18:18:12 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:18:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <012c01c8e5c6$c0ce4cd0$10c9403e@Mildred> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be><001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> <002701c8e538$90d13c60$0901a8c0@JOHN><003901c8e54d$7ef09e40$2cd4403e@Mildred> <487B0CB7.1020409@skynet.be><006201c8e5b2$b2442950$10c9403e@Mildred> <487B604E.6000203@skynet.be> <012c01c8e5c6$c0ce4cd0$10c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487B7C44.8090900@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > **************************** > **************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:18 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > >>> +=+ Each case is treated on the basis of the evidence that the >>> Director/AC is able to educe. In the case in this thread part of >>> the information we were given on which to base our replies >>> was that the partnership was 'occasional' and that it had not >>> discussed the meaning of the 2D bid. We do not know how >>> the Director obtained this knowledge but it stands part of the >>> case. The actions of the players on the hands that they hold is >>> consistent with their having no understanding and this piece >>> of evidence points to that situation also. Given what we are >>> told the Director has no reason to think otherwise and it is not >>> his role to invent a partnership understanding for the players. >> South thought 2Di was natural, and passed it. Suppose North was of the >> same idea and did indeed have diamonds - would you then feel it was OK >> for South to say "no agreement"? Really: no agreement, not "no >> agreement, therefore natural". >> >> Because that is what was said at the table: "no special agreement, >> therefore natural". I do not read it in so many words, but I sincerely >> believe the South player thought the agreement was "natural". >> > +=+ Herman, you must have a different version of the case > from the one I have. There is no mention in the latter of anything > said at the table. This account of the matter merely says (I quote): > "2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as > X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership. > However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. > W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" > his partner must have some cards. > With the help of this bid NS reaches game." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > As I said, I don't read it in so many words, but I'm fairly certain that the following happened: South did not alert, and East/West understood this to mean that 2Di was natural. Do you really think this stretches the story as told? Does it contradict anything that was told? Am I allowed to assume that this is the truth? Am I allowed to base my ruling on that? Thank you. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Mon Jul 14 18:25:11 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:25:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004801c8e5ce$301a6900$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > >>>+=+ Reportedly the matter was undiscussed; the system card >>>made no mention of it; the player made an artificial bid >>>in these circumstances and the partner treated it as >>>natural. The balance of probabilities is overwhelmingly in >>>my opinion that there was no agreement and that an alert >>>would have been an error. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Having awarded 2D on the basis of a forgotten implied agreement ("Let's play Norwegian standard" which includes a forcing 2D), equally I would not adjust if I felt that the agreement was "no agreement". That's a given, subject to certain UI constraints as elucidated by DALB. But I have doubts; one of the players clearly thought it was in the system - much as one player thinks 3C is Ghestem and the other it's clubs. I'd be very happy to be as certain as Grattan is that these two examples really are different. John > > Jerry Fusselman: > > [snip] > >>Also, is your statement intended to apply specifically to >>the case under study, or is it intended as a general guide >>to director procedure? > > Richard Hills: > > I fully agree with Grattan's assessment of the balance of > probabilities in the _specific_ case. In the _general_ case, > I note that when Player A believes that the partnership has > agreement X, and when Player B believes that the partnership > has agreement Y, the TD should not restrict her assessment of > facts to a choice between X and Y, but she should also assess > the probability of "no agreement" being the truth. > > Plus rare but possibly true (has occurred several times in my > super-scientific partnership) is that both partners have > simultaneously forgotten that their mutual partnership > understanding is agreement Z. > > By the way, I also agree with David Burn and Nigel Guthrie > that the non-Alert is UI. > > Extract from 2007 Law 16B1(a) plus footnote: > > "...an unexpected* alert or failure to alert..." > "* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC > respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The > official departmental 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 18:25:53 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:25:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <012c01c8e5c6$c0ce4cd0$10c9403e@Mildred> References: <48760BA7.8060609@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8e2f0$73245b10$596d1130$@com> <48772B21.309@ulb.ac.be><487747A3.4020203@NTLworld.com><4877814D.7040008@ulb.ac.be><001a01c8e40c$a5835fd0$b1c8403e@Mildred> <002701c8e538$90d13c60$0901a8c0@JOHN><003901c8e54d$7ef09e40$2cd4403e@Mildred> <487B0CB7.1020409@skynet.be><006201c8e5b2$b2442950$10c9403e@Mildred> <487B604E.6000203@skynet.be> <012c01c8e5c6$c0ce4cd0$10c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001801c8e5ce$4a6adc40$df4094c0$@com> [GE] Herman, you must have a different version of the case from the one I have. There is no mention in the latter of anything said at the table. This account of the matter merely says (I quote): "2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership. However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. [DALB] I'm not sure Herman has "a different version of the case". He may simply be assuming that because South didn't say anything, he would have said "natural and non-forcing" if anyone had asked him to say anything. Of course, it may be relevant whether South would actually have said this, or whether (knowing X-Y to be common in Norway) he might have added something to the effect that "he may intend it as X-Y, but we didn't discuss this so as far as I'm concerned we're not playing it." If Herman is assuming that not alerting and passing a bid is equivalent to the explanation "that bid is natural and non-forcing", I don't see that he's wrong. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Mon Jul 14 18:30:26 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:30:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005901c8e5ce$ec1e6de0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an adjustment is in order. Might a probst cheat carefully lay down the dummy showing the indices DA, K, DQ hiding the fact that the King is in fact a heart? John Wayne 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace holding A,Q,J. > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in the new > Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > Torsten > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 14 20:14:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:14:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bids (from Al Levy) In-Reply-To: <487B21A9.4010207@ulb.ac.be> References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be> <000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> <487A1D68.9040003@skynet.be> <001301c8e51b$3e1b18a0$bdc8403e@Mildred> <487B21A9.4010207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <679C8488-3130-4215-84E9-FCCEC31110C0@starpower.net> On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : > >> BTW...The fly in the ointment is intentionally allowing >> insufficient bids >> to be accepted. If that is removed, then bridge can once again take >> place. As in the card play, if a card of a different suit is >> played, and >> the player noticed that he could have followed suit, the opponents >> don't >> have the option to accept the wrong card thus establishing a revoke. > > AG : you can't dispense with the fly. There will be too frequent > occasions when the insufficient bid is instinctively condoned, so that > you'd need another law to deal with correcting that. Not a big deal. I'd say it is a big deal. We do not want a law by which a player, subsequent to an opponent's infraction, may be in a better position if he acts immediately than if he waits until the director is called and comes to the table. > And > providing the NOS with one more possibility is very much in the spirit > of L72A4. I think L72A is one of the most important in this game. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 20:29:11 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:29:11 +1200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <00e601c8e5c2$5fadf030$10c9403e@Mildred> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> <001301c8e5ab$2c4d4950$84e7dbf0$@no> <000101c8e5ab$ed812010$c8836030$@com> <487B4D59.5090808@ulb.ac.be> <00e601c8e5c2$5fadf030$10c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807141129o2cd24be7u78daa431c9145ec@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/15 : > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************* > On blml we all understand that opinions > expressed by any of us are personal > opinions unless otherwise stated. Readers > are entitled to evaluate the source of an > opinion as they think fit. > ************************* > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:58 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > > > David Burn a ?crit : >> [SP] >> >> Really Herman, you know better than that: >> >> "All relevant information about an auction" NEVER EVER >> includes "The actual holding". >> >> [DALB] >> >> Oh, it has been known for players occasionally to make calls >> that conform not only to their partnership agreements but to >> their actual hands. >> > AG : and it has even been said before that the actual hand is part > of the evidence a TD could gather to ascertain the meaning of a > bid, so we should indeed acknowledge a link. > < > [GE] > +=+ The actual hands may also assist the Director (and/or > the players) to form a view whether a mutual understanding > is reflected in the actions of a partnership. +=+ > There is a serious problem with drawing inferences from an unbiased sample of one. If we happen to be on the same wavelength so our hands and actions match then we have an agreement and if they don't we don't. This is at best a very dubious logical conclusion. Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 14 20:32:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:32:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B330B.8040808@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560807140204u613be79o3b99a1c7f6ea6431@mail.gmail.com> <487B330B.8040808@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> Say partner has made a bid and I am sure that it is either convention >> A or convention B. From my knowledge of our partnership experience >> and my partner's assumed knowledge of what I play in other >> partnerships and my knowledge of what my partner plays in other >> partnerships etc etc I think that it is most like that partner would >> play convention A. However from the actual hand I hold and other >> bids >> made (perhaps by the opponents) it seems that convention A is >> extremely unlikely so I guess that partner is playing convention B >> which a priori I would have thought was unlikely. >> >> Do we have an agreement? >> >> I think not. I just got lucky if my guess is right or unlucky if my >> guess is wrong. >> >> In my view the whole notion of an implicit understanding is flawed. >> Since in many situations it is impossible before an occurrence for a >> player to say with certainty that they have an implicit >> understanding. >> >> In order for there to be an implicit agreement then it needs to be >> certain - 100% - that both partners will interpret the bid the same >> way without reference to additional facts like the cards actually >> held >> or any subsequent bidding by the opponents. > > True Wayne, but what do you explain to opponents? > And what do you do as Director with regards to that explanation? > > I repeat: in theory, there is no agreement. > But in practice, as Director, when partners end up on the same > wavelength, you cannot make the distinction between a lucky guess and > some form of agreement. > And when partners do not seem to end up on the same wavelength, you > don't know if it is because they were unlucky or if one of them forgot > some agreement they made long ago. And they won't tell you if that was > the case. > And as for players who refuge to divulge whether they think it's A or > B, I believe they are being deliberately unhelpful. I have encountered pairs who have the explicit agreement about some high-level doubles in competitive situations that they may be either takeout or penalty; partner is expected in these situations to be able to determine which is intended based on his holding in the opponents' suit. If asked the meaning of one of these doubles, they explain their actual agreement as I just did. Does anyone, including Herman, think that this is improper, that by refusing to divulge their near- certainty as to whether it is takeout or penalty they are being "deliberately unhelpful"? Wayne does not have this agreement, yet he finds himself in the identical situation of making a near-certain determination as to whether the double is takeout or penalty based on his own holding. Does anyone, including Herman, think that Wayne should be treated differently from someone who has explicitly agreed to do this? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 14 20:41:20 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:41:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? >> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is >> either A or >> B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." > > I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a > "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. > I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI > whatever the intention was. Is there really a jurisdiction in which a system that fails to have an agreed meaning for every possible auction "is more often than not disallowed"? What is the criterion? If it wasn't for Herman's "more often than not" I'd be flabbergasted to learn that anyone in such a jurisdiction played a legal system. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 14 20:55:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> The net effect of this is of course that there is no definite >> agreement on >> the situation; consequently it cannot be any question of MI. But >> opponents >> have all available information that can be relevant; nothing has been >> concealed (or undisclosed). > > Yes, the actual holding. > If the partner then guesses correctly, how are you going to decide, as > Director, whether the player told the truth and he made a lucky guess, > or whether he remembered something more about his partner's habits, > and made a decision based thereupon? By looking at his hand and deciding whether it supports his conclusion? When a player says he has no agreement whatsoever whether partner's double of opponent's 1S-4S was for takeout or penalty, but "luckily guesses" that it is takeout based on holding four little spades, is Herman really prepared to presume that he may have done so because "he remembered something more about his partner's habits" than he was willing to reveal? > In my environment, players know they cannot get away with this. As a > consequence, they are perhaps a bit more careful about making more > complete agreements. Maybe you give your players more leeway - are you > sure they are not using that? Are you sure they are not being less > careful about agreeing? In my environment, first-time pairs with minimal agreements are welcome to play, and are not punished by the rules for failing to show up only in well-rehearsed partnerships. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 20:59:13 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:59:13 +1200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B5C42.3010707@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <006401c8e5b2$b44e5130$10c9403e@Mildred> <487B5C42.3010707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807141159u5a085ab3xc19f16d9d3e28895@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/15 Herman De Wael : > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************* >> "A full cup must be carried steadily." >> [English proverb ] >> "************************* >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "blml" >> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:45 AM >> Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings >> >> >> One player has a hand which is very well suited for a particular call >> if the pair were playing convention A. However, within the common >> background of the two players, convention A and convention B are both >> present. The pair did not discuss this particular auction, so if the >> player makes the call, the possible meanings are restricted to A or B. >> The player who wants to make this call realizes this (another case >> would be that he does not realize it - that would make for another >> interesting case), but he decides that the chances are sufficiently >> good that his partner will make the correct guess. He makes the call. >> The partner also knows that the explanations A and B are the two >> possibilities. >> <<<< >> +=+ A question. Is there no possibility that apart from >> conventions A and B, it may be the case that the call is >> natural, the player having realized that partner may >> believe they have not agreed upon any conventional >> meaning? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > In my hypothetical case there are only two possible meanings. One of > these may well be a natural one. I believe that few people play the > meta-agreement "if we haven't discussed it, it's natural". Most people > would not discuss Stayman yet play it. > There is a graduation with conventions that might be implicit partnership agreements. You might say that even without discussion we have the implicit agreement that 1NT Pass 2C is Stayman. The reality is that this is probably 99+% - in fact I know an entire club of players about 50km from my home in which at least last time I played there no one played Stayman. I may have told this story before but I got my highest ever session score there playing with one of the locals where we scored 78% with the aid of one convention - Gerber!!! - actually there were probably two conventions we also played takeout doubles (but not negative or responsive etc) ... I digress. What about transfers. They might be still 99% at least Jacoby transfers to the majors. 4 suit transfers. These could be anywhere between 0% and 99% depending on many factors. 2S range probe similarly could be anywhere in a very wide range. And there are other similar possibilities for 2S. 2NT natural invitational could also be likely or not. etc etc Which of these would be implicit agreements: 1. If I guess correctly at the table? 2. If I guess incorrectly at the table? If the answer is not the same in both cases then I would argue that it is not an implicit agreement. Since I doubt anyone would say that I have an implicit agreement when I guess incorrectly I doubt that we ever could say with certainty that a partnership has an implicit agreement - or at least that an implicit agreement is quite unlikely. Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 14 22:57:08 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:57:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> Message-ID: <0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> On Jul 14, 2008, at 8:17 AM, David Burn wrote: > In the actual case, where the sequence was 1D-1S-1NT-2D, there are (at > least) two sub-cases: > > (A) South knew that 2D might have been intended as an artificial > game force, > but guessed that it was not so intended and passed it (in effect > explaining > it to his opponents as natural and non-forcing). > > (B) South had no idea that 2D was intended as an artificial game > force, and > passed it (also in effect explaining it to his opponents as natural > and > non-forcing). > > In case (B) there is no agreement, nothing to disclose, nothing to > explain. > One might take the view that West was unlucky when he chose to re- > open, > giving North another chance. One might also take the view that > North acted > illegally when he took his second chance - that is not what I > propose to > discuss here. > > In case (A) there is some implicit agreement, something to disclose, > something to explain. South should (in my opinion) alert and say > "he might > intend that as an artificial game force" and then pass it. Now West > knows as > much as South knows, which is part of his entitlement under the > current > Laws. What South should emphatically not do is explain only the > possible > meaning of 2D consistent with the guess he is about to take. > > But in case (A) it seems to me that West is also entitled to know > as much as > North knows, which is that 2D was intended as an artificial game > force and > that North had at least some reason, by virtue of an implicit > agreement, to > hope that South would so understand it. It has always seemed to me > arbitrary > and wholly undesirable that if West were on the same side of the > screen as > North, he would always pass and defend 2D, whereas if he were on > the same > side of the screen as a de Waelite South, he would always bid and > defend 4S > or 3NT. I believe that such cases would be most equitably resolved > if West > were presumed to have heard both North and South's explanations of > 2D before > selecting his call. I am aware that this would require one or more > changes > to the present Laws, but I think those changes would be a good thing. We would rather get these things right at the table than in committee later. So a law directing adjudicators, when the at-the-table procedure failed, to "presume[ West] to have heard both North and South's explanations" would be silly, when we could just as easily making a law that would entitle West to actually receive those explanations. If you want to change the law to *rule as though* both members of a partnership were required to provide (might as well be written) explanations, why not just make it so? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jul 14 23:34:02 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:34:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> <0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> [EL] We would rather get these things right at the table than in committee later. So a law directing adjudicators, when the at-the-table procedure failed, to "presume [West] to have heard both North and South's explanations" would be silly, when we could just as easily making a law that would entitle West to actually receive those explanations. If you want to change the law to *rule as though* both members of a partnership were required to provide (might as well be written) explanations, why not just make it so? [DALB] Because as a practical matter I do not want every alertable call in every bridge club in the world to be accompanied by written explanations of the call handed by both North and South to both East and West. What I do want, though, is for appropriate redress to be given when casual partnerships whose members turn out to be playing different methods thereby harm their opponents. The model we are trying to emulate here is not new - it already exists in the world of online bridge, where both East and West receive (or can receive) explanations form both North and South (who of course cannot communicate with one another, so the question of UI does not arise). I think it is an equitable system - casual partnerships can still have misunderstandings that they might or might not survive, but at least their opponents are kept properly informed. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 15 02:22:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:22:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4876E4AF.1070509@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: >>Question 4: Can a procedural penalty be applied >>to a defensive claim statement? >> >>Question 5: Does the legality of a defensive >>claim statement depend upon its motivation? Nigel Guthrie: >Question 4, Yes. Richard Hills: My answer to Question 4 would be "sometimes Yes". For example, a defensive claim statement may infract Law 74A2, "Even my idiot partner should not stupidly discard his ace." Nigel Guthrie: >Question 5. Sometimes yes. Richard Hills: My answer to Question 5 would be "rarely Yes". In my opinion, the only time motivation is relevant would be when the motive is to knowingly infract Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 15 03:01:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:01:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ground control to Major Tom [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>Richard's claim problems remind me of a case at the Melville >>Bridge Club in Edinburgh, a long time ago >>The ending was something like this ... >> >>......... North >>......... S: Q >>West .... C: xx .... East >>S: AJT ............. S: K >>......... South..... D: AK >>......... C: xxx >> >>Spades are trumps with Dummy (North) on lead. As a defender >>(West) I made a defensive claim. Declarer insisted that she >>"play on". "Partner" brightly ruffed North's club lead with >>S:K. I dodged the uppercut by under-ruffing. That just >>postponed my fate. On the next trick "Partner"'s D:A >>inflicted a coup en passant. Eric Landau: >...for, one assumes, in the same result as would have been the >case if play had stopped at the claim and the director been >called immediately. Richard Hills: Not necessarily. The TD might have ruled that ruffing a club with the king of spades was "irrational", 1997 Laws, or not "normal (includes careless or inferior)", 2007 Laws. While a disadvantage of a defensive claim is that partner is deemed to make careless or inferior plays, an advantage of a defensive claim is that partner is prevented from making a likely irrational play. But is preventing an irrational play an infraction, thus subject to procedural penalty? 2007 Pachabo Cup Teams with hybrid scoring; 50% imps, 50% point-a-board Board 6, Dlr: East, Vul: East-West WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1D Pass 2C Pass 2D Pass 2S Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass K852 Q63 J53 963 Q43 T76 T7 AK2 Q4 AT9872 AKQJT4 8 AJ9 J9854 K6 752 Result at table: 3NT by East, lead H5. 9 tricks made before trick 12, contested claim. Director first called: Claim at trick 12 Director's statement of facts: South claimed at trick 12 with HJ and partner's SK. E/W pointed out that North has 2 winners and could throw wrong one on HJ. The play had been H5, 10, Q and ace. 6 rounds of clubs on which North played 3 clubs, 2 hearts and 1 spade; East 1 club, 3 spades and 2 diamonds; South 3 clubs, 2 hearts and SJ. Then DQ, 3, ace, 6; HK, 8, 7, S8; D8, K, 4, 5; SA, 3, 5, H2; HJ, S4 claim. Director's ruling: 2 tricks to defence 3NT= by East = NS -600, lead H5 Details of ruling: North is in possession of full count of hand since East has shown out of spades and played three hearts. It would therefore not be a normal line to throw SK on HJ. (Laws 70, 71C) Appeal lodged by: East-West Basis of appeal: North may play wrong card Appeals Committee decision: 2 tricks to defence 3NT= by East = NS -600, lead H5 Standard amount procedural penalty to N/S Appeals Committee's comments: Agree North would always get this right but bad behaviour from South to do this - stops any chance of a defensive error. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 15 04:29:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:29:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c8e5ce$301a6900$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Nevertheless, the fact that North chose the 2D >bid, expecting (or at least hoping) it would be >understood, has to count for something. Richard Hills: A unilateral belief by one partner is not a pre- existing mutual understanding of both partners. So I would argue that North's belief _as such_ does not count for anything. On the other hand, if North had one or more reasons to _support_ that belief (e.g. there was a "mutual awareness", Law 40A1(a), that everyone at that bridge club played the X-Y convention), then those supporting reasons may be sufficient to rule that North-South had a pre-existing implicit mutual understanding to play X-Y. The key word here is "pre-existing". North's 2D bid does not create a new mutual partnership understanding at the table, which is the characteristic error of the De Wael methodology. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 15 08:17:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:17:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] So long, and thanks for all the fish [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy: For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons. William Schoder ("Kojak"): >I WAS WRONG - I LEARNED SOMETHING - or THANKS FOR THE >CLARIFICATION are foreign to self-styled experts. They >OWN the holy grail. Once a position is selected it >becomes imperative to move heaven and earth to support >it..... no matter how silly. Richard Hills: I was wrong in my analysis of the score adjustment after two revokes in the same suit. I learned something, in that a mechanical revoke rectification can coexist side-by-side with a Law 64C equity rectification. Thanks for the clarification, and thanks for all the fish. (But I am still moving heaven and earth in the "Ground control to Major Tom" thread to support my other silly position.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 15 10:36:14 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:36:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> <0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> Message-ID: <00cb01c8e655$dc1a7830$944f6890$@nl> Online bridge seems to have different laws: When playing on BBO(nowadays I usually only play for money with robots) in an individual tournament I bid something not natural that I hoped my partner would understand. This partner of course was totally unknown to me. I did not alert, since we had no understanding whatsoever. Opponents were upset, the director was called and I was pretty close to being kicked out and blacklisted. The rule in online bridge seems to be to alert not your agreements, but your hand. A totally different game. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of brian666 at frontiernet.net Sent: dinsdag 15 juli 2008 9:36 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:34:02 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: > >The model we are trying to emulate here is not new - it already exists in >the world of online bridge, where both East and West receive (or can >receive) explanations form both North and South (who of course cannot >communicate with one another, so the question of UI does not arise). I think >it is an equitable system - casual partnerships can still have >misunderstandings that they might or might not survive, but at least their >opponents are kept properly informed. > On the basis of ten years of playing almost all of my bridge online, I have to question the above statement. My experience (currently 150-200 boards per week on BBO, mostly with at least one pickup at the table) is that players seem to accept that their entitlement is just to hear how the bidder intends the bid, self-alerts being the norm. I cannot remember the last time that I was asked to explain my online partner's bid - and it would be an event that would stick in even my unreliable memory for some length of time. I have to say that "self-alerts only" sounds fair to me - if a partnership is going to have a misunderstanding, then opponents are already more likely than not to come out of it with a good score. Being able to ask both opponents, so that you *KNOW* they are having a misunderstanding before it can possibly become apparent to them, is going *beyond* fair IMO, especially if opponents aren't a practiced pair. Brian. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 15 11:34:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:34:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bids (from Al Levy) In-Reply-To: <679C8488-3130-4215-84E9-FCCEC31110C0@starpower.net> References: <000201c8e475$dac8d300$deca403e@Mildred> <4879D5B5.8090805@skynet.be> <000101c8e4f2$d1f03ca0$78d0403e@Mildred> <487A1D68.9040003@skynet.be> <001301c8e51b$3e1b18a0$bdc8403e@Mildred> <487B21A9.4010207@ulb.ac.be> <679C8488-3130-4215-84E9-FCCEC31110C0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <487C6F0E.5020302@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >> >>> BTW...The fly in the ointment is intentionally allowing >>> insufficient bids >>> to be accepted. If that is removed, then bridge can once again take >>> place. As in the card play, if a card of a different suit is >>> played, and >>> the player noticed that he could have followed suit, the opponents >>> don't >>> have the option to accept the wrong card thus establishing a revoke. >>> >> AG : you can't dispense with the fly. There will be too frequent >> occasions when the insufficient bid is instinctively condoned, so that >> you'd need another law to deal with correcting that. Not a big deal. >> > > I'd say it is a big deal. We do not want a law by which a player, > subsequent to an opponent's infraction, may be in a better position > if he acts immediately than if he waits until the director is called > and comes to the table. > > AG : exactly ! And that's why we should never consider disallowing condonement. Perhaps I didn't use the proper English (or American) phrase, but what I meant is "there are too many drawbacks in disallowing condonement (the problem above and the need to consider more adjusted scores) to consider it with any efficiency". Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 15 11:50:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:50:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560807140204u613be79o3b99a1c7f6ea6431@mail.gmail.com> <487B330B.8040808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <487C7303.9010007@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >>> Say partner has made a bid and I am sure that it is either convention >>> A or convention B. From my knowledge of our partnership experience >>> and my partner's assumed knowledge of what I play in other >>> partnerships and my knowledge of what my partner plays in other >>> partnerships etc etc I think that it is most like that partner would >>> play convention A. However from the actual hand I hold and other >>> bids >>> made (perhaps by the opponents) it seems that convention A is >>> extremely unlikely so I guess that partner is playing convention B >>> which a priori I would have thought was unlikely. >>> >>> Do we have an agreement? >>> >>> I think not. I just got lucky if my guess is right or unlucky if my >>> guess is wrong. >>> >>> In my view the whole notion of an implicit understanding is flawed. >>> Since in many situations it is impossible before an occurrence for a >>> player to say with certainty that they have an implicit >>> understanding. >>> >>> In order for there to be an implicit agreement then it needs to be >>> certain - 100% - that both partners will interpret the bid the same >>> way without reference to additional facts like the cards actually >>> held >>> or any subsequent bidding by the opponents. >> True Wayne, but what do you explain to opponents? >> And what do you do as Director with regards to that explanation? >> >> I repeat: in theory, there is no agreement. >> But in practice, as Director, when partners end up on the same >> wavelength, you cannot make the distinction between a lucky guess and >> some form of agreement. >> And when partners do not seem to end up on the same wavelength, you >> don't know if it is because they were unlucky or if one of them forgot >> some agreement they made long ago. And they won't tell you if that was >> the case. >> And as for players who refuge to divulge whether they think it's A or >> B, I believe they are being deliberately unhelpful. > > I have encountered pairs who have the explicit agreement about some > high-level doubles in competitive situations that they may be either > takeout or penalty; partner is expected in these situations to be > able to determine which is intended based on his holding in the > opponents' suit. > > If asked the meaning of one of these doubles, they explain their > actual agreement as I just did. Does anyone, including Herman, think > that this is improper, that by refusing to divulge their near- > certainty as to whether it is takeout or penalty they are being > "deliberately unhelpful"? > Of course not. But there is a huge difference between an agreement that a bid can mean A or B, and a non-agreement about it meaning A or B. One can play a system in which 3Cl is either Clubs or Diamonds and Spades, but one cannot bid 3Cl and explain it as such - since that is not what it "means". One player has bid it with a particular hand, intending it to show that hand. The other player knows his partner is playing one of two convention, but not the singel convention in which it shows one or the other. > Wayne does not have this agreement, yet he finds himself in the > identical situation of making a near-certain determination as to > whether the double is takeout or penalty based on his own holding. > Does anyone, including Herman, think that Wayne should be treated > differently from someone who has explicitly agreed to do this? > Yes, becaus they have not even implicitely agreed to do this? To base your decision on what you see in your own hand is very dangerous, and has led many a pair to land in 6Sp with a 6-6 fit in hearts (the Vilamoura hand). > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 15 11:55:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:55:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000d01c8e5c6$128e2550$37aa6ff0$@no> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> <000d01c8e5c6$128e2550$37aa6ff0$@no> Message-ID: <487C740C.5030104@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Of Herman De Wael >>>>> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? >>>>> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is either > A >>>>> or B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." >>>>> >>>> I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a >>>> "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. >>>> I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI >>>> whatever the intention was. >>> Please explain in what way my suggested statement is giving MI? >>> (And don't bother with what you "believe"; that is entirely irrelevant.) >>> >> In the way that the Director may judge you to have more of an >> agreement than than. >> Maybe it's true that you don't have an agreement - but why should the >> TD rule that you don't. Especially if one of you makes a call that >> seems to be based on an agreement and the other makes a call that >> seems to -at least- cater for the possibility that this was the meaning. > > I have read this five times (I believe) and still haven't got the faintest > idea of what you are saying, and I hardly see any point in prolonging this > thread. > > Do you really claim that if I explain an agreement the way I have selected > to believe and use it, but add a warning that I am unsure; there is an equal > chance that the agreement is some other (and even specifying the > alternative) then I have automatically given misinformation (apparently > because one of my alternatives must be wrong)? > Yes, because you don't have the agreement that it means one or the other. You (are deemed to) have an agreement that it means only one of them, even if you don't know which agreement it is. So to add that you are unsure and that it might be the other agreement does not bring you any consolation. Your opponent have the right to trust only the first explanation, and should be compensated if that turns out to be an incorrect explanation, even when the second explanation turns out to be true. Remember Sven, I am not talking about "true" agreements, only about what the TD will judge to be the "agreement" that the opponents whould have received. > I don't believe it. (My explanation is of course UI to partner, but that is > not part of this discussion). > Indeed, and such a warning should not need to be repeated every time. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 15 11:57:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:57:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <487C7472.2050402@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? >>> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is >>> either A or >>> B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." >> I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a >> "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. >> I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI >> whatever the intention was. > > Is there really a jurisdiction in which a system that fails to have > an agreed meaning for every possible auction "is more often than not > disallowed"? What is the criterion? If it wasn't for Herman's "more > often than not" I'd be flabbergasted to learn that anyone in such a > jurisdiction played a legal system. > Eric, you misunderstood. If a 3Cl overcall is explained as clubs or diamonds and spades, then that is/may be a prohibited system. I added the "more often than not" because of course there are many possible things out there, some of which may well be allowed. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 15 11:43:43 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:43:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com><0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> Message-ID: <004b01c8e661$6992be60$eac8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > [EL] > We would rather get these things right at the table than in committee later. So a law directing adjudicators, when the at-the-table procedure failed, to "presume [West] to have heard both North and South's explanations" would be silly, when we could just as easily making a law that would entitle West to actually receive those explanations. If you want to change the law to *rule as though* both members of a partnership were required to provide (might as well be written) explanations, why not just make it so? > > [DALB] > Because as a practical matter I do not want every alertable call in every bridge club in the world to be accompanied by written explanations of the call handed by both North and South to both East and West. What I do want, though, is for appropriate redress to be given when casual partnerships whose members turn out to be playing different methods thereby harm their opponents. > The model we are trying to emulate here is not new - it already exists in the world of online bridge, where both East and West receive (or can receive) explanations form both North and South (who of course cannot communicate with one another, so the question of UI does not arise). I think it is an equitable system - casual partnerships can still have misunderstandings that they might or might not survive, but at least their opponents are kept properly informed. > > [GE] +=+ This topic has strayed into a surreal universe. For the moment we are bound by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and authorized regulations. When players make calls as the laws allow and make no alert/announcement when none is required, opponents may act upon their inferences (without asking questions or consulting system cards if they choose) but then they must stand by what they do if opponents have committed no infraction. David rightly observes that regulations may provide for written explanations (Law 20F1) and I see nothing to forbid these requiring both members of a partnership to explain any call they specify. However, UI problems and sheer impracticality of the procedure suggest to me that it will not happen. (And I will experience no surprise if Kojak has a view to express about changing the nature of the game!) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From torsten.astrand at telia.com Tue Jul 15 11:58:20 2008 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:58:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result stands. Torsten ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an adjustment is in order. Wayne 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace holding A,Q,J. > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in the new > Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > Torsten > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 15 12:00:31 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:00:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <487C753F.9010107@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> The net effect of this is of course that there is no definite >>> agreement on >>> the situation; consequently it cannot be any question of MI. But >>> opponents >>> have all available information that can be relevant; nothing has been >>> concealed (or undisclosed). >> Yes, the actual holding. >> If the partner then guesses correctly, how are you going to decide, as >> Director, whether the player told the truth and he made a lucky guess, >> or whether he remembered something more about his partner's habits, >> and made a decision based thereupon? > > By looking at his hand and deciding whether it supports his conclusion? > > When a player says he has no agreement whatsoever whether partner's > double of opponent's 1S-4S was for takeout or penalty, but "luckily > guesses" that it is takeout based on holding four little spades, is > Herman really prepared to presume that he may have done so because > "he remembered something more about his partner's habits" than he was > willing to reveal? > No, maybe not. But for every single example you give that is as clear as this one, there are thousands where the hand is of little value in deciding what partner's system is. Yet people seem to "guess" correctly more than 50% of the time. Why? Maybe because they know their partner better than we realize? >> In my environment, players know they cannot get away with this. As a >> consequence, they are perhaps a bit more careful about making more >> complete agreements. Maybe you give your players more leeway - are you >> sure they are not using that? Are you sure they are not being less >> careful about agreeing? > > In my environment, first-time pairs with minimal agreements are > welcome to play, and are not punished by the rules for failing to > show up only in well-rehearsed partnerships. > Oh no, I am not talking about being welcome - but when playing against such a pair, do I need to be at a disadvantage because the director will rule less harshly against them than against me? > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 15 12:04:43 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:04:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <00cb01c8e655$dc1a7830$944f6890$@nl> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> <0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> <00cb01c8e655$dc1a7830$944f6890$@nl> Message-ID: <487C763B.2080301@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > Online bridge seems to have different laws: > > When playing on BBO(nowadays I usually only play for money with robots) in > an individual tournament I bid something not natural that I hoped my partner > would understand. This partner of course was totally unknown to me. I did > not alert, since we had no understanding whatsoever. Opponents were upset, > the director was called and I was pretty close to being kicked out and > blacklisted. The rule in online bridge seems to be to alert not your > agreements, but your hand. A totally different game. > > Hans > Your frustration is understandable, Hans, but you direct your anger at the wrong target. It is not true that you must alert your hand - it is just true that this director did not accept that you did not have an agreement. Again: theory vs practice. In theory, you alert your agreements. In practice, your hand will often be judged to be your agreement, so you might as well alert your hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 15 12:33:08 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:33:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <84ro749dr7utfcq38j56ap7apg9n7slsu4@4ax.com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> <0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> <00cb01c8e655$dc1a7830$944f6890$@nl> <84ro749dr7utfcq38j56ap7apg9n7slsu4@4ax.com> Message-ID: <00cc01c8e666$2c54d970$84fe8c50$@nl> But if I guessed that this totally unknown partner would understand, would it not also be the case that these totally unknown opponents would understand? Why would they be assuming an alert if I just hoped my pd would understand? Here of course is the real issue. Both in online and offline bridge people want to know the hand of their opponents. Offline laws are very clear, you can only hope to get the agreements. In online bridge people are used to being alerted about the hands. I do not, so I am at the border of being blacklisted. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of brian666 at frontiernet.net Sent: dinsdag 15 juli 2008 11:54 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:36:14 +0200, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: >Online bridge seems to have different laws: > >When playing on BBO(nowadays I usually only play for money with robots) in >an individual tournament I bid something not natural that I hoped my partner >would understand. This partner of course was totally unknown to me. I did >not alert, since we had no understanding whatsoever. Opponents were upset, >the director was called and I was pretty close to being kicked out and >blacklisted. The rule in online bridge seems to be to alert not your >agreements, but your hand. A totally different game. > I would have said that the rule was to alert your intended meaning, rather than your hand. The two don't always coincide. Presumably when you made your "not natural" bid, you had some grounds for assuming that the chances were better than even money that your partner would understand it? In that case, I can certainly believe that most online opponents would get upset about your not alerting it, particularly if it was some gadget which was largely unknown in their countries. Yes, online bridge is a different game, you'll get no disagreement from me on that count - although I think "totally" is a bit of an overbid - which is why I think it's ridiculous when people blindly try to apply the "offline" laws to ALL online situations. The WBF's attempt at a set of online laws sank without trace (IMHO) when online players looked at it and saw that all the stuff about errors which don't happen online (partner alerts, TD calls, play must halt on a claim, insufficient bids, revokes, BOOTs, LOOTs, etc, etc) were still in there. I think the WBF lost most of the online audience right there and then. At the very least, the "offline only" laws should have been moved to an appendix, and the de facto online laws (such as play continuing after a disputed claim with all hands visible to the non-claimants) recognised. Brian. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 15 12:40:22 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:40:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487C7472.2050402@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <487C7472.2050402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <487C7E96.6010709@ulb.ac.be> > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >>> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? >>>> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is >>>> either A or >>>> B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." >>>> >>> I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a >>> "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. >>> I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI >>> whatever the intention was. >>> >> Is there really a jurisdiction in which a system that fails to have >> an agreed meaning for every possible auction "is more often than not >> disallowed"? What is the criterion? If it wasn't for Herman's "more >> often than not" I'd be flabbergasted to learn that anyone in such a >> jurisdiction played a legal system. >> >> AG : I think the problem isn't legislating against lack of knowledge (which is part of the game). It is to decide what to do when : a) an undiscussed bidding sequence happens at the table ; this we discussed lengthily, and we agree (at least) that the main problem is to know how the claim of "undiscussed" can be checked. b) an impossible bidding sequence happens. If the bidding went 1NT (weak) - 2H (to play !) - 5C, I wouldn't be able to explain it to the opponents, even if they submitted me to the Wheel. c) a bidding sequence happens, that guarantees ssomething strange happened. I mentioned before this strange sequence by my teammates : pass-1C-1H-2NT-4NT, the natural 4NT being inconsistent with the initial pass. My personal views are that : - in b), you're allowed to say "it's impossible" and then try your luck at guessing - in c), you're allowed, and even compelled, to explain that the sequence doesn't fit together, and then guess that partner probably overlooked an Ace, and act accordingly. You're compelled to give opponents all information you got, and you did it. "Their guess is as good as yours." - in a), you're compelled to tell the truth as to whether the bid is undiscussed ; now there are at least four interesting subcases : a1 : truly undiscussed. Tell it and have a guess. If you guess right, there might be a suspicion that it wasn't truly undiscussed, but this might happen nevertheless, if only because there are in any case but a few possibilities ; even choosing at random gives you a fair chance. a2 : covered by some meta-agreements : then it isn't really undiscussed. Explain how the meta-agreements deal with the sequence. a3 : covered by conflicting meta-agreements : explain it and then go to a1. UI might apply. a4 : undiscussed, but restricted by systemic considerations to be one of a small set of possibilities (typically only two). Now we have to decide whether to apply a1 or a3. Applying a1 might give you a hard time with the TD when you guess right, but, as I mentioned, it could happen. Applying a3 gives heavy UI. My preference goes to a1, because two possibilities aren't very different from, say, five (there will seldom be more than five possibilities for any bid) ; but it is possible that players delude themselves, in all honesty, into thinking they don't know, and that's where the main problem lies. Notice that "It's either A or B, we surely discussed it, but I can't remember which" will never be a true description of your system, although it might be helpful. UI, MI etc.Partner should be extremely careful not to "help" you through his next bid. Now, just in case somebody wants to object I'm cutting it too fine, my feeling is that I didn't cover everything. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Jul 15 12:42:09 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:42:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <004b01c8e661$6992be60$eac8403e@Mildred> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com><0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> <004b01c8e661$6992be60$eac8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c8e667$6fb34a20$4f19de60$@com> [GE] And I will experience no surprise if Kojak has a view to express about changing the nature of the game! [DALB] I will. The nature of the game, as specified in its Laws, is that both members of a partnership must (a) play the same system and (b) disclose that system so that all necessary information about it is fully and freely available to the opponents. That "nature of the game" is altered when casual partnerships play different systems and therefore do not fully and freely explain "their" system to the opponents (because they do not have a single system that can be disclosed). Of course, much social and some serious bridge would be impossible if everyone were supposed to follow "the nature of the game" completely. Heavens above, you would need a rule that said people could only play methods they understood and had agreed with their partners, and that would never do. But I do not see why innocent opponents should not be protected as fully as possible from people who play methods that they do not understand and have not agreed with their partners. It has been argued that "most of the time my opponents will get a bad result if they screw up their auctions, so I should not complain when they get a good one". But most of the time a chap who attempts to shoot himself in the foot will not miss. This does not mean that when he does miss and hits me in the foot instead, I have no claim against him for actual bodily harm. David Burn London, England From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Jul 15 12:48:49 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:48:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Wrongly_sorted_cards_by_dummy?= In-Reply-To: <00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com> <00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <1KIi5R-1Egzho0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> From: Torsten ?strand > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result stands. Show me a law to proof this view - please > Torsten > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an > adjustment is in order. > > Wayne > > 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace holding > > A,Q,J. > > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in the > > new Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > > > Torsten From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 15 12:55:56 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:55:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8e667$6fb34a20$4f19de60$@com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com><0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> <004b01c8e661$6992be60$eac8403e@Mildred> <000001c8e667$6fb34a20$4f19de60$@com> Message-ID: <487C823C.6040300@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > Of course, much social and some serious bridge would be impossible if > everyone were supposed to follow "the nature of the game" completely. > Heavens above, you would need a rule that said people could only play > methods they understood and had agreed with their partners, and that would > never do. But I do not see why innocent opponents should not be protected as > fully as possible from people who play methods that they do not understand > and have not agreed with their partners. It has been argued that "most of > the time my opponents will get a bad result if they screw up their auctions, > so I should not complain when they get a good one". But most of the time a > chap who attempts to shoot himself in the foot will not miss. This does not > mean that when he does miss and hits me in the foot instead, I have no claim > against him for actual bodily harm. > AG : your opinion is 100% Lawful, but I'm a bit concerned that in other cases, "bodily harm" from their infractions will subsist. Take the axample of the exposed card which unexpectedly happens to be the right lead. It is a genuine problem to determine in which case redress must occur, and in which case harm may remain untreated. And above all, to explain rationally why you put the limit here or there. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 15 13:08:28 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:08:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487C740C.5030104@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> <000d01c8e5c6$128e2550$37aa6ff0$@no> <487C740C.5030104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c8e66b$1c155b70$54401250$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .................... > > I have read this five times (I believe) and still haven't got the faintest > > idea of what you are saying, and I hardly see any point in prolonging this > > thread. > > > > Do you really claim that if I explain an agreement the way I have selected > > to believe and use it, but add a warning that I am unsure; there is an equal > > chance that the agreement is some other (and even specifying the > > alternative) then I have automatically given misinformation (apparently > > because one of my alternatives must be wrong)? > > > > Yes, because you don't have the agreement that it means one or the > other. You (are deemed to) have an agreement that it means only one of > them, even if you don't know which agreement it is. > So to add that you are unsure and that it might be the other agreement > does not bring you any consolation. Your opponent have the right to > trust only the first explanation, and should be compensated if that > turns out to be an incorrect explanation, even when the second > explanation turns out to be true. OK. I have never intended to indicate that opponents receive full description by my suggested explanation, but they do receive an as complete description as I am able to give in the situation. This does of course NOT disable them from subsequently showing damage and receive rectification, but it also alerts them of the uncertainty and gives them the possibility of for instance summoning the Director and have partner explain his call while I have temporarily been taken away from the table. I still claim that my suggestion is far better than just explaining one alternative with a hope that it will be correct in a situation where neither alternative seems more probable to me that the other. That should settle the question I assume. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 15 13:27:04 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:27:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487C753F.9010107@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> <487C753F.9010107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c8e66d$b5371990$1fa54cb0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > > In my environment, first-time pairs with minimal agreements are > > welcome to play, and are not punished by the rules for failing to > > show up only in well-rehearsed partnerships. > > > > Oh no, I am not talking about being welcome - but when playing against > such a pair, do I need to be at a disadvantage because the director > will rule less harshly against them than against me? We have a masters' league in Norway, it is organized in divisions where everybody are welcome in the lower divisions. I was once summoned to a table in the "bottom" division; I no longer remember the actual situation but it was a judgment case. I told them to continue their play while I considered the case, and eventually I returned to the table with my verdict which was fairly lenient on the offenders, but I added that this was a case where I would have ruled differently in the top division. The NOS player who had originally summoned me, she was also one of the best directors we had in Norway at the time, burst into laughter and said that she had absolutely no problem accepting my ruling. Does that answer your question? Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 15 14:02:52 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:02:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com><0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com><0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "David Burn" Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 16:34 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > [EL] > > We would rather get these things right at the table than in committee > later. > So a law directing adjudicators, when the at-the-table procedure failed, > to > "presume [West] to have heard both North and South's explanations" would > be > silly, when we could just as easily making a law that would entitle West > to > actually receive those explanations. If you want to change the law to > *rule > as though* both members of a partnership were required to provide (might > as > well be written) explanations, why not just make it so? > > [DALB] > > Because as a practical matter I do not want every alertable call in every > bridge club in the world to be accompanied by written explanations of the > call handed by both North and South to both East and West. What I do want, > though, is for appropriate redress to be given when casual partnerships > whose members turn out to be playing different methods thereby harm their > opponents. > > The model we are trying to emulate here is not new - it already exists in > the world of online bridge, where both East and West receive (or can > receive) explanations form both North and South (who of course cannot > communicate with one another, so the question of UI does not arise). For quite some time I have noticed that when Burn says something it is worth paying attention. There is an expectation of not merely accuracy, but lucidness and wisdom. In short, David's economy with his time, and mine, is invigorating. At the bridge table my observation of many years is that the most prolific activity occurs in the realm of communicating other than by call or play and creating MI other than by call or play. And such is to be expected given that it is rooted in the law that players so behave. After much ruminating, I arrived at the conclusion that it is desirable at the bridge table that communicating and the creation of MI be solely by call and play. And recognizing the hopelessness of such a world, that it is desirable to come as close as practical to such a field of play. regards roger pewick >I think > it is an equitable system - casual partnerships can still have > misunderstandings that they might or might not survive, but at least their > opponents are kept properly informed. > David Burn > London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 15 14:18:34 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:18:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8e66b$1c155b70$54401250$@no> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> <000d01c8e5c6$128e2550$37aa6ff0$@no> <487C740C.5030104@skynet.be> <000001c8e66b$1c155b70$54401250$@no> Message-ID: <487C959A.4030005@skynet.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > > OK. > > I have never intended to indicate that opponents receive full description by > my suggested explanation, but they do receive an as complete description as > I am able to give in the situation. > You do realize that even the best you can do may be judged not good enough? > This does of course NOT disable them from subsequently showing damage and > receive rectification, but it also alerts them of the uncertainty and gives > them the possibility of for instance summoning the Director and have partner > explain his call while I have temporarily been taken away from the table. > OK, that is a good reason for giving the explanation you suggest. It does not exonerate you from having given MI though. > I still claim that my suggestion is far better than just explaining one > alternative with a hope that it will be correct in a situation where neither > alternative seems more probable to me that the other. > Maybe for the reason you give above, yes. My point was about trying to avoid giving MI - that is impossible if you don't know the real agreement. As for the relative benefit of giving MI/UI, we've discussed that one to the death. Although in this case it cannot be UI to partner, who should realize that you don't know either. > That should settle the question I assume. > > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jul 15 14:27:13 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:27:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be><000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com><0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net><002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> <004b01c8e661$6992be60$eac8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: I agree with Grattan's use of "surreal universe". In the many years of watching BLML I've never seen such a confused thread. If there is still someone that doesn't understand that "Kitchen" Bridge, Club Bridge, On-line Bridge, Tournament Bridge, and International Top Level Bridge are DIFFERENT GAMES, they've lost me. If you want to talk about what happens in Aunt Elsie's game and equate that with the Bermuda Bowl you are far from my comprehension of reality. I respectfully suggest that a broad brush expression of views about "Laws" "Rules" "accepted methods" etc. by jumping from one to the other is an exercise in futility if not ignorance. When we place four players in the USA, Europe, China, and Argentina at a virtual table, unseen and unknown to each other, we are far from where established partnerships who have given their opponents books of their agreements and methods and have had computer simulations, etc., before they ever sit down to play. When four housepersons (notice I didn't use a sexist word - I'm learning) sit down on Tuesday afternoon over coffee, serious discussions of mates, children, and TV programs, and deal the cards we are in another world. True, the Club, NBO, WBF, Screens, NoScreens, Bidding Boxes, bear resemblances. But when momma and poppa at the club, playing with their friends as partners (therefore not even with each other), and having limited knowledge of the opponents -- who does what with certain holdings, conventions (yep there's that dirty word again), agreements, etc., we have just one scenario. Comparing ON-line bridge to Duplicate Bridge (ex Duplicate Contract Bridge) is comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruits, have seeds, taste good, and are healthy for the mind and body, but comparisons break down after that. The "Game" we regulated with a fair degree of efficiency for many decades with a single set of Laws has fragmented into distinct games. To try to continue a mish-mash approach won't work. But even more important for BLML, IMHO, is to first define a problem and remain within its parameters before firing scattergun solutions at ill defined and/or poorly constructed postings. "What's the exact problem?" is the first step of constructive problem solving. Each recipient apparently defining the problem to his/her own interpretation to make it fit their cherished responses, but most avoided a clear, correct, and useable solution. As an example: To come to 50/50 on the "ruling please" thread you have to discard the following. South did not alert, South's pass with his holding was clearly based on 2 diamonds being natural, There was no infraction. Throw all that out, along with no confirmation otherwise on a convention card, or other evidence of an agreement, and you can now be comfortable in your 50/50 based on a further supposition of the existence of a conventional agreement, and now decide on 2 diamonds making some number of tricks YOU WOULD HAVE MADE were you playing not directing, while not having to use good judgement in deciding whether or not North took advantage of UI in subsequent calls which is the real crux of this problem. Take from our long time established structure those elements that you want and need to play your game; change what you find to what works for you; apply your desired methods, laws, rules, and what-have-you equitably; and enjoy. BUT DON'T FALL INTO THE MISTAKE OF ASSUMING YOU ARE STILL PLAYING THE SAME GAME, or IMHO thinking that you have somehow "improved" the game. Codicil: Anyone who feels insulted by the above would probably benefit from some introspection, in place of anger at me. Kojak > "We live in an environment whose > principal product is garbage." > ~ Russell Baker, 1968. > +=+ This topic has strayed into a surreal universe. For the moment > we are bound by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and authorized > regulations. When players make calls as the laws allow and make > no alert/announcement when none is required, opponents may act > upon their inferences (without asking questions or consulting system > cards if they choose) but then they must stand by what they do if > opponents have committed no infraction. > David rightly observes that regulations may provide for > written explanations (Law 20F1) and I see nothing to forbid these > requiring both members of a partnership to explain any call they > specify. However, UI problems and sheer impracticality of the > procedure suggest to me that it will not happen. (And I will > experience no surprise if Kojak has a view to express about > changing the nature of the game!) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jul 15 14:31:34 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:31:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> <487C753F.9010107@skynet.be> <000101c8e66d$b5371990$1fa54cb0$@no> Message-ID: Yes Yes Yes. A light in the darkness. Thank you, Sven. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................ > > > In my environment, first-time pairs with minimal agreements are > > > welcome to play, and are not punished by the rules for failing to > > > show up only in well-rehearsed partnerships. > > > > > > > Oh no, I am not talking about being welcome - but when playing against > > such a pair, do I need to be at a disadvantage because the director > > will rule less harshly against them than against me? > > We have a masters' league in Norway, it is organized in divisions where > everybody are welcome in the lower divisions. > > I was once summoned to a table in the "bottom" division; I no longer > remember the actual situation but it was a judgment case. I told them to > continue their play while I considered the case, and eventually I returned > to the table with my verdict which was fairly lenient on the offenders, > but > I added that this was a case where I would have ruled differently in the > top > division. > > The NOS player who had originally summoned me, she was also one of the > best > directors we had in Norway at the time, burst into laughter and said that > she had absolutely no problem accepting my ruling. > > Does that answer your question? > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 15 15:14:04 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:14:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <70CDF7D5-5433-4282-BD29-A8DBBEC4F45B@starpower.net> On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> ............. >>>> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? >>>> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is >>>> either A >> or >>>> B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." >>>> >>> I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a >>> "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. >>> I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI >>> whatever the intention was. >> >> Please explain in what way my suggested statement is giving MI? >> (And don't bother with what you "believe"; that is entirely >> irrelevant.) >> > > In the way that the Director may judge you to have more of an > agreement than than. > Maybe it's true that you don't have an agreement - but why should the > TD rule that you don't. Because he has an obligation to determine the facts as accurately as he can? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 15 15:26:46 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:26:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487B7BD5.1070009@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <487B7BD5.1070009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5101CDED-4794-4370-B60C-894A77D2B5F5@starpower.net> On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Herman's interpretation of the disclosure laws, which have been >> debated in this forum for many years, follow logically and directly >> from the patently false premise expressed above: that "they have the >> same idea" and "they have an agreement" are presumed to be >> equivalent, synonymous statements. > > They are not. They are not synonymous, nor has Herman ever said they were. > But how do you expect the Director to rule that they don't have > "understanding" if they do have the "same idea"? What he has said repeatedly is that they are to be presumed (by the TD/AC) to be synonymous, i.e. to be treated as equivalent statements. As he has just done again. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 15 15:51:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:51:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8e667$6fb34a20$4f19de60$@com> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com><0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> <004b01c8e661$6992be60$eac8403e@Mildred> <000001c8e667$6fb34a20$4f19de60$@com> Message-ID: On Jul 15, 2008, at 6:42 AM, David Burn wrote: > [GE] > > And I will experience no surprise if Kojak has a view to express about > changing the nature of the game! > > [DALB] > > I will. The nature of the game, as specified in its Laws, is that both > members of a partnership must (a) play the same system and (b) > disclose that > system so that all necessary information about it is fully and freely > available to the opponents. That "nature of the game" is altered > when casual > partnerships play different systems and therefore do not fully and > freely > explain "their" system to the opponents (because they do not have a > single > system that can be disclosed). > > Of course, much social and some serious bridge would be impossible if > everyone were supposed to follow "the nature of the game" completely. > Heavens above, you would need a rule that said people could only play > methods they understood and had agreed with their partners, and > that would > never do. But I do not see why innocent opponents should not be > protected as > fully as possible from people who play methods that they do not > understand > and have not agreed with their partners. Because as David points out in his previous sentence, "people who play methods that they do not understand and have not agreed with their partners" are doing nothing illegal, and because the laws don't "protect" innocent opponents from equally innocent non-offenders. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 15 16:46:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:46:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000101c8e66d$b5371990$1fa54cb0$@no> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> <487C753F.9010107@skynet.be> <000101c8e66d$b5371990$1fa54cb0$@no> Message-ID: <487CB837.3050007@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > I was once summoned to a table in the "bottom" division; I no longer > remember the actual situation but it was a judgment case. I told them to > continue their play while I considered the case, and eventually I returned > to the table with my verdict which was fairly lenient on the offenders, but > I added that this was a case where I would have ruled differently in the top > division. > > The NOS player who had originally summoned me, she was also one of the best > directors we had in Norway at the time, burst into laughter and said that > she had absolutely no problem accepting my ruling. > > Does that answer your question? > AG : I guess it does, but it raises another : what was so funny in this distinguo ? It seems fairly routine AFAIC. The farthest I went on that way was to decide that a long-time beginner didn't know enough to have made use of some rather subtle UI from the order in which questions were asked. Also, I guess 'could have known' rulings might be so assessed, because Harry was too dumb to know, but Perry could. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 15 17:06:14 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:06:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <5101CDED-4794-4370-B60C-894A77D2B5F5@starpower.net> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <487B7BD5.1070009@skynet.be> <5101CDED-4794-4370-B60C-894A77D2B5F5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <487CBCE6.4040000@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> But how do you expect the Director to rule that they don't have >> "understanding" if they do have the "same idea"? >> > > What he has said repeatedly is that they are to be presumed (by the > TD/AC) to be synonymous, i.e. to be treated as equivalent > statements. As he has just done again. > I like /argumentum ad fines./ Say partner opens 7NT. You can be pretty sure he has something very close to 13 top tricks, with perhaps a little gamble like an AKQ10x suit. Yet I bet you never discussed, perhaps not even thought of, that bid. Ergo, it IS possible to have the same idea, on fairly solid grounds, yet not to have any agreement. Whence TD should investigate whether this is possible in the case that's offered to him. Not all cases are that obvous ? Indeed. That's why there are TDs and ACs. In fact, that was my claim in the 3D case I presented several months ago : that 3D bid that should show 4414 by mere analogy with some other, well-discussed, non-relays. The more I read on this thread, the less I understand why a majority of contributors said that my understanding the bid was proof of an agreement. In my view, it still isn't. And the best proof of this is that some good players who didn't ever hear about the system found the right meaning, given all relevant information. Hey, I've found something ! Couldn't it be made standard practice, in order to know whether it's possible to guess the meaning without any prior agreement, to ask some of the player's peers, giving them the system notes, and to accept the guess based on some % rule ? (if somebody already had that briliant idea, so much the better ;-) Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 15 17:19:28 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:19:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487CB837.3050007@ulb.ac.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3498.8050103@skynet.be> <487C753F.9010107@skynet.be> <000101c8e66d$b5371990$1fa54cb0$@no> <487CB837.3050007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c8e68e$2c5c2540$85146fc0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ........... > > The NOS player who had originally summoned me, she was also one of the best > > directors we had in Norway at the time, burst into laughter and said that > > she had absolutely no problem accepting my ruling. > > > > Does that answer your question? > > > AG : I guess it does, but it raises another : what was so funny in this > distinguo ? Nothing funny. It was laughter of joy. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 15 17:21:13 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:21:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <70CDF7D5-5433-4282-BD29-A8DBBEC4F45B@starpower.net> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> <70CDF7D5-5433-4282-BD29-A8DBBEC4F45B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <487CC069.5080509@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> ............. >>>>> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? >>>>> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is >>>>> either A >>> or >>>>> B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." >>>>> >>>> I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a >>>> "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. >>>> I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI >>>> whatever the intention was. >>> Please explain in what way my suggested statement is giving MI? >>> (And don't bother with what you "believe"; that is entirely >>> irrelevant.) >>> >> In the way that the Director may judge you to have more of an >> agreement than than. >> Maybe it's true that you don't have an agreement - but why should the >> TD rule that you don't. > > Because he has an obligation to determine the facts as accurately as > he can? > Indeed, "as he can". The Director is to assume MI rather than misbid. So if you cannot provide evidence that you do _not_ have an agreement, the director is to assume that you have it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 15 17:34:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:34:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <487CC069.5080509@skynet.be> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> <70CDF7D5-5433-4282-BD29-A8DBBEC4F45B@starpower.net> <487CC069.5080509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <487CC39E.4010804@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > Indeed, "as he can". > The Director is to assume MI rather than misbid. > So if you cannot provide evidence that you do _not_ have an agreement, > the director is to assume that you have it. > > AG : not quite. If the TD finds solid evidence that you haven't provided him, so much the better. He is endowed with the power to investigate leads that you didn't think of. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Jul 15 22:53:37 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:53:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com><0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> <004b01c8e661$6992be60$eac8403e@Mildred> <000001c8e667$6fb34a20$4f19de60$@com> Message-ID: <000c01c8e6bc$dba08770$92e19650$@com> [EL] Because as David points out in his previous sentence, "people who play methods that they do not understand and have not agreed with their partners" are doing nothing illegal [DALB] This is not completely clear to me. Law 20F1 says: During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Now, how am I to know about calls actually made if you can't tell me what they actually meant? David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 16 03:06:19 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:06:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560807141159u5a085ab3xc19f16d9d3e28895@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: [big snip] >Which of these would be implicit agreements: > >1. If I guess correctly at the table? > >2. If I guess incorrectly at the table? > >If the answer is not the same in both cases then I >would argue that it is not an implicit agreement. Richard Hills: I agree with the point Wayne is making here. A pre- existing implicit mutual understanding does not suddenly vanish if there is a subsequent incorrect guess at the table. Nor does TARDIS time travel apply at bridge - a correct guess in the present does not create an implicit mutual understanding in the past. Wayne Burrows: >Since I doubt anyone would say that I have an >implicit agreement when I guess incorrectly Richard Hills: No, I disagree. My oft repeated statement, "A unilateral guess by one partner is not a mutual understanding of both partners," is a double-edged sword. If it is commonplace to forget an explicit mutual partnership understanding, why should not forgets of implicit mutual partnership understandings be equally commonplace? Wayne Burrows: >I doubt that we ever could say with certainty that >a partnership has an implicit agreement - or at >least that an implicit agreement is quite unlikely. Richard Hills: In my opinion, on this topic of implicit mutual partnership understandings, Wayne Burrows and Herman De Wael are opposite sides of the same coin. Wayne assumes that implicit mutual partnership understandings (almost) never exist, or, to be more precise, (almost) never can be said with certainty to exist. Herman assumes that implicit mutual partnership understandings (almost) always exist, or, to be more precise, (almost) always cannot be disproved to exist. In my opinion, both are wrong, since Wayne's "certainty" and Herman's "disproof" are not what is required by Law 85. That Law instead encourages Directors to try to make their rulings on facts correspond to the actual facts as often as possible. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jul 16 03:31:18 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:31:18 +1200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560807141159u5a085ab3xc19f16d9d3e28895@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807151831j267bc0f6p3cf36b00e30defd2@mail.gmail.com> > In my opinion, both are wrong, since Wayne's > "certainty" and Herman's "disproof" are not what is > required by Law 85. That Law instead encourages > Directors to try to make their rulings on facts > correspond to the actual facts as often as possible. > If I have no implicit partnership understanding then how can a ruling that I do ever correspond to the facts? To have a partnership understanding then surely the players concerned need to be able to judge that such an understanding occurs. It seems completely undesireable to me that I find out that I have a partnership when someone makes a decree without a firm knowledge of what our partnership experience etc is. If I don't know that I have a partnership agreement knowing the history how can someone else be able to determine this without knowing? Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 16 04:12:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:12:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c8e6bc$dba08770$92e19650$@com> Message-ID: [DALB] This is not completely clear to me. Law 20F1 says: During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Now, how am I to know about calls actually made if you can't tell me what they actually meant? [RJBH] In my opinion a null explanation of "neither an explicit nor an implicit mutual partnership understanding" is a legal Law 20F1 explanation about a call actually made. David's phrase "actually meant" is undefined. If David meant "actually meant" to be the caller's "intended meaning", then in order for David to get a TD ruling which delivers that information David either has to wait for the 2018 Lawbook, or David has to move to Belgium. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jul 16 06:47:20 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:47:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c8e5ce$301a6900$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <004801c8e5ce$301a6900$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: 2008/7/14 John (MadDog) Probst : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Bear den of Pi roof [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>>>+=+ Reportedly the matter was undiscussed; the system card >>>>made no mention of it; the player made an artificial bid >>>>in these circumstances and the partner treated it as >>>>natural. The balance of probabilities is overwhelmingly in >>>>my opinion that there was no agreement and that an alert >>>>would have been an error. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Having awarded 2D on the basis of a forgotten implied agreement ("Let's play > Norwegian standard" which includes a forcing 2D), Just to get this straight: The XY-convention isn't part of 'Norwegian Standard'. However, sitting down with a player of a certain level (or age, and in some areas also from a lower level), one would assume the XY-convention to be 'standard'. There's a lot of players I might sit down to play a session with and not discuss this at all, just assume that we do play it. >equally I would not adjust > if I felt that the agreement was "no agreement". That's a given, subject to > certain UI constraints as elucidated by DALB. But I have doubts; one of the > players clearly thought it was in the system - much as one player thinks 3C > is Ghestem and the other it's clubs. I'd be very happy to be as certain as > Grattan is that these two examples really are different. John >> >> Jerry Fusselman: >> >> [snip] >> >>>Also, is your statement intended to apply specifically to >>>the case under study, or is it intended as a general guide >>>to director procedure? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I fully agree with Grattan's assessment of the balance of >> probabilities in the _specific_ case. In the _general_ case, >> I note that when Player A believes that the partnership has >> agreement X, and when Player B believes that the partnership >> has agreement Y, the TD should not restrict her assessment of >> facts to a choice between X and Y, but she should also assess >> the probability of "no agreement" being the truth. >> >> Plus rare but possibly true (has occurred several times in my >> super-scientific partnership) is that both partners have >> simultaneously forgotten that their mutual partnership >> understanding is agreement Z. >> >> By the way, I also agree with David Burn and Nigel Guthrie >> that the non-Alert is UI. >> >> Extract from 2007 Law 16B1(a) plus footnote: >> >> "...an unexpected* alert or failure to alert..." >> "* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard James Hills >> Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) >> Department of Immigration and Citizenship >> Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >> Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >> advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. >> This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, >> legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, >> retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons >> or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC >> respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The >> official departmental 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 16 08:18:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:18:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Skewes' Number [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560807151831j267bc0f6p3cf36b00e30defd2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >If I have no implicit partnership understanding then >how can a ruling that I do ever correspond to the facts? > >To have a partnership understanding then surely the >players concerned need to be able to judge that such an >understanding occurs. [snip] 1997 Law 75B: "...(but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed)..." 2007 Law 40C1: "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings..." Richard Hills: Some years ago Wayne discussed on blml a New Zealand Appeals Committee decision which disgruntled him. The issue was whether Wayne's repeated psyches were habitual, thus transmogrifying a psychic non-understanding into a non-psychic implicit understanding. Wayne raised two valid (at the time) points. Wayne's first point was that his partner had a terrible memory and a trusting nature, so was completely caught by surprise every time. This first point has been specifically validated by the 2007 Law 40C1 phrase "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." The second point was that the 1997 Law 75B included the word "may". That is, no matter how habitual the violation, an implicit understanding was not necessarily created. This second point is no longer valid, since the 2007 Law 40C1 states that, "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings...", not "Repeated deviations _may_ lead to implicit understandings...". But what about the word "Repeated"? It seems to me that the number of permitted repeats is proportional to a forgetful partner's lack of "reason to be aware". Ergo, provided one has a partner with a terrible memory and a trusting nature, the number of "repeats" of a deviation required to create an implicit understanding might be a number equal to Skewes' Number. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 15 08:44:40 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:44:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00c501c8e646$44371960$cca54c20$@nl> What Al seems to miss is that the bid should be more precise, but need not necessarily reflect bidders hand more precise. So all at the table will know to treat such bids with a bit of reserve. Hans From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of AlLevy at aol.com Sent: zondag 13 juli 2008 5:39 To: blml at amsterdamned.org Subject: Re: [blml] accepting insufficient bid An interesting twist on Law 27. Insufficient bids will now be accepted! Law 27 - Insufficient Bid The new law allows the insufficient bidder to change his call to a call whose meaning is the same or more precise than the insufficient bid. So in the auction: 1D-1S-1H, 1H can be replaced with either Dbl or 2H (or in France, 1D-1S-2C showing 5+ hearts, 7-10 hcp). Now take the corrected auction 1D-1S-Dbl/2H-2S/3S/4S. Opener now knows partner's hand more precisely than if the insufficient bid was accepted. So, at least in cases where the partner of overcaller intends to raise partner's suit, the insufficient bid should almost always be accepted. There will be many more examples of the benefit of accepting an insufficient bid under the new law 27. OK...who will write the first article on "When to accept an insufficient bid." Under the old Law 27, there was no provision for responder to describe his hand more precisely, as the corrected bid (without barring partner) was limited to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination. Further, if the bid was corrected, opener didn't know when partner was "stretching" in correcting his bid, and if the bid wasn't corrected, opener was barred. So, under the old 27A accepting the insufficient bid was almost never to your advantage. Al Levy _____ Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080715/7d7d56e3/attachment-0001.htm From will-t at online.no Tue Jul 15 14:14:48 2008 From: will-t at online.no (Willy Teigen) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:14:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> Message-ID: <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> I've been away for a few days after I posted this case on BLML. I came home yesterday and was quite amazed about the differences in opinion on this board. I want to make some clarifications: 1) I was the north player myself J 2) The NS partnership is not established at all, and we do NOT have a CC. It was occasional that we played together. 3) Even the slightest thought of a first hand psyche by my partner never occurred to me. Even if we don't play much together, I know him from my club and I know he would NEVER do such a thing. 4) No one went down in 4S so playing in 2D would have been a cold bottom no matter how many tricks. J 5) I realize that I asked the wrong question, and I ask again: "Do you adjust?" >From club play yesterday. -------KQT85 -------Q3 -------K73 -------KQ5 742 J9 KJ975 T62 JT8652 J9872 A4 -------A63 -------A84 -------AQ94 -------T63 N, S and W are all very experienced players. Bidding: S W N E 1D P 1S P 1NT P 2D* P P!! 2H 3H P 3NT All pass 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but was not discussed in this occasional partnership. However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" his partner must have some cards. With the help of this bid NS reaches game. Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. How do you adjust? J _________________________ Regards, Willy Teigen Toppen 1 8515 Narvik Norway Mail: will-t at online.no _________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080715/e655e496/attachment-0001.htm From richard at sunnexgroup.com Tue Jul 15 15:18:26 2008 From: richard at sunnexgroup.com (richard at sunnexgroup.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <70CDF7D5-5433-4282-BD29-A8DBBEC4F45B@starpower.net> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> <70CDF7D5-5433-4282-BD29-A8DBBEC4F45B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1626.209.113.218.90.1216127906.squirrel@webmail1.web.com> > On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: how much can u beat a dead horse-simple-we have no agreement >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> ............. >>>>> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? >>>>> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is >>>>> either A >>> or >>>>> B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." >>>>> >>>> I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a >>>> "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. >>>> I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI >>>> whatever the intention was. >>> >>> Please explain in what way my suggested statement is giving MI? >>> (And don't bother with what you "believe"; that is entirely >>> irrelevant.) >>> >> >> In the way that the Director may judge you to have more of an >> agreement than than. >> Maybe it's true that you don't have an agreement - but why should the >> TD rule that you don't. > > Because he has an obligation to determine the facts as accurately as > he can? > > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080715/29ed9c68/attachment.htm From richard at sunnexgroup.com Tue Jul 15 15:18:26 2008 From: richard at sunnexgroup.com (richard at sunnexgroup.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <70CDF7D5-5433-4282-BD29-A8DBBEC4F45B@starpower.net> References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000c01c8e596$8a683780$9f38a680$@no> <487B3396.10300@skynet.be> <001401c8e5ab$dfea1f10$9fbe5d30$@no> <487B5A13.10600@skynet.be> <70CDF7D5-5433-4282-BD29-A8DBBEC4F45B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1626.209.113.218.90.1216127906.squirrel@webmail1.web.com> > On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: how much can u beat a dead horse-simple-we have no agreement >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> ............. >>>>> Why on earth should it be wrong to say something like this? >>>>> "We haven't discussed this situation but I am pretty sure it is >>>>> either A >>> or >>>>> B. Which one? Your guess is as good as mine." >>>>> >>>> I believe that to be deliberately unhelpful. If you consider that a >>>> "system" then such a system is more often than not, disallowed. >>>> I think that to give explanations like that should be ruled MI >>>> whatever the intention was. >>> >>> Please explain in what way my suggested statement is giving MI? >>> (And don't bother with what you "believe"; that is entirely >>> irrelevant.) >>> >> >> In the way that the Director may judge you to have more of an >> agreement than than. >> Maybe it's true that you don't have an agreement - but why should the >> TD rule that you don't. > > Because he has an obligation to determine the facts as accurately as > he can? > > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080715/29ed9c68/attachment-0001.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 16 10:11:38 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:11:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487DAD3A.3040906@NTLworld.com> For Bridge Law purposes, what is a "Partnership Agreement"? Among a myriad of possible definitions ... [A] What both partners currently guess it is [B] What each partner guesses it is (even when their opinions are different) [C] Their latest mutual agreement (even if either or both have forgotten it or never knew it). The parenthesis to definition [C] may seem to describe a surreal state of affairs but, in practice, it often occurs. For example when a pair agree to play according to a book that neither of them have fully read. Other problems: (1) Pick-up partnerships take a lot for granted. For example, Stayman, Transfers, UNT, 4SF, UCB, RKCB, Lebensohl, Jacoby, Drury, (also, arguably and contentiously, X-Y or some other local Crowhurst variant). If such a convention is undiscussed but alertable, should you alert it? (2) Even if you are a regular partnership and believe you have a mutual agreement, you are hardly ever certain. If you have a fairly comprehensive system card then, when in doubt, you can ask an opponent to refer to the card, but most pairs are less fastidious. How sure must you be that you have an alertable agreement, before you actually alert? In the Norwegian case, as David Burn suggests, should you alert and, when asked, explain "Undiscussed but two likely meanings are natural and X-Y"? If you pass after so alerting and explaining, and RHO complains, how should a director rule? I hope that the 2018 laws will address this kind of issue. There have been many suggestions on BLML and elsewhere to simplify and clarify disclosure and hence remove these problems from the laws but, obviously, a panacea is unlikely. IMO, the first step on this difficult path is to *define* basic terms like "Agreement" and to eliminate unhelpful concepts like "General Bridge Knowledge" that traditionally obfuscate these issues. It is understandable that directors and administrators want the laws to provide them with sophisticated, interesting and rewarding jobs but it is important that law-makers also take into account the player point of view. IMO, most players would prefer simple laws that they can understand. This problem is endemic to all legal systems :) Lawyers are Citizens but when they write Laws, they are Lawyers. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 16 11:01:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:01:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Skewes' Number [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487DB8E1.8030504@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Wayne Burrows: > > >> If I have no implicit partnership understanding then >> how can a ruling that I do ever correspond to the facts? >> >> To have a partnership understanding then surely the >> players concerned need to be able to judge that such an >> understanding occurs. >> > > [snip] > > 1997 Law 75B: > > "...(but habitual violations within a partnership may > create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed)..." > > 2007 Law 40C1: > > "A player may deviate from his side's announced > understandings always provided that his partner has no > more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the > opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit > understandings..." > > Richard Hills: > > Some years ago Wayne discussed on blml a New Zealand > Appeals Committee decision which disgruntled him. The > issue was whether Wayne's repeated psyches were habitual, > thus transmogrifying a psychic non-understanding into a > non-psychic implicit understanding. > > Wayne raised two valid (at the time) points. > > Wayne's first point was that his partner had a terrible > memory and a trusting nature, so was completely caught > by surprise every time. > > This first point has been specifically validated by the > 2007 Law 40C1 phrase "partner has no more reason to be > aware of the deviation than have the opponents." > > The second point was that the 1997 Law 75B included the > word "may". That is, no matter how habitual the > violation, an implicit understanding was not necessarily > created. > > This second point is no longer valid, since the 2007 Law > 40C1 states that, "Repeated deviations lead to implicit > understandings...", not "Repeated deviations _may_ lead > to implicit understandings...". > > But what about the word "Repeated"? It seems to me that > the number of permitted repeats is proportional to a > forgetful partner's lack of "reason to be aware". > > Ergo, provided one has a partner with a terrible memory > and a trusting nature, the number of "repeats" of a > deviation required to create an implicit understanding > might be a number equal to Skewes' Number. > > AG : please notice that in the Skewes problem, the original Skewes estimation has been replaced by 1.65 * 10 exp 1165, which is considerably lower. But this number still covers all bids ever made at the brdge table, so this diesn't alter your point. Best regards Alain From torsten.astrand at telia.com Wed Jul 16 11:26:18 2008 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:26:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com><00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <1KIi5R-1Egzho0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001101c8e726$008ccc60$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention to the game" That should be valid for all four players at the table and especially dummy?s cards which "belongs" to all. Torsten ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy From: Torsten ?strand > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result stands. Show me a law to proof this view - please > Torsten > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an > adjustment is in order. > > Wayne > > 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace holding > > A,Q,J. > > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in the > > new Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > > > Torsten _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Jul 16 13:13:36 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:13:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Wrongly_sorted_cards_by_dummy?= In-Reply-To: <001101c8e726$008ccc60$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com><00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <1KIi5R-1Egzho0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <001101c8e726$008ccc60$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <1KJ4wy-1cGnhI0@fwd24.aul.t-online.de> I strongly disagree. It is not the duty of a defender under Law 74 B1 to count dummy's cards or to inspect the cards in order to find a card placed in a wrong suit. More than this: The case with a dummy "hiding" a card under another card an thereby "forcing" a defender to ruff partner's high card and giving up a trick is a classic example in EBL teaching seminars for the application of Law 12 A1. From: Torsten ?strand > Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention to the > game" That should be valid for all four players at the table and > especially dummy?s cards which "belongs" to all. > Torsten > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Eidt" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:48 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > From: Torsten ?strand > > > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result stands. > > Show me a law to proof this view - please > > > Torsten > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > > > > Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an > > adjustment is in order. > > > > Wayne > > > > 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > > > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > > > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace holding > > > A,Q,J. > > > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > > > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in > > > the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > > > > > Torsten > > > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 16 15:07:31 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:07:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8719E0AF-AE2A-4F14-9E1A-295B60B9FA3C@starpower.net> On Jul 15, 2008, at 9:06 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > No, I disagree. My oft repeated statement, "A > unilateral guess by one partner is not a mutual > understanding of both partners," is a double-edged > sword. If it is commonplace to forget an explicit > mutual partnership understanding, why should not > forgets of implicit mutual partnership understandings > be equally commonplace? That may have been meant as a rhetorical question, but let me answer it. You forget understandings because you lack experience with them; you agree to play some method, and by the time the hand for it actually appears you have forgotten the agreement. After it has come up a few times and you have used it, you are unlikely to forget it in the future. Explicit agreements can be made and years pass before they come up. Implicit agreements, OTOH, exist because you already have the experience of having used them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 16 12:54:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:54:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Skewes' Number [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <487DB8E1.8030504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000a01c8e74d$4bf84900$fad2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Skewes' Number [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > Some years ago Wayne discussed on blml a New Zealand > Appeals Committee decision which disgruntled him. The > issue was whether Wayne's repeated psyches were habitual, > thus transmogrifying a psychic non-understanding into a > non-psychic implicit understanding. > > Wayne raised two valid (at the time) points. > > Wayne's first point was that his partner had a terrible > memory and a trusting nature, so was completely caught > by surprise every time. > > This first point has been specifically validated by the > 2007 Law 40C1 phrase "partner has no more reason to be > aware of the deviation than have the opponents." > +=+ A player's repeated psyches give his partner more reason to anticipate them whether the partner remains oblivious to this or not. A single recent psyche that is fresh in the memory may do so if, for example, a like situation arises. (The freshness of the memory could exist perhaps because of the discussion it caused, or some other memorable feature.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 16 16:02:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:02:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> Message-ID: <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > > (3) Your knowledge of partner's traits (mannerisms) is not > information on which you may base a call or play. The player > who 'never' psyches is the one best placed to do so and he > could have chosen just this moment to break his golden rule. > AG ?? Of course you may. I will freely raise some partners' weak twos to game on hands which will make me hesitate facing others. And please notice this isn't called a mannerism, but style. Psyching or not is a matter of style. The benefits from never psyching (and in my simple mind, "'never' means 'never', not 'never until I break the rule') include being on firmer ground on occasions. > (5) See (1). We need a statement by the Director of his > findings of fact, preferably indicating the basis for these. On > the basis of as much as I know today I recognize that your > 3H bid may well have been assisted, albeit inadvertently, by > your evident awareness that South is a player who would > 'never' psyche an opening bid, and accordingly I would > adjust. I totally fail to understand this. First they say to me that I have to consider a psyche, and that by not doing so I used UI, so they'll adjust. Then I tell you partner never psyches, and you tell me that you'll adjust for this very reason. What's the logic behind this, except perhaps "fire him" ? Do you really mean that we're not allowed to know about partner's style ? Where is it written that what I know about partner's style is intrinsic UI ??? Notice that all this is irrelevant, because a psyche is virtually incompatible with the fact that he rebid 1NT, so it might be discarded altogether. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 16 16:59:27 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:59:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> Message-ID: The interest to me is this. The pass of the forcing 2D was AI that partner had misunderstood the bid. The failure to alert is UI for the same information. Does the 2D bidder have to bid as if 2D had been alerted? Some people have said yes, and I would have said yes. But now I think the answer is no. One reason: the hypothetical alert of 2D is UI. Second reason: Suppose partner correctly alerts or explains my bid. This is also UI. Do I have to act like partner has misexplained my bid? I don't think so. But the situations seem to be parallel. So I would allow the 3H bid. To answer your question, I would also rule no evidence for misexplanation and role the contract back to 2D. (I do not like the explanation of "no agreement", but if West was told no agreement and that 2D could be forcing, I don't think West would have bid.) And graciously/gracefully accept the director's ruling. Bob > I've been away for a few days after I posted this case on BLML. > > I came home yesterday and was quite amazed about the differences in > opinion > on this board. > > I want to make some clarifications: > > 1) I was the north player myself J > > 2) The NS partnership is not established at all, and we do NOT have a > CC. > It was occasional that we played together. > > 3) Even the slightest thought of a first hand psyche by my partner > never > occurred to me. > Even if we don't play much together, I know him from my club and I know > he > would NEVER do such a thing. > > 4) No one went down in 4S so playing in 2D would have been a cold > bottom > no matter how many tricks. J > > 5) I realize that I asked the wrong question, and I ask again: "Do you > adjust?" > > > >> From club play yesterday. > > > -------KQT85 > > -------Q3 > > -------K73 > > -------KQ5 > > > 742 J9 > > KJ975 T62 > > JT8652 > > J9872 A4 > > > -------A63 > > -------A84 > > -------AQ94 > > -------T63 > > > N, S and W are all very experienced players. > > Bidding: S W N E > > 1D P 1S P > > 1NT P 2D* P > > P!! 2H 3H P > > 3NT All pass > > > 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but > was not discussed in this occasional partnership. > > However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. > > W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" his > partner > must have some cards. > > With the help of this bid NS reaches game. > > Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. > > > How do you adjust? J > > > > _________________________ > Regards, > Willy Teigen > Toppen 1 > 8515 Narvik > Norway > > Mail: will-t at online.no > _________________________ > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 16 17:57:13 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:57:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com><00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><1KIi5R-1Egzho0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de><001101c8e726$008ccc60$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <1KJ4wy-1cGnhI0@fwd24.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <002a01c8e75c$a76d6130$fad2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy I strongly disagree. It is not the duty of a defender under Law 74 B1 to count dummy's cards or to inspect the cards in order to find a card placed in a wrong suit. More than this: The case with a dummy "hiding" a card under another card an thereby "forcing" a defender to ruff partner's high card and giving up a trick is a classic example in EBL teaching seminars for the application of Law 12 A1. From: Torsten ?strand > Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention to the > game" That should be valid for all four players at the table and > especially dummy?s cards which "belongs" to all. > Torsten > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Eidt" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:48 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > From: Torsten ?strand > > > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result stands. > > Show me a law to proof this view - please > > > Torsten > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > > > > Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an > > adjustment is in order. > > > > Wayne > > > > 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > > > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > > > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace holding > > > A,Q,J. > > > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > > > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in > > > the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > > > > > Torsten > > > _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Jul 16 18:54:48 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:54:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com><00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><1KIi5R-1Egzho0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de><001101c8e726$008ccc60$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><1KJ4wy-1cGnhI0@fwd24.aul.t-online.de> <002a01c8e75c$a76d6130$fad2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000f01c8e764$b047f1f0$2401a8c0@p41600> And indeed defence has 4 eyes to declarer's two. lnb +=+ Really Peter? You obviously do not think a player is responsible for looking after his own interests? The information of the cards in dummy is AI for declarer and both defenders. Every player is required to pay attention to the game. It is not the Director's duty to act as a wet nurse. The damage here is self-inflicted through the player's own lack of care, of attention to the game. Normally Dummy's misarrangement of his cards will not attract a procedural penalty. The Director will tell him to be more careful. If it is repeated then the Director may perhaps give him a nudge by way of a PP. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy I strongly disagree. It is not the duty of a defender under Law 74 B1 to count dummy's cards or to inspect the cards in order to find a card placed in a wrong suit. More than this: The case with a dummy "hiding" a card under another card an thereby "forcing" a defender to ruff partner's high card and giving up a trick is a classic example in EBL teaching seminars for the application of Law 12 A1. From: Torsten ?strand > Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention to the > game" That should be valid for all four players at the table and > especially dummy?s cards which "belongs" to all. > Torsten > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Eidt" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:48 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > From: Torsten ?strand > > > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result stands. > > Show me a law to proof this view - please > > > Torsten > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > > > > Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an > > adjustment is in order. > > > > Wayne > > > > 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > > > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > > > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace holding > > > A,Q,J. > > > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > > > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in > > > the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > > > > > Torsten > > > _______________________________________________ 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 - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1555 - Release Date: 7/16/2008 6:43 AM From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Jul 16 18:59:32 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:59:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Wrongly_sorted_cards_by_dummy?= Message-ID: <1KJALk-0BNKRk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> >From the EBL seminar 2001 @ Tabiano: Exercise No16 ............7 ............84 ............(3) ............J7 ....J6............... -- ....5.................93 ....--.................Q8 ....732.............K9 ............98 ............-- ............10 ............AQ10 South is declarer in 4S and has lost 1 trick. East to lead plays DQ a: [...] b: West ruffs with the J and when south asks dummy to play a club the diamond 3 appears from behind the C7. TD. c: [...] Answer: Difficult to find a specific law to cover this irregularity. a: [...] b: The TD should investigate whether an established revoke has occurred and apply 64C if that happened. If that doesn't give EW the trick they want still a trick should be transferred: L 12A1 (who has a better idea?) c: [...] And of cause the dummy is liable to a PP - if appropriate From: Grattan Endicott > +=+ Really Peter? ?You obviously do not think a player > is responsible for looking after his own interests? The > information of the cards in dummy is AI for declarer and > both defenders. Every player is required to pay attention > to the game. It is not the Director's duty to act as a wet > nurse. The damage here is self-inflicted through the > player's own lack of care, of attention to the game. > Normally Dummy's misarrangement of his cards will > not attract a procedural penalty. The Director will tell him > to be more careful. If it is repeated then the Director may > perhaps give him a nudge by way of a PP. > ~ Grattan ~ ?+=+ > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Eidt" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:13 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > I strongly disagree. > It is not the duty of a defender under Law 74 B1 to count > dummy's cards or to inspect the cards in order to find > a card placed in a wrong suit. > > More than this: The case with a dummy "hiding" > a card under another card an thereby "forcing" a > defender to ruff partner's high card and giving > up a trick is a classic example in EBL teaching > seminars for the application of Law 12 A1. > > > From: Torsten ?strand > > Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention to the > > game" That should be valid for all four players at the table and > > especially dummy?s cards which "belongs" to all. > > Torsten > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter Eidt" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:48 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > > > > From: Torsten ?strand > > > > > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result > > > stands. > > > > > > > Show me a law to proof this view - please > > > > > Torsten > > > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > > > > > > > Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an > > > adjustment is in order. > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > > > > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > > > > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace > > > > holding A,Q,J. > > > > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > > > > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in > > > > the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > > > Torsten > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jul 16 19:26:10 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:26:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? And please notice this isn't called a mannerism, but style. Psyching or not is a matter of style. < +=+ My argument is this: According to the dictionary when a peculiarity of style becomes habitual it is a mannerism. The reliability of it then conveys specific information beyond the meaning of the auction and play of the cards. It is not authorized information for the partner of the player, being cited in Law 73C as unauthorized information. Judgemental style - aggression or otherwise - is not subject to regulation since it does not affect the announced meaning of the calls, information from it is not specific. Returning to the example which led to this topic. it is agreed that North has UI from South's failure to alert. The question is whether North has a logical alternative to his 3H bid. and suggestions have been made that to support diamonds is a possibility. Another possibility is simply to pass 2H and await developments. South's further action may tell North something. I believe that North's choice of 3H is open to question and if North tells me of his knowledge of South's habitual peculiarity of style of a kind that conveys specific information I consider it suggests the 3H bid to him, is extraneous information and assists his choice of action. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jul 16 19:55:30 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:55:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> Message-ID: <487E3612.4050601@meteo.fr> Willy Teigen a ?crit : > I've been away for a few days after I posted this case on BLML. > > I came home yesterday and was quite amazed about the differences in opinion > on this board. > > I want to make some clarifications: > > 1) I was the north player myself J > > 2) The NS partnership is not established at all, and we do NOT have a CC. > It was occasional that we played together. > > 3) Even the slightest thought of a first hand psyche by my partner never > occurred to me. > Even if we don't play much together, I know him from my club and I know he > would NEVER do such a thing. > > 4) No one went down in 4S so playing in 2D would have been a cold bottom > no matter how many tricks. J > > 5) I realize that I asked the wrong question, and I ask again: "Do you > adjust?" > fine: we made some progress but we still need some more investigation: - about MI: you seem to infer that N, S and W were "compatible". Should we understand that they have a common knowledge of "common sense" that N and S share? would N and W or S and W have the same level of implicit agreement and blindness if they had happened to be partnering, as NS had in this deal? - about UI: did you expect S to alert 2D because it was a conventional bid? or not to alert because it was not linked to any agreement? incidentally: you told us about N, S and W ability. Should we infer that East's ability was irrelevant or that he was less experienced? jpr > > > > >>From club play yesterday. > > > > -------KQT85 > > -------Q3 > > -------K73 > > -------KQ5 > > > > 742 J9 > > KJ975 T62 > > JT8652 > > J9872 A4 > > > > -------A63 > > -------A84 > > -------AQ94 > > -------T63 > > > > N, S and W are all very experienced players. > > Bidding: S W N E > > 1D P 1S P > > 1NT P 2D* P > > P!! 2H 3H P > > 3NT All pass > > > > 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but > was not discussed in this occasional partnership. > > However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. > > W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" his partner > must have some cards. > > With the help of this bid NS reaches game. > > Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. > > > > How do you adjust? J > > > > > > _________________________ > Regards, > Willy Teigen > Toppen 1 > 8515 Narvik > Norway > > Mail: will-t at online.no > _________________________ > > _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 16 21:52:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:52:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> On Jul 16, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : >> >> (3) Your knowledge of partner's traits (mannerisms) is not >> information on which you may base a call or play. The player >> who 'never' psyches is the one best placed to do so and he >> could have chosen just this moment to break his golden rule. >> > AG ?? Of course you may. I will freely raise some partners' weak > twos to > game on hands which will make me hesitate facing others. And please > notice this isn't called a mannerism, but style. Psyching or not is a > matter of style. The benefits from never psyching (and in my simple > mind, "'never' means 'never', not 'never until I break the rule') > include being on firmer ground on occasions. >> (5) See (1). We need a statement by the Director of his >> findings of fact, preferably indicating the basis for these. On >> the basis of as much as I know today I recognize that your >> 3H bid may well have been assisted, albeit inadvertently, by >> your evident awareness that South is a player who would >> 'never' psyche an opening bid, and accordingly I would >> adjust. > I totally fail to understand this. First they say to me that I have to > consider a psyche, and that by not doing so I used UI, so they'll > adjust. > Then I tell you partner never psyches, and you tell me that you'll > adjust for this very reason. > What's the logic behind this, except perhaps "fire him" ? > Do you really mean that we're not allowed to know about partner's > style > ? Where is it written that what I know about partner's style is > intrinsic UI ??? > > Notice that all this is irrelevant, because a psyche is virtually > incompatible with the fact that he rebid 1NT, so it might be discarded > altogether. I hope the ACBL isn't listening to this. They already insist that even a single previous psych within the memory of a partnership gives partner "more reason to be aware of the deviation than... the opponents" [L40C1], thus actionable; this is the ACBL's widely-cited "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule (originally so called by Edgar Kaplan in The Bridge World). But Grattan points out that if a partnership has never psyched, it will have the awareness, unshared by its opponents, that its one permitted psych per lifetime is just hanging there, waiting to be perpetrated, which is an equally valid reason for one partner to be "more... aware of the deviation than the opponents". That means there is justification to be found for arguing that, for different reasons, (a) a previous psych by the partnership makes the current one illegal by virtue of "heightened awareness", and (b) the lack of a previous psych by the partnership makes the current one illegal by virtue of "heightened awareness". Please, don't anybody tell the ACBL! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jul 16 23:22:36 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:22:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> [AG] Notice that all this is irrelevant, because a psyche is virtually incompatible with the fact that he rebid 1NT. [DALB] Alain, my admiration for your views on legal matters is unbounded. When it comes to psychic bidding, however, you have a very great deal to learn. Holding a sub-minimum weak two bid in diamonds and playing X-Y over a 1NT rebid, it is almost automatic to bid as South did. The opponents' silence means that North is more or less certain to bid 2D over 1NT as an artificial game force, which you can then pass. David Burn London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jul 16 23:43:13 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:43:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <046501c8e78c$f2f06e60$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Richard Hills: > >>>Arbitrary mechanical score adjustment "rectifications" for revokes >>>may lead to ludicrous outcomes. For example, a grand slam making >>>when the ace of trumps is offside. > > Steve Willner: > >>Calling this "ludicrous" seems, well..., ludicrous. > > Richard Hills: > > And Steve's statement, "Calling this 'ludicrous' seems, well...., > ludicrous," seems, well..., ludicrous. > > Steve Willner: > >>The reason for preferring mechanical rectifications is to give a >>better game. > > Richard Hills: > > The reason for preferring equity rectifications is to give a better > game. > I have never been impressed with the debating method whereby one repeats his opponent's statement, adding "not" to the end, or changing the wording to achieve the same effect. Anyway, it should be easy to come to agreement about mechanical/equity based rectifications for revokes by comparing the pros and cons of each method. Mechanical Adjustments: Pro: Easy for players and directors to understand, and for the latter to apply. Is completely fair and objective, is also, importantly, seen to be fair. Con: Does not "protect the field". (I don't think that many people really believe in this concept though. Should the field be protected from bad but legal play too?) Neutral: Pairs will usually do worse than if they hadn't revoked. (This is regarded by most as a positive, but I don't think it is as important as the other pros.) Equity Rectifications: Pro: "Protects the field". Provides lots of discussion on web and other fora since it can never be incontrovertibly "correct" -- dealing, as it does, with predicting what would have happened in circumstances counter to reality. Con: Difficult, if not impossible for volunteer playing directors to implement. Necessarily always subject to someone's judgment. Expert players will on average score better, being able to dispute the non-expert director's analysis in committee. Will not appear to be fair, seeing people break the Laws and not suffer any ill effects. Neutral: Pairs will usually do the same as if they hadn't revoked. (But this is probably really negative, because it won't be perceived as fair by the opponents as above, and because it removes the deterrent effect.) It seems pretty clear to me that mechanical adjustments are better. I would hope that this view is nearly universal. Stefanie Rohan London, England From will-t at online.no Thu Jul 17 00:28:15 2008 From: will-t at online.no (Willy Teigen) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:28:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487E3612.4050601@meteo.fr> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <487E3612.4050601@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <001801c8e793$3dae21d0$b90a6570$@no> Yes, I expected my pd to alert 2D. N,S and W are all at fairly the same level as you mention it below. W bid 2H without hesitation and without asking any questions, but then 2D wasn't alerted. About east's ability, yes he's less experienced, and yes it's irrelevant. Willy Teigen a ?crit : > I've been away for a few days after I posted this case on BLML. > > I came home yesterday and was quite amazed about the differences in opinion > on this board. > > I want to make some clarifications: > > 1) I was the north player myself J > > 2) The NS partnership is not established at all, and we do NOT have a CC. > It was occasional that we played together. > > 3) Even the slightest thought of a first hand psyche by my partner never > occurred to me. > Even if we don't play much together, I know him from my club and I know he > would NEVER do such a thing. > > 4) No one went down in 4S so playing in 2D would have been a cold bottom > no matter how many tricks. J > > 5) I realize that I asked the wrong question, and I ask again: "Do you > adjust?" > fine: we made some progress but we still need some more investigation: - about MI: you seem to infer that N, S and W were "compatible". Should we understand that they have a common knowledge of "common sense" that N and S share? would N and W or S and W have the same level of implicit agreement and blindness if they had happened to be partnering, as NS had in this deal? - about UI: did you expect S to alert 2D because it was a conventional bid? or not to alert because it was not linked to any agreement? incidentally: you told us about N, S and W ability. Should we infer that East's ability was irrelevant or that he was less experienced? jpr > > > > >>From club play yesterday. > > > > -------KQT85 > > -------Q3 > > -------K73 > > -------KQ5 > > > > 742 J9 > > KJ975 T62 > > JT8652 > > J9872 A4 > > > > -------A63 > > -------A84 > > -------AQ94 > > -------T63 > > > > N, S and W are all very experienced players. > > Bidding: S W N E > > 1D P 1S P > > 1NT P 2D* P > > P!! 2H 3H P > > 3NT All pass > > > > 2D was intended as artificial game force (known in Norway as X-Y NT), but > was not discussed in this occasional partnership. > > However interpreted by S as natural and not forcing, so he passes. > > W now chooses to enter the bidding on the basis that he "knows" his partner > must have some cards. > > With the help of this bid NS reaches game. > > Result: After a H lead S makes 11 tricks for a top score on the board. > > > > How do you adjust? J > > > > > > _________________________ > Regards, > Willy Teigen > Toppen 1 > 8515 Narvik > Norway > > Mail: will-t at online.no > _________________________ > > _______________________________________________ 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 john at asimere.com Thu Jul 17 00:48:41 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:48:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <487B1223.2080800@skynet.be> <000001c8e5ab$a3756fd0$ea604f70$@com> <0720066D-FF6C-4CB7-AF0D-22541125DC16@starpower.net> <002201c8e5f9$57470a30$05d51e90$@com> <00cb01c8e655$dc1a7830$944f6890$@nl><84ro749dr7utfcq38j56ap7apg9n7slsu4@4ax.com> <00cc01c8e666$2c54d970$84fe8c50$@nl> Message-ID: <004b01c8e796$19f534b0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > But if I guessed that this totally unknown partner would understand, would > it not also be the case that these totally unknown opponents would > understand? Why would they be assuming an alert if I just hoped my pd > would > understand? > > Here of course is the real issue. Both in online and offline bridge people > want to know the hand of their opponents. Offline laws are very clear, you > can only hope to get the agreements. In online bridge people are used to > being alerted about the hands. I do not, so I am at the border of being > blacklisted. It is interesting, IMO that on BBO and OKB one self alerts, ie much as if screens are in use. On BCL! we don't self alert; we follow the f2f practice. There are occasional discussions as to the merits of each method. I, for one, am happy that i don't have to tell opps that I've got 4 spades in the auction 1C X 1S when I sometimes might not have. This is the BIG problem with self alerting; one gets called a cheat every time one splinters with a doubleton. John > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of brian666 at frontiernet.net > Sent: dinsdag 15 juli 2008 11:54 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:36:14 +0200, "Hans van Staveren" > wrote: > >>Online bridge seems to have different laws: >> >>When playing on BBO(nowadays I usually only play for money with robots) in >>an individual tournament I bid something not natural that I hoped my > partner >>would understand. This partner of course was totally unknown to me. I did >>not alert, since we had no understanding whatsoever. Opponents were upset, >>the director was called and I was pretty close to being kicked out and >>blacklisted. The rule in online bridge seems to be to alert not your >>agreements, but your hand. A totally different game. >> > > I would have said that the rule was to alert your intended meaning, > rather than your hand. The two don't always coincide. > > Presumably when you made your "not natural" bid, you had some grounds > for assuming that the chances were better than even money that your > partner would understand it? In that case, I can certainly believe > that most online opponents would get upset about your not alerting it, > particularly if it was some gadget which was largely unknown in their > countries. > > Yes, online bridge is a different game, you'll get no disagreement > from me on that count - although I think "totally" is a bit of an > overbid - which is why I think it's ridiculous when people blindly try > to apply the "offline" laws to ALL online situations. > > The WBF's attempt at a set of online laws sank without trace (IMHO) > when online players looked at it and saw that all the stuff about > errors which don't happen online (partner alerts, TD calls, play must > halt on a claim, insufficient bids, revokes, BOOTs, LOOTs, etc, etc) > were still in there. I think the WBF lost most of the online audience > right there and then. At the very least, the "offline only" laws > should have been moved to an appendix, and the de facto online laws > (such as play continuing after a disputed claim with all hands visible > to the non-claimants) recognised. > > Brian. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Jul 17 01:18:43 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:18:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00a401c8e79a$4a7ceca0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > > (3) Your knowledge of partner's traits (mannerisms) is not > information on which you may base a call or play. The player > who 'never' psyches is the one best placed to do so and he > could have chosen just this moment to break his golden rule. > AG ?? Of course you may. I will freely raise some partners' weak twos to game on hands which will make me hesitate facing others. And please notice this isn't called a mannerism, but style. Psyching or not is a matter of style. The benefits from never psyching (and in my simple mind, "'never' means 'never', not 'never until I break the rule') include being on firmer ground on occasions. > (5) See (1). We need a statement by the Director of his > findings of fact, preferably indicating the basis for these. On > the basis of as much as I know today I recognize that your > 3H bid may well have been assisted, albeit inadvertently, by > your evident awareness that South is a player who would > 'never' psyche an opening bid, and accordingly I would > adjust. I totally fail to understand this. First they say to me that I have to consider a psyche, and that by not doing so I used UI, so they'll adjust. Then I tell you partner never psyches, and you tell me that you'll adjust for this very reason. What's the logic behind this, except perhaps "fire him" ? Do you really mean that we're not allowed to know about partner's style ? Where is it written that what I know about partner's style is intrinsic UI ??? Notice that all this is irrelevant, because a psyche is virtually incompatible with the fact that he rebid 1NT, so it might be discarded altogether. With this point of view I concur; of all the times I have been at a table where a psyche was perpetrated I've never known the psycher to rebid in NT. I am also very concerned at Grattan's pov that because I know partner never psyches he might adjust. We are now in a position where, if I psyche frequently it's illegal (TFLB2007) and I'll be adjusted against, and if I never psyche it's somehow use of UI and I get adjusted against. This position is completely untenable. Bridge players will also note that the 2H balancer didn't overcall 1H amd this further supports the view that one is justified in assuming partner actually does have an opener. RHO's body language is still, fortunately, AI. Every now and then someone puts a hand under my nose and asks an opinion and a couple of times I have opined "Everyone but the EBU L&E will now know that "X" doesn't have their bid, result stands". Perhaps my mind is poisoned by too frequent consorting with rubber bridge players and that at rubber bridge there are no alerts and one is required, at one's own risk, to nose out potential calls that have substantially misdescribed a hand. Opponents will tell you what's going on, you can trust them, even if you don't trust partner. cheers John PS, I am now inclined to take the view, "No partnership agreement", based on the Norse myth input. the non-agreeing Fasolt and Fafner may keep their Gold; and Wotan will need a new spearshaft. JP Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 17 01:20:39 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:20:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <1KJALk-0BNKRk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <00af01c8e79a$8f6a3020$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy >From the EBL seminar 2001 @ Tabiano: Exercise No16 ............7 ............84 ............(3) ............J7 ....J6............... -- ....5.................93 ....--.................Q8 ....732.............K9 ............98 ............-- ............10 ............AQ10 South is declarer in 4S and has lost 1 trick. East to lead plays DQ a: [...] b: West ruffs with the J and when south asks dummy to play a club the diamond 3 appears from behind the C7. TD. c: [...] Answer: Difficult to find a specific law to cover this irregularity. a: [...] b: The TD should investigate whether an established revoke has occurred and apply 64C if that happened. If that doesn't give EW the trick they want still a trick should be transferred: L 12A1 (who has a better idea?) c: [...] And of cause the dummy is liable to a PP - if appropriate Definitely the correct way to handle a probst cheat. Thanks Peter. From: Grattan Endicott > +=+ Really Peter? You obviously do not think a player > is responsible for looking after his own interests? The > information of the cards in dummy is AI for declarer and > both defenders. Every player is required to pay attention > to the game. It is not the Director's duty to act as a wet > nurse. The damage here is self-inflicted through the > player's own lack of care, of attention to the game. > Normally Dummy's misarrangement of his cards will > not attract a procedural penalty. The Director will tell him > to be more careful. If it is repeated then the Director may > perhaps give him a nudge by way of a PP. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Eidt" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:13 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > I strongly disagree. > It is not the duty of a defender under Law 74 B1 to count > dummy's cards or to inspect the cards in order to find > a card placed in a wrong suit. > > More than this: The case with a dummy "hiding" > a card under another card an thereby "forcing" a > defender to ruff partner's high card and giving > up a trick is a classic example in EBL teaching > seminars for the application of Law 12 A1. > > > From: Torsten ?strand > > Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention to the > > game" That should be valid for all four players at the table and > > especially dummy?s cards which "belongs" to all. > > Torsten > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter Eidt" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:48 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > > > > From: Torsten ?strand > > > > > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result > > > stands. > > > > > > > Show me a law to proof this view - please > > > > > Torsten > > > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > > > > > > > Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an > > > adjustment is in order. > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > > > > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > > > > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace > > > > holding A,Q,J. > > > > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > > > > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in > > > > the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > > > Torsten > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Jul 17 01:34:49 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:34:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be><32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> Message-ID: <00bc01c8e79c$89eeeb70$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 10:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > [AG] > > Notice that all this is irrelevant, because a psyche is virtually > incompatible with the fact that he rebid 1NT. > > [DALB] > > Alain, my admiration for your views on legal matters is unbounded. When it > comes to psychic bidding, however, you have a very great deal to learn. > Holding a sub-minimum weak two bid in diamonds and playing X-Y over a 1NT > rebid, it is almost automatic to bid as South did. The opponents' silence > means that North is more or less certain to bid 2D over 1NT as an > artificial > game force, which you can then pass. David, this much is true; it's a known psyche to open 1H with a 1363 and respond 2C to partner's 1S in the reasonable certainty one can get partner to play in 2D. I have never seen a Crowhust psyche and given our mutual history we have seen most of them. I really do believe you have stopped playing bridge if you think 3H is not allowed; It's 99% that partner is asleep and has no idea what's going on. Where do we go if the player bids 3H and finds partner with the 1363? 4D will be a pretty good spot I imagine. Punishing partner for his psyches is the best way to stop him doing them. John > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jul 17 02:10:27 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:10:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred><487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: And so, after a plethora of horse-dicky, alternate facts, evidence of superior knowledge, etc., we arrive at the real problem of the ORIGINAL FACTS. And here there are certainly sanely possible alternative actions. I, for one perhaps, do not think that North should ever be restricted from continuing the bidding holding 15 HCP opposite an opener, who bid twice against all known sane ways of psyching. Grattan and I clearly disagree on that, but at last we are talking about the original facts and the original question. Welcome aboard to all who want to discuss THAT and, for me,......... What an exercise in crap when I look at all the "relative" possibilities over he past two weeks, just to satisfy the proponents of MI any time you can stretch anything to do so! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > **************************** > "The real business of a ball is > to look out for a wife, to look > after a wife, or to look after > somebody else's wife." > R.S. Surtees. > **************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:41 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > > And please notice this isn't called a mannerism, but style. > Psyching or not is a matter of style. > < > +=+ My argument is this: > According to the dictionary when a peculiarity of > style becomes habitual it is a mannerism. The reliability > of it then conveys specific information beyond the > meaning of the auction and play of the cards. It is not > authorized information for the partner of the player, > being cited in Law 73C as unauthorized information. > Judgemental style - aggression or otherwise - is > not subject to regulation since it does not affect the > announced meaning of the calls, information from it > is not specific. > Returning to the example which led to this topic. > it is agreed that North has UI from South's failure to > alert. The question is whether North has a logical > alternative to his 3H bid. and suggestions have been > made that to support diamonds is a possibility. > Another possibility is simply to pass 2H and await > developments. South's further action may tell North > something. I believe that North's choice of 3H is > open to question and if North tells me of his knowledge > of South's habitual peculiarity of style of a kind that > conveys specific information I consider it suggests the > 3H bid to him, is extraneous information and assists his > choice of action. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 17 02:55:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:55:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00bc01c8e79c$89eeeb70$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: Quote from The Plank, by Eric Sykes: " " David Burn: >>When it comes to psychic bidding, however, you have a >>very great deal to learn. Holding a sub-minimum weak >>two bid in diamonds and playing X-Y over a 1NT rebid, >>it is almost automatic to bid as South did. The >>opponents' silence means that North is more or less >>certain to bid 2D over 1NT as an artificial game >>force, which you can then pass. John (MadDog) Probst: >David, this much is true; it's a known psyche to open >1H with a 1363 and respond 2C to partner's 1S in the >reasonable certainty one can get partner to play in 2D. >I have never seen a Crowhurst psyche and given our >mutual history we have seen most of them. I really do >believe you have stopped playing bridge if you think 3H >is not allowed. It's 99% that partner is asleep and has >no idea what's going on. Richard Hills: I agree with MadDog. When it comes to psychic bidding, David Burn has a very great deal to learn. Once, when I held a yarborough with long clubs and short majors, I took the lunatic action of psyching 1NT in first seat. If I had got what I deserved I would have played in 6NTx. Luckily I was a Tasmanian Rueful Rabbit at the time, so pard bid 2C Stayman which I gratefully passed. Likewise, merely because an artificial game force of 2D is available does not mean that it will be used. An immediate leap to 3NT is likely, while immediate leaps to slam are possible. Since a psyche by South would only be done by a Hillsian lunatic, and since I am Orstrayan, not Scandinavian, the only logical alternative for North is for North to assume that South has misunderstood the intent of North's call. So, despite UI existing, there has been no infraction of Law 16B1. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jul 17 03:40:15 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:40:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy In-Reply-To: <200807162232.m6GMW97L016405@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807162232.m6GMW97L016405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <487EA2FF.3030406@nhcc.net> > From: > Normally Dummy's misarrangement of his cards will > not attract a procedural penalty. Nobody is talking about a PP; the issue is score adjustment stemming from dummy's violation of L41D. (In specific cases, 2007 L23 could also be relevant.) L41D establishes correct procedure, and the Definitions say departure from correct procedure is an irregularity. L12A1 allows "indemnity" for a "violation," but neither of those words is defined. I am afraid the matter is therefore subject to RA interpretation, though I personally would not like to see defenders suffer for dummy's irregularity. If L23 applies, I think there is no wiggle room for interpretation. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jul 17 03:45:06 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:45:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200807162232.m6GMWQEa016438@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807162232.m6GMWQEa016438@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <487EA422.6090404@nhcc.net> > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > Anyway, it should be easy to come to agreement about mechanical/equity based > rectifications for revokes by comparing the pros and cons of each method. While I agree with Stafanie's conclusions and reasons for them, I don't think "easy to come to agreement" is right. Different people have different preferences about what makes a good game. It is not "ludicrous" that Richard, for example, has a minority idea; what's ludicrous is that he fails to realize that others have a different view. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 17 03:28:26 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:28:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <1KJALk-0BNKRk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000201c8e7af$abad6620$80c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy >From the EBL seminar 2001 @ Tabiano: Exercise No16 ............7 ............84 ............(3) ............J7 ....J6............... -- ....5.................93 ....--.................Q8 ....732.............K9 ............98 ............-- ............10 ............AQ10 South is declarer in 4S and has lost 1 trick. East to lead plays DQ a: [...] b: West ruffs with the J and when south asks dummy to play a club the diamond 3 appears from behind the C7. TD. c: [...] Answer: Difficult to find a specific law to cover this irregularity. a: [...] b: The TD should investigate whether an established revoke has occurred and apply 64C if that happened. If that doesn't give EW the trick they want still a trick should be transferred: L 12A1 (who has a better idea?) c: [...] And of cause the dummy is liable to a PP - if appropriate From: Grattan Endicott > +=+ Really Peter? You obviously do not think a player > is responsible for looking after his own interests? The > information of the cards in dummy is AI for declarer and > both defenders. Every player is required to pay attention > to the game. It is not the Director's duty to act as a wet > nurse. The damage here is self-inflicted through the > player's own lack of care, of attention to the game. > Normally Dummy's misarrangement of his cards will > not attract a procedural penalty. The Director will tell him > to be more careful. If it is repeated then the Director may > perhaps give him a nudge by way of a PP. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Eidt" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:13 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > I strongly disagree. > It is not the duty of a defender under Law 74 B1 to count > dummy's cards or to inspect the cards in order to find > a card placed in a wrong suit. > > More than this: The case with a dummy "hiding" > a card under another card an thereby "forcing" a > defender to ruff partner's high card and giving > up a trick is a classic example in EBL teaching > seminars for the application of Law 12 A1. > > > From: Torsten ?strand > > Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention to the > > game" That should be valid for all four players at the table and > > especially dummy?s cards which "belongs" to all. > > Torsten > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter Eidt" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:48 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > > > > From: Torsten ?strand > > > > > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result > > > stands. > > > > > > > Show me a law to proof this view - please > > > > > Torsten > > > > > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy > > > > > > > > > Dummy has infracted it has caused damage therefore I think an > > > adjustment is in order. > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > 2008/7/11 Torsten ?strand : > > > > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > > > > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played the ace > > > > holding A,Q,J. > > > > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > > > > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. Where in > > > > the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain my ruling? > > > > Torsten > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jul 17 03:54:09 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:54:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <200807162305.m6GN5FwP020661@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807162305.m6GN5FwP020661@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <487EA641.2000504@nhcc.net> > From: > (3) Your knowledge of partner's traits (mannerisms) is not > information on which you may base a call or play. The player > who 'never' psyches is the one best placed to do so and he > could have chosen just this moment to break his golden rule. Isn't this in direct conflict with L16A1d? It is also quite a revolutionary view. If I have to bid the same way opposite Mrs. Guggenheim as opposite John Probst, much of the charm will be removed from the game. (Matt Granovetter's book _I Shot My Bridge Partner_ has some instructive examples.) I don't think the equation of "traits" (as in habits or tendencies) with "mannerisms" (as in tone of voice or gestures) can stand. At least I hope not! From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 17 04:21:30 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:21:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred><487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be><004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <003001c8e7b3$d5f080d0$80c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > And so, after a plethora of horse-dicky, alternate facts, evidence of > superior knowledge, etc., we arrive at the real problem of the ORIGINAL > FACTS. > And here there are certainly sanely possible alternative actions. I, for > one perhaps, do not think that North should ever be restricted from > continuing the bidding holding 15 HCP opposite an opener, who bid twice > against all known sane ways of psyching. Grattan and I clearly disagree on > that, but at last we are talking about the original facts and the original > question. Welcome aboard to all who want to discuss THAT and, for > me,......... What an exercise in crap when I look at all the "relative" > possibilities over he past two weeks, just to satisfy the proponents of MI > any time you can stretch anything to do so! > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:26 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > > >> >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> **************************** >> "The real business of a ball is >> to look out for a wife, to look >> after a wife, or to look after >> somebody else's wife." >> R.S. Surtees. >> **************************** >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:41 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? >> >> >> And please notice this isn't called a mannerism, but style. >> Psyching or not is a matter of style. >> < >> +=+ My argument is this: >> According to the dictionary when a peculiarity of >> style becomes habitual it is a mannerism. The reliability >> of it then conveys specific information beyond the >> meaning of the auction and play of the cards. It is not >> authorized information for the partner of the player, >> being cited in Law 73C as unauthorized information. >> Judgemental style - aggression or otherwise - is >> not subject to regulation since it does not affect the >> announced meaning of the calls, information from it >> is not specific. >> Returning to the example which led to this topic. >> it is agreed that North has UI from South's failure to >> alert. The question is whether North has a logical >> alternative to his 3H bid. and suggestions have been >> made that to support diamonds is a possibility. >> Another possibility is simply to pass 2H and await >> developments. South's further action may tell North >> something. I believe that North's choice of 3H is >> open to question and if North tells me of his knowledge >> of South's habitual peculiarity of style of a kind that >> conveys specific information I consider it suggests the >> 3H bid to him, is extraneous information and assists his >> choice of action. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Jul 17 04:20:52 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:20:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <046501c8e78c$f2f06e60$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <046501c8e78c$f2f06e60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:43:13 -0400, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > >> Richard Hills: >> >>>> Arbitrary mechanical score adjustment "rectifications" for revokes >>>> may lead to ludicrous outcomes. For example, a grand slam making >>>> when the ace of trumps is offside. >> >> Steve Willner: >> >>> Calling this "ludicrous" seems, well..., ludicrous. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> And Steve's statement, "Calling this 'ludicrous' seems, well...., >> ludicrous," seems, well..., ludicrous. >> >> Steve Willner: >> >>> The reason for preferring mechanical rectifications is to give a >>> better game. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> The reason for preferring equity rectifications is to give a better >> game. >> > I have never been impressed with the debating method whereby one repeats > his > opponent's statement, adding "not" to the end, or changing the wording to > achieve the same effect. > > Anyway, it should be easy to come to agreement about mechanical/equity > based > rectifications for revokes by comparing the pros and cons of each method. > > > Mechanical Adjustments: > > Pro: Easy for players and directors to understand, and for the latter to > apply. Is completely fair and objective, is also, importantly, seen to be > fair. > > Con: Does not "protect the field". (I don't think that many people really > believe in this concept though. Should the field be protected from bad > but > legal play too?) > > Neutral: Pairs will usually do worse than if they hadn't revoked. (This > is > regarded by most as a positive, but I don't think it is as important as > the > other pros.) > > > Equity Rectifications: > > Pro: "Protects the field". Provides lots of discussion on web and other > fora > since it can never be incontrovertibly "correct" -- dealing, as it does, > with predicting what would have happened in circumstances counter to > reality. > > Con: Difficult, if not impossible for volunteer playing directors to > implement. Necessarily always subject to someone's judgment. Expert > players > will on average score better, being able to dispute the non-expert > director's analysis in committee. Will not appear to be fair, seeing > people > break the Laws and not suffer any ill effects. > > Neutral: Pairs will usually do the same as if they hadn't revoked. (But > this > is probably really negative, because it won't be perceived as fair by the > opponents as above, and because it removes the deterrent effect.) > > It seems pretty clear to me that mechanical adjustments are better. I > would > hope that this view is nearly universal. > One goal of the laws should be to maxmize enjoyment of bridge. I feel pretty bad when I revoke and allow a contract to make because of the harsh penalties. I have very little enjoyment -- perhaps even none -- when my opponents revoke allowing me to make a contract because of the harsh penalties. On the other hand, if a law did not provide equity, I would probably be very angry. Some people are like me and some people are less like me. But basically, you are going to maximize enjoyment with laws that restore equity but not much more. A smaller point is that while some directors need to make a quick ruling, I myself am not in a hurry and would rather make an equitable ruling. I end up apologizing to players for the revoke law. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jul 17 05:26:49 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:26:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <00bc01c8e79c$89eeeb70$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <000001c8e7bc$f32400b0$d96c0210$@com> [RH] Likewise, merely because an artificial game force of 2D is available does not mean that it will be used. An immediate leap to 3NT is likely [DALB] So what? We play in 3NT with partner's balanced 13 or so facing our six diamonds to the nine and out. Maybe that will be a good save against 3NT the other way. Maybe it won't, but if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. I assure you of this: no self-respecting psycher would open 1D on six to the nine and out and then pass partner's 1S response, when playing 2D as X-Y over a 1NT rebid. Probst thinks otherwise, but Probst is a child when it comes to actual psyching instead of the baby stuff. When Richard Hills was a child, he opened 1NT and got to play in Stayman. Now that he is a man, he has put away childish things. But the fact remains that to pass after 1D-1S-1NT-2D (artificial and game-forcing) shows a psyche. No other interpretation is authorised to North, given South's failure to alert 2D. Bill Schoder speaks of "all known sane ways of psyching". As usual, Bill is addressing the right issue - but the point is that there cannot be any "known" or "sane" ways of psyching, because they could then be the subject of partnership agreement or experience. For example, no one in Norway who has read this correspondence can ever again open one diamond with six to the nine and out, hoping to follow the sequence 1D-1M-1NT-2D-Pass. And here is Willy Teigen, who has stuck his head above the parapet and told us that he knew for certain that his partner would never open 1D with six to the nine and out. I believe him, and I can well understand his horror at the notion that I should rule against him as though I did not believe him. But it isn't a question of what I believe. David Burn London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jul 17 05:36:55 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:36:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <046501c8e78c$f2f06e60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <083101c8e7be$5c69f6f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> "Robert Frick" One goal of the laws should be to maxmize enjoyment of bridge. I feel > pretty bad when I revoke and allow a contract to make because of the harsh > penalties. I have an idea -- follow suit instead. > I have very little enjoyment -- perhaps even none -- when my > opponents revoke allowing me to make a contract because of the harsh > penalties. So don't call the director. Now you will be denied redress. Or just ask them if they are having none and get them to correct the revoke before it is established. > > On the other hand, if a law did not provide equity, I would probably be > very angry. We already have that, for when the revoke penalty is not enough. > > Some people are like me and some people are less like me. But basically, > you are going to maximize enjoyment with laws that restore equity but not > much more. A little bit less enjoyment might be an incentive to people to take the trouble to play according to the Laws. I think that people generally like to see a person who revokes have a worse result than if they hadn't. It appeals to people's sense of natural justice, and it is fine, I think. No one is ever forced to revoke. > > A smaller point is that while some directors need to make a quick ruling, > I myself am not in a hurry and would rather make an equitable ruling. I > end up apologizing to players for the revoke law. Well, there is going to be a lot more apologising in future, I think. Please remember that not being in a hurry is a great luxury. In this country, at least, the vast majority of bridge is played at club level, and the majority of these games are run by volunteer playing directors. I would not mind if there were a different Lawbook for club games and for tournaments. Anyway, it is not my experience that people feel bad when they or their opponents revoke and pay the prescribed penalty. It is written in the book, it is clear and unequivocal, and people tend to get over it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 17 09:08:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:08:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8e7bc$f32400b0$d96c0210$@com> Message-ID: Quote from The Plank, by Eric Sykes: " " Grattan Endicott (current posting): >+=+ Indeed. The problem is that, as David observes, a sophisticated >South has a considerable measure of safety, given the artificial >meaning of 2D over the 1NT rebid. It is not unthinkable that he may >have psyched. Richard Hills: But we have (self-serving) evidence that North knew that South was unsophisticated, so therefore would "never" psyche. Grattan Endicott (earlier posting): [big snip] >>>assisted, albeit inadvertently, by your evident awareness that >>>South is a player who would 'never' psyche an opening bid, and >>>accordingly I would adjust. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Steve Willner: >>Isn't this in direct conflict with L16A1d? Law 16A1(d): A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information. Grattan Endicott (current posting): >But we need to address the question of a logical alternative. If >the pass of 2D exposes a psyche systemically, Richard Hills: No doubt Herman De Wael might insert a characteristic nuance, but to me a non-systemic call merely exposes a non-systemic call. Many possible reasons; psyche, mispull, brain snap, non-agreement. Or even back-seat driving. On one occasion pard opened a Strong Club. I held a yarborough with six clubs, with my system bid being an artificial negative 1D. Instead I elected to Pass. LHO balanced with 1H. Pard, holding ten playing tricks in spades, rebid 4S. He then turned to my RHO and said, "I don't know whose partner is worse, yours or mine." Grattan Endicott (current posting): >but the lack of an alert tells North he has a UI problem, does the >bend-over-backwards-to-do-right player treat South's action as >revealing a psyche? Does he strive not to take advantage of the UI >that he has, fortified as it is by his knowledge of South's trait? > Discuss! Richard Hills: If the only logical alternatives for North are that South has not psyched, due to Law 16A1(d) being relevant, then it is time to refocus on the MI issue. If I had been North, I would have alerted South's pass. On West's enquiry, I would have explained, "A non-systemic pass of my 2D game force". This would have given West the necessary hint to avoid balancing. Grattan Endicott (current posting): > And, Richard, I think you might test the plank you are stepping >onto, and also take a look to see whether the other end is beyond >the gunwales of the ship. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The Hills Theory of Balancing is, "Don't". So if I had been West, I would not have walked the plank, gaining my top without all this discursive diverting discussion. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 17 10:11:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:11:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <487EFEA6.8050102@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > I hope the ACBL isn't listening to this. They already insist that > even a single previous psych within the memory of a partnership gives > partner "more reason to be aware of the deviation than... the > opponents" [L40C1], thus actionable; this is the ACBL's widely-cited > "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule (originally so called > by Edgar Kaplan in The Bridge World). But Grattan points out that if > a partnership has never psyched, it will have the awareness, unshared > by its opponents, that its one permitted psych per lifetime is just > hanging there, waiting to be perpetrated, which is an equally valid > reason for one partner to be "more... aware of the deviation than the > opponents". That means there is justification to be found for > arguing that, for different reasons, (a) a previous psych by the > partnership makes the current one illegal by virtue of "heightened > awareness", and (b) the lack of a previous psych by the partnership > makes the current one illegal by virtue of "heightened awareness". > Please, don't anybody tell the ACBL! > > AG : the ACBL has totally discarded the fact that in some auctions, psyching would be moronic. This is one of them. I'm ready to argue, in front of them, that the fact that partner once made a psyche by respnding on a non-suit, at the 1-level, non-vulnerable, doesn't in any way indicate that a psyche might be perpetrated in this auciton. (I've chosen my last verb carefully) But, apart from that, you've depicted with accuracy how absurd would be the fact of considering "possible psyches" at every time. And I'm not afraid to cal the politics of some leagues absurd. (the fact that I consider psyching a bas idea is another story) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 17 10:13:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:13:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> Message-ID: <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [AG] > > Notice that all this is irrelevant, because a psyche is virtually > incompatible with the fact that he rebid 1NT. > > [DALB] > > Alain, my admiration for your views on legal matters is unbounded. When it > comes to psychic bidding, however, you have a very great deal to learn. > Holding a sub-minimum weak two bid in diamonds and playing X-Y over a 1NT > rebid, it is almost automatic to bid as South did. The opponents' silence > means that North is more or less certain to bid 2D over 1NT as an artificial > game force, which you can then pass. > David, may I suggest that perhaps partner will choose to rebid 3NT, or is he compelled to bid 2D first in all cases ? (which would make your system illegal : protected psyches) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 17 10:21:26 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:21:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <046501c8e78c$f2f06e60$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <046501c8e78c$f2f06e60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <487F0106.4000908@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > >> Richard Hills: >> >> >>>> Arbitrary mechanical score adjustment "rectifications" for revokes >>>> may lead to ludicrous outcomes. For example, a grand slam making >>>> when the ace of trumps is offside. >>>> >> Steve Willner: >> >> >>> Calling this "ludicrous" seems, well..., ludicrous. >>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> And Steve's statement, "Calling this 'ludicrous' seems, well...., >> ludicrous," seems, well..., ludicrous. >> >> Steve Willner: >> >> >>> The reason for preferring mechanical rectifications is to give a >>> better game. >>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> The reason for preferring equity rectifications is to give a better >> game. >> >> > I have never been impressed with the debating method whereby one repeats his > opponent's statement, adding "not" to the end, or changing the wording to > achieve the same effect. > > Anyway, it should be easy to come to agreement about mechanical/equity based > rectifications for revokes by comparing the pros and cons of each method. > > > Mechanical Adjustments: > > Pro: Easy for players and directors to understand, and for the latter to > apply. Is completely fair and objective, is also, importantly, seen to be > fair. > AG : I agree with the fact that we will gain from that method of analysis, but I don't agree with your statement. Letting an unamakable contract make because the Laws, not the cards, said it will make, isn't called 'fair' in my vocabulary. Apart from this, I do agree that making equity adjustments is a difficult art. At competitive Scrabble, all adjustments are mechanic. That's why there are professional TDs at bridge, and not at Scrabble. In my view, the biggest Pro of 'equity adjustments' is that they are coherent with the disclaimer about objectives for ruling (last sentence of first paragraph of TFLB). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 17 10:35:22 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:35:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <003001c8e7b3$d5f080d0$80c8403e@Mildred> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred><487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be><004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> <003001c8e7b3$d5f080d0$80c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487F044A.10603@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > **************************** > " Hundreds of manhole covers > stolen in Michigan" > ~South Florida Sun-Sentinel > **************************** > > +=+ Indeed. The problem is that, as David observes, a sophisticated > South has a considerable measure of safety, given the artificial > meaning of 2D over the 1NT rebid. It is not unthinkable that he may > have psyched. But we need to address the question of a logical > alternative. If the pass of 2D exposes a psyche systemically, but > the lack of an alert tells North he has a UI problem, does the bend- > over-backwards-to-do-right player treat South's action as revealing > a psyche? AG : that one, at least, is easy. When there are several possibilities to explain the auction at the table, you aren't allowed to assume partner psyched. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 17 11:36:14 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:36:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004d01c8e7f0$94450e20$32cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [big snip] > >>>>assisted, albeit inadvertently, by your evident awareness that >>>>South is a player who would 'never' psyche an opening bid, and >>>>accordingly I would adjust. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Steve Willner: > >>>Isn't this in direct conflict with L16A1d? > > Law 16A1(d): > > A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand > from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this > information. > +=+ The laws preclude use of information from partner's mannerism. A habitual trait peculiar to the individual is by dictionary definition a 'mannerism'. This word, as used in Law 73C, is not among the terms defined in the laws and the dictionary definition therefore applies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 17 12:11:04 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:11:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred><487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be><004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> <003001c8e7b3$d5f080d0$80c8403e@Mildred> <487F044A.10603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00c801c8e7f5$6ee7d4f0$32cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > **************************** > " Hundreds of manhole covers > stolen in Michigan" > ~South Florida Sun-Sentinel > **************************** > > +=+ Indeed. The problem is that, as David observes, a sophisticated > South has a considerable measure of safety, given the artificial > meaning of 2D over the 1NT rebid. It is not unthinkable that he may > have psyched. But we need to address the question of a logical > alternative. If the pass of 2D exposes a psyche systemically, but > the lack of an alert tells North he has a UI problem, does the bend- > over-backwards-to-do-right player treat South's action as revealing > a psyche? AG : that one, at least, is easy. When there are several possibilities to explain the auction at the table, you aren't allowed to assume partner psyched. ..................................................................................................... +=+ Oh dear. What an incautious statement. If partner tells you by his pass of a forcing bid that he has psyched but UI tells you that he has not psyched, you must put the UI out of mind not the systemic meaning of the auction. 'Several possibilities' does not wash either, you must act upon the meaning of the auction. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 17 12:33:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:33:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <010501c8e7f8$8be9a530$32cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > But we have (self-serving) evidence that North knew that > South was unsophisticated, so therefore would "never" > psyche. > +=+ "N, S and W, are all experienced players" we were told. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 17 12:47:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:47:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <00c801c8e7f5$6ee7d4f0$32cd403e@Mildred> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred><487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be><004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> <003001c8e7b3$d5f080d0$80c8403e@Mildred> <487F044A.10603@ulb.ac.be> <00c801c8e7f5$6ee7d4f0$32cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <487F2354.6030600@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > If partner tells you > by his pass of a forcing bid that he has psyched but UI tells you > that he has not psyched, you must put the UI out of mind not the > systemic meaning of the auction. I'm sorry, Sir. The systemic meaning of a bid is never 'psyche', because by definition a psyche is not part of the system. In fact, there is by definition no systemic meaning for the pass of a forcing bid, because 'forcing' means 'may not be passed, and this is systemic'. And this brings us back to the fundamental argument of the case : if a pair never psyches (and I said : 'never', not 'never until they do'), then thei nformation that partner misunderstood (or that we erred) is obvious from his pass, and UI from the non-alert doesn't add anything to it. And with normal use (psyches very uncommon), the explanation 'I was mistaken in thinking 2D was forcing' is hundreds of times more probable than 'psyche', given the sequence. So, to answer directly to your last argument : when UI = AI, you're not compelled to discard this information. Now, I admit that regular psychers would be compelled to invoke that explanation and pass 2H. That'll serve them right. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 17 15:35:17 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:35:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487F2354.6030600@ulb.ac.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred><487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be><004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> <003001c8e7b3$d5f080d0$80c8403e@Mildred> <487F044A.10603@ulb.ac.be> <00c801c8e7f5$6ee7d4f0$32cd403e@Mildred> <487F2354.6030600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <487F4A95.7020406@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I'm sorry, Sir. The systemic meaning of a bid is never 'psyche', because by definition a psyche is not part of the system. In fact, there is by definition no systemic meaning for the pass of a forcing bid, because 'forcing' means 'may not be passed, and this is systemic'. [Nigel] It is a *deviation* from system to deliberately pass a bid that you know is forcing. Hence it is a *psych* (by definition); and in this instance is likely to indicate an earlier psych. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 17 15:48:45 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:48:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] David, may I suggest that perhaps partner will choose to rebid 3NT, or is he compelled to bid 2D first in all cases ? (which would make your system illegal : protected psyches) [Nige1] Bids like 3N or 4S are possible, but, presumably, most good hands will proceed via 2D. It is reasonable to regard X-Y as a "psych control" but that is true of many other conventions (for example Drury) that legislators are happy to condone. From J.P.Pals at uva.nl Thu Jul 17 16:23:48 2008 From: J.P.Pals at uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:23:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy In-Reply-To: <001101c8e726$008ccc60$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com><00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><1KIi5R-1Egzho0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <001101c8e726$008ccc60$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B01421CA8@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Torsten ?strand: > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result stands. Peter Eidt: > Show me a law to proof this view - please Torsten ?strand: > Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention > to the game" Great! You could also tackle 'convention disruption' with this law. Someone forgot a convention? According to law 74B1 that's an INFRACTION, because he dit not pay sufficient attention to the game. JP From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 17 16:53:10 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:53:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred><487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be><004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> <003001c8e7b3$d5f080d0$80c8403e@Mildred> <487F044A.10603@ulb.ac.be> <00c801c8e7f5$6ee7d4f0$32cd403e@Mildred><487F2354.6030600@ulb.ac.be> <487F4A95.7020406@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002d01c8e81c$e4cb34b0$80d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your ruling please? > [Alain Gottcheiner] I'm sorry, Sir. The systemic meaning of a bid is never 'psyche', because by definition a psyche is not part of the system. In fact, there is by definition no systemic meaning for the pass of a forcing bid, because 'forcing' means 'may not be passed, and this is systemic'. > > [Nigel] It is a *deviation* from system to deliberately pass a bid that you know is forcing. Hence it is a *psych* (by definition); and in this instance is likely to indicate an earlier psych. > > (Grattan) +=+ And note that it was a pass of a conventional force, which may not even guarantee a diamonds holding. Oh yes, Sir Alain is off the beaten track in pursuit of these arguments. I consider that a pass is beyond doubt a logical alternative to 3H, and 3D might be also ('tho dangerous if North 'knows' where he is going and might launch into control enquiries etc. given the opportunity). Incidentally I am not sure that the pass of a forcing bid, when the bidding may end without reaching partner, can be said to be a psyche; it is for sure anti-systemic and I would account it a matter of general bridge knowledge that it constitutes a grandma's warning that all is not as it seemed. +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 17:09:17 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:09:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy In-Reply-To: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B01421CA8@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com> <00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <1KIi5R-1Egzho0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <001101c8e726$008ccc60$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B01421CA8@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0807170809r55e0ce7aw7d0ff4ac6c0ac50a@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jan Peter Pals Date: Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Torsten ?strand: > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result stands. Peter Eidt: > Show me a law to proof this view - please Torsten ?strand: > Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention > to the game" [Jan] Great! You could also tackle 'convention disruption' with this law. Someone forgot a convention? According to law 74B1 that's an INFRACTION, because he dit not pay sufficient attention to the game. [Jerry] That "paying insufficient attention to the game" law seems incomplete. Sufficient for what? Anyone care to make a list? Perhaps the definition the law writers had in mind for "insufficient attention" is this dictionary definition: "not enough attention to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end." But what are the needs of the situation? ... what is the proposed end? Might a director following his interpretation of Law 74B1 penalize a pair if a particular sequence had not been discussed and the meaning of all calls memorized? It seems the ultimate open-ended law; a law designed so that the director chooses the result he wants first, and then uses this law to justify it. So, to anyone who understands how to apply Law 74B1, would you please list what falls in its domain, and what does not? Jerry Fusselman From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 17 17:27:36 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:27:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com><00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><1KIi5R-1Egzho0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de><001101c8e726$008ccc60$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B01421CA8@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <003201c8e821$a694e600$80d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy Torsten ?strand: > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result stands. Peter Eidt: > Show me a law to proof this view - please Torsten ?strand: > Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention > to the game" [JP] Great! You could also tackle 'convention disruption' with this law. Someone forgot a convention? According to law 74B1 that's an INFRACTION, because he dit not pay sufficient attention to the game. +=+ Believe me I have heard the argument before - in the WBFLC and propounded by the illustrious Bobby Wolff. The LC opined that 'attention to the game' was concerned with happenings at the table and not to a player's preparation. A player is permitted by the laws to misbid - see Law 75C, which also clarifies that opponents' entitlement is to an accurate description of the players' partnership agreement - not to a description of the hands - and there is no infraction if they have received the description they are entitled to. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Thu Jul 17 17:31:24 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:31:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><1KHFFc-280Zg80@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> <00ed01c8e33d$517a2a10$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <003e01c8e822$2caee290$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> Hi i don't understand why you don'tlike my L41D : dummy must sort his cards in suits, so if if doesn't, that's an infraction and cannot win by way of this, and can be penalize if you like, anyway opponents can have a ruling just with that, Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: "olivier.beauvillain" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy L41D can do it, Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy Law 12 A1 From: Torsten ?strand > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played > the ace holding A,Q,J. > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. > Where in the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain > my ruling? Torsten _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information NOD32 3261 (20080711) __________ Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information NOD32 3261 (20080711) __________ Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 17 18:34:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:34:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy In-Reply-To: <003e01c8e822$2caee290$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><1KHFFc-280Zg80@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> <00ed01c8e33d$517a2a10$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <003e01c8e822$2caee290$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <000601c8e82b$09390a30$1bab1e90$@no> On Behalf Of olivier.beauvillain > Hi > > i don't understand why you don'tlike my L41D : dummy must > sort his cards in suits, so if if doesn't, that's an infraction > and cannot win by way of this, and can be penalize if you like, > anyway opponents can have a ruling just with that, > > Olivix You had better read the laws accurately. L41D doesn't say that dummy "must" do anything, it just states what dummy does. There is a significant distinction (see the preface). Regards Sven From bowyerpn at gmail.com Fri Jul 18 00:41:25 2008 From: bowyerpn at gmail.com (Peter Bowyer) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:41:25 +1200 Subject: [blml] Pass out the Double? References: Message-ID: <2304566D42CF493FBA2CC0930DDC8888@yourwxrsc38umf> Advice please. 1H, pass, 4H, pass, pass, pass out - hesitates then changes pass out to Double. Director called, do I cancel the Double? Thanks - Peter From andre.kriner at gmail.com Fri Jul 18 01:05:18 2008 From: andre.kriner at gmail.com (Andre Kriner) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:05:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out the Double? In-Reply-To: <2304566D42CF493FBA2CC0930DDC8888@yourwxrsc38umf> References: <2304566D42CF493FBA2CC0930DDC8888@yourwxrsc38umf> Message-ID: <1452667360.20080718010518@gmail.com> Hi Peter, Friday, July 18, 2008, 12:41:25 AM, you wrote: > Advice please. > 1H, pass, 4H, pass, pass, pass out - hesitates then changes pass out to > Double. Director called, do I cancel the Double? > Thanks - Peter Following the new Laws: First you should find out if the player intended his first call (pass) but then changed his mind to double. If that is so L25B applies. This gives offender's LHO the option to accept the double. If the player claims to not have intended the first call (and convinces you), AND you find that he substituted (or at least tried to sub) his first call without a pause for thought then apply L25A which allows the double. Given that you mention a hesitation it would appear that LHO has the option of accepting the double, if he doesn't, double is canceled and pass stands. Also: pass or double, the attempt to change the call has potentially created UI that partner must not use, see L16D Hope that helps, Andre From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 18 01:09:40 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:09:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pass out the Double? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2304566D42CF493FBA2CC0930DDC8888@yourwxrsc38umf> Message-ID: >Advice please. >1H, pass, 4H, pass, pass, pass out - hesitates then changes pass out >to Double. Director called, do I cancel the Double? >Thanks - Peter It depends on which Lawbook applies in your area. Straightforward is the 2007 Law 25B: B. Call Intended 1. A substituted call not permitted by [Law 25]A may be accepted by the offender's LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues. 2. Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by [Law 25]A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues. 3. Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or cancelled. But from your email address, you may be located in the ACBL. If so, the ridiculous 1997 Law 25B has not yet been repealed in ACBL-land. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 18 01:32:04 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:32:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pass out the Double? In-Reply-To: <2304566D42CF493FBA2CC0930DDC8888@yourwxrsc38umf> References: <2304566D42CF493FBA2CC0930DDC8888@yourwxrsc38umf> Message-ID: <000b01c8e865$52b406d0$f81c1470$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Bowyer ........... > Advice please. > 1H, pass, 4H, pass, pass, pass out - hesitates then changes pass out to > Double. Director called, do I cancel the Double? > Thanks - Peter First you ask LHO (the player that bid 4H) if he accepts the change of the pass to a double. If he does then the auction continues with no rectification, if he doesn't then the double is cancelled. The applicable law is 25B (and if the double is cancelled law 16D). Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 18 02:07:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:07:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <010501c8e7f8$8be9a530$32cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>But we have (self-serving) evidence that North knew that >>South was unsophisticated, so therefore would "never" >>psyche. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ "N, S and W, are all experienced players" we were told. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Twenty-eight years of experience may be merely one year's experience repeated twenty-eight times. For example, I was a beginner in 1980, with a lot to learn about bridge, and I still have a lot to learn about bridge today. Admittedly I am learning different things about bridge nowadays. Take the 2007 Law 68C: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." In the "Ground control to Major Tom" thread I have been asserting that a courteous defensive claim statement cannot be an infraction. But in a private email, another blmler noted that I have been misinterpreting Law 68C. His key points were: * * * "... Law 68C does not say 'the line of defence through which his side will win the tricks claimed', nor 'through which the tricks claimed will be won'. It says the line of defence 'through which *the claimer* proposes to win the tricks claimed'. Claimer's nomination of a trick to be won by his partner is ultra vires and a violation of correct procedure. As to communication with partner, the nomination of the SK tells partner which card he shall tell the Director he will keep. ... It is essential that the claimer's partner shall speak for himself, without claimer's help, as to his knowledge and plays." * * * The language of Law 68C does indeed correspond to above points. The logical consequence (because of the command "should" in Law 68C) is that it is illegal to make a claim as a defender unless one thinks that all the defensive tricks are located in one's own hand. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 18 03:20:49 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:20:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487FEFF1.5090600@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] (1) Can you be said to have an "Agreement" (or "Understanding") about a call if one (or both) of you never knew it. [Richard James Hills] No. [Nige2] Suppose you both agree to play a system according to a system card that specifically defines a call but you haven't read that bit? [Nige1] In particular, how sure must you be before you alert it? and how sure must you be before you venture a guess? [Richard] Law requires you to get it right. Law is not concerned with you being a fallible human being. Understandings must be described, not guesses. It is possible that a get it right statement might be, "We have neither an explicit nor an implicit mutual partnership understanding", in which case a guess is definitely MI. [Nige2] Most players are *never* certain of a call; and incresing numbers now conform to your interpretation of the law. [Nigel] If you think an agreement is general bridge knowledge, do you have to explain it at all? [Richard] In my opinion - John (MadDog) Probst and Marvin French disagree - a mutual partnership understanding and general bridge knowledge do not overlap. So all understandings have to be explained, on enquiry. In my opinion, GBK is truisms such as, "You never go broke if you never save vulnerable". [Nige2] Good. We agree on this. [Nige1] IMO simpler laws would leave fewer loopholes for habitual law-breakers and secretary birds. [Richard] In my opinion your opinion is wrong. Look at the real-life tax code. Because of tax avoidance and tax evasion, the Aussie tax legislation has ever-increasing hundreds of pages plugging loopholes exploited by tax lawyers / Secretary Birds. [Nige2] We agree to differ. Tax law can be simple: a tithe or cow or a pound of flesh or whatever. It is complications that create most of the loop-holes -- sometimes in the interests of "justice"; more often to appease a favoured group. For a game, however, it is usually sufficient that the rules be easy to learn, are the same for everybody, can be consistently applied, and are fun for the players. Unfortunately, the Laws of Bridge have some way to go to satisfy those criteria. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 18 03:43:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:43:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Said cunning old Fury [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >(If it happened you were the playing Director, and >could find no-one to give you a ruling, no doubt >you ruled against yourself and then, if you wished, >appealed the ruling subsequently.) [snip] 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." Richard Hills: It is a mirage to assume that the above CoP quote contradicts Grattan's position. Note the CoP phrase "having consulted appropriately". But what would happen if a playing Director appealed against his own ruling, then ruled under Law 93A that an Appeals Committee "cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament"? So Willy the player dislikes Willy the Director's ruling. On appeal Willy the Director in charge decides that Willy the Director gave a manifestly wrong ruling, restoring the table score to Willy the player. Lewis Carroll: "I'll be judge, I'll be jury" Said cunning old Fury: "I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 18 04:00:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:00:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <487FEFF1.5090600@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: >Suppose you both agree to play a system according to a system card >that specifically defines a call but you haven't read that bit? Discussed on blml by Matthias Berghaus. When he is not directing he plays a complex and frequently revised system with his partner. His view (and I agree) is that a mutual partnership understanding needs understanding. Matthias correctly guessed that his pard had not read the latest iteration of system notes sent to him, so Matthias correctly explained their old understanding. Of course, once an initial understanding is in place, subsequent forgets lead to misbids and/or MI (unless subsequent forgets are so frequent as to create a new, implicit, understanding - see Law 40C1). >Most players are *never* certain of a call; The ACBL has created a regulation that players _must_ have mutual partnership understandings in "to be expected" auctions. Presumably the legal basis for this regulation under the 2007 Lawbook will be Law 40C3(b): "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 18 08:20:31 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:20:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004d01c8e7f0$94450e20$32cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Law 16A1(d): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." +=+ The laws preclude use of information from partner's mannerism. A habitual trait peculiar to the individual is by dictionary definition a 'mannerism'. This word, as used in Law 73C, is not among the terms defined in the laws and the dictionary definition therefore applies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 16A1(a): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or" Richard Hills: So a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding (unless affected by Law 40B2 or Law 75, etc, etc) is authorized information due to Laws 16A1(a) and 16A1(d). However..... By definition a psyche cannot be a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. And since a psyche is non-systemic, it is paradoxical to include "We never will psyche" as part of the system. But..... What about historical evidence? Is "We have not yet psyched" AI? Grattan quotes the word "mannerism" in Law 73C, but it seems to me that a more sensible interpretation of Law 73C is that it applies to pard's twitches during the _current_ deal, not to pard's non-psyches in _previous_ deals. This point may have been made before, but pard's historical tendency to non-psyche seems to me to be AI under the final phrase of Law 40B2(a): "(such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)". While Zia judges psyches stylish (on the grounds that they confuse two opponents and only one partner??), American expert Jeff Rubens judges that trustworthiness of bids in his partnership is worth more imps in the long run. Has Rubens' partner been illegally using UI for decades? Alternatively, has Zia's partner been illegally using UI for decades? Or is the answer none of the above? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 18 10:23:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:23:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487F4A95.7020406@NTLworld.com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred><487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be><004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> <003001c8e7b3$d5f080d0$80c8403e@Mildred> <487F044A.10603@ulb.ac.be> <00c801c8e7f5$6ee7d4f0$32cd403e@Mildred> <487F2354.6030600@ulb.ac.be> <487F4A95.7020406@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48805319.4070404@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner] > I'm sorry, Sir. The systemic meaning of a bid is never 'psyche', because > by definition a psyche is not part of the system. > In fact, there is by definition no systemic meaning for the pass of a > forcing bid, because 'forcing' means 'may not be passed, and this is > systemic'. > > [Nigel] > It is a *deviation* from system to deliberately pass a bid that you know > is forcing. Hence it is a *psych* (by definition); and in this instance > is likely to indicate an earlier psych. > > No Sir. Deviating from your system isn't a psyche. A psyche is a call that grossly and voluntarily distorts your hand. You see that when one deviates from the system, it is a psyche. Then everyone of us makes dozens of psyches a year, for tactical reasons, or because they reevaluate or undervaluate their hand, or because they didn't remember the systemic bid, or ... I hope you meant something else. If the explanation is "error in system by South", or "didn't see the 2D bid", or "pulled Pass in lieu of Stop", then it isn't voluntary. If the explanation is "error in system by North", then South's pass conforms to the system. If the explanation is "former psyche", then passing 2D isn't a psyche, because it tells (at last) the truth about the hand. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 18 10:26:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:26:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <488053B6.4070109@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner] > David, may I suggest that perhaps partner will choose to rebid 3NT, or > is he compelled to bid 2D first in all cases ? (which would make your > system illegal : protected psyches) > > [Nige1] > Bids like 3N or 4S are possible, but, presumably, most good hands will > proceed via 2D. > > It is reasonable to regard X-Y as a "psych control" but that is true of > many other conventions (for example Drury) that legislators are happy to > condone. > Do you mean that every light opening bid is a psyhe ? Once again, I can't understand you. Surely there is a difference between : a) checking whether partner opened 1S on QJxx - xx - xxx - xxxx (like in original R/S) b) checking whether partner opened 1S on KJxxx - AJx - xxx - xx (what I would consider a minimum Ferdinand playing Drury) From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Jul 18 10:32:47 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:32:47 +1200 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <004d01c8e7f0$94450e20$32cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807180132r51365144o701646df451c3b9f@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/18 : > Law 16A1(d): > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand > from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this > information." > > +=+ The laws preclude use of information from partner's mannerism. > A habitual trait peculiar to the individual is by dictionary definition a > 'mannerism'. This word, as used in Law 73C, is not among the > terms defined in the laws and the dictionary definition therefore applies. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Law 16A1(a): > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including > illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by > unauthorized information from another source; or" > > Richard Hills: > > So a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding (unless affected by Law > 40B2 or Law 75, etc, etc) is authorized information due to Laws 16A1(a) > and 16A1(d). > > However..... > > By definition a psyche cannot be a pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding. And since a psyche is non-systemic, it is paradoxical to > include "We never will psyche" as part of the system. > > But..... > > What about historical evidence? Is "We have not yet psyched" AI? Grattan > quotes the word "mannerism" in Law 73C, but it seems to me that a more > sensible interpretation of Law 73C is that it applies to pard's twitches > during the _current_ deal, not to pard's non-psyches in _previous_ deals. > > This point may have been made before, but pard's historical tendency to > non-psyche seems to me to be AI under the final phrase of Law 40B2(a): > > "(such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)". > > While Zia judges psyches stylish (on the grounds that they confuse two > opponents and only one partner??), American expert Jeff Rubens judges that > trustworthiness of bids in his partnership is worth more imps in the long > run. > > Has Rubens' partner been illegally using UI for decades? Alternatively, > has Zia's partner been illegally using UI for decades? > > Or is the answer none of the above? > I think the answer is either "both" or "neither". In my mind it can not be one without the other. Wayne From torsten.astrand at telia.com Fri Jul 18 10:35:49 2008 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:35:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><2a1c3a560807140013gad2e66fj800831b6be73b346@mail.gmail.com><00a001c8e661$504bf2f0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><1KIi5R-1Egzho0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de><001101c8e726$008ccc60$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48B01421CA8@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <00c101c8e8b1$499e5db0$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> I don?t participate so much but I read blml frequently. Are there a lot of grumblers? Torsten ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Peter Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy Torsten ?strand: > I think dummy "belongs" to all at table. I let the result stands. Peter Eidt: > Show me a law to proof this view - please Torsten ?strand: > Grattan suggested Law 74.B.1 "paying insufficient attention > to the game" Great! You could also tackle 'convention disruption' with this law. Someone forgot a convention? According to law 74B1 that's an INFRACTION, because he dit not pay sufficient attention to the game. JP _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From andre.kriner at gmail.com Fri Jul 18 12:51:09 2008 From: andre.kriner at gmail.com (Andre J. Kriner) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:51:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <488053B6.4070109@ulb.ac.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> <488053B6.4070109@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1912092051.20080718125109@gmail.com> Hi Alain, Friday, July 18, 2008, 10:26:30 AM, you wrote: > Guthrie a ?crit : >> [Alain Gottcheiner] >> David, may I suggest that perhaps partner will choose to rebid 3NT, or >> is he compelled to bid 2D first in all cases ? (which would make your >> system illegal : protected psyches) >> >> [Nige1] >> Bids like 3N or 4S are possible, but, presumably, most good hands will >> proceed via 2D. >> >> It is reasonable to regard X-Y as a "psych control" but that is true of >> many other conventions (for example Drury) that legislators are happy to >> condone. >> > Do you mean that every light opening bid is a psyhe ? Once again, I > can't understand you. > Surely there is a difference between : > a) checking whether partner opened 1S on QJxx - xx - xxx - xxxx (like > in original R/S) > b) checking whether partner opened 1S on KJxxx - AJx - xxx - xx (what I > would consider a minimum Ferdinand playing Drury) there sure is. I guess the point is that although Drury is used to handle light 3rd hand openings as in (b) it can at the same time be used as psyche control. Shouldn't one consider a 3rd hand psyche of a 1M opening when playing Drury unethical? The same ist true for X-Y-1NT. Andre From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 18 13:47:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:47:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <1912092051.20080718125109@gmail.com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> <488053B6.4070109@ulb.ac.be> <1912092051.20080718125109@gmail.com> Message-ID: <488082C9.3050201@ulb.ac.be> Andre J. Kriner a ?crit : > Hi Alain, > > Friday, July 18, 2008, 10:26:30 AM, you wrote: > > >> Guthrie a ?crit : >> >>> [Alain Gottcheiner] >>> David, may I suggest that perhaps partner will choose to rebid 3NT, or >>> is he compelled to bid 2D first in all cases ? (which would make your >>> system illegal : protected psyches) >>> >>> [Nige1] >>> Bids like 3N or 4S are possible, but, presumably, most good hands will >>> proceed via 2D. >>> >>> It is reasonable to regard X-Y as a "psych control" but that is true of >>> many other conventions (for example Drury) that legislators are happy to >>> condone. >>> >>> >> Do you mean that every light opening bid is a psyhe ? Once again, I >> can't understand you. >> > > >> Surely there is a difference between : >> a) checking whether partner opened 1S on QJxx - xx - xxx - xxxx (like >> in original R/S) >> b) checking whether partner opened 1S on KJxxx - AJx - xxx - xx (what I >> would consider a minimum Ferdinand playing Drury) >> > > there sure is. I guess the point is that although Drury is used to > handle light 3rd hand openings as in (b) it can at the same time be > used as psyche control. > Shouldn't one consider a 3rd hand psyche of a 1M opening when playing Drury > unethical? > That's a tricky question. It wouldn't, if partner continued to act as if one had a mere "light opening". For example, if partner, holding an 10-count, a 4-card raise and a singleton, bids only 2S at his second turn, thereby risking missing a game facing a standard light Ferdinand, and happens to face a genuine psyche, it will be classified as psyche fielding. But if opener is lucky enough to face a partner who holds a mere 4432 10- count with 3-card support (the bread-and-butter 2C bid), then he is entitled to his good score, if any, when they're allowed to play in 2S. However, this is the archetypal case where a psyche might alert partner to the possibility of another, thereby creating an agreement, which might well be illicit. Special attention should be given to such psyches.If it appears that partner will never answer 4S, even when obvious (say, 5 cards plus a singleton), but will always begin with 2C, and then tread extra-carefully over 2D, then we might be in CPU area. Now, if you're accustomed, as I am, to open a 3-bid on zilch, and partner knows it, he just has to alert, explain if needed, and this is an allowed treatment. But opening 1-bids on zilch could well be disallowed. But Drury in itself hasn't anything to do with psyche controls, and that's what I meant. Drury is merely a way to enquire about partner's range. The minimum response (either 2S or 2D, according to the version used) will usually show 7 to 8 losing tricks (6? being generally considered worth an opening in 1st seat), any other responses will show fewer LTs. This isn't different in any way from other quantittive enquiries, like Crowhurst, Ogust, or strong openings with step responses, all pretty popular. Now there is an interesting case. With one partner, we played double-decked Drury : 2C = 3 or 4 cards, sound raise, partner will rebid 2S with a hand not judged worth a 1st hand opening (which we play as sound). 2NT = 4 or 5 cards, no short suit, and an absolute maximum. Therefore, if partner bid 3S, we'd be wary, not of a psyche, but of a very light and patternless, peraps 4-card, opening. 3x = splinter, about 10 HCP. If partner bids 3S, we respect that, because we said all we had to say. Would you call this a psyche control ? An experienced TD said he wouldn't, because 1S-2NT-3S by us has the same meaning as 1S-2C-2S-3S-pass by classical drurysts. But that's a close matter. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 18 16:32:03 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:32:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <488082C9.3050201@ulb.ac.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> <488053B6.4070109@ulb.ac.be> <1912092051.20080718125109@gmail.com> <488082C9.3050201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4880A963.5010304@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] But Drury in itself hasn't anything to do with psyche controls, and that's what I meant. Drury is merely a way to enquire about partner's range. The minimum response (either 2S or 2D, according to the version used) will usually show 7 to 8 losing tricks (6? being generally considered worth an opening in 1st seat), any other responses will show fewer LTs. This isn't different in any way from other quantittive enquiries, like Crowhurst, Ogust, or strong openings with step responses, all pretty popular. [Nige1] I concede that Drury acts as psych control *only when* partner has psyched. I claim that is the very essence of a psych control. Similarly many other bids can act as psych controls. Another classic example (banned in some jurisdictions) is to specify a 2D relay as the normal reply to a GF 2C opener; then you can can psych 2C with a weak two in diamonds. Psychic controls aren't fool proof because sometimes partner will make a another reply. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jul 18 16:48:25 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:48:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <488082C9.3050201@ulb.ac.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> <488053B6.4070109@ulb.ac.be> <1912092051.20080718125109@gmail.com> <488082C9.3050201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0807180748t5fe279a6q7152e6fc7cee6b46@mail.gmail.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Andre J. Kriner a ?crit : < ...> >> I guess the point is that although Drury is used to >> handle light 3rd hand openings as in (b) it can at the same time be >> used as psyche control. >> Shouldn't one consider a 3rd hand psyche of a 1M opening when playing Drury >> unethical? >> > > That's a tricky question. > > It wouldn't, if partner continued to act as if one had a mere "light > opening". > For example, if partner, holding an 10-count, a 4-card raise and a > singleton, bids only 2S at his second turn, thereby risking missing a > game facing a standard light Ferdinand, and happens to face a genuine > psyche, it will be classified as psyche fielding. But if opener is > lucky enough to face a partner who holds a mere 4432 10- count with > 3-card support (the bread-and-butter 2C bid), then he is entitled to his > good score, if any, when they're allowed to play in 2S. > > However, this is the archetypal case where a psyche might alert partner > to the possibility of another, thereby creating an agreement, which > might well be illicit. > Special attention should be given to such psyches.If it appears that > partner will never answer 4S, even when obvious (say, 5 cards plus a > singleton), but will always begin with 2C, and then tread > extra-carefully over 2D, then we might be in CPU area. > Now, if you're accustomed, as I am, to open a 3-bid on zilch, and > partner knows it, he just has to alert, explain if needed, and this is > an allowed treatment. But opening 1-bids on zilch could well be disallowed. > > But Drury in itself hasn't anything to do with psyche controls, and > that's what I meant. > Drury is merely a way to enquire about partner's range. The minimum > response (either 2S or 2D, according to the version used) will usually > show 7 to 8 losing tricks (6? being generally considered worth an > opening in 1st seat), any other responses will show fewer LTs. This > isn't different in any way from other quantittive enquiries, like > Crowhurst, Ogust, or strong openings with step responses, all pretty > popular. > > Now there is an interesting case. > With one partner, we played double-decked Drury : > 2C = 3 or 4 cards, sound raise, partner will rebid 2S with a hand not > judged worth a 1st hand opening (which we play as sound). > 2NT = 4 or 5 cards, no short suit, and an absolute maximum. Therefore, > if partner bid 3S, we'd be wary, not of a psyche, but of a very light > and patternless, peraps 4-card, opening. > 3x = splinter, about 10 HCP. If partner bids 3S, we respect that, > because we said all we had to say. > > Would you call this a psyche control ? An experienced TD said he > wouldn't, because 1S-2NT-3S by us has the same meaning as > 1S-2C-2S-3S-pass by classical drurysts. > But that's a close matter. > Alain, I am trying to digest and generalize what you wrote. The common prohibition against psychic controls has some obvious cases and some not so obvious. A bid that asks if partner psyched is an obvious case---it is outlawed. A psyche that is risk-free due to your system is another obvious case---also outlawed. A third case which I feel certain is a psychic control is after the auction 1x-1y-1N if 2D is required by all game forcing hands, even those that already know they want to play in 3NT. Now I am not so much interested in Drury per say, but I am interested in your reasoning about what agreements constitute psychic controls. I would like to have find some conditions that make agreements not deemed psychic controls. Would you agree to these sufficient conditions for a system of responses to be deemed not a psychic control: 1. No response exists to ask if it was a psyche. 2. Many responses are possible, and no one response occurs the vast majority of the time. 3. Artificial bids ask questions that you really need to know to help set the contract. 4. The system seems designed to get the most out of legitimate auctions (which can include legal light actions, but not psyched calls). If a bidding system satisfied these four conditions, would that be sufficient, or should that be sufficient, to your thinking, to ward off any judgment of having a psychic control? Jerry Fusselman From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 18 16:48:51 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:48:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4880A963.5010304@NTLworld.com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> <488053B6.4070109@ulb.ac.be> <1912092051.20080718125109@gmail.com> <488082C9.3050201@ulb.ac.be> <4880A963.5010304@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4880AD53.8010201@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > I concede that Drury acts as psych control *only when* partner has > psyched. I claim that is the very essence of a psych control. Similarly > many other bids can act as psych controls. > AG : not even so, because partner will answer negatively with both the light opener and the psych. A psych control is a bid to which there exists one specific bid meaning 'yes, I psyched'. Now partner's reaction should be scrutinized, and 'psych fielding' should be decided on the slightest hint. Playing both psyches and light openers has been tried, most notably within the Bulldog system, and found unpractical, because there could be some confusion at times, and suspicion the rest of the time. > Another classic example (banned in some jurisdictions) is to specify a > 2D relay as the normal reply to a GF 2C opener; then you can can psych > 2C with a weak two in diamonds. > AG : not in Europa, where the psych of an artificial forcing bid is explicitly banned. Notice that playing (and explaining) 2C as either the weak 2D or the strong type enjoys some popularity, especially in the Netherlands, and is 100% allowed. Best regards Alain From will-t at online.no Fri Jul 18 17:44:03 2008 From: will-t at online.no (Willy Teigen) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:44:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0807180748t5fe279a6q7152e6fc7cee6b46@mail.gmail.com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> <488053B6.4070109@ulb.ac.be> <1912092051.20080718125109@gmail.com> <488082C9.3050201@ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0807180748t5fe279a6q7152e6fc7cee6b46@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001801c8e8ed$1b711c70$52535550$@no> JF: A third case which I feel certain is a psychic control is after the auction 1x-1y-1N if 2D is required by all game forcing hands, even those that already know they want to play in 3NT. The answer is NO, 2D is NOT required by all game forcing hands. On the actual hand KQxxx Qx Kxx KQx I'm investigating if pd has 3 card S support. If I had another distribution with 4 card S only, I would certainly bid a direct 3NT. Willy Teigen From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jul 18 18:41:27 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:41:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <001801c8e8ed$1b711c70$52535550$@no> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> <488053B6.4070109@ulb.ac.be> <1912092051.20080718125109@gmail.com> <488082C9.3050201@ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0807180748t5fe279a6q7152e6fc7cee6b46@mail.gmail.com> <001801c8e8ed$1b711c70$52535550$@no> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0807180941j4d3dca7g61be7a7964dc4409@mail.gmail.com> JF: A third case which I feel certain is a psychic control is after the auction 1x-1y-1N if 2D is required by all game forcing hands, even those that already know they want to play in 3NT. WT: The answer is NO, 2D is NOT required by all game forcing hands. On the actual hand KQxxx Qx Kxx KQx I'm investigating if pd has 3 card S support. If I had another distribution with 4 card S only, I would certainly bid a direct 3NT. JF: I think my word "if" lets you completely off the hook. I was thinking more about what DALB wrote when I gave that third case. DALB's writing seems to imply that 2D comes up more often than your writing does. Nevertheless, I consider it likely that DALB would agree that if 2D was required by all game-forcing hands, then it functions as a psychic control. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 19 12:31:31 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:31:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000e01c8e98a$f7daa800$c9ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > But..... > > What about historical evidence? Is "We have not yet psyched" AI? Grattan > quotes the word "mannerism" in Law 73C, but it seems to me that a more > sensible interpretation of Law 73C is that it applies to pard's twitches > during the _current_ deal, not to pard's non-psyches in _previous_ deals. > > This point may have been made before, but pard's historical tendency to > non-psyche seems to me to be AI under the final phrase of Law 40B2(a): > > "(such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)". > +=+ Under the 1997 laws opponents' mannerisms were AI; partner's mannerisms were not. There is no intention to change that position and the fact that any habitual idiosyncrasy of a person is by dictionary definition a 'mannerism' is the way in which this position is maintained now that we have Law 16A1(d). The 'more sensible' interpretation that Richard suggests is undone by the simple fact that the dictionary meaning of a word applies unless there is an authorized interpretation specific to the laws of the game. ['mannerism' = a habitual peculiarity of style or manner. 'peculiarity' = (something) peculiar to or characteristic of an individual person or thing. 'idiosyncrasy'= a mode of behaviour peculiar to a person, nation etc. 'manner'= customary mode of acting or behaviour; habitual practice. ~ Oxford English Dictionary.] Unless and until the WBFLC interprets the law differently we must abide by the meaning of the law as written. In my view a relevant question with a partner's mannerism is whether it conveys information that "may suggest a call or play". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jul 19 13:11:28 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:11:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <48805319.4070404@ulb.ac.be> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred><487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be><004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> <003001c8e7b3$d5f080d0$80c8403e@Mildred> <487F044A.10603@ulb.ac.be> <00c801c8e7f5$6ee7d4f0$32cd403e@Mildred> <487F2354.6030600@ulb.ac.be> <487F4A95.7020406@NTLworld.com> <48805319.4070404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4881CBE0.7030303@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] No Sir. Deviating from your system isn't a psyche. A psyche is a call that grossly and voluntarily distorts your hand. [Nige1] Sorry, I got that wrong :( I concede that Alain is right on both points :) Nevertheless, it is often a moot point whether a deviation is minor; and a deliberate minor deviation can damage opponents. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 19 16:52:27 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 10:52:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <200807162305.m6GN54rw020634@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807162305.m6GN54rw020634@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4881FFAB.70800@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Say partner opens 7NT. You can be pretty sure ... > Ergo, it IS possible to have the same idea, on fairly solid grounds, yet > not to have any agreement. This seems the very model of an "implicit agreement." A better term for an understanding that grows over time without discussion would be "tacit agreement." > In fact, that was my claim in the 3D case I presented several months ago > : that 3D bid that should show 4414 by mere analogy with some other, > well-discussed, non-relays. Another example of implicit agreement. Knowing your system, both you and your partner were able to work out what the bid had to mean. Don't you think your opponents were entitled to the same information? From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 19 17:03:01 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:03:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: <200807171450.m6HEoiQW014407@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807171450.m6HEoiQW014407@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48820225.8080302@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Letting an unamakable contract make because the Laws, not the cards, > said it will make, isn't called 'fair' in my vocabulary. The point is that this is a matter of taste: what one thinks makes for a better game. Some people (such as Richard, Robert, and Alain) think the result ought to be determined by the cards. Others (such as Stefanie and Steve) think what the players do is more important. The choice is a matter of preference, not right or wrong. > At competitive Scrabble, all adjustments are mechanic. > That's why there are professional TDs at bridge, and not at Scrabble. Tells you something, doesn't it? > In my view, the biggest Pro of 'equity adjustments' is that they are > coherent with the disclaimer about objectives for ruling (last sentence > of first paragraph of TFLB). But this too is a statement of preference (an official one) about what makes a better game. It's easy to imagine replacing it with a different statement justifying stricter mechanical penalties. The question is whether that would make a better or worse game, and people will have differing opinions. From: "Robert Frick" > One goal of the laws should be to maxmize enjoyment of bridge. Just so; some people might replace "One" with "The only." > I feel > pretty bad when I revoke and allow a contract to make because of the harsh > penalties. I have very little enjoyment -- perhaps even none -- when my > opponents revoke allowing me to make a contract because of the harsh > penalties. This is a matter of personal taste. I feel pretty bad when I fail to find an obvious play on defense and allow a contract to make, but I don't expect protection from the Laws. Likewise, I don't especially enjoy it when opponents find a stupid play to let my contract through -- but I keep the score. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 19 17:17:17 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:17:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200807171856.m6HIuuaK026954@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807171856.m6HIuuaK026954@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4882057D.7060200@nhcc.net> > From: > +=+ The laws preclude use of information from partner's mannerism. > A habitual trait peculiar to the individual is by dictionary definition a > 'mannerism'. I think this view would astound nearly every bridge player in the world. > This word, as used in Law 73C, is not among the > terms defined in the laws and the dictionary definition therefore applies. L73C doesn't tell us whether particular information is legal or not; it just tells what to do if you have UI. For legality, we have to look at L16. L16A1d tells us that this particular definition of "mannerism" is legal information unless there's a specific Law saying otherwise. The only one I can find is L16B1, which covers "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play." I find it hard to believe that partner's general style is covered. In any case, the rule Grattan proposes seems unenforceable, even if any authority wished to do so. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jul 19 17:37:00 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:37:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c8e98a$f7daa800$c9ca403e@Mildred> References: <000e01c8e98a$f7daa800$c9ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:31:31 -0400, wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > **************************** > " Hundreds of manhole covers > stolen in Michigan" > ~South Florida Sun-Sentinel > **************************** > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> But..... >> >> What about historical evidence? Is "We have not yet psyched" AI? >> Grattan >> quotes the word "mannerism" in Law 73C, but it seems to me that a more >> sensible interpretation of Law 73C is that it applies to pard's twitches >> during the _current_ deal, not to pard's non-psyches in _previous_ >> deals. >> >> This point may have been made before, but pard's historical tendency to >> non-psyche seems to me to be AI under the final phrase of Law 40B2(a): >> >> "(such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only >> method)". >> > +=+ Under the 1997 laws opponents' mannerisms were AI; partner's > mannerisms were not. There is no intention to change that position and > the fact that any habitual idiosyncrasy of a person is by dictionary > definition a 'mannerism' is the way in which this position is maintained > now that we have Law 16A1(d). The 'more sensible' interpretation that > Richard suggests is undone by the simple fact that the dictionary meaning > of a word applies unless there is an authorized interpretation specific > to > the laws of the game. > ['mannerism' = a habitual peculiarity of style or manner. > 'peculiarity' = (something) peculiar to or characteristic of an > individual person or thing. > 'idiosyncrasy'= a mode of behaviour peculiar to a person, nation etc. > 'manner'= customary mode of acting or behaviour; habitual practice. > ~ Oxford > English Dictionary.] > Unless and until the WBFLC interprets the law differently we must abide > by the meaning of the law as written. In my view a relevant question with > a partner's mannerism is whether it conveys information that "may suggest > a call or play". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hi. I am not sure why you are saying this. I think can see your point. If I know my partner is an overbidder, or tends to lead trumps on opening lead more than other players, that gives me an advantage over the opps that I shouldn't have. But I thought that was just a small but unfair part of the game. Trying to eliminate this advantage, by asking players not to use this information, would seem difficult -- compliance seems to be very difficult and enforcement impossible. But I don't think you can get this out of the laws. My dictionary has two definitions of mannerism. 1. Marked use of a distinctive style; especially in writing, music, or art. 2. a distinctive trait of speech or behavior; quirk; idiosyncracy. I think you want the second definition for Law 73A2. The second definition also works much better for Law 16B1(a). As I read that law, it is about the use of UI. It does list examples, but they are called examples, implying that the relevant law is elsewhere. Law 73 has exceptions, I know, but it suggests that definition 2 of mannerisms are UI. Law 16A1(d) also has exceptions, but it allows the use of mannerism definition 1. I don't think you should use an example as an exception, when there is a second an alternative interpretation of mannerism that is much compatible with the laws. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 18:11:30 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:11:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4881FFAB.70800@nhcc.net> References: <200807162305.m6GN54rw020634@cfa.harvard.edu> <4881FFAB.70800@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0807190911w4377b666s1fdffb486dae87b6@mail.gmail.com> [Alain] > In fact, that was my claim in the 3D case I presented several months ago > : that 3D bid that should show 4414 by mere analogy with some other, > well-discussed, non-relays. [Steve] Another example of implicit agreement. Knowing your system, both you and your partner were able to work out what the bid had to mean. Don't you think your opponents were entitled to the same information? [Jerry] I agree with Steve, as usual, though I think the use of the word *agreement* is a little old fashioned. The 1997 laws used the phrase "partnership agreement" more often and "partnership understanding." That caused problems when so many people, including lots of directors and BLMLers, took the word "agreement" too literally. In the 2007 laws, the phrase "partnership understanding" now outnumbers "partnership agreement" five to one. Case in point: My pard and I had agreed that the double in 1S-2H-2S-3H-X was an artificial game try. In Chicago, this is known as a maximal overcall double. My pard and I had agreed that it only applied it maximally-cramped auctions like this one. But at the table, the auction was 1S-2D-2S-3D-3H. I alerted 3H, and when asked, explained something like this: "Well, we have not discussed this, but since game tries are so important to us that we play maximal overcall doubles, this must be an artificial game try, saying nothing about hearts." The asker, a top Chicago director (but not directing that night), then angrily explained to me that my reasoning was terrible, the two sequences could have nothing in common, and that I should have said no agreement. Later, my partner said he had reasoned it the same way. That director erred by taking the meaning of agreement too narrowly, but there is some hope he might do better under the new laws, for the common meaning of understanding has a broader scope. He erred also in his behavior at the table. However, I now think that I was wrong too, and should have said only this: "Artificial game try, saying nothing about hearts." Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Jul 19 18:19:55 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:19:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: <48820225.8080302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <195317.19719.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Alain Gottcheiner: > > Letting an unamakable contract make because the > Laws, not the cards, > > said it will make, isn't called 'fair' in my > vocabulary. > If the Law applies equally to everyone, then of course it is fair. Also, when an adjustment is automatic, it is seen to be fair. This is important too. Steve Willner: > This is a matter of personal taste. I feel pretty > bad when I fail to > find an obvious play on defense and allow a contract > to make, but I > don't expect protection from the Laws. Likewise, I > don't especially > enjoy it when opponents find a stupid play to let my > contract through -- > but I keep the score. Indeed so. I was just getting round to posting a message to this effect. If I am protected from damage to my score after I have revoked (as I am under the new Laws), don't I deserve protection all the more if I have done something stupid but entirely within the Laws? Of course, on every board there is the chance of making an error in the bidding, play or defense. Our local club uses a version of Deep Finesse which suggests the 'par' spot. Players can just write that score on their scorecards and put the cards back into the board. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sat Jul 19 21:01:08 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:01:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law References: <195317.19719.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000701c8e9d1$d4ceabd0$2401a8c0@p41600> Locally we considered an event in which the members paid their table money by telephone or internet. The club would then send them a copy of the hands, and the computer would randomly rank each pair. Save a lot of time and trouble. lnb > Of course, on every board there is the chance of > making an error in the bidding, play or defense. Our > local club uses a version of Deep Finesse which > suggests the 'par' spot. Players can just write that > score on their scorecards and put the cards back into > the board. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 20 01:56:53 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:56:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c8e98a$f7daa800$c9ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002201c8e9fb$26120f40$89d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:31:31 -0400, wrote: > >> >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> **************************** >> " Hundreds of manhole covers >> stolen in Michigan" >> ~South Florida Sun-Sentinel >> **************************** >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:20 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > I think can see your point. If I know my partner is an overbidder, or > tends to lead trumps on opening lead more than other players, that gives > me an advantage over the opps that I shouldn't have. But I thought that > was just a small but unfair part of the game. Trying to eliminate this > advantage, by asking players not to use this information, would seem > difficult -- compliance seems to be very difficult and enforcement > impossible. > +=+ I do not regard a judgemental tendency as sufficiently specific, since it is exercised hand by hand, to convey information. Knowledge of partner's specific habitual idiosyncrasy does convey information. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Sun Jul 20 02:10:11 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:10:11 EDT Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 17/07/2008 01:56:12 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Since a psyche by South would only be done by a Hillsian lunatic, and since I am Orstrayan, not Scandinavian, the only logical alternative for North is for North to assume that South has misunderstood the intent of North's call. So, despite UI existing, there has been no infraction of Law 16B1. [paul lamford] Let us say that we interpret your first paragraph above as indicating that the probability in your mind is 0.01%, or some such, that South has psyched. I think the original poster indicated that his partner would never psyche. However, even Brother Anthony once broke his vows to double a cold game, so I don't think one can say "never". However, Laws 73C states: Message-ID: <000101c8ea56$b8832a70$eacf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > In a message dated 17/07/2008 01:56:12 GMT Standard Time, > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > Since a psyche by South would only be done by a Hillsian > lunatic, and since I am Orstrayan, not Scandinavian, the > only logical alternative for North is for North to > assume that South has misunderstood the intent of > North's call. > > So, despite UI existing, there has been no infraction of > Law 16B1. > > [paul lamford] > Let us say that we interpret your first paragraph above as indicating that > the probability in your mind is 0.01%, or some such, that South has > psyched. I > think the original poster indicated that his partner would never psyche. > However, even Brother Anthony once broke his vows to double a cold game, > so I > don't think one can say "never". However, Laws 73C states: > > unauthorized information. > > Grattan opined that this clause "catches" any misuse of UI that applies to > the auction, whether or not Law 16B1 is breached. If we accept this view, > then > the partner of the opening bidder is obliged to consider all > possibilities, > and must therefore select the logical alternative of pass which is not > suggested by the UI. If the laws meant "a tiny chance" then Law 73C would > have > stated: > > he must carefully avoid taking *more than an insignificant* advantage from > that unauthorized information. > > Those that argue that there is an insignificant chance that opener has > psyched are digging their own graves. The jury is still out on those that > argue > there is exactly a 0% chance opener has psyched. > > The arguments by DALB and Gesta are the ones that convince me. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Jul 20 14:31:14 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:31:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and Mist Beads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c8ea56$b8832a70$eacf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Hi, I missed this topic up till now, but 'never on a Sunday' drew my attention, expecting Grattan to confess that his religion has forbidden him to visit matches of his football club Liverpool when played on a Sunday. But no, I get lost in a incomprehensible discussion. It took me 15 years in my federation to convince people that anything said about psyches regarding the system played by a pair is wrong if not ridiculous. We had a model in which a box told players to tell whether they psyched never, seldom or frequently. A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful weapon (threat). Because once it has that agreement it should be told to its opponents, isn't it? Frequent psyching is forbidden, since it is impossible in my opinion to psych frequently without it being an undisclosed partnership understanding. So 'rarely' is the only appropriate box to fill out, which is the implicit meaning of the definition. I don't think that the WBFLC has a job here. ton +=+ It is Sunday and for some a day of rest, reflection, and piety. I am persuaded by the protracted discussion of this topic that the majority, perhaps the great majority, of blml subscribers wish it to be lawful to make use of the information that 'partner never psyches', notwithstanding the fact that the habitual idiosyncrasy matches to the dictionary definition of a 'mannerism'. If the WBFLC is of a mind that such is to be allowed we need to interpret the law accordingly. We could define the arrangement as 'method' within the terms of Law 40B2(a) and Law 40C1. It then becomes a partnership understanding. If this is to be the position adopted, it means of course that it will require both partners to adopt the same method or for the Regulating Authority to vary the requirement. Alternatively we could attempt a definition of 'mannerism' which is crafted to exclude whatever it is that we wish to exclude (for which I have not yet found words). That would be an interesting exercise in wordsmithery. Something to think about. What, I wonder, would be the view here as to what should be covered? Is it only an arrangement never to psyche that we have in mind? Ah me, more thinking to do ................ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > In a message dated 17/07/2008 01:56:12 GMT Standard Time, > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > Since a psyche by South would only be done by a Hillsian > lunatic, and since I am Orstrayan, not Scandinavian, the > only logical alternative for North is for North to > assume that South has misunderstood the intent of > North's call. > > So, despite UI existing, there has been no infraction of > Law 16B1. > > [paul lamford] > Let us say that we interpret your first paragraph above as indicating that > the probability in your mind is 0.01%, or some such, that South has > psyched. I > think the original poster indicated that his partner would never psyche. > However, even Brother Anthony once broke his vows to double a cold game, > so I > don't think one can say "never". However, Laws 73C states: > > unauthorized information. > > Grattan opined that this clause "catches" any misuse of UI that applies to > the auction, whether or not Law 16B1 is breached. If we accept this view, > then > the partner of the opening bidder is obliged to consider all > possibilities, > and must therefore select the logical alternative of pass which is not > suggested by the UI. If the laws meant "a tiny chance" then Law 73C would > have > stated: > > he must carefully avoid taking *more than an insignificant* advantage from > that unauthorized information. > > Those that argue that there is an insignificant chance that opener has > psyched are digging their own graves. The jury is still out on those that > argue > there is exactly a 0% chance opener has psyched. > > The arguments by DALB and Gesta are the ones that convince me. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 18:20:47 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and Mist Beads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48833029.0eff300a.1486.ffffd681SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <000101c8ea56$b8832a70$eacf403e@Mildred> <48833029.0eff300a.1486.ffffd681SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0807200920o716ccb30i509bf53978c23e60@mail.gmail.com> ton wrote: > > It took me 15 years in my federation to convince people that anything said > about psyches regarding the system played by a pair is wrong if not > ridiculous. > We had a model in which a box told players to tell whether they psyched > never, seldom or frequently. > A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful weapon > (threat). Because once it has that agreement it should be told to its > opponents, isn't it? > Frequent psyching is forbidden, since it is impossible in my opinion to > psych frequently without it being an undisclosed partnership understanding. > So 'rarely' is the only appropriate box to fill out, which is the implicit > meaning of the definition. > > I don't think that the WBFLC has a job here. > > ton > "Frequent psyching is forbidden" What does this mean? That is, what frequency of psyching is considered so frequent that it is forbidden? Is it measured by percentage of deals with a psyche? Is there a higher rate that is allowed for baby psyches, such 2S on the auction 2D-X-2S containing short spades and long diamonds? "It is impossible in my opinion to psych frequently without it being an undisclosed partnership understanding." Does Zia have an undisclosed partnership understanding? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 20:41:16 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:41:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and Mist Beads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48833029.0eff300a.1486.ffffd681SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <000101c8ea56$b8832a70$eacf403e@Mildred> <48833029.0eff300a.1486.ffffd681SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0807201141h79a982bqefa281423febe146@mail.gmail.com> "A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful weapon (threat)." Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how exactly they would change their system to defend against a pair who checks "psyches never" versus a pair who checks "psyches occasionally"? One example might suffice to satisfy my curiosity. Jerry Fusselman From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jul 20 20:41:45 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:41:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <98m384lv5j7k2ab89cs65d13omffii8g93@4ax.com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no><000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred><487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be><004101c8e769$9d3074c0$fad2403e@Mildred> <003001c8e7b3$d5f080d0$80c8403e@Mildred> <487F044A.10603@ulb.ac.be> <00c801c8e7f5$6ee7d4f0$32cd403e@Mildred> <487F2354.6030600@ulb.ac.be> <487F4A95.7020406@NTLworld.com> <48805319.4070404@ulb.ac.be> <4881CBE0.7030303@NTLworld.com> <98m384lv5j7k2ab89cs65d13omffii8g93@4ax.com> Message-ID: <488386E9.1030804@NTLworld.com> [brian] I'm puzzled by this last bit, Nigel. Why would you make a "deliberate minor deviation" from your system if you didn't think it was going to be to your advantage on that specific hand, and hence damaging to opponents? I seem to remember reading somewhere (I can't remember whether it was an EBU publication or something of wider scope) that "Your bidding system is NOT a binding contract with your opponents". [Nige1] Of course, deviating is not illegal but psychs are *gross* departures and so tend to get noticed. Rarely, a psych may even be recorded. In contrast, repeated patterns of *minor* departures often mature into concealed partnership understandings; they can be just as damaging to opponents; but there seems to be no interest in discouraging them. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 20 20:58:34 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:58:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000101c8ea56$b8832a70$eacf403e@Mildred><31198.4495529488$1216557147@news.gmane.org> Message-ID: <002601c8ea9a$b1eb9a50$3fce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:31:14 +0200, "ton" > wrote: > > <...> > >>A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful >>weapon >>(threat). Because once it has that agreement it should be told to its >>opponents, isn't it? > <...> > > A question, if I may? > > Why is it the job of the regulators to protect players from making > "stupid" admissions? > > If a pair WANTS to agree that they do not psyche, AND are willing to > disclose that fact to opponents, then why should they be barred from > so doing, irrespective of whether or not it might be a good idea? > > I think you're too concerned with the upper levels of the game, Ton. > Come back down to grass-roots club bridge. We all know there are pairs > who would no more psyche than they would get up and dance on the > table. Why should they be disadvantaged by a TD saying to them "Ah, > but your partner MIGHT have psyched", when they *and the majority of > their opponents* know it just wouldn't happen. > > Those who think such an arrangement is "stupid" don't have to make it. > Those who have it anyway should be allowed to declare it (do we want > full disclosure or not?) and then to benefit from it. > > Brian. > +=+ Ton has been away on holiday and he will not have read this very long thread. Seeing only the tip of the iceberg he will not be aware of what lies beneath. At this stage I am inclined to agree that there can be a partnership understanding that "we never psyche". Only with the consent of the Regulating Authority can the partnership understanding be that 'A' never psyches but 'B' refuses to preclude the possibility he will psyche - the RA's regulation would seem necessary to disengage the 'general requirement' in Law 40B2(a). Any partnership understanding must be disclosed. When Willy Teigen put his question, the discussion centred from the beginning on whether North could use his knowledge that South never psyches to overcome the effect of UI deriving from a non-alert. North certainly had that knowledge and as much was admitted. My thought was that the knowledge came from his awareness of a habitual peculiarity of style or manner in South; this constitutes a mannerism by dictionary definition and, in turn, such an approach makes his partner's mannerism UI for North. Since the awareness must come from somewhere another possibility is that it comes from partnership experience or direct agreement and is therefore, implicitly or explicitly, a partnership understanding. This is the view to which I now incline. However, it brings with it a dilemma - a partnership understanding must meet the general requirement in Law 40B2(a), and there is doubt whether in this instance that is the case. My third avenue of exploration was in the direction of a definition of 'mannerism' to exclude aspects of the dictionary definition of the word but I do not see such a definition as overcoming what seems obvious - the inevitable existence of a partnership understanding as Law 40A1(a) describes it. That difficulty arises also with the suggestion first mooted. I fail to see a reason why it would be inappropriate for the WBF Laws Committee to take up the subject in terms that will leave no scope for confusion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jul 20 21:00:06 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:00:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and Mist Beads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080720123547.QDSN16613.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20080720123547.QDSN16613.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <48838B36.9020102@NTLworld.com> [ton] We had a model in which a box told players to tell whether they psyched never, seldom or frequently. Frequent psyching is forbidden, since it is impossible in my opinion to psych frequently without it being an undisclosed partnership understanding. So 'rarely' is the only appropriate box to fill out, which is the implicit meaning of the definition. I don't think that the WBFLC has a job here. [Nigel] Ton is right. An expected "psych" is not a *psych*. If a pair ticks "never psych" and then psychs twice in a session, on what possible basis can they be penalised? They can hardly be accused of fielding, since the psychs came as a total surprise. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Jul 20 21:37:07 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:37:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and Mist Beads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: [TK] A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful weapon [DALB] It may give away more than that. If LHO opens 1S, partner overcalls 1NT, RHO doubles for penalty and I have a fourteen count, am I allowed to use the information that the opponents never psyche to conclude that therefore, my partner must have done? David Burn London, England From schoderb at msn.com Mon Jul 21 01:36:56 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:36:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: I'm sorry that Grattan has helped to extend this thread, which was important to the great number of games of bridge played throughout the world, to descend into a discussion of psychic bidding. The ruling asked for was if there was to be an adjustment or not on the given facts. At one time I remember Grattan having agreed that there was no infraction, and that there was no reason to adjust, reserving - for judgement by the TD -- as to whether North used what could perhaps be construed as a far out logical alternative and therefore injured the opponents. That legitimate line of reasoning was never extended to what South would do when it came back to him should North pass, having heard North's bidding as he understood it (a fair question for those TDs who feel responsible to show the players that they can play better than they do). Then there is the important point that seems to get lost in the rhetoric, there is a constant and substantial amount of UI in most games of bridge. The important point is whether that was used by the partner, and if it's use resulted in DAMAGE to the opponents. Remember using UI and getting a bad result is not ever penalized, even when the "par bridge" sycophants detest that the NOS got an unearned top result. I bow to those erudite and deep reasoning expert analysts, but that ain't what this was all about. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Hi, > > I missed this topic up till now, but 'never on a Sunday' drew my > attention, > expecting Grattan to confess that his religion has forbidden him to visit > matches of his football club Liverpool when played on a Sunday. > > But no, I get lost in a incomprehensible discussion. > It took me 15 years in my federation to convince people that anything said > about psyches regarding the system played by a pair is wrong if not > ridiculous. > We had a model in which a box told players to tell whether they psyched > never, seldom or frequently. > A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful > weapon > (threat). Because once it has that agreement it should be told to its > opponents, isn't it? > Frequent psyching is forbidden, since it is impossible in my opinion to > psych frequently without it being an undisclosed partnership > understanding. > So 'rarely' is the only appropriate box to fill out, which is the implicit > meaning of the definition. > > I don't think that the WBFLC has a job here. > > ton > > > > +=+ It is Sunday and for some a day of rest, reflection, and > piety. I am persuaded by the protracted discussion of this topic that the > majority, perhaps the great majority, of blml subscribers wish it to be > lawful to make use of the information that 'partner never psyches', > notwithstanding the fact that the habitual idiosyncrasy matches to the > dictionary definition of a 'mannerism'. > If the WBFLC is of a mind that such is to be allowed we need to > interpret the law accordingly. We could define the arrangement as 'method' > within the terms of Law 40B2(a) and Law 40C1. It then becomes a > partnership > understanding. If this is to be the position adopted, it means of course > that it will require both partners to adopt the same method or for the > Regulating Authority to vary the requirement. > Alternatively we could attempt a definition of 'mannerism' > which is crafted to exclude whatever it is that we wish to exclude (for > which I have not yet found words). That would be an interesting exercise > in > wordsmithery. Something to think about. What, I wonder, would be the view > here as to what should be covered? Is it only an arrangement never to > psyche > that we have in mind? > Ah me, more thinking to do ................ > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:10 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > In a message dated 17/07/2008 01:56:12 GMT Standard Time, > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > > > Since a psyche by South would only be done by a Hillsian > > lunatic, and since I am Orstrayan, not Scandinavian, the > > only logical alternative for North is for North to > > assume that South has misunderstood the intent of > > North's call. > > > > So, despite UI existing, there has been no infraction of > > Law 16B1. > > > > [paul lamford] > > Let us say that we interpret your first paragraph above as indicating > > that > > the probability in your mind is 0.01%, or some such, that South has > > psyched. I > > think the original poster indicated that his partner would never psyche. > > However, even Brother Anthony once broke his vows to double a cold game, > > so I > > don't think one can say "never". However, Laws 73C states: > > > > > unauthorized information. > > > > Grattan opined that this clause "catches" any misuse of UI that applies > > to > > the auction, whether or not Law 16B1 is breached. If we accept this > > view, > > then > > the partner of the opening bidder is obliged to consider all > > possibilities, > > and must therefore select the logical alternative of pass which is not > > suggested by the UI. If the laws meant "a tiny chance" then Law 73C > > would > > > have > > stated: > > > > he must carefully avoid taking *more than an insignificant* advantage > > from > > that unauthorized information. > > > > Those that argue that there is an insignificant chance that opener has > > psyched are digging their own graves. The jury is still out on those > > that > > argue > > there is exactly a 0% chance opener has psyched. > > > > The arguments by DALB and Gesta are the ones that convince me. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 will-t at online.no Mon Jul 21 02:34:42 2008 From: will-t at online.no (Willy Teigen) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:34:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301c8eac9$914fa0a0$b3eee1e0$@no> Thanks a lot for that support! Yes, I was asking for a ruling on the given facts, not a severe analysis on psychic bidding. -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER Sent: 21. juli 2008 01:37 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I'm sorry that Grattan has helped to extend this thread, which was important to the great number of games of bridge played throughout the world, to descend into a discussion of psychic bidding. The ruling asked for was if there was to be an adjustment or not on the given facts. At one time I remember Grattan having agreed that there was no infraction, and that there was no reason to adjust, reserving - for judgement by the TD -- as to whether North used what could perhaps be construed as a far out logical alternative and therefore injured the opponents. That legitimate line of reasoning was never extended to what South would do when it came back to him should North pass, having heard North's bidding as he understood it (a fair question for those TDs who feel responsible to show the players that they can play better than they do). Then there is the important point that seems to get lost in the rhetoric, there is a constant and substantial amount of UI in most games of bridge. The important point is whether that was used by the partner, and if it's use resulted in DAMAGE to the opponents. Remember using UI and getting a bad result is not ever penalized, even when the "par bridge" sycophants detest that the NOS got an unearned top result. I bow to those erudite and deep reasoning expert analysts, but that ain't what this was all about. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Hi, > > I missed this topic up till now, but 'never on a Sunday' drew my > attention, > expecting Grattan to confess that his religion has forbidden him to visit > matches of his football club Liverpool when played on a Sunday. > > But no, I get lost in a incomprehensible discussion. > It took me 15 years in my federation to convince people that anything said > about psyches regarding the system played by a pair is wrong if not > ridiculous. > We had a model in which a box told players to tell whether they psyched > never, seldom or frequently. > A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful > weapon > (threat). Because once it has that agreement it should be told to its > opponents, isn't it? > Frequent psyching is forbidden, since it is impossible in my opinion to > psych frequently without it being an undisclosed partnership > understanding. > So 'rarely' is the only appropriate box to fill out, which is the implicit > meaning of the definition. > > I don't think that the WBFLC has a job here. > > ton > > > > +=+ It is Sunday and for some a day of rest, reflection, and > piety. I am persuaded by the protracted discussion of this topic that the > majority, perhaps the great majority, of blml subscribers wish it to be > lawful to make use of the information that 'partner never psyches', > notwithstanding the fact that the habitual idiosyncrasy matches to the > dictionary definition of a 'mannerism'. > If the WBFLC is of a mind that such is to be allowed we need to > interpret the law accordingly. We could define the arrangement as 'method' > within the terms of Law 40B2(a) and Law 40C1. It then becomes a > partnership > understanding. If this is to be the position adopted, it means of course > that it will require both partners to adopt the same method or for the > Regulating Authority to vary the requirement. > Alternatively we could attempt a definition of 'mannerism' > which is crafted to exclude whatever it is that we wish to exclude (for > which I have not yet found words). That would be an interesting exercise > in > wordsmithery. Something to think about. What, I wonder, would be the view > here as to what should be covered? Is it only an arrangement never to > psyche > that we have in mind? > Ah me, more thinking to do ................ > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:10 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > In a message dated 17/07/2008 01:56:12 GMT Standard Time, > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > > > Since a psyche by South would only be done by a Hillsian > > lunatic, and since I am Orstrayan, not Scandinavian, the > > only logical alternative for North is for North to > > assume that South has misunderstood the intent of > > North's call. > > > > So, despite UI existing, there has been no infraction of > > Law 16B1. > > > > [paul lamford] > > Let us say that we interpret your first paragraph above as indicating > > that > > the probability in your mind is 0.01%, or some such, that South has > > psyched. I > > think the original poster indicated that his partner would never psyche. > > However, even Brother Anthony once broke his vows to double a cold game, > > so I > > don't think one can say "never". However, Laws 73C states: > > > > > unauthorized information. > > > > Grattan opined that this clause "catches" any misuse of UI that applies > > to > > the auction, whether or not Law 16B1 is breached. If we accept this > > view, > > then > > the partner of the opening bidder is obliged to consider all > > possibilities, > > and must therefore select the logical alternative of pass which is not > > suggested by the UI. If the laws meant "a tiny chance" then Law 73C > > would > > > have > > stated: > > > > he must carefully avoid taking *more than an insignificant* advantage > > from > > that unauthorized information. > > > > Those that argue that there is an insignificant chance that opener has > > psyched are digging their own graves. The jury is still out on those > > that > > argue > > there is exactly a 0% chance opener has psyched. > > > > The arguments by DALB and Gesta are the ones that convince me. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 21 02:57:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:57:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William Schoder ("Kojak"): [snip] >Then there is the important point that seems to get lost in the rhetoric, >there is a constant and substantial amount of UI in most games of bridge. >The important point is whether that was used by the partner, Richard Hills: Footnote - And whether, if used, there was only one logical alternative. William Schoder ("Kojak"): >and if it's use resulted in DAMAGE to the opponents. Remember using UI >and getting a bad result is not ever penalized, Richard Hills: Footnote - I think Kojak means "no score adjustment". An egregious infraction of Law 73C might attract a procedural penalty even if the opponents benefited from the infraction. William Schoder ("Kojak"): >even when the "par bridge" sycophants detest that the NOS got an unearned >top result. Richard Hills: Footnote - If "Hesitation Blackwood" results in +50 to the NOS, the "par bridge" advocate Jeff Rubens argues that the result should be changed to -450 to the NOS, on the grounds that the illegal use of the hesitation should be cancelled all the time. Like Kojak, I think Rubens is mistaken. William Schoder ("Kojak"): >I bow to those erudite and deep reasoning expert analysts, but that ain't >what this was all about. Richard Hills: Footnote - One final quibble. UI creation and MI infraction are often intertwined. And what thinks might be the MI is not necessarily the MI. On the available facts, Herman De Wael incorrectly believed that the MI was South failing to alert North's 2D. But did North err in failing to alert South's subsequent Pass of 2D? Initially I thought that North should have alerted what was, from North's point of view, a non-systemic Pass. But the fact that South passed was "a grandma's warning that all is not as it seemed". So is North now allowed to reason that 2D is a non-alertable non-understanding and thus South's pass is also a non-alertable non-understanding? In my revised opinion, yes and no. Once South failed to alert North's 2D, the 2007 Law 75A applies. North must _continue bidding_ in accordance with North's original mistaken belief that 2D is, by partnership agreement, an artificial game force. But North must _alert and explain_ in accordance with the actual North- South non-agreement. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 21 06:47:08 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:47:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488414CC.9050002@NTLworld.com> [Kojak] [SNIP] reserving - for judgement by the TD -- as to whether North used what could perhaps be construed as a far out logical alternative and therefore injured the opponents. [Nige1] I agree with Grattan Endicott and David Burn that "using UI" is the possible infraction, most likely to attract the director's attention. Passing a forcing bid is a rare occurrence. Forgetting basic system, psyching, making a mechanical error (and other explanations for passing a forcing bid) are also rare occurrences. The unauthorised information suggests the first possibility and cue-bidding opponent's suit is the logical alternative that caters for it. [Kojak] Remember using UI and getting a bad result is not ever penalized, [SNIP] [Nige1] I agree with Richard Hills that this is a pity and that sometimes the director should use his powers to impose a penalty. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jul 21 10:22:47 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:22:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykesand MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488414CC.9050002@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: [Kojak] Remember using UI and getting a bad result is not ever penalized, [SNIP] [Nige1] I agree with Richard Hills that this is a pity and that sometimes the director should use his powers to impose a penalty. ton: With which I agree, probably (I hope so) Kojak wanted to say that using UI and getting a bad result does not ever lead to an adjusted score. In my lectures I try to explain future TD's that a player making a call that a big majority of players would not make after having received UI and using it, should lead to a penalty, independent of the score on the board. ton From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 21 12:17:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:17:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Your ruling please? In-Reply-To: <4880A963.5010304@NTLworld.com> References: <00af01c8e1de$b112fca0$1338f5e0$@no> <000f01c8e674$60e4a090$22ade1b0$@no> <000b01c8e74d$4cf4f880$fad2403e@Mildred> <487E089D.4000301@ulb.ac.be> <32389B3A-BF8B-4DED-B9F3-3205CBFBD9AE@starpower.net> <000901c8e78a$1649af50$42dd0df0$@com> <487EFF25.8070403@ulb.ac.be> <487F4DBD.9080403@NTLworld.com> <488053B6.4070109@ulb.ac.be> <1912092051.20080718125109@gmail.com> <488082C9.3050201@ulb.ac.be> <4880A963.5010304@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48846255.3090207@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Alain Gottcheiner] > But Drury in itself hasn't anything to do with psyche controls, and > that's what I meant. > Drury is merely a way to enquire about partner's range. The minimum > response (either 2S or 2D, according to the version used) will usually > show 7 to 8 losing tricks (6? being generally considered worth an > opening in 1st seat), any other responses will show fewer LTs. This > isn't different in any way from other quantittive enquiries, like > Crowhurst, Ogust, or strong openings with step responses, all pretty > popular. > > [Nige1] > I concede that Drury acts as psych control *only when* partner has > psyched. I claim that is the very essence of a psych control. Similarly > many other bids can act as psych controls. > > Another classic example (banned in some jurisdictions) is to specify a > 2D relay as the normal reply to a GF 2C opener; then you can can psych > 2C with a weak two in diamonds. > Indeed, it is not the 2D bid that is illegal, it is the 2C psyche on weak diamonds when playing the 2D automatic bid. I was once in the following situation. My regular partner (3 times down) and I had agreed to exchange the 2NT and 2Cl bids (20-21 and 22-23), so that over 2Cl, 2He and 2Sp could be played weak, passable. With my next regular partner (2 times down) we expanded this to include a weak diamond variant in the 2Cl opening. We kept the 2He and 2Sp resonses (weak) because when both are weak, it doesn't matter where you end up (this happened one time - we ended in 4He undoubled - they were cold for 6Sp). The one day, I played with the first partner again. He had stopped for some time, so he did not know of the development. We played our former system and I suddenly had a weak two in diamonds. I thought about opening 2Cl (s psyche for that partnership) but thought better of it because his almost automatic 2Di would be considered a psychic control. I don't believe it matters for what reason one builds in a certain piece of system. When that piece of system is then used to control a psychic sequence - the psyche itself must be illegal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 21 12:30:07 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:30:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4884652F.8000706@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > William Schoder ("Kojak"): > > [snip] > >> Then there is the important point that seems to get lost in the rhetoric, >> there is a constant and substantial amount of UI in most games of bridge. >> The important point is whether that was used by the partner, > > Richard Hills: > > Footnote - And whether, if used, there was only one logical alternative. > > William Schoder ("Kojak"): > >> and if it's use resulted in DAMAGE to the opponents. Remember using UI >> and getting a bad result is not ever penalized, > > Richard Hills: > > Footnote - I think Kojak means "no score adjustment". An egregious > infraction of Law 73C might attract a procedural penalty even if the > opponents benefited from the infraction. > > William Schoder ("Kojak"): > >> even when the "par bridge" sycophants detest that the NOS got an unearned >> top result. > > Richard Hills: > > Footnote - If "Hesitation Blackwood" results in +50 to the NOS, the "par > bridge" advocate Jeff Rubens argues that the result should be changed to > -450 to the NOS, on the grounds that the illegal use of the hesitation > should be cancelled all the time. Like Kojak, I think Rubens is mistaken. > > William Schoder ("Kojak"): > >> I bow to those erudite and deep reasoning expert analysts, but that ain't >> what this was all about. > > Richard Hills: > > Footnote - One final quibble. UI creation and MI infraction are often > intertwined. And what thinks might be the MI is not necessarily the MI. > On the available facts, Herman De Wael incorrectly believed that the MI > was South failing to alert North's 2D. But did North err in failing to > alert South's subsequent Pass of 2D? > > Initially I thought that North should have alerted what was, from North's > point of view, a non-systemic Pass. But the fact that South passed was "a > grandma's warning that all is not as it seemed". So is North now allowed > to reason that 2D is a non-alertable non-understanding and thus South's > pass is also a non-alertable non-understanding? > > In my revised opinion, yes and no. > > Once South failed to alert North's 2D, the 2007 Law 75A applies. North > must _continue bidding_ in accordance with North's original mistaken > belief that 2D is, by partnership agreement, an artificial game force. > > But North must _alert and explain_ in accordance with the actual North- > South non-agreement. > Thereby telling partner exactly the same thing as by shouting "stupid f*r - you have again forgotten the X-Y convention". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Mon Jul 21 13:27:27 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:27:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000101c8ea56$b8832a70$eacf403e@Mildred><48833029.0eff300a.1486.ffffd681SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <2b1e598b0807201141h79a982bqefa281423febe146@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002d01c8eb24$c1c6f250$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > "A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful > weapon > (threat)." > > Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how exactly they would > change their system to defend against a pair who checks "psyches > never" versus a pair who checks "psyches occasionally"? One example > might suffice to satisfy my curiosity. 1C X 1S X. John > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 21 13:58:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:58:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re:Sykesand MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <483293F622300671@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <000b01c8eb29$28ff36e0$d9d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re:Sykesand MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > [Kojak] > Remember using UI and getting a bad result is not ever penalized, [SNIP] > > [Nige1] I agree with Richard Hills that this is a pity and that sometimes > the director should use his powers to impose a penalty. > > ton: > > With which I agree, probably (I hope so) Kojak wanted to say that using UI > and getting a bad result does not ever lead to an adjusted score. > > In my lectures I try to explain future TD's that a player making a call > that > a big majority of players would not make after having received UI and > using > it, should lead to a penalty, independent of the score on the board. > +=+ Although I imagine that the "*may* also assess" in Law 90A gives the Director discretion in the matter. I have in mind that there are different levels of play, different bridge environments, and they may not all attract equal severity of response to the infraction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Mon Jul 21 16:26:32 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:26:32 +1200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002d01c8eb24$c1c6f250$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: In NZ it is illegal to psyche more than twice per session (classed as 'persistent psyching'). Is it then proper to ask if a player has psyched in a session and how many times? It would indeed be improper DURING the auction. Maybe it should now show in the pre-alerts - "Partner has psyched twice this session" and opps know there won't be a psyche on this board! Or if there is, they will be in for an adjustment. Surely the information is no different than "we never have a 5-card major when we open 1NT". Would you adjust if one time one of these players DID have a 5-card major? My opinion - for what it's worth, is that players would be foolish to say "We Never .." if anything needs to be said then "I have never known my partner to ..". Martin Oyston -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst Sent: Monday, 21 July 2008 11:27 p.m. To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > "A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful > weapon > (threat)." > > Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how exactly they would > change their system to defend against a pair who checks "psyches > never" versus a pair who checks "psyches occasionally"? One example > might suffice to satisfy my curiosity. 1C X 1S X. John > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 21 17:05:34 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:05:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4884A5BE.8020205@NTLworld.com> [Martin Oyston] In NZ it is illegal to psyche more than twice per session (classed as 'persistent psyching'). Is it then proper to ask if a player has psyched in a session and how many times? It would indeed be improper DURING the auction. Maybe it should now show in the pre-alerts - "Partner has psyched twice this session" and opps know there won't be a psyche on this board! Or if there is, they will be in for an adjustment. Surely the information is no different than "we never have a 5-card major when we open 1NT". Would you adjust if one time one of these players DID have a 5-card major? My opinion - for what it's worth, is that players would be foolish to say "We Never .." if anything needs to be said then "I have never known my partner to ..". [Nige1] IMO the NZ law-makers were mistaken to make it illegal to psyche more than twice per session; but in those circumstances, you are ethically bound to tell each set of opponents how often partner has psyched that session. For example, suppose partner (a notorious psycher) has psyched twice during the first set. You know he has used up his session quota and that you can now trust all his bids. Surely, you must divulge that information to opponents? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 21 16:00:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:00:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000101c8ea56$b8832a70$eacf403e@Mildred><48833029.0eff300a.1486.ffffd681SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com><2b1e598b0807201141h79a982bqefa281423febe146@mail.gmail.com> <002d01c8eb24$c1c6f250$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <000201c8eb48$6597d0c0$89d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (JF) >> "A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful >> weapon >> (threat)." >> (JMDP) >> Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how exactly they would >> change their system to defend against a pair who checks "psyches >> never" versus a pair who checks "psyches occasionally"? One example >> might suffice to satisfy my curiosity. > > 1C X 1S X. John > (GE) +=+ Some forty plus years ago there were a couple of elderly does (female dears) in the local club who had an evident understanding (disclosure being approximate*) that in the sequence 1'w'-double-1'y' responder's shortest suit was 'y'. So we developed a counter that 1w - double - 1y - 'double' expressed a desire to defend whatever contract they escaped into. Ah, for the lost liberality of that regime. (*we believed largely as to length through siting of the handbag) +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 01:41:26 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:41:26 +1200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002d01c8eb24$c1c6f250$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807211641s6a0a4a5ap26d8d59bed76eb97@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/22 Martin Oyston : > In NZ it is illegal to psyche more than twice per session (classed as > 'persistent psyching'). This is not actually what the NZ regulation says. What the regulation actually says is. "Persistent psyching is not permitted. Directors should regard two (2) deliberate gross misdescriptions by a partnership in any one session as evidence of persistent psyching." That is two psyches are sufficient but this is only evidence which is significantly different than proof IMHO. > Is it then proper to ask if a player has psyched in > a session and how many times? It would indeed be improper DURING the > auction. Maybe it should now show in the pre-alerts - "Partner has psyched > twice this session" and opps know there won't be a psyche on this board! Or > if there is, they will be in for an adjustment. Why would the onus be on the player who as psyched to give this information? Why not the players who have not yet psyched? Unless this is mandated by regulation then it would be unauthorized information being information that does not come from the calls and plays on the board in play. Curiously the NZ regulation if it was as Martin suggests confers an advantage on the psyching side since L16A2 allows "Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations." So that after my partner had psyched the maximum number of times I would be entitled to base my actions on the soundness of her subsequent bids but the opponents would not be able to take that into account. Personally I feel that the regulation is designed simply to avoid having to make difficult decisions about concealed partnership agreements. Under the 1997 laws I believe it was contrary to Law 40 which specifically allowed "any call" including psychic calls not based on a partnership understanding. 2007 L40A3 still allows for "any call ... not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding". 2007 L40B2d allows the regulators to restrict artificial psychic calls. A restriction on non-artificial psychic calls would seem to me to be directly contrary to L40A3. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jul 22 01:43:01 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:43:01 +1200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4884A5BE.8020205@NTLworld.com> References: <4884A5BE.8020205@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807211643j5eaf831ey2658bb9552dd5228@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/22 Guthrie : > [Martin Oyston] > In NZ it is illegal to psyche more than twice per session (classed as > 'persistent psyching'). Is it then proper to ask if a player has > psyched in a session and how many times? It would indeed be improper > DURING the auction. Maybe it should now show in the pre-alerts - > "Partner has psyched twice this session" and opps know there won't be a > psyche on this board! Or if there is, they will be in for an adjustment. > > Surely the information is no different than "we never have a 5-card > major when we open 1NT". Would you adjust if one time one of these > players DID have a 5-card major? > > My opinion - for what it's worth, is that players would be foolish to > say "We Never .." if anything needs to be said then "I have never known > my partner to ..". > > [Nige1] > IMO the NZ law-makers were mistaken to make it illegal to psyche more > than twice per session; but in those circumstances, you are ethically > bound to tell each set of opponents how often partner has psyched that > session. > > For example, suppose partner (a notorious psycher) has psyched twice > during the first set. You know he has used up his session quota and that > you can now trust all his bids. Surely, you must divulge that > information to opponents? Why should those opponents have an advantage that the earlier opponents did not have? I don't see the ethics or the legality of giving this information to the opponents. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 22 01:44:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:44:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002601c8ea9a$b1eb9a50$3fce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott asserted: [snip] >At this stage I am inclined to agree that there can be >a partnership understanding that "we never psyche". [snip] Richard Hills paradoxes: At this stage I am inclined to agree that there can be an irresistible force which meets an immovable object. :-) What if a member of a "we never psyche" pair chooses to perpetrate her first psyche? A psyche is by definition "a deliberate and gross misstatement" of partnership understanding, so the best that one can say is, "we have not yet psyched in our bridge partnership". Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 22 02:53:10 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:53:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:44:52 -0400, wrote: > Grattan Endicott asserted: > > [snip] > >> At this stage I am inclined to agree that there can be >> a partnership understanding that "we never psyche". > > [snip] > > Richard Hills paradoxes: > > At this stage I am inclined to agree that there can be > an irresistible force which meets an immovable object. > > :-) > > What if a member of a "we never psyche" pair chooses to > perpetrate her first psyche? > > A psyche is by definition "a deliberate and gross > misstatement" of partnership understanding, so the best > that one can say is, "we have not yet psyched in our > bridge partnership". That is not the definition from the laws: "Psychic call (commonly ?psych[e]? or ?psychic?) ? a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length." > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by > persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. > DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act > 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the > department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 22 03:17:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:17:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Martin Oyston question: [snip] >Surely the information is no different than "we never have a 5-card >major when we open 1NT". Would you adjust if one time one of these >players DID have a 5-card major? [snip] Richard Hills answer: Perhaps I would adjust. Assuming the opponents were damaged by the unexpected 5-card major (for example, by a consequent miscount in their defence to 3NT), the question is whether or not there was any misinformation. Say partner A opened 1NT with: AK 65432 QJT KJT because that player evaluated the 5-card heart suit as really only a 4-card heart suit. If partner B is aware that partner A has assessed similar evaluations in the past for other opening bids, overcalls and rebids, it does not matter that this is the first time partner A bid 1NT with a 5-card major - the partnership has an implicit understanding that partner A uses honour location to modify supposedly rigid shape requirements. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Tue Jul 22 04:17:59 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:17:59 EDT Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 22/07/2008 02:18:03 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: [regarding hand patterns for 1NT openers] If partner B is aware that partner A has assessed similar evaluations in the past for other opening bids, overcalls and rebids, it does not matter that this is the first time partner A bid 1NT with a 5-card major - the partnership has an implicit understanding that partner A uses honour location to modify supposedly rigid shape requirements. [paul lamford] I preface all explanations of partner's likely pattern with "typically". Therefore an explanation of 1NT would be "typically won't contain a decent five-card major", or alternatively, "might contain a five-card major", depending on my partner. Partner B, making a rigid statement, is to blame if the opponents are misled when partner A uses honour location to modify rigid shape requirements." I would not attempt to claim either MI or a CPU for a minor variation from an explained hand pattern, nor would I expect a TD to so rule. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 22 04:40:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:40:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>What if a member of a "we never psyche" pair chooses to >>perpetrate her first psyche? >> >>A psyche is by definition "a deliberate and gross >>misstatement" of partnership understanding, so the best >>that one can say is, "we have not yet psyched in our > bridge partnership". Robert Frick: >That is not the definition from the laws: "Psychic call >(commonly 'psych[e]' or 'psychic') - a deliberate and >gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit >length." Richard Hills: Okay, pard opens 1NT, RHO passes, and I bid 2H holding: KQJT98 2 432 432 Is my bid a "deliberate and gross misstatement" of heart length, thus a psyche? Or is it relevant that my pard and I have a mutual understanding that 2H is a transfer to spades? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 22 05:52:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:52:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: [snip] >I would not attempt to claim either MI or a CPU for a >minor variation from an explained hand pattern, nor >would I expect a TD to so rule. Richard Hills: Sometimes "minor MI" might be analogous to "a little bit pregnant". Law 40B6(b): "The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 22 09:34:31 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:34:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560807211641s6a0a4a5ap26d8d59bed76eb97@mail.gmail.com> References: <002d01c8eb24$c1c6f250$0901a8c0@JOHN> <2a1c3a560807211641s6a0a4a5ap26d8d59bed76eb97@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48858D87.9080808@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2008/7/22 Martin Oyston : >> In NZ it is illegal to psyche more than twice per session (classed as >> 'persistent psyching'). > > This is not actually what the NZ regulation says. > > What the regulation actually says is. > > "Persistent psyching is not permitted. Directors should regard two (2) > deliberate gross misdescriptions by a partnership in any one session > as evidence of persistent psyching." > > That is two psyches are sufficient but this is only evidence which is > significantly different than proof IMHO. > Most people read this regulation wrongly. They believe it is forbidden to psyche three times in a session. It is not. Note that it is only "evidence". If I psyche on a hand/situation that suits a particular kind of psyche, the director should determine whether that hand/situation is something that comes up more or less than once a session. If it is a situation that does not come up with any frequency, then this is not evidence of a psyching frequency of more than two per session. If a second hand/situation comes up, the director will look somewhat more carefully at the combined frequency. If by enormous chance a third hand/situation comes up, again with a low frequency, nothing in the NZ regulation will be able to forbid a player to psyche a third time. Of course three psyches give an additional piece of evidence: that the player has a greater list than most of suiteable hands/situations. All the information about previous psyches in the session being UI/AI is therefore of no importance. A player's frequency of psyches must be known, but that can be only to the future, not to the past. It's as if a player would be saying, I've seen three bare kings already this session, there cannot be any more. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 22 09:36:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:36:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48858E11.4020007@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Paul Lamford: > > [snip] > >> I would not attempt to claim either MI or a CPU for a >> minor variation from an explained hand pattern, nor >> would I expect a TD to so rule. > > Richard Hills: > > Sometimes "minor MI" might be analogous to "a little > bit pregnant". > to Richard: Paul said "minor variation", not "minor UI". to Paul: A minor variation is MI. The director should not rule "no MI", but "no damage". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 22 09:49:10 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:49:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001101c8ebcf$bc37cbb0$bfd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Law 40B6(b): > > "The Director adjusts the scores if information not > given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's > choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged." > +=+ Law 40B6(a) states the basis of disclosure. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 22 12:23:50 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:23:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re:Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002d01c8eb24$c1c6f250$0901a8c0@JOHN> <2a1c3a560807211641s6a0a4a5ap26d8d59bed76eb97@mail.gmail.com> <48858D87.9080808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c8ebe6$070e1cf0$dbd4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re:Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Wayne Burrows wrote: >> 2008/7/22 Martin Oyston : >>> In NZ it is illegal to psyche more than twice per session (classed as >>> 'persistent psyching'). >> >> This is not actually what the NZ regulation says. >> >> What the regulation actually says is. >> >> "Persistent psyching is not permitted. Directors should regard two (2) >> deliberate gross misdescriptions by a partnership in any one session >> as evidence of persistent psyching." >> >> That is two psyches are sufficient but this is only evidence which is >> significantly different than proof IMHO. >> +=+ The laws refer to the subject at 40C1 and also at 40B2(d). The apparent effect of the NZ regulation is to guide Directors as to when the practice may be deemed a disclosable understanding to which Law 40A and 40B apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 23 00:17:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:17:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c8ebcf$bc37cbb0$bfd0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Law 40B6(b): "The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged." +=+ Law 40B6(a) states the basis of disclosure. ~ G ~ +=+ 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." Paul Lamford: I preface all explanations of partner's likely pattern with "typically". [big snip] Richard Hills It seems to me that the word "typically" does not "disclose all special information". For example, when pard or I opens a natural 2D in our Symmetric Relay system (system notes emailed on request), our system cards do not explain it as 10-14 hcp, "typically" 6+ diamonds. Rather, our system cards _explicitly_ explain that a 5-card diamond suit is only permitted if the suit contains 100 honours. Likewise, an explanation that an opponent's 1NT is "typically" 12-14 hcp is not helpful. I need to know if that opponent is aggressive (11)12-14, conservative 12-14(15), or Rueful Rabbit forgetful 12-14(16-18). Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 23 03:42:49 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:42:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48868C99.30601@NTLworld.com> {richard Hills] Likewise, an explanation that an opponent's 1NT is "typically" 12-14 hcp is not helpful. [Nigel] "Typically 12-14 HCP" is of little help to the questioner but can help some explainers. For example, it may save them from divulging that the range is 13-15 HCP at unfavourable vulnerability; but 11-13 HCP at favourable. Directors dismiss this kind of practice as "general bridge knowledge" or the result of quirks of evaluation (eg "shape", "intermediates", "honour concentration", or "85 combinations"). IMO such explanations sometimes conceal partnership understandings. The deviation is minor rather than gross, so there is never any question of recording or penalizing them. This topic has been aired many times in the past. BLMLers always react in horrified disbelief at the very idea of redress being made available -- surprising because most of us have experience of being the victim of such deviations. For example, RHO opens a 12-14 NT. LHO raises to 3N. Later in the play, to set 3N, you need partner to hold the knave of clubs, but that would leave declarer with only 11 HCP for his opening bid. When asked, dummy confirms the range on the system card. Rather than give away a certain overtrick, you play safe. You feel a bit of a fool when declarer cheerfully admits that he shaded opening requirements by 1 HCP because he held two four card suits. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 23 05:59:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:59:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48868C99.30601@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) Dble 4C (3) Pass ? (1) 22-23 hcp balanced (2) Transfer to spades (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding the ace of clubs You, South, hold: J6432 --- J876 A654 Two aces of clubs "is for sure anti-systemic and I would account it a matter of general bridge knowledge that it constitutes a grandma's warning that all is not as it seemed. +=+" What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Jul 23 08:14:06 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:14:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48868C99.30601@NTLworld.com> References: <48868C99.30601@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080723161219.03a8be48@mail.optusnet.com.au> >cut Nigel (I think): > Rather than give away a certain >overtrick, you play safe. You feel a bit of a fool when declarer >cheerfully admits that he shaded opening requirements by 1 HCP because >he held two four card suits. > Better than saying "I always add a point when I play against you" :) Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 23 08:47:59 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:47:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4886D41F.5040906@t-online.de> Richard, how is anyone supposed to answer that without any knowledge of partner? Is he more likely to forget that we do not play 2NT for the minors any more, or would he try a false cue-bid, or a second-round-control? At the table I probably know, because he surely would have to alert or announce 3H (without flinching, after I announced or didn`t alert 2NT), so in real life I am probably fighting with UI right now. If, on the other hand, there is no UI present, see the first sentence... Regards Matthias richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) > Dble 4C (3) Pass ? > > (1) 22-23 hcp balanced > (2) Transfer to spades > (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding the ace of clubs > > You, South, hold: > > J6432 > --- > J876 > A654 > > Two aces of clubs "is for sure anti-systemic and I would > account it a matter of general bridge knowledge that it > constitutes a grandma's warning that all is not as it > seemed. +=+" > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 23 09:34:51 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:34:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48868C99.30601@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002d01c8ec96$9a9f4d80$cfdde880$@nl> If the agreements are really as firm as you make them out to be you know for sure that the wheels have come off. If your partnership used to play 2NT for the minors this is perhaps the time to correct your explanation of the 2NT call. In theory you might well be allowed to pass. However, in real life agreements are never so firm. The 4C call, even if agreed to be first round control sometimes is done on the KQ, with a very good fit. In practice I would always bid 4H, retransfer to spades. In real life I have no alternative, because my hand is not fit for slam. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: woensdag 23 juli 2008 5:59 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) Dble 4C (3) Pass ? (1) 22-23 hcp balanced (2) Transfer to spades (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding the ace of clubs You, South, hold: J6432 --- J876 A654 Two aces of clubs "is for sure anti-systemic and I would account it a matter of general bridge knowledge that it constitutes a grandma's warning that all is not as it seemed. +=+" What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Jul 23 17:49:26 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:49:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48868C99.30601@NTLworld.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080723161219.03a8be48@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <001c01c8ecdb$af397370$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>cut > > > Nigel (I think): > > >> Rather than give away a certain >>overtrick, you play safe. You feel a bit of a fool when declarer >>cheerfully admits that he shaded opening requirements by 1 HCP because >>he held two four card suits. I'm entirely with Nigel here. Full disclosure is mandated by the laws, and partner's habits are known to you. John >> > Better than saying "I always add a point when I play against you" :) > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > > >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 24 00:54:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:54:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4886D41F.5040906@t-online.de> Message-ID: >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: North >>Vul: North-South >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) >>Dble 4C (3) Pass ? >> >>(1) 22-23 hcp balanced >>(2) Transfer to spades >>(3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding the ace of clubs >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>J6432 >>--- >>J876 >>A654 Matthias Berghaus: >Richard, > >how is anyone supposed to answer that without any knowledge of >partner? Richard Hills: The information I have is that this deal occurred in a Mixed Pairs, which increased the chance that the partnership was new, which increased the chance that... Hans van Staveren: >...in real life agreements are never so firm. Matthias Berghaus: >Is he more likely to forget that we do not play 2NT for the >minors any more, or would he try a false cue-bid, or a second- >round-control? Richard Hills: I agree that a "where-I-live" cuebid of a second-round control with AKQx Ax Ax KQJxx is a logical alternative, in which case the par contract at matchpoints is 6NT, but 6S should still be a near top in a mixed pairs. Hans van Staveren: >If your partnership used to play 2NT for the minors this is >perhaps the time to correct your explanation of the 2NT call. >In theory you might well be allowed to pass. Matthias Berghaus: >At the table I probably know, because he surely would have to >alert or announce 3H (without flinching, after I announced or >didn't alert 2NT), so in real life I am probably fighting with >UI right now. KT 2 AK932 98732 Q A9875 KQT9643 AJ875 Q4 T5 KQJ T J6432 --- J876 A654 The bidding actually went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) Dble 4C (3) Pass(4) Pass Pass Pass (1) 5-5 minors, 6-10 hcp, not alerted (2) Alerted and explained as "forcing" (3) Calls above 3NT are "self-alerting" in Australia (4) East now enquired further about the auction, whereupon _North_ volunteered that her 2NT showed the minors. South then apologised and said he thought it was strong. Result: North-South +130 At the conclusion of play, West calls the director and complains that North-South would not languish in 4C without North's gratuitous comments. South acknowledges that he intended 3H as a transfer to spades but says 4C couldn't logically have been a cue bid (super-accept) because he held the CA. East admits she wasn't sure that West's double guaranteed heart length, which is why she didn't bid on over 4C. East also says she might have doubled 2NT for take-out if it had been alerted originally. What ruling do you make? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 24 02:32:26 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:32:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4887CD9A.3070309@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, South, hold S:J6432 H- D:J876 C:A654 --- 2N (_P) 3H (_X) 4C (_P) ?? (1) 2N = 22-23 hcp balanced (2) 3H = Transfer to spades (3) 4C = Super-accept in spades, cue-bid of CA Two aces of clubs "is for sure anti-systemic and I would account it a matter of general bridge knowledge that it constitutes a grandma's warning that all is not as it seemed. +=+" (i) What call do you make? (ii) What other calls do you consider making? [Nige1] Why would partner misbid? (A) He may have psyched 3N. (B) He may imaginine that his 2N means a single-suiter pre-empt or a two-suiter or whatever. (C) He may imagine that you break transfers with long suits or short suits or 2nd round controls. (D) He may have SA in with his clubs. (i) The most likely explanations are (C) or (D). (ii) 4H=10, 4S=9, 5C=3. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 24 02:34:21 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:34:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4887CE0D.1020306@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, South, hold S:J6432 H- D:J876 C:A654 --- 2N (_P) 3H (_X) 4C (_P) ?? (1) 2N = 22-23 hcp balanced (2) 3H = Transfer to spades (3) 4C = Super-accept in spades, cue-bid of CA Two aces of clubs "is for sure anti-systemic and I would account it a matter of general bridge knowledge that it constitutes a grandma's warning that all is not as it seemed. +=+" (i) What call do you make? (ii) What other calls do you consider making? [Nige1] Why would partner misbid? (A) He may have psyched 2N. (B) He may imaginine that his 2N means a single-suiter pre-empt or a two-suiter or whatever. (C) He may imagine that you break transfers with long suits or short suits or 2nd round controls. (D) He may have SA in with his clubs. (i) The most likely explanation depends on prior understandings and partner's foibles but (C) or (D) must be candidates. (ii) 4H=10, 4S=9, 5C=3. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 24 03:51:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:51:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01c8ecdb$af397370$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie (23rd July 2008): For example, RHO opens a 12-14 NT. LHO raises to 3N. Later in the play, to set 3N, you need partner to hold the knave of clubs, but that would leave declarer with only 11 HCP for his opening bid. When asked, dummy confirms the range on the system card. Rather than give away a certain overtrick, you play safe. You feel a bit of a fool when declarer cheerfully admits that he shaded opening requirements by 1 HCP because he held two four card suits. Eric Landau (13th May 2005): Allow me to offer a table of appropriate terminology: Gross? Deliberate? Agreement? What is it? No No No Misbid No No Yes Misinformation No Yes No Judgment No Yes Yes CPU Yes No No Misbid Yes No Yes Misinformation Yes Yes No Psych Yes Yes Yes Cheating Nigel Guthrie (23rd July 2008): IMO such explanations sometimes conceal partnership understandings. The deviation is minor rather than gross, so there is never any question of recording or penalizing them. John (MadDog) Probst (24th July 2008): I'm entirely with Nigel here. Full disclosure is mandated by the laws, and partner's habits are known to you. John Nigel Guthrie (23rd July 2008): BLMLers always react in horrified disbelief at the very idea of redress being made available Richard Hills (32nd July 2008): "Always" is an overstatement, given that blmlers Landau, Probst and Hills agree with Guthrie that repeated minor deviations by one or both partners become implicit CPUs of the partnership. The 2007 Law 40C1 is scale-free; it does not matter whether the CPU is minor or gross. So if a knavish (in both senses of the word) CPU causes damage, then the final sentence of Law 40C1 says: "If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." Note the imperative word "shall". The Director may not avoid an adjustment of the score because declarer "held two four card suits". Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 24 09:15:35 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:15:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <195317.19719.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>Letting an unmakable contract make because the Laws, >>not the cards, said it will make, isn't called 'fair' >>in my vocabulary. Stefanie Rohan: >If the Law applies equally to everyone, then of course >it is fair. Also, when an adjustment is automatic, it >is seen to be fair. This is important too. Hilda Lirsch (29th February 1900): "When someone says 'of course' that means that that proposition is highly debatable." * * * Blml, 29th August 2005 -> Steve Willner: >>Can you imagine a chess match where the players didn't >>know how the pieces move? Come on! Richard Hills: >There was this international tournament game played >under the 1924 edition of the Laws of Chess -> > > White Black >1 e4 d5 >2 exd5 Qxd5 >3 Bc3 > >White had intended the standard move of Nc3, but >accidentally and illegally moved their bishop to that >square instead. David J. Grabiner: This seems analogous to the bridge situation in which declarer wins the trick in dummy and then leads from his own hand. He hasn't forgotten the basic rule that the winner of one trick leads to the next trick, but he was careless. Richard Hills: >Touch and move was (and is) a fundamental tournament >chess law. But White's bishop had no legal move. > >The 1924 Laws specified, as a penalty, that whenever a >player touched a piece which had no legal move, that >player had to make a move with their king instead. So >the game concluded -> > >3 Ke2 Qe4 mate > >The subsequent 1948 edition of the Laws of Chess >deleted the penalty for touching a piece which had no >legal move, to prevent such disproportionate penalties. David J. Grabiner: And the 1987 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge made an analogous change, removing the old penalty that the player had to lead the same suit, which often destroyed equity. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From J.P.Pals at uva.nl Thu Jul 17 22:11:45 2008 From: J.P.Pals at uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:11:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy References: <019001c8e33a$10e72050$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s><1KHFFc-280Zg80@fwd32.aul.t-online.de><00ed01c8e33d$517a2a10$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> <003e01c8e822$2caee290$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <0FB9DBB5922C2042814860CD5E13B48BEBBB39@EX01.fmg.uva.nl> Olivix, I completely agree with you. JP ________________________________ Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org namens olivier.beauvillain Verzonden: do 7/17/2008 17:31 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy Hi i don't understand why you don'tlike my L41D : dummy must sort his cards in suits, so if if doesn't, that's an infraction and cannot win by way of this, and can be penalize if you like, anyway opponents can have a ruling just with that, Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: "olivier.beauvillain" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy L41D can do it, Olivix ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrongly sorted cards by dummy Law 12 A1 From: Torsten ?strand > Dummy sorted the diamond king in the row of hearts. > Diamond lead and the opponent behind dummy played > the ace holding A,Q,J. > After a few tricks they discover the diamond king. > Dummy belongs to all at the table in that case I think. > Where in the new Laws can I find the right Law to explain > my ruling? Torsten _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information NOD32 3261 (20080711) __________ Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information NOD32 3261 (20080711) __________ Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4901 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080717/f9a1fb00/attachment-0001.bin From allevy at aol.com Sat Jul 19 02:05:34 2008 From: allevy at aol.com (allevy at aol.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:05:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid Message-ID: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> Hans, Under the old?Law when a player substituted 2H for 1H (1D-1S-1H) you didn't know what he held.? Under the new Law when a player substitutes 2H he has his 2H bid...otherwise he would Dbl.? Almost all hands that bid 1H fit either Dbl or 2H in many systems. The whole idea of allowing a change in bid to a more precise meaning is to allow bridge to be played.? THAT'S THE IDEA OF THE NEW LAW.? I am not missing the point, as Hans says.? The idea of the new law was to allow the insufficient bidder to describe his hand accurately if he could do so without giving unauthorized information, thus his bid has to be more precise and, in addition,?the original insufficient bid has to not convey any unauthorized information. So often?it will be?to the opponent's advantage to allow the insufficient bid, e.g., 1D-1S-1H-3S/4S Al? Message: 4 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:44:40 +0200 From: "Hans van Staveren" Subject: Re: [blml] accepting insufficient bid To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Message-ID: <00c501c8e646$44371960$cca54c20$@nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" What Al seems to miss is that the bid should be more precise, but need not necessarily reflect bidders hand more precise. So all at the table will know to treat such bids with a bit of reserve. Hans ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080718/567a002e/attachment.htm From richard at sunnexgroup.com Mon Jul 21 16:41:47 2008 From: richard at sunnexgroup.com (richard at sunnexgroup.com) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3011.209.113.218.90.1216651307.squirrel@webmail1.web.com> > In NZ it is illegal to psyche more than twice per session (classed as > 'persistent psyching'). Is it then proper to ask if a player has psyched > in > a session and how many times? It would indeed be improper DURING the > auction. Maybe it should now show in the pre-alerts - "Partner has > psyched > twice this session" and opps know there won't be a psyche on this board! > Or > if there is, they will be in for an adjustment. > > Surely the information is no different than "we never have a 5-card major > when we open 1NT". Would you adjust if one time one of these players DID > have a 5-card major? > > My opinion - for what it's worth, is that players would be foolish to say > "We Never .." if anything needs to be said then "I have never known my > partner to ..". > > Martin Oyston > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Monday, 21 July 2008 11:27 p.m. > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes > andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > nothing is always or never--to psyche is an integral part of the game. Richard Kanter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:41 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and > MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> "A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful >> weapon >> (threat)." >> >> Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how exactly they would >> change their system to defend against a pair who checks "psyches >> never" versus a pair who checks "psyches occasionally"? One example >> might suffice to satisfy my curiosity. > > 1C X 1S X. John > >> >> Jerry Fusselman >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080721/80e45364/attachment.htm From richard at sunnexgroup.com Mon Jul 21 16:41:47 2008 From: richard at sunnexgroup.com (richard at sunnexgroup.com) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3011.209.113.218.90.1216651307.squirrel@webmail1.web.com> > In NZ it is illegal to psyche more than twice per session (classed as > 'persistent psyching'). Is it then proper to ask if a player has psyched > in > a session and how many times? It would indeed be improper DURING the > auction. Maybe it should now show in the pre-alerts - "Partner has > psyched > twice this session" and opps know there won't be a psyche on this board! > Or > if there is, they will be in for an adjustment. > > Surely the information is no different than "we never have a 5-card major > when we open 1NT". Would you adjust if one time one of these players DID > have a 5-card major? > > My opinion - for what it's worth, is that players would be foolish to say > "We Never .." if anything needs to be said then "I have never known my > partner to ..". > > Martin Oyston > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Monday, 21 July 2008 11:27 p.m. > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes > andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > nothing is always or never--to psyche is an integral part of the game. Richard Kanter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:41 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and > MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> "A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful >> weapon >> (threat)." >> >> Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how exactly they would >> change their system to defend against a pair who checks "psyches >> never" versus a pair who checks "psyches occasionally"? One example >> might suffice to satisfy my curiosity. > > 1C X 1S X. John > >> >> Jerry Fusselman >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080721/80e45364/attachment-0001.htm From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 24 10:38:32 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:38:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <001a01c8ed68$a7f349a0$f7d9dce0$@no> The 2007 laws made no change in the old rules for correcting an insufficient bid without barring partner. What the 2007 laws did was to introduce alternative ways of correcting insufficient bids without barring partner. So when 1D- 1S - 1H is corrected to . 2H you know exactly as much or as little as you did with the old laws. Regards Sven From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of allevy at aol.com Sent: 19. juli 2008 02:06 To: blml at amsterdamned.org Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid Hans, Under the old Law when a player substituted 2H for 1H (1D-1S-1H) you didn't know what he held. Under the new Law when a player substitutes 2H he has his 2H bid...otherwise he would Dbl. Almost all hands that bid 1H fit either Dbl or 2H in many systems. The whole idea of allowing a change in bid to a more precise meaning is to allow bridge to be played. THAT'S THE IDEA OF THE NEW LAW. I am not missing the point, as Hans says. The idea of the new law was to allow the insufficient bidder to describe his hand accurately if he could do so without giving unauthorized information, thus his bid has to be more precise and, in addition, the original insufficient bid has to not convey any unauthorized information. So often it will be to the opponent's advantage to allow the insufficient bid, e.g., 1D-1S-1H-3S/4S Al Message: 4 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:44:40 +0200 From: "Hans van Staveren" Subject: Re: [blml] accepting insufficient bid To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Message-ID: <00c501c8e646$44371960$cca54c20$@nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" What Al seems to miss is that the bid should be more precise, but need not necessarily reflect bidders hand more precise. So all at the table will know to treat such bids with a bit of reserve. Hans _____ The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the TMZ Toolbar Now! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080724/4e9a4374/attachment-0001.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 24 11:27:23 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:27:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] KT 2 AK932 98732 Q A9875 KQT9643 AJ875 Q4 T5 KQJ T J6432 --- J876 A654 The bidding actually went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) Dble 4C (3) Pass(4) Pass Pass Pass (1) 5-5 minors, 6-10 hcp, not alerted (2) Alerted and explained as "forcing" (3) Calls above 3NT are "self-alerting" in Australia (4) East now enquired further about the auction, whereupon _North_ volunteered that her 2NT showed the minors. South then apologised and said he thought it was strong. Result: North-South +130 At the conclusion of play, West calls the director and complains that North-South would not languish in 4C without North's gratuitous comments. South acknowledges that he intended 3H as a transfer to spades but says 4C couldn't logically have been a cue bid (super-accept) because he held the CA. East admits she wasn't sure that West's double guaranteed heart length, which is why she didn't bid on over 4C. East also says she might have doubled 2NT for take-out if it had been alerted originally. What ruling do you make? [nigel] I'm glad I'm not a director because I always get these rulings wrong :( I guess that the director should adjust to 7SX-5, a likely result without the infraction; and consider imposing an additional penalty on an experienced South. If South was determined to use the UI, I don't understand his pass of 4C. With a void and a double fit, 5C seems indicated. With a sleepy director, you might even get away with it as a cue-bid in support of spades :) From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jul 24 15:29:57 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:29:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4886D41F.5040906@t-online.de> Message-ID: <003701c8ed91$5e864dc0$1b92e940$@com> [RH] The bidding actually went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) Dble 4C (3) Pass(4) Pass Pass Pass [DALB] North's final pass seems to me to be a particularly blatant case of use of unauthorised information. She was in duty bound to correct to 4S, and the mere fact that the three players in front of her had passed ought not to have deterred her from this course. As Herman will tell you, when you have a choice between breaking some piffling Law such as 22A2 and taking illegal and unilateral steps to protect your opponents from damage due to misinformation, you have a moral obligation to do the latter. As to the actual case, South ought to have been shot. Or, if a particularly dim view was taken of the seriousness of his crime, compelled to play the next session of the Mixed Pairs. David Burn London, England From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Jul 24 17:36:38 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:36:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4886D41F.5040906@t-online.de> <003701c8ed91$5e864dc0$1b92e940$@com> Message-ID: <000001c8eda8$cf247220$2401a8c0@p41600> As I have said before (some while ago), being Burn'd at the stake is the best option by far. lnb #################### # I am NOT phacetious # #################### > As to the actual case, South ought to have been shot. Or, if a particularly > dim view was taken of the seriousness of his crime, compelled to play the > next session of the Mixed Pairs. > > David Burn > London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jul 25 01:49:13 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:49:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <02b301c8ede7$e0562770$0100a8c0@stefanie> Richard.hills: > Stefanie Rohan: > >>If the Law applies equally to everyone, then of course >>it is fair. Also, when an adjustment is automatic, it >>is seen to be fair. This is important too. > > Hilda Lirsch (29th February 1900): > > "When someone says 'of course' that means that that > proposition is highly debatable." > Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Making fun of others' statements does nothing to promote your point of view. If you really think that a Law that applies in exactly the same way to any player, when applied by any director, is not fair, then say so and try to provide a reason for it. Then maybe you can help people to understand your point of view by explaining why you believe that, when a player fails to follow suit even though the Laws tell him to follow suit, he must be protected from any damage that this causes to his side. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Jul 25 02:19:38 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:19:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02b301c8ede7$e0562770$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <02b301c8ede7$e0562770$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <48891C1A.2030006@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Making fun of others' statements does nothing to promote your point of view. If you really think that a Law that applies in exactly the same way to any player, when applied by any director, is not fair, then say so and try to provide a reason for it. Then maybe you can help people to understand your point of view by explaining why you believe that, when a player fails to follow suit even though the Laws tell him to follow suit, he must be protected from any damage that this causes to his side. [Nigel] Richard always injects a note of humour and he consistently condemns consistency as boring at best. Like many directors, he welcomes the trend towards laws that depend less on the actions of players and more the judgement of directors. This is the way all fields of law develop. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 25 03:00:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:00:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02b301c8ede7$e0562770$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >>>If the Law applies equally to everyone, then of course >>>it is fair. Also, when an adjustment is automatic, it >>>is seen to be fair. This is important too. Hilda Lirsch (29th February 1900): >>"When someone says 'of course' that means that that >>proposition is highly debatable." Stefanie Rohan: >Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Richard Hills: In part, yes. 1900 was not a leap year. Stefanie Rohan: >Making fun of others' statements does nothing to promote >your point of view. Richard Hills: But how else to deal with "ex cathedra" infallible statements other than with ridicule? Stefanie Rohan: >If you really think that a Law that applies in exactly >the same way to any player, when applied by any director, >is not fair, then say so and try to provide a reason for it. Richard Hills: It depends on your definition of "fair". The portion of my previous email that Stefanie snipped gave illustrative examples of a "fair" change to the Laws of Chess in 1948 and a "fair" change to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge in 1987. The mythical Greek hotel keeper Procrustes gave weary travellers a bed of a fixed length. This bed "applied in exactly the same way to any" traveller. If a traveller was too long, Procrustes amputated their limbs to fit. If a traveller was too short, Procrustes stretched their limbs out of their sockets to fit. But was the bed of Procrustes "fair"? Alain Gottcheiner and David J. Grabiner might beg to differ. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 25 05:53:44 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:53:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02b301c8ede7$e0562770$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <02b301c8ede7$e0562770$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:49:13 -0400, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Richard.hills: > >> Stefanie Rohan: >> >>> If the Law applies equally to everyone, then of course >>> it is fair. Also, when an adjustment is automatic, it >>> is seen to be fair. This is important too. >> >> Hilda Lirsch (29th February 1900): >> >> "When someone says 'of course' that means that that >> proposition is highly debatable." >> > Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Making fun of others' > statements > does nothing to promote your point of view. If you really think that a > Law > that applies in exactly the same way to any player, when applied by any > director, is not fair, then say so and try to provide a reason for it. You seem to be talking about the application of a law. We want that to be fair. Is it possible for a law itself to be unfair? Would a law giving special privileges to handicapped players be unfair? When people talk about a law being unfair, I think they are taking about things like equity and balance. So, for example, if people were thrown in jail for not recycling all of the their garbage that could be recycled, without any warning, people would probably call that unfair even though everyone received the same treatment. Sticking to your definition, perhaps the law is fair, but that does not make it a good law. > > Then maybe you can help people to understand your point of view by > explaining why you believe that, when a player fails to follow suit even > though the Laws tell him to follow suit, he must be protected from any > damage that this causes to his side. > > 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 Fri Jul 25 06:25:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:25:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: >>East also says she might have doubled 2NT for take-out if it had >>been alerted originally. Nigel Guthrie: >I'm glad I'm not a director because I always get these rulings >wrong :( >I guess that the director should adjust to 7SX-5, a likely result >without the infraction; [snip] Richard Hills: I assess 6Sx four off for -1100 as a more plausible rectification for the use of UI. But Nigel mentioned "the" infraction. As was discussed some time ago by (I think) Steve Willner, often there are two infractions, UI and MI, and it is a question of which one you rectify. When this case was put before a panel of Directors in the late lamented Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin, some of those panellists opted to rectify the MI infraction, adjusting the score to 4H by West, North-South -420. There is a big difference between North-South -420 and North-South -1100. How should you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 25 09:02:03 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:02:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <02b301c8ede7$e0562770$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <48897A6B.50604@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick] So, for example, if people were thrown in jail for not recycling all of the their garbage that could be recycled, without any warning, people would probably call that unfair even though everyone received the same treatment. [Nige1] In games, fairness is more important than realism. I guess Monopoly is not for you, Robert :) From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Jul 25 10:25:44 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:25:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00a301c8ee30$0883b7b0$198b2710$@nl> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Guthrie Sent: donderdag 24 juli 2008 11:27 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [Richard Hills] KT 2 AK932 98732 Q A9875 KQT9643 AJ875 Q4 T5 KQJ T J6432 --- J876 A654 The bidding actually went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) Dble 4C (3) Pass(4) Pass Pass Pass (1) 5-5 minors, 6-10 hcp, not alerted (2) Alerted and explained as "forcing" (3) Calls above 3NT are "self-alerting" in Australia (4) East now enquired further about the auction, whereupon _North_ volunteered that her 2NT showed the minors. South then apologised and said he thought it was strong. Result: North-South +130 At the conclusion of play, West calls the director and complains that North-South would not languish in 4C without North's gratuitous comments. South acknowledges that he intended 3H as a transfer to spades but says 4C couldn't logically have been a cue bid (super-accept) because he held the CA. East admits she wasn't sure that West's double guaranteed heart length, which is why she didn't bid on over 4C. East also says she might have doubled 2NT for take-out if it had been alerted originally. What ruling do you make? [nigel] I'm glad I'm not a director because I always get these rulings wrong :( I guess that the director should adjust to 7SX-5, a likely result without the infraction; and consider imposing an additional penalty on an experienced South. If South was determined to use the UI, I don't understand his pass of 4C. With a void and a double fit, 5C seems indicated. With a sleepy director, you might even get away with it as a cue-bid in support of spades :) [HvS] Apart from disciplinary penalties against NS, for which there is ample reason, of course it depends on agreements they have. If they would have the same sort of agreements that I have over super-accepts, South would bid 4H, retransfer, over which North would bid anything but 4S, say 4NT or 5C. At that point South has the legal information that North cannot have the strong Notrump and can pass. So NS 5Cx-1 seems reasonable. At this point you can go to the weighted score game, and add a couple of percentage points for really outrageous out of hand auctions. So as a compromise to punish NS a bit (bid) more: 66% 5Cx-1, 17% 6Cx-2, 9% 7Cx-3, 8% 7Sx -infinity Hans From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jul 25 11:26:42 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:26:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie> Richard Hills: > But was the bed of Procrustes "fair"? Alain Gottcheiner > and David J. Grabiner might beg to differ. OK. If you are not serious about revoke penalties being somehow wrong and bad for bridge, that is fine. It does not seem like a "serious" point of view anyway, even though it is the one held by the WBFLC DSC. But if you are going to simply take the piss, please do it privately, because it is a waste of people's time to read childish and irrelevant posts such as the one this quote is from. Stefanie Rohan London, England From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Jul 25 11:30:45 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:30:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a301c8ee30$0883b7b0$198b2710$@nl> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <00a301c8ee30$0883b7b0$198b2710$@nl> Message-ID: <00aa01c8ee39$1f9e3e30$5edaba90$@nl> [Richard Hills] KT 2 AK932 98732 Q A9875 KQT9643 AJ875 Q4 T5 KQJ T J6432 --- J876 A654 The bidding actually went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) Dble 4C (3) Pass(4) Pass Pass Pass (1) 5-5 minors, 6-10 hcp, not alerted (2) Alerted and explained as "forcing" (3) Calls above 3NT are "self-alerting" in Australia (4) East now enquired further about the auction, whereupon _North_ volunteered that her 2NT showed the minors. South then apologised and said he thought it was strong. Result: North-South +130 At the conclusion of play, West calls the director and complains that North-South would not languish in 4C without North's gratuitous comments. South acknowledges that he intended 3H as a transfer to spades but says 4C couldn't logically have been a cue bid (super-accept) because he held the CA. East admits she wasn't sure that West's double guaranteed heart length, which is why she didn't bid on over 4C. East also says she might have doubled 2NT for take-out if it had been alerted originally. What ruling do you make? [nigel] I'm glad I'm not a director because I always get these rulings wrong :( I guess that the director should adjust to 7SX-5, a likely result without the infraction; and consider imposing an additional penalty on an experienced South. If South was determined to use the UI, I don't understand his pass of 4C. With a void and a double fit, 5C seems indicated. With a sleepy director, you might even get away with it as a cue-bid in support of spades :) [HvS] Apart from disciplinary penalties against NS, for which there is ample reason, of course it depends on agreements they have. If they would have the same sort of agreements that I have over super-accepts, South would bid 4H, retransfer, over which North would bid anything but 4S, say 4NT or 5C. At that point South has the legal information that North cannot have the strong Notrump and can pass. So NS 5Cx-1 seems reasonable. At this point you can go to the weighted score game, and add a couple of percentage points for really outrageous out of hand auctions. So as a compromise to punish NS a bit (bid) more: 66% 5Cx-1, 17% 6Cx-2, 9% 7Cx-3, 8% 7Sx -infinity [HvS, take two] I just saw North might well cue 4S over 4H. If this is not doubled NS will play 4S. As soon as it is doubled North will run legally, so a couple of percentage points of 4S - something should be inserted. By the way, this is all for the score for NS. In my opinion the bidding of EW is so outrageously bad that they can keep their -130 for all I care, or at most get partial compensation under the basis of the new Law 12 something or other(at work now) Hans From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 25 14:42:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:42:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > >> But was the bed of Procrustes "fair"? Alain Gottcheiner >> and David J. Grabiner might beg to differ. > > OK. If you are not serious about revoke penalties being somehow wrong and > bad for bridge, that is fine. It does not seem like a "serious" point of > view anyway, even though it is the one held by the WBFLC DSC. > > But if you are going to simply take the piss, please do it privately, > because it is a waste of people's time to read childish and irrelevant > posts > such as the one this quote is from. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > +=+ I am confused by the emotions running free in this thread. Consequently I am not seeing clearly what the argument is about. Bridge is a game. Games are played according to their rules. 'Fair' does not enter into the equation. We simply accept the rules of the game when we choose to play it. Choice is free. Bridge is a game of judgement. Directors need to have a grasp of bridge judgement when they apply the rules. We give them back-up by inviting them to consult the bridge judgement of other players and we set standards by the appeals procedures and the national authority's selective review of decisions made. Updated rules of duplicate bridge are now being introduced. They are the product of a consensus arrived at in a committee appointed to the task of updating the Laws of the game. It matters little what their several reasons are, Hammurabi's writ now runs. In England the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge will have effect from 1st August 2008. This coming weekend there will be a seminar for some 25 of the senior directors. Discussions will be led by Max Bavin, John Pain and myself. Max has two of the more tricky subjects in his care - Law 27 and Laws 61 through 64. Pentecostalists may be hopeful for tongues of fire and that some son of Iapetus will bring fire to the earth. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jul 25 16:22:17 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:22:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law, WTF is the goal in directing In-Reply-To: <000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: > I am confused by the emotions running free in this thread. > It matters little what their [the laws] several reasons are. In a way this is right, but it is also wrong -- for several reasons, it matters why the laws are what they are. Tis is one. I read a psychological study long ago. Roughly, people will get angry with you if you cut in line (queue) in front of them, but if you give them a reason for cutting in line, then they mostly aren't angry. It doesn't even have to be a very good excuse -- "I am in a hurry" is not a very good reason but it works pretty good. I could be wrong, but I think this is important in directing. One of the best things I can do at a table, when giving a ruling, is explain why the ruling is unfair or why it is the way it is. So if a player doesn't seem to understand why the revoke ruling is so strict, I explain about the principle of making a quick ruling that goes overboard to make sure the nonoffending side is protected. Conversely, then, one of the worst things you can do as a director is have the attitude "These are are the laws, shut up and accept them or you can just leave." (Of course, you would not actually say the ending.) And while I care deeply that my rulings are "correct", my ultimate goal is to make the game of bridge as enjoyable as possible. I feel very strongly about that. So when I read things like "A little bit less enjoyment might be an incentive to people to take the trouble to play according to the Laws" it provokes a very powerful emotional response in me. Bob (who lives in the U.S. and never got to use the word "queue" before) From john at asimere.com Fri Jul 25 17:48:45 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:48:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <006201c8ee6d$eba98320$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************************** > "The state cannot and should not micromanage > the choices that people make in their daily lives." > ~ 'The Guardian' > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:26 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Richard Hills: >> >> >>> But was the bed of Procrustes "fair"? Alain Gottcheiner >>> and David J. Grabiner might beg to differ. >> >> OK. If you are not serious about revoke penalties being somehow wrong and >> bad for bridge, that is fine. It does not seem like a "serious" point of >> view anyway, even though it is the one held by the WBFLC DSC. >> >> But if you are going to simply take the piss, please do it privately, >> because it is a waste of people's time to read childish and irrelevant >> posts >> such as the one this quote is from. >> >> Stefanie Rohan >> London, England >> > +=+ I am confused by the emotions running free in this thread. > Consequently I am not seeing clearly what the argument is about. > Bridge is a game. Games are played according to their rules. > 'Fair' does not enter into the equation. We simply accept the > rules of the game when we choose to play it. Choice is free. > Bridge is a game of judgement. Directors need to have a grasp > of bridge judgement when they apply the rules. We give them > back-up by inviting them to consult the bridge judgement of > other players and we set standards by the appeals procedures > and the national authority's selective review of decisions made. > Updated rules of duplicate bridge are now being introduced. > They are the product of a consensus arrived at in a committee > appointed to the task of updating the Laws of the game. It > matters little what their several reasons are, Hammurabi's writ > now runs. > In England the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge will have > effect from 1st August 2008. This coming weekend there will > be a seminar for some 25 of the senior directors. Discussions > will be led by Max Bavin, John Pain and myself. Max has two > of the more tricky subjects in his care - Law 27 and Laws 61 > through 64. Pentecostalists may be hopeful for tongues of fire > and that some son of Iapetus will bring fire to the earth. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The Probst cheat has been filling his quiver. :) John > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Sat Jul 26 02:04:44 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:04:44 EDT Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 22/07/2008 23:17:46 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: It seems to me that the word "typically" does not "disclose all special information". [paul lamford] I would agree, but it combines the need to avoid giving false information with the practical need to keep an explanation adequate but not unduly time-consuming. Me: 1NT (after two passes) Partner: 12-14, may be 11 as we are not vulnerable. May contain a five card major, but we have agreed that the suit quality needs to be no better than ATxxx or KJxxx. If it has a five-card major it will be unlikely to be 14, when ... Opponent: Look, I came here to play bridge, not to attend a lecture. Get on with the game please ... Partner: I haven't finished yet. From time to time, partner will be 2-2-3-6, and has a couple of times passed Stayman when he opened third in hand with this shape. Sometimes partner will be 2-2-4-5, particularly if he has doubletons in both majors, and honour distrib .. Opponent: If you don't shut up I will take that cravat and stuff it down your mouth. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Jul 26 02:38:30 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:38:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> Grattan Endicott: > Updated rules of duplicate bridge are now being introduced. > They are the product of a consensus arrived at in a committee > appointed to the task of updating the Laws of the game. It > matters little what their several reasons are, Hammurabi's writ > now runs. > This is a very disrespectful attitude to take. I am shocked. At least it is not an entirely useless answer, in that it reveals that whatever the reasons were, they were not reasons that the committee were proud of. Pressure from the ACBL, whose ageing population has trouble with the mechanics of the game? (And for the record, the committee was not appointed by me or by anyone who respresents me in more than a nominal way. And as far as drafts of the Laws being available before finalisation, to give players and directors the chance to submit comments through their NBOs, well, it might have been, but I never knew about it.) Stefanie Rohan London, England From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 26 04:04:43 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:04:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000601c8eec3$f9c0ba90$6401a8c0@Anne> Maybe thats because you are not on the mailing list Stephanie. I can assure you there was wide consultation. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > >> Updated rules of duplicate bridge are now being introduced. >> They are the product of a consensus arrived at in a committee >> appointed to the task of updating the Laws of the game. It >> matters little what their several reasons are, Hammurabi's writ >> now runs. >> > This is a very disrespectful attitude to take. I am shocked. At least it > is > not an entirely useless answer, in that it reveals that whatever the > reasons > were, they were not reasons that the committee were proud of. Pressure > from > the ACBL, whose ageing population has trouble with the mechanics of the > game? > > (And for the record, the committee was not appointed by me or by anyone > who > respresents me in more than a nominal way. And as far as drafts of the > Laws > being available before finalisation, to give players and directors the > chance to submit comments through their NBOs, well, it might have been, > but > I never knew about it.) > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 26 09:49:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:49:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > >> Updated rules of duplicate bridge are now being introduced. >> They are the product of a consensus arrived at in a committee >> appointed to the task of updating the Laws of the game. It >> matters little what their several reasons are, Hammurabi's writ >> now runs. >> > This is a very disrespectful attitude to take. I am shocked. At least it > is > not an entirely useless answer, in that it reveals that whatever the > reasons > were, they were not reasons that the committee were proud of. Pressure > from > the ACBL, whose ageing population has trouble with the mechanics of the > game? > > (And for the record, the committee was not appointed by me or by anyone > who > respresents me in more than a nominal way. And as far as drafts of the > Laws > being available before finalisation, to give players and directors the > chance to submit comments through their NBOs, well, it might have been, > but > I never knew about it.) > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > +=+ I imagine Stefanie that you were not a subscriber to blml at the time. We did in fact make quite a number of changes in response to comments received. Remember that comments were coming from all quarters of the globe. And, yes, Stefanie, I am disrespectful of those who spend their time now telling us what the laws ought to be. At this stage I am far more concerned with bedding them in, with discussing - mainly with TDs - the changes in philosophy. I understand that a number of people disagree with the DSC's decisions but more important now is to look at the way in which they will operate. I will be back on Sunday evening. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jul 26 17:13:46 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:13:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] [mitdlbc-discuss] How do you bid this hand? In-Reply-To: <200807251531.m6PFVtJh017495@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807251531.m6PFVtJh017495@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <488B3F2A.6050406@nhcc.net> > From: "Leo Zelevinsky" > ... my hand was: QJ76 --- J986 QJ432 > We play Precision so I really didn't see game here and I wanted > opponents to play it. If they are manic balancers, that's OK. However, I'd expect a fair chance of playing 1H, which doesn't look very good to me, so I'd bid 1NT. Playing Kaplan interchange gives even more reason to bid (1S in this case) because you can play 1NT, which might well be best. I agree there's no game opposite the limited (Precision) opener, and there's certainly danger that he'll bid 3H or something, but I think the matchpoint odds favor bidding. In real life, Leo's pass worked great at the table, so don't pay attention to me! > I don't remember how much of a hitch by my RHO there was. Looking at > his hand, I can't imagine he passed in tempo :). I don't remember > factoring that into my calculations significantly though. You probably did it unconsciously. Anyway, you should take full credit for it! > I dislike opening 2C on these "playing strength" type hands (when > playing standard, obv). ...But you can just as easily get a bad score from > opening 2C After Alex and I got about ten terrible results on 2C openings and not a single good one, we gave up playing 2C strong altogether. I think we had about one bad result when 1-something was passed out, but we won a fair number of matchpoints from 2C as a weak two-bid. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Jul 26 17:49:52 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:49:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <488B47A0.2040503@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I imagine Stefanie that you were not a subscriber to blml at the time. We did in fact make quite a number of changes in response to comments received. Remember that comments were coming from all quarters of the globe. And, yes, Stefanie, I am disrespectful of those who spend their time now telling us what the laws ought to be. At this stage I am far more concerned with bedding them in, with discussing - mainly with TDs - the changes in philosophy. I understand that a number of people disagree with the DSC's decisions but more important now is to look at the way in which they will operate. I will be back on Sunday evening. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [Nigel] *Players* had almost no direct input to the law-making process. Saying that professional directors are players too is like protesting that lawyers and policemen are citizens. Most BLMLers are *directors* and welcome the new Revoke law. Directors expect a few complaints from a rump of law-abiding players like Stefanie but "careless" players and habitual law-breakers will be delighted with the new law. "Equity" philosophy substantially increases the incentive to break the law. For example, the incidence of "revoke" director calls is likely to increase. Anticipating the standard quibble. Bridge players are no more dishonest than people in the world at large; but it is hard for Bridge players to comply with Bridge-laws that are so sophisticated that few directors understand them; and there is little incentive for players to try to understand and to comply with laws unless there is a deterrent for breaking them. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jul 26 18:08:43 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:08:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c8eec3$f9c0ba90$6401a8c0@Anne> References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000601c8eec3$f9c0ba90$6401a8c0@Anne> Message-ID: <488B4C0B.3060808@aol.com> Dear Anne! I don't know about Stefanie but how do I get on the mailing list? I am interested. (Incidentally, what mailing list are we talking about?) Thanks in advance if you can help, i.e., get me on said unnamed mailing list. Ciao, JE Anne Jones schrieb: > Maybe thats because you are not on the mailing list Stephanie. I can assure > you there was wide consultation. > Anne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 1:38 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>> Updated rules of duplicate bridge are now being introduced. >>> They are the product of a consensus arrived at in a committee >>> appointed to the task of updating the Laws of the game. It >>> matters little what their several reasons are, Hammurabi's writ >>> now runs. >>> >> This is a very disrespectful attitude to take. I am shocked. At least it >> is >> not an entirely useless answer, in that it reveals that whatever the >> reasons >> were, they were not reasons that the committee were proud of. Pressure >> from >> the ACBL, whose ageing population has trouble with the mechanics of the >> game? >> >> (And for the record, the committee was not appointed by me or by anyone >> who >> respresents me in more than a nominal way. And as far as drafts of the >> Laws >> being available before finalisation, to give players and directors the >> chance to submit comments through their NBOs, well, it might have been, >> but >> I never knew about it.) >> >> Stefanie Rohan >> London, England >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Jul 27 20:18:28 2008 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:18:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488B47A0.2040503@NTLworld.com> References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> <488B47A0.2040503@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On 26 Jul 2008, at 16:49, Guthrie wrote: > > Most BLMLers are *directors* and welcome the new Revoke law. Directors > expect a few complaints from a rump of law-abiding players like > Stefanie > but "careless" players and habitual law-breakers will be delighted > with > the new law. > > "Equity" philosophy substantially increases the incentive to break the > law. For example, the incidence of "revoke" director calls is > likely to > increase. Why would directors welcome this? Gordon Rainsford From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Jul 27 20:20:44 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:20:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: SykesandMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002d01c8eb24$c1c6f250$0901a8c0@JOHN> <2a1c3a560807211641s6a0a4a5ap26d8d59bed76eb97@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00de01c8f015$7c70dd10$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Wayne Burrows" > Curiously the NZ regulation if it was as Martin suggests confers an > advantage on the psyching side since L16A2 allows "Players may also > take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of > their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations." > So that after my partner had psyched the maximum number of times I > would be entitled to base my actions on the soundness of her > subsequent bids but the opponents would not be able to take that into > account. > I am not sure if the quoted Law is relevant here, but the last sentence illustrates why the information should be disclosed. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Jul 27 21:56:49 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:56:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> <488B47A0.2040503@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <488CD301.1020808@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] Most BLMLers are *directors* and welcome the new Revoke law. Directors expect a few complaints from a rump of law-abiding players like Stefanie but "careless" players and habitual law-breakers will be delighted with the new law. "Equity" philosophy substantially increases the incentive to break the law. For example, the incidence of "revoke" director calls is likely to increase. [Gordon Rainsford] Why would directors welcome this? [Nige2] IMO many directors do welcome the 2007 laws. The preface states that a principle aim of the law committee is to make the law more dependent on the director's subjective judgement. "Equity" laws do this in spades. They makes the director's role essential, interesting, and challenging. In particular (in answer to Gordon) encouraging infractions is likely to result in more director calls and make the director indispensable. Few directors enjoy complaints about their rulings and some resent successful appeals. The main benefit of "Equity" law is that directors are subjected to less of such hassle. - Law-breakers are likely to be too busy counting their overall profit to complain when, occasionally, they are ruled against and the status quo (before their latest infraction) is skilfully reconstructed. - Victims tend to get inadequate redress but realise that it is futile to complain. In this connection is it really true that when asked to change a "score-weighting", the criterion the appeals committee must consider is "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "on the balance of probability"? From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 23:57:10 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:57:10 +1200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: SykesandMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00de01c8f015$7c70dd10$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <002d01c8eb24$c1c6f250$0901a8c0@JOHN> <2a1c3a560807211641s6a0a4a5ap26d8d59bed76eb97@mail.gmail.com> <00de01c8f015$7c70dd10$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560807271457j73e6089elda2c662dd8f74576@mail.gmail.com> 2008/7/28 Stefanie Rohan : > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > >> Curiously the NZ regulation if it was as Martin suggests confers an >> advantage on the psyching side since L16A2 allows "Players may also >> take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of >> their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations." >> So that after my partner had psyched the maximum number of times I >> would be entitled to base my actions on the soundness of her >> subsequent bids but the opponents would not be able to take that into >> account. >> > I am not sure if the quoted Law is relevant here, but the last sentence > illustrates why the information should be disclosed. > So I psyche on round one. Disclose this to my opponents on round two. Do the opponents then disclose to their opponents when they play the board or boards I played on round one that they know I psyched on one of those boards or do they play them with the advantage of the UI from knowing that I psyched. Is it in fact UI if you require the information to be given to them earlier in the event. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 28 00:38:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:38:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00aa01c8ee39$1f9e3e30$5edaba90$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: [snip] >If they would have the same sort of agreements that I have >over super-accepts, South would bid 4H, retransfer, [snip] Richard Hills: The above statement is true. A rule of logic is that a false postulate implies any conclusion. But in Australia most regular partnerships are unmixed, so in Mixed Pairs events there are a significant proportion of ad hoc partnerships playing in such events who do not think of discussing retransfers. If a partnership is so new that one member cannot recall whether 2NT is strong or weak with minors, how likely is it that they have a firm agreement that 4H is a retransfer? Indeed, how likely is it (as South alleged) that they have a _firm_ agreement that a 4C super-accept of a transfer to spades _guarantees_ the ace of clubs? Hans van Staveren: [snip] >66% 5Cx-1, 17% 6Cx-2, 9% 7Cx-3, 8% 7Sx -infinity [snip] Richard Hills: Since this deal happened under the 1997 Laws in Australia where TDs did not have access to the 1997 Law 12C3, if I had been TD I would assign 100% of 6Sx. As AC, with access to the 1997 Law 12C3, I would award 30% of 5Sx and 70% of 6Sx. Hans van Staveren: [snip] >In my opinion the bidding of EW is so outrageously bad that >they can keep their -130 for all I care, [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion that opinion is a trifle harsh. Initially East-West were misinformed (by the non-Alert) that 2NT was big and balanced. Even when North (illegally) corrected the MI, East-West were still unaware of the strength South held for the "forcing" 3H. In my opinion, it is much easier for East to act at the three level after correct information (a takeout double of a minors 2NT) than it is for East to barge in at the four level. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 28 00:55:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:55:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] TD Mailing List (was revoke law) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488B4C0B.3060808@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: Dear Anne! I don't know about Stefanie but how do I get on the mailing list? I am interested. (Incidentally, what mailing list are we talking about?) Thanks in advance if you can help, i.e., get me on said unnamed mailing list. Ciao, JE Grattan Endicott (29th February 2008): +=+ To whom it may be of interest! Anna Gudge maintains what is described as a 'TD Mailing List' in order to send out information that TDs (loosely described) might find useful. She volunteers her unsolicited willingness to include anyone here among the recipients of her messages if they will "apply to anna at ecats.co.uk with their name and country and a request." (sic). I would suggest that applicants specify 'TD's Mailing List'. One of Anna's tasks is communication of WBF material. +=+ Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 28 04:42:39 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:42:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00aa01c8ee39$1f9e3e30$5edaba90$@nl> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <00a301c8ee30$0883b7b0$198b2710$@nl> <00aa01c8ee39$1f9e3e30$5edaba90$@nl> Message-ID: <488D321F.6070007@NTLworld.com> [Hans van Staveren] In my opinion the bidding of EW is so outrageously bad that they can keep their -130 for all I care, or at most get partial compensation under the basis of the new Law 12 something or other(at work now). [Nigel] Amazing. Over North's 2N, South bid 3H explained as forcing (but presumably natural). Now, somehow, Hans expects EW to bid game in NS' putative suit. If South had a genuine heart suit and EW bid 4H, doubled and set for a telephone number then I am sure that other BLMLers would condemn such EW action as stark staring mad. That Hans would treat EW so cruelly, demonstrates how horrendous the "wild and gambling" regulation can be. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 05:05:01 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:05:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Double vision Message-ID: <2b1e598b0807272005p53baa7a4y864a9adc2ab7eb60@mail.gmail.com> [Hans van Staveren] In my opinion the bidding of EW is so outrageously bad that they can keep their -130 for all I care, or at most get partial compensation under the basis of the new Law 12 something or other(at work now). [Nigel] Amazing. Over North's 2N, South bid 3H explained as forcing (but presumably natural). Now, somehow, Hans expects EW to bid game in NS' putative suit. If South had a genuine heart suit and EW bid 4H, doubled and set for a telephone number then I am sure that other BLMLers would condemn such EW action as stark staring mad. That Hans would treat EW so cruelly, demonstrates how horrendous the "wild and gambling" regulation can be. [Jerry] Is there a name for this understandable tendency of directors to look at all four hands, congratulate themselves that they would have surely gotten it right, and then penalize the NOS under a "wild and gambling" or "failure to play bridge" regulation? There should be a name, for it happens so frequently. I think "the see-all-four-hands-and-decide-it's-wild-and-gambling self-congratulation" is too long. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 28 06:17:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:17:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] WTF is the goal in directing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 1997 Scope, first paragraph: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." 2007 Introduction, first paragraph: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director." Grattan Endicott: >>I am confused by the emotions running free in this thread. >>..... >>It matters little what their [the laws] several reasons are. >>..... Robert Frick: >In a way this is right, but it is also wrong -- for several >reasons, it matters why the laws are what they are. Tis is >one. > >I read a psychological study long ago. Roughly, people will >get angry with you if you cut in line (queue) in front of >them, but if you give them a reason for cutting in line, then >they mostly aren't angry. [snip] >Bob (who lives in the U.S. and never got to use the word >"queue" before) Richard Hills: I agree that Grattan and Bob are both right and wrong. The fable of the six blind men and the elephant comes to mind. I also, "of course", am both right and wrong. >From a psychological point of view, the word "rectification" appeared only three times in the main text of the 1997 Lawbook (in 1997 Laws 9B2, 12A2 and 82C). This meant that the word "penalty" did double duty in the 1997 Laws, perhaps (in my right and wrong opinion) causing people to get angry when they thought a "penalty" on the offending side was insufficiently punitive. The 2007 Lawbook rectifies by using "rectification" more often. The word "penalty" is now restricted to procedural penalties and disciplinary penalties (plus the traditional adjective for "penalty card"). To extend Bob's queue metaphor..... Now it is easier to explain a Law 64C ruling to the non- offenders in the queue. The TD explains that a revoke infraction by the queue jumping offenders does not necessarily mean that the non-offenders are thereby entitled to move to the front of the queue (gain two tricks) as a "penalty". The TD explains that the principle instead is that the non-offenders are entitled to retain their place in the queue (not lose tricks) as a "rectification". Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 28 06:50:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:50:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Why the drop in numbers? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Brian: [snip] >My own "local" club (the only one within 45 miles of >me) closed when we no longer had enough active members >for a simple team game, let alone a duplicate. >From this blml thread in February / March 2005 ACBL's Chief Marketing Officer, Linda Grannell ACBL District 2 report to members, March 20th 2003 -> http://www3.sympatico.ca/jonathan.st/board031.html [snip] >>We were shown a statistical model to illustrate the >>dramatic decline of an organizations' membership. This >>decline can be likened to falling off a cliff. As the age >>of the average ACBL member increases - in 2003 this is >>greater than 65 years of age - we get ever closer to that >>cliff. Currently, the ACBL loses about one thousand members >>per month, of which seven to eight hundred are due to death. >>In February, the ACBL signed up more than eleven hundred new >>members, which was a record. But in order to achieve a >>significant increase in membership, we need to recruit >>closer to fifteen hundred new members per month. [snip] Richard Hills: That there is (or was) a global drop in numbers in the ACBL is not in question. My simplistic finger pointing at ACBL regulations in 2005, or simplistic finger pointing at WBF Laws in 2008, does not mean that either of those happen to be the reason for the decline. Brian: >I may have told this story before, but when I moved to the >USA, my wife worked at the University of Delaware, >with a student population of around 17,000-18,000. One >guy tried to resurrect the bridge club there, lots of >publicity, fliers around campus, the whole works. At >the meeting, Pat and I were the only two other >attendees, apart from said organiser. ONE student and >one middle-aged couple from 18,000+ students and staff, >and bridge doesn't have popularity problems? [snip] Richard Hills: In my experience, a one-off effort is insufficient. A number of years ago my bridge partner Dorothy spent several semesters volunteering herself and others to teach bridge in primary schools. The teachers were delighted, as they noticed a big improvement in their pupils' numeracy skills. Ten years later, in January this year, my team lost a second round match in the National Open Teams. When Dorothy returned from the bench to play the third match, I explained how it was her fault we had lost the second match. Our opponents had been some now teenage ex-students of her coaching program. These teenagers and their friends are now enlivening the club and state championships held at the Canberra Bridge Club - all thanks to consistent hard work a decade ago. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Jul 27 22:30:01 2008 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:30:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488CD301.1020808@NTLworld.com> References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> <488B47A0.2040503@NTLworld.com> <488CD301.1020808@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On 27 Jul 2008, at 20:56, Guthrie wrote: > > IMO many directors do welcome the 2007 laws. Certainly. What I was questioning was the suggestion you seemed to be making that directors would welcome the increase in director calls due to the new revoke laws. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080727/20923c28/attachment.htm From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 28 08:48:16 2008 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:48:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie><000601c8eec3$f9c0ba90$6401a8c0@Anne> <488B4C0B.3060808@aol.com> Message-ID: <001b01c8f07d$eb4672a0$6401a8c0@Anne> Grattan got in before me with a splendid reply to this query. Thank you Sir! Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Dear Anne! I don't know about Stefanie but how do I get on the mailing > list? I am interested. (Incidentally, what mailing list are we talking > about?) Thanks in advance if you can help, i.e., get me on said unnamed > mailing list. Ciao, JE > > Anne Jones schrieb: >> Maybe thats because you are not on the mailing list Stephanie. I can >> assure >> you there was wide consultation. >> Anne >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Stefanie Rohan" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 1:38 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> Grattan Endicott: >>> >>>> Updated rules of duplicate bridge are now being introduced. >>>> They are the product of a consensus arrived at in a committee >>>> appointed to the task of updating the Laws of the game. It >>>> matters little what their several reasons are, Hammurabi's writ >>>> now runs. >>>> >>> This is a very disrespectful attitude to take. I am shocked. At least it >>> is >>> not an entirely useless answer, in that it reveals that whatever the >>> reasons >>> were, they were not reasons that the committee were proud of. Pressure >>> from >>> the ACBL, whose ageing population has trouble with the mechanics of the >>> game? >>> >>> (And for the record, the committee was not appointed by me or by anyone >>> who >>> respresents me in more than a nominal way. And as far as drafts of the >>> Laws >>> being available before finalisation, to give players and directors the >>> chance to submit comments through their NBOs, well, it might have been, >>> but >>> I never knew about it.) >>> >>> Stefanie Rohan >>> London, England >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jul 28 09:29:06 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:29:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488D321F.6070007@NTLworld.com> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <00a301c8ee30$0883b7b0$198b2710$@nl> <00aa01c8ee39$1f9e3e30$5edaba90$@nl> <488D321F.6070007@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00dd01c8f083$a06fe990$e14fbcb0$@nl> Sorry, but you are going too far. If 2NT is for the minors 3H is artificial and forcing. West doubles that and East holds 5. He does not bid 4H which is amazing. Now 4C returns to West, who must know something went wrong. West has a clear hand for bidding anything but he passes. Now of course not being at the table does not give me the chance to check how much EW know about bridge, so I am saying this assuming they are at least experienced. In that case EW did nothing whatsoever to protect themselves, and that is why I say their bidding is outrageously bad. Of course if 3H was explained as natural and forcing I cancel my statement, but that is not how 3H is normally played over 2NT for the minors. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Guthrie Sent: maandag 28 juli 2008 4:43 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [Hans van Staveren] In my opinion the bidding of EW is so outrageously bad that they can keep their -130 for all I care, or at most get partial compensation under the basis of the new Law 12 something or other(at work now). [Nigel] Amazing. Over North's 2N, South bid 3H explained as forcing (but presumably natural). Now, somehow, Hans expects EW to bid game in NS' putative suit. If South had a genuine heart suit and EW bid 4H, doubled and set for a telephone number then I am sure that other BLMLers would condemn such EW action as stark staring mad. That Hans would treat EW so cruelly, demonstrates how horrendous the "wild and gambling" regulation can be. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 28 09:35:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:35:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>It seems to me that the word "typically" does not "disclose all special >>information". Paul Lamford: >I would agree, but it combines the need to avoid giving false >information with the practical need to keep an explanation adequate but >not unduly time-consuming. [snip] >has a couple of times passed Stayman when he opened third in hand with >this shape. [snip] >Opponent: Look, I came here to play bridge, not to attend a lecture. >Get on with the game please ... [snip] Richard Hills: It seems to me that Paul has not studied the 2007 Law 40 sufficiently closely. False information (MI) is not merely defined as incorrect information (2007 Law 40B3), but is also defined as incomplete information (2007 Law 40B6). So if I was TD, and an opponent of Paul was damaged by his agreement to play Non-Forcing Stayman, Paul's use of the word "typically" would not prevent me from adjusting the score. It seems to me that the key issue at stake here is an argument that the gafiated David Stevenson used against the Aussie pre-Alert regulation; the impossibility of pre-Alerting _all_ of your unusual methods. What I do is pre-Alert my significant and frequent methods (thus not bothering to pre-Alert my partnership's agreement to play an opening bid of 4NT as Acol Blackwood). So if I was playing the Lamford system in partnership with Paul, I would pre-Alert, "We often shade our point count optimistically (but not pessimistically), we are often off-shape, and we often indulge in back- seat driving (for example, dropping pard's Stayman if pard is a passed hand)." Now the opponents have some idea of the "typical" Lamford style, but are not baffled by endless detail. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 28 10:31:35 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:31:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488D83E7.8070800@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > If a partnership is so new that one member cannot recall > whether 2NT is strong or weak with minors, how likely is it > that they have a firm agreement that 4H is a retransfer? > > Indeed, how likely is it (as South alleged) that they have a > _firm_ agreement that a 4C super-accept of a transfer to > spades _guarantees_ the ace of clubs? > Oh no, that is very well possible. Within a certain club, two methods can be prevalent, and the occasional partnership has forgotten to agree whether they play the one method or the other. But that does not mean that it is not possible that both players know both methods, and would be extremely certain of what the follow-up bids would mean - specifically when both methods are played only one way within the club. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jul 28 10:37:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:37:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488D853D.2060603@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > So if I was playing the Lamford system in partnership with Paul, I would > pre-Alert, "We often shade our point count optimistically (but not > pessimistically), we are often off-shape, and we often indulge in back- > seat driving (for example, dropping pard's Stayman if pard is a passed > hand)." > And I would still have preferred Paul's reply "typically". > Now the opponents have some idea of the "typical" Lamford style, but > are not baffled by endless detail. > Yes they are. I have no problems with the word "typically", if it is used to say - we know a little more, but we'll not engulf you with information - ask if you need to know. What I have problems with is people who overuse the word. In my circles, I often hear explanations like that. Mostly from people who once in the past have strayed from their system and got ruled against by (incompetent?) directors. Since then, they add the word "typically" to all their explanations. Yet they diverge from their main system only once in a blue moon. Paul's "typically" is not of that sort - he knows precisely when the typical cases are stretched and he could tell them in great detail. He doesn't do so, except when asked, so as to let the game flow smoothly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jul 28 10:57:04 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:57:04 EDT Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 28/07/2008 08:36:28 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: False information (MI) is not merely defined as incorrect information (2007 Law 40B3), but is also defined as incomplete information (2007 Law 40B6). [paul lamford] But the level of incompleteness is for the TD or an AC to judge. Any explanation will usually be incomplete. If you fail to tell the opponents that a multi may contain a strong (4 4 4 1) that is more incomplete than if you fail to mention that it can alse be (4 4 5 0) but the five-card suit will not be a major, and that if it is this shape you won't have more than 9 controls, or you would have opened 2C and shown this hand by ... Here, "typically" (4 4 4 1) 17-24 is perfectly adequate for all bridge players I know, and all I wish to know. The backroom lawyers can find a back room in which I am not sitting. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 28 11:03:46 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:03:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> <488B47A0.2040503@NTLworld.com> <488CD301.1020808@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <488D8B72.3060006@NTLworld.com> [Gordon Rainsford] Certainly. What I was questioning was the suggestion you seemed to be making that directors would welcome the increase in director calls due to the new revoke laws. [Nige2] I answered that question in the bit Gordon snipped, prefaced *in answer to Gordon* :) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 28 11:13:39 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:13:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00dd01c8f083$a06fe990$e14fbcb0$@nl> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <00a301c8ee30$0883b7b0$198b2710$@nl> <00aa01c8ee39$1f9e3e30$5edaba90$@nl> <488D321F.6070007@NTLworld.com> <00dd01c8f083$a06fe990$e14fbcb0$@nl> Message-ID: <488D8DC3.5040501@NTLworld.com> [Hans van Staveren] Sorry, but you are going too far. If 2NT is for the minors 3H is artificial and forcing. [Nigel] Forcing yes. But artificial? Not on the planet I inhabit; nor for any scratch partnership in this galaxy. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 28 11:16:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:16:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4881FFAB.70800@nhcc.net> References: <200807162305.m6GN54rw020634@cfa.harvard.edu> <4881FFAB.70800@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <488D8E89.2020607@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> Say partner opens 7NT. You can be pretty sure ... >> Ergo, it IS possible to have the same idea, on fairly solid grounds, yet >> not to have any agreement. >> > > This seems the very model of an "implicit agreement." > > A better term for an understanding that grows over time without > discussion would be "tacit agreement." > > But in the case above, it is impossible that the case presented itself before.Nobody would even have thought about it. So how could the understanding "grow over time" ? >> In fact, that was my claim in the 3D case I presented several months ago >> : that 3D bid that should show 4414 by mere analogy with some other, >> well-discussed, non-relays. >> > > Another example of implicit agreement. Knowing your system, both you > and your partner were able to work out what the bid had to mean. Don't > you think your opponents were entitled to the same information? > > Don't you think we explained it ? With due caution about the fact that it was personal interpretation, of course. What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to exist, there must be conscience that it exists. 'Agreeing' is an action, not a state. Now, if you want us to explain even what we guess, put it explicitly in the Laws if you wish, but don't call this 'agreement', even adornated with some adjective. "The true knowledge is knowing that you know what you know, and that you don't know what you don't" - Chinese wisdom Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 28 11:16:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:16:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4881FFAB.70800@nhcc.net> References: <200807162305.m6GN54rw020634@cfa.harvard.edu> <4881FFAB.70800@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <488D8E89.2020607@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> Say partner opens 7NT. You can be pretty sure ... >> Ergo, it IS possible to have the same idea, on fairly solid grounds, yet >> not to have any agreement. >> > > This seems the very model of an "implicit agreement." > > A better term for an understanding that grows over time without > discussion would be "tacit agreement." > > But in the case above, it is impossible that the case presented itself before.Nobody would even have thought about it. So how could the understanding "grow over time" ? >> In fact, that was my claim in the 3D case I presented several months ago >> : that 3D bid that should show 4414 by mere analogy with some other, >> well-discussed, non-relays. >> > > Another example of implicit agreement. Knowing your system, both you > and your partner were able to work out what the bid had to mean. Don't > you think your opponents were entitled to the same information? > > Don't you think we explained it ? With due caution about the fact that it was personal interpretation, of course. What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to exist, there must be conscience that it exists. 'Agreeing' is an action, not a state. Now, if you want us to explain even what we guess, put it explicitly in the Laws if you wish, but don't call this 'agreement', even adornated with some adjective. "The true knowledge is knowing that you know what you know, and that you don't know what you don't" - Chinese wisdom Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 28 11:30:06 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:30:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00dd01c8f083$a06fe990$e14fbcb0$@nl> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <00a301c8ee30$0883b7b0$198b2710$@nl> <00aa01c8ee39$1f9e3e30$5edaba90$@nl> <488D321F.6070007@NTLworld.com> <00dd01c8f083$a06fe990$e14fbcb0$@nl> Message-ID: <488D919E.3090105@NTLworld.com> [Hans van Staveren] I am saying this assuming they are at least experienced. In that case EW did nothing whatsoever to protect themselves, and that is why I say their bidding is outrageously bad. Of course if 3H was explained as natural and forcing I cancel my statement, but that is not how 3H is normally played over 2NT for the minors. [Nige1] We are told that when asked, NS informed EW that 3H was forcing but not that it was artificial. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 28 11:48:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:48:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488D95E3.4090708@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) > Dble 4C (3) Pass ? > > (1) 22-23 hcp balanced > (2) Transfer to spades > (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding the ace of clubs > > You, South, hold: > > J6432 > --- > J876 > A654 > > Two aces of clubs "is for sure anti-systemic and I would > account it a matter of general bridge knowledge that it > constitutes a grandma's warning that all is not as it > seemed. +=+" > > AG : if partner wanted me to deduce that he psyched with long clubs, he's very fortunate that I hold the Ace. If for some reason he considered 3H as natural, it doesn't explain the 4C bid any more. I'd rather consider he forgot that he should have the Ace to cue-bid, or that he holds something like AKQx-AJ-Axx-KQxx and hopes for a red-suit King cue. . > What call do you make? > AG : 5C. Shows the Ace, too. Also allows us to find a 44 in clubs, which could play better that the 54 in spades. Over the expected 5D, a "last train" 5H would be right. > What other calls do you consider making? > > AG : 4H if systemically a cue, but I play it as a transfer. 5S is a posibility (i.e. I would envisage it, but not select it, if you want to check for LAs). Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 28 11:53:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:53:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <006a01c8f097$c1100680$2cc8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > In a message dated 28/07/2008 08:36:28 GMT Standard Time, > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > False information (MI) is not merely defined as incorrect > information (2007 Law 40B3), but is also defined as incomplete > information (2007 Law 40B6). > > [paul lamford] But the level of incompleteness is for the TD or an AC to > judge. Any explanation will usually be incomplete. If you fail to tell > the opponents that a multi may contain a strong (4 4 4 1) that is > more incomplete than if you fail to mention that it can alse be (4 4 5 0) > but the five-card suit will not be a major, and that if it is this shape > you won't have more than 9 controls, or you would have opened > 2C and shown this hand by ... > > Here, "typically" (4 4 4 1) 17-24 is perfectly adequate for all bridge > players I know, and all I wish to know. The backroom lawyers can > find a back room in which I am not sitting. > +=+ I suggest that the backstop is Law 40B6(b). ~ G ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 28 12:18:36 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:18:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488D9CFC.1040005@NTLworld.com> [paul lamford] But the level of incompleteness is for the TD or an AC to judge. Any explanation will usually be incomplete. If you fail to tell the opponents that a multi may contain a strong (4 4 4 1) that is more incomplete than if you fail to mention that it can alse be (4 4 5 0) but the five-card suit will not be a major, and that if it is this shape you won't have more than 9 controls, or you would have opened 2C and shown this hand by ... [Nige1] I agree with Paul that, in practice, it is sensible to preface the gist of the meaning of a call with "typically" or whatever, provided it is clear that you are happy to disclose more detail when asked. Problems arise only when [A] The summary obfuscates vital inferences or [B] It's unclear that more detail is available or [C] Details aren't willingly divulged in response to enquiry. If a player enters into the spirit of full disclosure, none of this need be a practical problem. I confess, however, that I've never been confused by receiving too much information; but often been handicapped by too little :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 28 12:29:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:29:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <488D9F90.2020003@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > KT > 2 > AK932 > 98732 > Q A9875 > KQT9643 AJ875 > Q4 T5 > KQJ T > J6432 > --- > J876 > A654 > > The bidding actually went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) > Dble 4C (3) Pass(4) Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) 5-5 minors, 6-10 hcp, not alerted > (2) Alerted and explained as "forcing" > The player who alerted breached ethics there. It is obvious that, over a natural, very strong, 2NT, 3H is forcing whatever its meaning, so I'll rule that he attempted to awaken his partner. > (3) Calls above 3NT are "self-alerting" in Australia > (4) East now enquired further about the auction, whereupon > _North_ volunteered that her 2NT showed the minors. Is that correct procedure ? But that's a minor error compared with his previous mannerism. > South > then apologised and said he thought it was strong. > > Result: North-South +130 > > At the conclusion of play, West calls the director and > complains that North-South would not languish in 4C without > North's gratuitous comments. South acknowledges that he > intended 3H as a transfer to spades but says 4C couldn't > logically have been a cue bid (super-accept) because he held > the CA. 1. Can he prove that all their cues promise Aces ? 2. Even so, partner could have decided 4C was the lesser evil. How would you bid AKQx / KQ / Kx / KQJxx ? 3. If somebody forgot the system, how can South know (I mean, without North's antics) that it isn't partner ? > East admits she wasn't sure that West's double > guaranteed heart length, which is why she didn't bid on over > 4C. East also says she might have doubled 2NT for take-out if > it had been alerted originally. > > What ruling do you make? > > 100 or 200 at 5CX-1 for E/W : what would usually have happened if North hadn't said anything and South had been wary, and bid 5C to cover all avenues. Some telephone number in 6SX - for N/S according to L12C2. And a severe warning, or more, to North Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 28 13:19:47 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:19:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488D9F90.2020003@ulb.ac.be> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <488D9F90.2020003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <488DAB53.8090707@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] 100 or 200 at 5CX-1 for E/W : what would usually have happened if North hadn't said anything and South had been wary, and bid 5C to cover all avenues. Some telephone number in 6SX - for N/S according to L12C2. And a severe warning, or more, to North [Nige1] Richard Hills asks: on which of the many NS infractions should the director rule? IMO all of them! but particularly South's use of UI. I think EW should get the score for 6SX or 7SX by NS. But even if that is considered "inequitable", you must also consider the possibility that, without some of the NS infractions, EW might play in 4H -- or NS might reach 6CX or 7CX. Alain's ruling accords with "Equity philosophy". I agree that if South cynically takes advantage of the unauthorised information volunteered by North, he might be able to work out that the absolute par is likely to be 5CX and that he might play there if he bids 5C. As victims of multiple infractions, is that all EW deserve? A second bottom rather than an outright bottom after opponents have illegally wrecked any prospect of a normal favourable result? In the expectation of such derisory redress, it is hardly worth-while for EW to call the director. Two completely unnecessary regulations that add no value whatsoever further penalise the victims in such cases: [A] The *protect yourself* rule. Why should you have to handicap your side with unauthorised information by asking about an unalerted call, to allow for the unlikely contingency that opponents have broken the law by failing to alert? [B] The *wild and gambling* rule. For example, here, even if EW diagnose what has happened and would normally guess to bid 4H, they can't do so without risking loss of redress. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 28 13:50:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:50:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488DAB53.8090707@NTLworld.com> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <488D9F90.2020003@ulb.ac.be> <488DAB53.8090707@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <488DB28C.80400@ulb.ac.be> > fractions, EW might play in 4H -- or NS > might reach 6CX or 7CX. > > Alain's ruling accords with "Equity philosophy". I agree that if South > cynically takes advantage of the unauthorised information volunteered by > North, he might be able to work out that the absolute par is likely to > be 5CX and that he might play there if he bids 5C. As victims of > multiple infractions, is that all EW deserve? A second bottom rather > than an outright bottom after opponents have illegally wrecked any > prospect of a normal favourable result? > AG : I don't see how the par of the deal could be an absolute bottom, especially in such a competitive deal deal where 5H (EW) might well be the final contract at many tables. Of course, I wouldn't quarrel if the TD gave a strong score to EW, on the grounds that 'perhaps the would have got it without the infractions'. I simply think that, absent any infraction, what EW could have got is surely 200, occasionally more, but never 1100. Let's consider the deal, with North silent and South not knowing enough to bid 5C at any time. 2NT-3H. Natural according to North, who doesn't alert. South gets no UI (tranfers aren't alertable). North bids 4C, discouraging, no heart fit ; or he bids 3NT, spade stopper. In the first case, either South bids 4H, re-transfer, passed by North, for -600 ; or EW double, and South escapes (partner's pass of 4H is AI that something went wrong) ; or,most likely, North takes 4H as a cue-bid (after West's double told about hearts), and bids 4S, final contract, for -300. In the second case it's anybody's guess, but if 3NT is "misfit" over a transfer, it'll be the final contract, probablt -400.. So, if you want to say South wouldn't have bid 5C in the hypothetical case, you could award EW either 400 or 600, never 1100. But L12C gives an obvious 1100 (or 1400) to NS. Notuice that not alerting 2NT doesn't seem to be an infraction, because there seems to have been no agreement. Also notice that dWS solves the ethics problem : North doesn't alert, says 'transfer' if asked because that's what South thinks it is, then bids 4C. And NOW, if South wants to be clever and pass 4C (or bid 5C), nobody can say he's got any UI. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Jul 28 14:15:39 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:15:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488DB28C.80400@ulb.ac.be> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <488D9F90.2020003@ulb.ac.be> <488DAB53.8090707@NTLworld.com> <488DB28C.80400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <488DB86B.1050501@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : I don't see how the par of the deal could be an absolute bottom, [Nige1] It does happen but not often and probably not in the case under discussion. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 28 14:36:47 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:36:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> <488B47A0.2040503@NTLworld.com> <488CD301.1020808@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <003201c8f0ae$a555d2a0$8aca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] . - Law-breakers are likely to be too busy counting their overall profit to complain when, occasionally, they are ruled against and the status quo (before their latest infraction) is skilfully reconstructed. - Victims tend to get inadequate redress but realise that it is futile to complain. > In this connection is it really true that when asked to change a "score-weighting", the criterion the appeals committee must consider is "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "on the balance of probability"? > +=+ We know Nigel's view of 'equity' based rulings and he is entitled to them. However, he is not entitled to say that "victims tend to get inadequate redress" - TDs in England are instructed to assess assigned scores generously to the NOS and 'redress' returns to victims what they have lost. It is no concern of theirs whether there is further punishment or no of the offender, certainly they can have no claim to share it in their score. If that is what he is arguing I do not understand where "beyond reasonable doubt" or "the balance of probability" comes into the equation for the AC. Their guidance is to invite the appellant to persuade them that the Director has got it wrong. With regard to a weighted adjustment they are expected to ignore suggestions for a trivial adjustment, only making a change if they are persuaded to make a change of significant proportions. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Mon Jul 28 14:46:28 2008 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (Ciska Zuur) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:46:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488D95E3.4090708@ulb.ac.be> References: <488D95E3.4090708@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1F74F335E8CB48F7A9E60381373665AD@PCCiska> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: North >> Vul: North-South >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) >> Dble 4C (3) Pass ? >> >> (1) 22-23 hcp balanced >> (2) Transfer to spades >> (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding the ace of clubs >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J6432 >> --- >> J876 >> A654 >> >> Two aces of clubs "is for sure anti-systemic and I would >> account it a matter of general bridge knowledge that it >> constitutes a grandma's warning that all is not as it >> seemed. +=+" >> >> > AG : if partner wanted me to deduce that he psyched with long clubs, he's > very fortunate that I hold the Ace. > If for some reason he considered 3H as natural, it doesn't explain the 4C > bid any more. > I'd rather consider he forgot that he should have the Ace to cue-bid, or > that he holds something like AKQx-AJ-Axx-KQxx and hopes for a red-suit > King cue. . > >> What call do you make? >> > > AG : 5C. Shows the Ace, too. Also allows us to find a 44 in clubs, which > could play better that the 54 in spades. Over the expected 5D, a "last > train" 5H would be right. > >> What other calls do you consider making? >> >> > AG : 4H if systemically a cue, but I play it as a transfer. 5S is a > posibility (i.e. I would envisage it, but not select it, if you want to > check for LAs). > > Best regards > > Alain > > > > From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Mon Jul 28 14:47:33 2008 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (Ciska Zuur) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:47:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488D919E.3090105@NTLworld.com> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <00a301c8ee30$0883b7b0$198b2710$@nl> <00aa01c8ee39$1f9e3e30$5edaba90$@nl> <488D321F.6070007@NTLworld.com><00dd01c8f083$a06fe990$e14fbcb0$@nl> <488D919E.3090105@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <07049A7FCBCB4C3781FFD7D9A15A3A52@PCCiska> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Hans van Staveren] > I am saying this assuming they are at least experienced. In that case EW > did nothing whatsoever to protect themselves, and that is why I say > their bidding is outrageously bad. > > Of course if 3H was explained as natural and forcing I cancel my > statement, but that is not how 3H is normally played over 2NT for the > minors. > > [Nige1] > We are told that when asked, NS informed EW that 3H was forcing but not > that it was artificial. > > > > From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Mon Jul 28 14:55:46 2008 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (Ciska Zuur) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:55:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Ciska Zuur: Is it not possible that partner mixes up the cue for a renonce and for an ace? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ciska Zuur" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:48 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> Matchpoint pairs >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: North-South >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) >>> Dble 4C (3) Pass ? >>> >>> (1) 22-23 hcp balanced >>> (2) Transfer to spades >>> (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding the ace of clubs >>> >>> You, South, hold: >>> >>> J6432 >>> --- >>> J876 >>> A654 >>> >>> Two aces of clubs "is for sure anti-systemic and I would >>> account it a matter of general bridge knowledge that it >>> constitutes a grandma's warning that all is not as it >>> seemed. +=+" >>> >>> >> AG : if partner wanted me to deduce that he psyched with long clubs, he's >> very fortunate that I hold the Ace. >> If for some reason he considered 3H as natural, it doesn't explain the 4C >> bid any more. >> I'd rather consider he forgot that he should have the Ace to cue-bid, or >> that he holds something like AKQx-AJ-Axx-KQxx and hopes for a red-suit >> King cue. . >> >>> What call do you make? >>> >> >> AG : 5C. Shows the Ace, too. Also allows us to find a 44 in clubs, which >> could play better that the 54 in spades. Over the expected 5D, a "last >> train" 5H would be right. >> >>> What other calls do you consider making? >>> >>> >> AG : 4H if systemically a cue, but I play it as a transfer. 5S is a >> posibility (i.e. I would envisage it, but not select it, if you want to >> check for LAs). >> >> Best regards >> >> Alain >> >> >> >> > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 28 15:19:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:19:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488DB86B.1050501@NTLworld.com> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <488D9F90.2020003@ulb.ac.be> <488DAB53.8090707@NTLworld.com> <488DB28C.80400@ulb.ac.be> <488DB86B.1050501@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <488DC747.6060301@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner] > AG : I don't see how the par of the deal could be an absolute bottom, > > [Nige1] > It does happen but not often and probably not in the case under discussion. > So what's wrong with giving EW less than their absolute best result (420) but something which will still be a good score to them (I suiggested 200 but you can easily convince me that 400 would be more logical, in case the final contract was 4S-4 or 3NT-4), while giving NS the whole cup of hemlock ? Isn't that what was intended in L12C ? Would somebody gainsay the fact that L12C was concerned with equity for the NOS and severity to the OS ? [Remembers me of a deal in Scheveningen. 1C p 2C (inverted) 3H X all pass. I ask about the maning of the double, and the Swede, in his idiolectal English, answers : 'punishment'. It was.] Best regards Alain From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jul 28 15:31:49 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:31:49 EDT Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 28/07/2008 10:52:23 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: > In a message dated 28/07/2008 08:36:28 GMT Standard Time, > _richard.hills at immi.gov.au_ (mailto:richard.hills at immi.gov.au) writes: > > False information (MI) is not merely defined as incorrect > information (2007 Law 40B3), but is also defined as incomplete > information (2007 Law 40B6). > > [paul lamford] But the level of incompleteness is for the TD or an AC to > judge. Any explanation will usually be incomplete. If you fail to tell > the opponents that a multi may contain a strong (4 4 4 1) that is > more incomplete than if you fail to mention that it can alse be (4 4 5 0) > but the five-card suit will not be a major, and that if it is this shape > you won't have more than 9 controls, or you would have opened > 2C and shown this hand by ... > > Here, "typically" (4 4 4 1) 17-24 is perfectly adequate for all bridge > players I know, and all I wish to know. The backroom lawyers can > find a back room in which I am not sitting. > +=+ I suggest that the backstop is Law 40B6(b). ~ G ~ +=+ [paul lamford] I concur. And note the expression "is *crucial* for opponent's choice of action". It implies that the TD does not even adjust if the information "is very important for the opponent's choice of action". So there are two tests, "was there damage, AND was the information crucial?". I would convey information that I considered "moderately important" and thus hope to always convey information that I thought was "crucial". Richard Hills wrongly states in another reply "So if I was TD, and an opponent of Paul was damaged by his agreement to play Non-Forcing Stayman, Paul's use of the word "typically" would not prevent me from adjusting the score." He makes no mention of the measure of testing whether the information that a Stayman response had been previously passed by someone opening 1NT third in hand was "crucial". He makes a then somewhat flippantly concludes that we are therefore playing Non-Forcing Stayman. This is no more part of a partnership agreement than the response of 3NT at favourable is to a weak 2D followed by a pull to 4D when doubled is part of the partnership agreement. If you would open 1NT third in hand on xx xx AJx KQJxxx, then this information should be available to your opponent. But this is a matter of bridge common sense, as should it be common sense that you would attempt to put the dummy down if partner bid Stayman. To suggest that someone should summarise every possible tactical move after every bid is taking complete disclosure too far. Zia would be giving a lecture every hand! From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jul 28 15:56:15 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:56:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488D919E.3090105@NTLworld.com> References: <48884AFB.3050206@NTLworld.com> <00a301c8ee30$0883b7b0$198b2710$@nl> <00aa01c8ee39$1f9e3e30$5edaba90$@nl> <488D321F.6070007@NTLworld.com> <00dd01c8f083$a06fe990$e14fbcb0$@nl> <488D919E.3090105@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00ed01c8f0b9$b44c3b90$1ce4b2b0$@nl> But if West was told 3H was forcing and natural, why did he double? There is something not quite right here. But anyhow, as I said before giving my opinion, it depends on the players and the agreements. If you are at the table it is much easier to give good rulings. From the other side of the world years later it becomes a bit of a guess. The reason I suspected 3H to be conventional and forcing is that is the way it is usually on Dutch convention cards. I do not play this opening myself, but reasonable players around here that do all play 3H as strong relay. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Guthrie Sent: maandag 28 juli 2008 11:30 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] [Hans van Staveren] I am saying this assuming they are at least experienced. In that case EW did nothing whatsoever to protect themselves, and that is why I say their bidding is outrageously bad. Of course if 3H was explained as natural and forcing I cancel my statement, but that is not how 3H is normally played over 2NT for the minors. [Nige1] We are told that when asked, NS informed EW that 3H was forcing but not that it was artificial. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Mon Jul 28 21:38:15 2008 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (Ciska Zuur) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:38:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <339E77BB93A74E8B80B6CC6A96D0D087@PCCiska> Stupid, I was fully asleep, Ciska ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ciska Zuur" To: "Ciska Zuur" ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ciska Zuur: > Is it not possible that partner mixes up the cue for a renonce and for an > ace? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ciska Zuur" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:46 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:48 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>> Dlr: North >>>> Vul: North-South >>>> >>>> The bidding has gone: >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> --- 2NT(1) Pass 3H (2) >>>> Dble 4C (3) Pass ? >>>> >>>> (1) 22-23 hcp balanced >>>> (2) Transfer to spades >>>> (3) Super-accept in spades, cue-bidding the ace of clubs >>>> >>>> You, South, hold: >>>> >>>> J6432 >>>> --- >>>> J876 >>>> A654 >>>> >>>> Two aces of clubs "is for sure anti-systemic and I would >>>> account it a matter of general bridge knowledge that it >>>> constitutes a grandma's warning that all is not as it >>>> seemed. +=+" >>>> >>>> >>> AG : if partner wanted me to deduce that he psyched with long clubs, >>> he's very fortunate that I hold the Ace. >>> If for some reason he considered 3H as natural, it doesn't explain the >>> 4C bid any more. >>> I'd rather consider he forgot that he should have the Ace to cue-bid, or >>> that he holds something like AKQx-AJ-Axx-KQxx and hopes for a red-suit >>> King cue. . >>> >>>> What call do you make? >>>> >>> >>> AG : 5C. Shows the Ace, too. Also allows us to find a 44 in clubs, which >>> could play better that the 54 in spades. Over the expected 5D, a "last >>> train" 5H would be right. >>> >>>> What other calls do you consider making? >>>> >>>> >>> AG : 4H if systemically a cue, but I play it as a transfer. 5S is a >>> posibility (i.e. I would envisage it, but not select it, if you want to >>> check for LAs). >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Alain >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 29 00:14:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:14:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00dd01c8f083$a06fe990$e14fbcb0$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >Sorry, but you are going too far. If 2NT is for the minors 3H is >artificial and forcing. [snip] Richard Hills: Sorry, but you are going too far. 3H may be natural and forcing. Hans van Staveren: >that is not how 3H is normally played over 2NT for the minors. Richard Hills: All simple new suit responses to pre-empts are natural and forcing in my methods. It is a fallacy to assume that one's own methods (e.g. artificial forces and retransfers) are "normally" used, especially when one's bridge culture is German expert and the MI/UI occurred in the bridge culture of Aussie patzer. Ergo, taking the above two paragraphs together, I have just made a self-incriminating statement suggesting that (on the Law 85A1 balance of probabilities) I am a patzer. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 29 00:59:44 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:59:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488E4F60.5060901@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > It is a fallacy to assume that one's own methods (e.g. artificial > forces and retransfers) are "normally" used, especially when > one's bridge culture is German expert and the MI/UI occurred in > the bridge culture of Aussie patzer. No need to insult Hans. He is Dutch. :-) Hans has a point, though, when he wondered about the double of 3H. On the other hand, maybe it is a good idea to play it as penalty anyway, just to keep someone from fooling around with a big fit. Double for take-out with only one suit left is debatable, though it may have its uses with the right hand. Simulations anyone? > > Ergo, taking the above two paragraphs together, I have just made > a self-incriminating statement suggesting that (on the Law 85A1 > balance of probabilities) I am a patzer. :-) Well, who isn't, in the long run? As Bob Hamman put it: the best play badly, and the rest play worse.... Best regards Matthias From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Jul 29 02:41:34 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:41:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003201c8f0ae$a555d2a0$8aca403e@Mildred> References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> <488B47A0.2040503@NTLworld.com> <488CD301.1020808@NTLworld.com> <003201c8f0ae$a555d2a0$8aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <488E673E.8030603@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ We know Nigel's view of 'equity' based rulings and he is entitled to them. However, he is not entitled to say that "victims tend to get inadequate redress" - TDs in England are instructed to assess assigned scores generously to the NOS and 'redress' returns to victims what they have lost. It is no concern of theirs whether there is further punishment or no of the offender, certainly they can have no claim to share it in their score. If that is what he is arguing I do not understand where "beyond reasonable doubt" or "the balance of probability" comes into the equation for the AC. Their guidance is to invite the appellant to persuade them that the Director has got it wrong. With regard to a weighted adjustment they are expected to ignore suggestions for a trivial adjustment, only making a change if they are persuaded to make a change of significant proportions. [Nigel] The main failing of "Equity" law is that it doesn't deter law-breakers but IMO victims are inadequately compensated too. I expect BLMLers will reject some of these arguments but among the reasons why victims tend to get inadequate redress are ... [A] In practice, a weighted average of scores is less than "the best likely result" that the victims could expect had the infraction not occurred. [B] Sometimes the offenders will be penalised but the equity adjustment to the victims will be zero. Reporting an infraction can be a traumatic experience, especially as law-breakers sometimes take vitriolic offence. Surely there should be some incentive *bounty* for the hassle of bringing offenders to justice. [C] Law-abiding victims suffer damage from infractions by habitual law-breakers that don't have attention drawn to them or don't attract an adverse ruling. The victims get no redress on those occasions. they deserve retrospective compensation when their persecutors are at last nailed. [D] Victims may be deprived of redress for failing to protect themselves. But they are understandably reluctant to protect themselves when that would entail handicapping their partner with unauthorised information by asking about an unalerted call. [E] Victims are often inhibited from making what to them would be a normal call (which may even be the top spot) because it *might* fail and then they will lose any hope of redress if the director judged their action to be *wild and gambling*. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 29 04:18:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:18:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488E673E.8030603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >The main failing of "Equity" law is that it doesn't deter law-breakers Richard Hills: This cost-benefit economic argument has considerable support amongst a number of blmlers and administrators (notably the long-standing support of the ACBL powers-that-be for punitive Law 12 score adjustments against the offending side). Nigel Guthrie: >but IMO victims are inadequately compensated too. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Nigel uses "victims" eight times in his posting, but uses "non-offending side" not once. In my opinion, this weakens his argument, since "victims" implies deliberate criminal intent by the other side. Nigel Guthrie: >I expect BLMLers will reject some of these arguments Richard Hills: Not "reject", but "debate" with alternative reasons and other world views. Nigel Guthrie: >but among the reasons why victims tend to get inadequate redress are >... > >[A] In practice, a weighted average of scores is less than "the best >likely result" that the victims could expect had the infraction not >occurred. Richard Hills: We have the undefined terms "inadequate", "best likely" and "could expect" juxtaposed here. If Nigel is saying that the score the non-offending side gains under the 2007 Law 12C1(c) (1997 Law 12C3) is often less than the score the non-offending side would gain if the alternative 2007 Law 12C1(e)(i) (1997 Law 12C2) applied, then Nigel is merely stating a truism. But the other world view is that Law 12C1(e)(i) provides excessively over-adequate compensation in awarding an unlikely outcome which is much more than the non-offending side could expect had the infraction not occurred. Nigel Guthrie: >[B] Sometimes the offenders will be penalised but the equity adjustment >to the victims will be zero. Reporting an infraction can be a traumatic >experience, especially as law-breakers sometimes take vitriolic >offence. Richard Hills: Vitriol is a separate and serious infraction of the most important Law in the fabulous Lawbook, Law 74A2. A competent Director should take action against such discourteous players (although alas there are many timid Directors too frightened to stamp out rudeness). Nigel Guthrie: >Surely there should be some incentive *bounty* for the hassle of >bringing offenders to justice. Richard Hills: A bounty-hunting mentality may have unintended consequences. For example, the ACBL Zero Tolerance Policy (a fine idea in principle) had practical problems in some clubs when bounty hunters hassled opponents who had committed a trivial offence. Nigel Guthrie: >[C] Law-abiding victims suffer damage from infractions by habitual >law-breakers that don't have attention drawn to them or don't attract >an adverse ruling. The victims get no redress on those occasions. They >deserve retrospective compensation when their persecutors are at last >nailed. Richard Hills: If a pair is proved in 2005 to have cheated in the 1965 Bermuda Bowl, it is not practical to disqualify their team from the final of the 1960 Olympiad, then re-run that 1960 event 45 years later with the cheated semi-finalists taking their rightful place. Law 92B (amended): "The right to request or appeal a Director's ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection unless the Tournament Organizer has specified 45 years." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 29 05:44:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:44:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488D83E7.8070800@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>If a partnership is so new that one member cannot recall >>whether 2NT is strong or weak with minors, how likely is it >>that they have a firm agreement that 4H is a retransfer? >> >>Indeed, how likely is it (as South alleged) that they have a >>_firm_ agreement that a 4C super-accept of a transfer to >>spades _guarantees_ the ace of clubs? Herman De Wael: >Oh no, that is very well possible. > >Within a certain club, two methods can be prevalent, and the >occasional partnership has forgotten to agree whether they >play the one method or the other. > >But that does not mean that it is not possible that both >players know both methods, and would be extremely certain of >what the follow-up bids would mean - specifically when both >methods are played only one way within the club. David Stevenson (August 2002): Very messy! South has produced the old Bridge Lawyer arguments that so endear such players: no doubt without the UI he would "never" pass 4C, and his assertion about the club ace is pure hot air. If correctly informed, what however would E/W do differently? 3H is apparently natural and forcing, and if East cannot bid 4H on the given sequence then she would not anyway. After all, she had more information than she was entitled to! It comes back to South's pass over 4C, which we must disallow. 4S is routine, and then? Richard Hills (July 2008): If I was South, I would optimistically immediately jump to 6S on the authorised information. But I agree with David Stevenson that a peer of the actual South would routinely sign off in 4S on the authorised information. David Stevenson (August 2002): If Law 12C3 [now the 2007 Law 12C1(c)] is enabled then I give a percentage of various scores such as N/S -100, N/S -200, N/S -300, N/S -500 and N/S -800, without specifying exactly what in. Several routes lead to slam though, so 30% of N/S-200 +40% of N/S-500 +30% of N/S-800 feels about right. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 29 06:17:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:17:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488D853D.2060603@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: >I have no problems with the word "typically", if it is used to say - >we know a little more, but we'll not engulf you with information - ask >if you need to know. [snip] >Paul's "typically" is not of that sort - he knows precisely when the >typical cases are stretched and he could tell them in great detail. He >doesn't do so, except when asked, so as to let the game flow smoothly. "Yes Minister", Bernard Woolley clarifies: "The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed." Richard Hills: A bridge example would be (East dealer): WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass Pass 1NT (1) Pass 2C ? (1) "Typically" 12-14 To protect North's known values, South is considering balancing in a major. But South does not want to overcall the major if West is about to respond to Stayman in that major. So South waits for the guaranteed second chance on the next round. Then... WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- Pass Pass 1NT (1) Pass 2C Pass Pass Pass(2) (1) "Typically" 12-14 (2) Strong, but too balanced to balance North-South get a bottom, with the rest of the field making a partscore in a major their way. South needed to know if a question needed to be asked about "typically". Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 29 07:07:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:07:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ I suggest that the backstop is Law 40B6(b). ~ G ~ +=+ Paul Lamford: >I concur. Richard Hills: I concur. Paul Lamford: >And note the expression "is *crucial* for opponent's choice of >action". It implies that the TD does not even adjust if the >information "is very important for the opponent's choice of >action". So there are two tests, "was there damage, AND was the >information crucial?". Richard Hills: I do not concur. It seems to me that there is only one test, as the wording in Law 40B6(b) is "...crucial...*thereby* damaged." It seems to me that the Law 40B6(b) word "thereby" is merely emphasising that trivial misinformation does not cause damage. For example: If a Precision player forgets to alert their 1C opening bid on the first board of a two-board round, then that is significant MI and it is possible there is damage. But if the opponents have been playing against the Precision pair in an all day match, and the first time a forgotten alert of a 1C opening bid happens is on the 64th and final board, then that is not "crucial", so "thereby" no damage exists. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 29 08:19:38 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:19:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 Message-ID: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> Yesterday evening I was called to direct at my own table, which I hate, but that's life. I was dummy and an opponent revoked in trick 4, established. After that my partner revoked in trick 12 and claimed. We are under the regime of the old laws today. So I corrected the revoke in trick 12, and handled the established revoke, leading to a one trick penalty. Everybody more or less happy. However, in two months time, under the new laws we have 64B7; when both sides have revoked there are no penalty tricks, just equity under 64C. Now it was my understanding that this clause was added because two established revokes cannot be handled in any meaningful way, but one established, and one not established revoke could be handled without difficulty. Was it really the intention of the law writer to let any two revokes fall under this clause, or was it supposed to handle two established revokes? Hans van Staveren From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 29 08:49:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:49:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: [snip] >If you would open 1NT third in hand on xx xx AJx >KQJxxx, then this information should be available >to your opponent. But this is a matter of bridge >common sense, as should it be common sense that you >would attempt to put the dummy down if partner bid >Stayman. To suggest that someone should summarise >every possible tactical move after every bid is >taking complete disclosure too far. Zia would be >giving a lecture every hand! Grattan Endicott (October 2002): [snip] The pressure for full disclosure should increase at each higher level of the game. It is suggested that a high standard of ethics calls for a high level of consideration for opponents. In turn this means care in giving a full and fair explanation of any understanding that opponents may not readily anticipate and understand. [snip] Richard Hills: And what is "common sense" for an English expert may not be readily anticipated and understood by that expert's Walter the Walrus opponent. Rosenberg need not explain Zia's style to Hamman, but would need to explain Zia's style to the Walrus. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 29 09:05:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:05:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: [snip] >Was it really the intention of the law writer to let any two >revokes fall under this clause, or was it supposed to handle >two established revokes? Richard Hills: In my opinion, if a Law can clearly be interpreted in only one way, the contrary intentions of its makers are not relevant. A case in point was a drafting error by Edgar Kaplan in his creation of the 1997 Law 71C, which resulted in that Law being interpreted contrary to Edgar's intent. Ton Kooijman (29th April 2008): >>What seems to be not clear to everybody (I got questions) is >>that we are talking about established revokes both of them. >> >>With one side revoking in the 12th trick for example the >>penalty for the other side remains valid. >> >>ton Grattan Endicott (30th April 2008): +=+ It is questionable whether the above is actually what the law says - Law 64B7: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke ........when both sides have revoked on the same board" Law 61A: "Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke." It is only in reading this thread that I have opened my eyes to the question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 29 09:21:22 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:21:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn In-Reply-To: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> References: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> Message-ID: <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> Hi all, this was a new one for me.... Defender leads through dummy to trick 3, the other defender plays out of turn, revoking, but notices before anything else happens. Penalty card, of course. Defender says something like "sorry, have to follow suit, director!", but does not show a legal card yet. Does declarer have to a) play from dummy before the revoke is corrected, or can he b1) accept the play out of turn, have defender substitute a legal card, then play from hand and from dummy (order of play from those two hands would make no difference, obviously, or is it b2) defender has to correct the revoke at once, making declarer's choice whether to accept or not immaterial (any sane declarer would accept anyway)? Law 62A: A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. Now this is a bit tricky for a non-native speaker. Does this say that he has to correct a) as soon as he becomes aware, or b) only before it has become established? Never mind how it is intended (for this discussion only, of course I am interested in the intent of the laws), what does it actually say? The 1997 German version actually says b) (the 2007 translation is undergoing some last-minute revision at the moment), which does not matter a lot because declarer's card will be UI anyway, but who am I to hinder someone to put himself in an even deeper hole if the laws say that he may do so? Just for the record: at the table I ruled that defender has to correct at once. Comments, anyone? Best regards Matthias From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 29 10:07:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:07:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Double vision [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488ECFD6.1090809@skynet.be> I fail to see the relevance of this post. Herman-bashing seems the only explanation. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> If a partnership is so new that one member cannot recall >>> whether 2NT is strong or weak with minors, how likely is it >>> that they have a firm agreement that 4H is a retransfer? >>> >>> Indeed, how likely is it (as South alleged) that they have a >>> _firm_ agreement that a 4C super-accept of a transfer to >>> spades _guarantees_ the ace of clubs? > > Herman De Wael: > >> Oh no, that is very well possible. >> >> Within a certain club, two methods can be prevalent, and the >> occasional partnership has forgotten to agree whether they >> play the one method or the other. >> >> But that does not mean that it is not possible that both >> players know both methods, and would be extremely certain of >> what the follow-up bids would mean - specifically when both >> methods are played only one way within the club. > > David Stevenson (August 2002): > > Very messy! South has produced the old Bridge Lawyer arguments > that so endear such players: no doubt without the UI he would > "never" pass 4C, and his assertion about the club ace is pure > hot air. If correctly informed, what however would E/W do > differently? 3H is apparently natural and forcing, and if East > cannot bid 4H on the given sequence then she would not anyway. > After all, she had more information than she was entitled to! > > It comes back to South's pass over 4C, which we must disallow. > 4S is routine, and then? > > Richard Hills (July 2008): > > If I was South, I would optimistically immediately jump to 6S > on the authorised information. But I agree with David > Stevenson that a peer of the actual South would routinely sign > off in 4S on the authorised information. > > David Stevenson (August 2002): > > If Law 12C3 [now the 2007 Law 12C1(c)] is enabled then I give > a percentage of various scores such as N/S -100, N/S -200, N/S > -300, N/S -500 and N/S -800, without specifying exactly what > in. Several routes lead to slam though, so > > 30% of N/S-200 > +40% of N/S-500 > +30% of N/S-800 > > feels about right. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 29 10:13:39 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:13:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488ED133.7030802@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> I have no problems with the word "typically", if it is used to say - >> we know a little more, but we'll not engulf you with information - ask >> if you need to know. > > [snip] > >> Paul's "typically" is not of that sort - he knows precisely when the >> typical cases are stretched and he could tell them in great detail. He >> doesn't do so, except when asked, so as to let the game flow smoothly. > > "Yes Minister", Bernard Woolley clarifies: > > "The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the > now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise > and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as > to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was > not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to > be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or > needed." > > Richard Hills: > > A bridge example would be (East dealer): > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- Pass Pass > 1NT (1) Pass 2C ? > > (1) "Typically" 12-14 > > To protect North's known values, South is considering balancing in a > major. But South does not want to overcall the major if West is about > to respond to Stayman in that major. So South waits for the guaranteed > second chance on the next round. Then... > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- Pass Pass > 1NT (1) Pass 2C Pass > Pass Pass(2) > > (1) "Typically" 12-14 > (2) Strong, but too balanced to balance > > North-South get a bottom, with the rest of the field making a partscore > in a major their way. > > South needed to know if a question needed to be asked about "typically". > > Of course he did. But that is not the "typically" I was talking of. If the psychic meaning of 1NT has a more than occasional frequency (and is not psychic), that is not included in "typically". Nor was that what Paul was saying. Paul's psychic meaning of 1NT was a true psyche, with very low frequency. He was adding the sentence "of course we could be psyching" in order to show what he was omitting even from a "complete" explanation. The typically Paul was talking of was the 11-count, or the occasional 5422. Now give an example with a hand like that and try to prove that opponents are damaged by the word "typically". I don't think you'll find one like that. Your example works equally well without the word typically in the explanation. The director will need to establish the frequency of this psyche to rule whether opponents were misinformed or not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Jul 29 10:29:09 2008 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:29:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn In-Reply-To: <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> References: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205038464AD@rama.Micronas.com> Hmm, I think that this is simply L50, nothing more: card prematurely exposed but not led by a defender. And since the defender played it, rather than dropped it, it becomes a major penalty card. Following suit, according to L44, happens in turn, so this it not a revoke. It is really the same situation if the card had been from the suit being led; the only difference is that in that case the first legal opportunity to play the penalty card is now, whereas in the actual case it will be some time later. Regards -- Martin Sinot > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:21 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn > > Hi all, > > this was a new one for me.... > > Defender leads through dummy to trick 3, the other defender plays out of > turn, revoking, but notices before anything else happens. Penalty card, > of course. Defender says something like "sorry, have to follow suit, > director!", but does not show a legal card yet. > > Does declarer have to > a) play from dummy before the revoke is corrected, or can he > b1) accept the play out of turn, have defender substitute a legal card, > then play from hand and from dummy (order of play from those two hands > would make no difference, obviously, or is it > b2) defender has to correct the revoke at once, making declarer's choice > whether to accept or not immaterial (any sane declarer would accept > anyway)? > > > Law 62A: A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity before it becomes established. > > Now this is a bit tricky for a non-native speaker. Does this say that he > has to correct > a) as soon as he becomes aware, or > b) only before it has become established? > Never mind how it is intended (for this discussion only, of course I am > interested in the intent of the laws), what does it actually say? The > 1997 German version actually says b) (the 2007 translation is undergoing > some last-minute revision at the moment), which does not matter a lot > because declarer's card will be UI anyway, but who am I to hinder > someone to put himself in an even deeper hole if the laws say that he > may do so? > > Just for the record: at the table I ruled that defender has to correct > at once. > > Comments, anyone? > > Best regards > Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Jul 29 11:06:25 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:06:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Revoke_out_of_turn?= Message-ID: <1KNlA1-0czv2e0@fwd35.aul.t-online.de> From: Matthias Berghaus > this was a new one for me.... > > Defender leads through dummy to trick 3, the other defender plays out > of turn, revoking, but notices before anything else happens. Penalty > card, of course. Defender says something like "sorry, have to follow > suit, director!", but does not show a legal card yet. > > Does declarer have to > a) play from dummy before the revoke is corrected, yes Law 47 B: "A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal play (for defenders, [...] see Law 49 - penalty card [...]" Perhaps one might read Law 60 A in a way that declarer might accept defenders play now, but in that case the out-of-turn play will be treated in-turn further on. So, the defender will wait for dummy to play a fourth card to the trick, before he corrects his revoke. Defender might change his card under Law 47 D (played following an opponents irregularity), but dummy may not, because he will be treated to have played _before_ the revoking defender. > or can he > b1) accept the play out of turn, have defender substitute a legal > card, then play from hand and from dummy (order of play from those two > hands would make no difference, obviously, or is it > b2) defender has to correct the revoke at once, making declarer's > choice whether to accept or not immaterial (any sane declarer would > accept anyway)? > > Law 62A: A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity before it becomes established. > > Now this is a bit tricky for a non-native speaker. Does this say that > he has to correct > a) as soon as he becomes aware, or > b) only before it has become established? > Never mind how it is intended (for this discussion only, of course I > am interested in the intent of the laws), what does it actually say? > The 1997 German version actually says b) (the 2007 translation is > undergoing some last-minute revision at the moment), which does not > matter a lot because declarer's card will be UI anyway, but who am I > to hinder someone to put himself in an even deeper hole if the laws > say that he may do so? > > Just for the record: at the table I ruled that defender has to correct > at once. > > Comments, anyone? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jul 29 14:36:40 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:36:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205038464AD@rama.Micronas.com> References: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205038464AD@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <488F0ED8.1020209@t-online.de> Looks good. If defender keeps quiet for the moment the TD rules penalty card. If it turns out that declarer was fooled by the "revoke" and goes wrong when playing from dummy we hit defender with "could have known". Regards Matthias Sinot Martin schrieb: > Hmm, I think that this is simply L50, nothing more: card prematurely > exposed but not led by a defender. And since the defender played it, > rather than dropped it, it becomes a major penalty card. Following suit, > according to L44, happens in turn, so this it not a revoke. It is really > the same situation if the card had been from the suit being led; the > only difference is that in that case the first legal opportunity to play > the penalty card is now, whereas in the actual case it will be some time > later. > > Regards From Gampas at aol.com Tue Jul 29 14:44:43 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:44:43 EDT Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 29/07/2008 06:08:40 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: It seems to me that the Law 40B6(b) word "thereby" is merely emphasising that trivial misinformation does not cause damage. [paul lamford] It might seem that way to you, but that is not relevant. "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." The AND indicates that both tests have to be met. Surely that is just basic English. "If someone strikes another person with excessive force, and that person thereby suffers serious injury, the striker can be charged with GBH". From Gampas at aol.com Tue Jul 29 14:46:19 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:46:19 EDT Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 29/07/2008 05:18:03 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: South needed to know if a question needed to be asked about "typically". [paul lamford] No he didn't. The original posting of this thread stated that "a couple of times" Stayman was passed when the opener was 2-2-3-6. Had South established that, he would have had the same dilemma, whether to pre-balance or not. The information was not "crucial" to his decision - the first benchmark. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 29 17:02:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:02:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488F3108.70705@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 29/07/2008 05:18:03 GMT Standard Time, > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > South needed to know if a question needed to be asked about "typically". > > [paul lamford] > No he didn't. The original posting of this thread stated that "a couple of > times" Stayman was passed when the opener was 2-2-3-6. Had South established > that, he would have had the same dilemma, whether to pre-balance or not. The > information was not "crucial" to his decision - the first benchmark. > I don't like that approach. I prefer to say that: a) everyone should realize that opponents might psyche; and b) even when knowing that an opponent might psyche, it is counterproductive to assume that he does so at this precise moment Which makes that the chosen action, with full disclosure, would be the same - no damage. I realize this is about the same as saying "the information is not crucial" but I prefer this more traditional approach - players will understand it more easily. After all, what is the definition of "crucial"? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Tue Jul 29 17:36:14 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:36:14 EDT Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 29/07/2008 16:03:03 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be writes: After all, what is the definition of "crucial"? [paul lamford] Richard Hills might define it as anything causing damage, which would make 40B6(b) tautological, given that insignificant omissions are unlikely to cause damage. From RCraigH at aol.com Tue Jul 29 20:54:24 2008 From: RCraigH at aol.com (RCraigH at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:54:24 EDT Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: You don't need to be playing against a pair that pschs. I just played in Las Vegas against Larry Cohen and David Berkowitz, and heard this auction: 1D (Precision) by LHO Cohen, double by partner, 1H (transfer) by Berkowitz, and I held AJTxx Kx Jx xxxx. We are on for 4 Spades, even though Berkowitz actually held KQxx of spades. Because of the transfer auction, my partner and I failed the bidding test, but had the responder bid 1 Spade, I would have been able to make a penalty double, showing our fit, even though there was no psych. Craig Hemphill In a message dated 7/21/2008 7:28:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, john at asimere.com writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > "A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a useful > weapon > (threat)." > > Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how exactly they would > change their system to defend against a pair who checks "psyches > never" versus a pair who checks "psyches occasionally"? One example > might suffice to satisfy my curiosity. 1C X 1S X. John > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > 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 **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080729/020f5260/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 30 01:23:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:23:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <488F3108.70705@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: [big snip] >After all, what is the definition of "crucial"? Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "crucial, a. Decisive between two hypotheses." Richard Hills: So if one's Walter the Walrus experience has supported the hypothesis that Stayman (even by a passed hand) is always forcing, it may be "crucial" for that Walrus to know that the opposite hypothesis applies due to an opposing pair's unusual (for Walter) implicit understanding. On the other hand, if one's expert experience is that the opponents frequently open and alert a Precision 1C over the past 63 boards of a day-long match, it is not "crucial" that an opponent forgets to alert her pard's 1C on the 64th and final board. One's expert memory easily allows one to decide that the hypothesis of an unalerted 1C being natural is false, while the other hypothesis of a trivial failure to alert is true. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 30 01:57:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:57:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1KNlA1-0czv2e0@fwd35.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Law 62A: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." Matthias Berghaus: >Defender leads through dummy to trick 3, the other defender >plays out of turn, revoking, but notices before anything >else happens. Penalty card, of course. Defender says >something like "sorry, have to follow suit, director!", but >does not show a legal card yet. [snip] >Just for the record: at the table I ruled that defender has >to correct at once. > >Comments, anyone? Richard Hills: I agree with Martin Sinot that Law 50 is the applicable Law. But as a Devil's Advocate, I will assume that Law 62 applies. In which case it is not merely Law 62A, but also Law 62B which applies. Law 62B prologue: "To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card." Richard Hills: But a prematurely played card is not a legal card. Reductio ad absurdum, Law 62 does not apply to Matthias' case. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 30 03:17:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:17:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Ray Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Championship Final of Australia's most prestigious matchpoint pairs event (the Gold Coast Congress Pairs) North-South play Standard American in the Aussie style On the other hand, East-West play bridge :-) Dlr: North, Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D 2C 3S (1) 4C 4S 5C ? (1) Fit-showing limit raise You, South, hold: T9875 JT3 98542 --- What rebid do you make? What other rebids do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Wed Jul 30 04:31:44 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:31:44 EDT Subject: [blml] Sykes and Ray Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 30/07/2008 02:18:21 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D 2C 3S (1) 4C 4S 5C ? (1) Fit-showing limit raise You, South, hold: T9875 JT3 98542 --- What rebid do you make? What other rebids do you consider making? [paul lamford] I would not give up on slam just yet, and make a try with 5H, surely "last train to Clarksville" style. If pard has as little as AJxx none AKxxxx xxx, then 6D is excellent, just needing a spade position. I guess that, at the table, the player bid a slow 5S, and his partner added a sixth, successfully on a hand similar to that quoted. Another possibility is that partner had AKx Q AKxxxx xxx and the opponents led a heart from the king, fatally, after the 5H bid was not explained correctly as "last train" (there had previously been a "last train" bid in the partnership a couple of years earlier, and this information was judged "crucial" to the defenders). But weren't you worth a 4C splinter on the first round - as the fit-showing jump understated your values? So I would bid 5H, and consider bidding 5S. From Gampas at aol.com Wed Jul 30 04:34:19 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:34:19 EDT Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 30/07/2008 00:24:08 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "crucial, a. Decisive between two hypotheses." Richard Hills: So if one's Walter the Walrus experience has supported the hypothesis that Stayman (even by a passed hand) is always forcing, it may be "crucial" for that Walrus to know that the opposite hypothesis applies due to an opposing pair's unusual (for Walter) implicit understanding. [paul lamford] Entertainingly put, as always, but the part that is wrong is that there is no more implicit understanding in my partnership that Stayman can be passed after a third in hand 1NT than there is in the world at large. I can recall two occasions, in an estimated 700 such deals (I used some Bridge Dealer stats to calculate how often I would get a 2-2-3-6 hand out of all the times I opened 1NT third in hand from all the hands I played with my regular partner). Now it might be "crucial" for the Walrus to know that this is the occasion on which I have done so, but he is not entitled to that information - he is only entitled to full disclosure of our methods. And I would venture to suggest he is entitled to that information in a succinct summary, for example on a convention card. He may ask such supplementary questions as he wants, of course, but to suggest that the initial response should be all-embracing is contrary to accepted practice. (One of the two players against whom I tried this gambit exhibited Walrus-like tendencies when he doubled in the pass out seat with a 4-4-3-2 11-count. My partner's redouble confirmed his error, and the -800 that the "Walrus" subsequently suffered further underlined it.) In a previously-discussed auction (both on here and on IBLF) in which a pair bid 1NT (10-12) - (Pass) - 2D (explained as a transfer) - (Double) - Pass (* - only two hearts) - (3D) - 3H, I originally agreed with your view that "transfer" was an insufficient explanation for 2D, as it, "typically" (that word that you so dislike, again) denied a weakish hand with six hearts. However, the majority view, which included that of several TDs, was that the brief explanation, "transfer", IS satisfactory, and I agree with the majority even though their view is contrary to my initial opinion. When you argue for a full initial explanation, I have much sympathy with the principles, but the practical difficulties are too great. It reminds me of the vicar who received some cherries in brandy as a Christmas gift from his congregation. He did not much care for the cherries, but he appreciated the spirit in which they were given. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 30 07:12:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:12:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: [snip] >When you argue for a full initial explanation, I have much >sympathy with the principles, but the practical difficulties >are too great. It reminds me of the vicar who received some >cherries in brandy as a Christmas gift from his congregation. >He did not much care for the cherries, but he appreciated the >spirit in which they were given. Richard Hills: Magnus III, king of Norway, ignored practical difficulties when "In 1098 Magnus made a visit to his Scottish territories and was impressed by what he saw, so much so that on his return to Norway he was often seen strolling through the streets of Trondheim in complete Highland dress - kilt, sporran, the works." (1) so he was given the nickname Magnus Barelegs by his astounded but warmer subjects. However, it seems to me that Paul and I are mostly quibbling about semantics. We both accept that a 100% full explanation of understandings in a regular partnership would take too long to download to the opponents, so a 99.9% explanation is all that is practical. Where Paul and I may still have a substantive difference is on the status of the residual 0.1%. Is it possible that a pre- existing mutual partnership understanding (e.g. Non-Forcing Stayman) occurs with such low frequency that it ceases to be a mutual partnership understanding? Another example, from my Symmetric Relay system (notes emailed on request), is that most strong hands open 1C, but there is a 0.1% chance that a strong hand will open 4NT, Acol Blackwood, instead. Does Acol Blackwood cease to be one of my mutual partnership understandings? (1) Revd Robert Easton, "Fat, Bald and Worthless - The Curious Stories Behind Noble Nicknames" Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From wrgptfan at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 00:07:26 2008 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:07:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I find this totally mind-boggling. This convention that they are playing is, I believe, legal under the GCC or whatever it is called these days. If you do not have a defence against transfer responses to opening bids (e.g. 1C-1D showing 4+ hearts), transfer responses to t/o doubles, transfer advances after overcalls etc. yet you are playing in an event where LC and DB are playing, I have no sympathy when you get a bad result because of insufficient preparation. ...Dave Kent Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:54 PM, RCraigH at aol.com wrote: > You don't need to be playing against a pair that pschs. I just > played in Las Vegas against Larry Cohen and David Berkowitz, and > heard this auction: 1D (Precision) by LHO Cohen, double by partner, > 1H (transfer) by Berkowitz, and I held AJTxx Kx Jx xxxx. We are on > for 4 Spades, even though Berkowitz actually held KQxx of spades. > Because of the transfer auction, my partner and I failed the bidding > test, but had the responder bid 1 Spade, I would have been able to > make a penalty double, showing our fit, even though there was no > psych. > > Craig Hemphill > > In a message dated 7/21/2008 7:28:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, john at asimere.com > writes: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:41 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and > MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > "A pair is stupid to admit that it never psychs, giving away a > useful > > weapon > > (threat)." > > > > Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how exactly they would > > change their system to defend against a pair who checks "psyches > > never" versus a pair who checks "psyches occasionally"? One example > > might suffice to satisfy my curiosity. > > 1C X 1S X. John > > > > > Jerry Fusselman > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse > Fantasy Football today. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080729/e4669890/attachment.htm From Gampas at aol.com Wed Jul 30 04:06:41 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:06:41 EDT Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes andMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 30/07/2008 00:24:08 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "crucial, a. Decisive between two hypotheses." Richard Hills: So if one's Walter the Walrus experience has supported the hypothesis that Stayman (even by a passed hand) is always forcing, it may be "crucial" for that Walrus to know that the opposite hypothesis applies due to an opposing pair's unusual (for Walter) implicit understanding. [paul lamford] Entertainingly put, as always, but the part that is wrong is that there is no more implicit understanding in my partnership that Stayman can be passed after a third in hand 1NT than there is in the world at large. I can recall two occasions, in an estimated 700 such deals (I used some Bridge Dealer stats to calculate how often I would get a 2-2-3-6 hand out of all the times I opened 1NT third in hand from all the hands I played with my regular partner). Now it might be "crucial" for the Walrus to know that this is the occasion on which I have done so, but he is not entitled to that information - he is only entitled to full disclosure of our methods. And I would venture to suggest he is entitled to that information in a succinct summary, for example on a convention card. He may ask such supplementary questions as he wants, of course, but to suggest that the initial response should be all-embracing is contrary to accepted practice. (One of the two players against whom I tried this gambit exhibited Walrus-like tendencies when he doubled in the pass out seat with a 4-4-3-2 11-count. My partner's redouble confirmed his error, and the -800 that the "Walrus" subsequently suffered further underlined it.) In a previously-discussed auction (both on here and on IBLF) in which a pair bid 1NT (10-12) - (Pass) - 2D (explained as a transfer) - (Double) - Pass (* - only two hearts) - (3D) - 3H, I originally agreed with your view that "transfer" was an insufficient explanation for 2D, as it, "typically" (that word that you so dislike, again) denied a weakish hand with six hearts. However, the majority view, which included that of several TDs, was that the brief explanation, "transfer", IS satisfactory, and I agree with the majority even though their view is contrary to my initial opinion. When you argue for a full initial explanation, I have much sympathy with the principles, but the practical difficulties are too great. It reminds me of the vicar who received some cherries in brandy as a Christmas gift from his congregation. He did not much care for the cherries, but he appreciated the spirit in which they were given. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080729/b1862424/attachment.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 30 10:38:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:38:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: SykesandMistBeads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <488F3108.70705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c8f220$9b5fc800$50d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Never on a Sunday << > After all, what is the definition of "crucial"? > +=+ In the first dictionary I have consulted: decisive; critical; urgently needed. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 30 10:58:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:58:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn In-Reply-To: <488F0ED8.1020209@t-online.de> References: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205038464AD@rama.Micronas.com> <488F0ED8.1020209@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48902D48.10408@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Looks good. If defender keeps quiet for the moment the TD rules penalty > card. If it turns out that declarer was fooled by the "revoke" and goes > wrong when playing from dummy we hit defender with "could have known". > AG : yes, but with parcimony. The most probable explanation for a revoke out of turn is that the player thought he was on the lead for that trick. A deliberate revoke out of turn is something so exotic that very few people, even among crooks, would think of it. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 30 11:07:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:07:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] how many hearts ? Message-ID: <48902F46.7090107@ulb.ac.be> Both vulnerable, double scoring (Board-a-Match + IMPs), you hold, in 4th seat : Qxx Kxxx AJ98xx void 1C 2C p 2D p 2H p 2C was natural. You intended your 2D as natural and constructive (as it would have been had the opening been in a major), but partenrs' alert makes you suspect that your 2D might well be (or have been understood as) a substitute cue-bid. That's UI. a) Is there any obvious difference between the meanings of 2H in those two interpretations, and which one ? b) If there is, how do you intend to "bend backwards" ? Thank you for your advice Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 30 11:36:18 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:36:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn In-Reply-To: <48902D48.10408@ulb.ac.be> References: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205038464AD@rama.Micronas.com> <488F0ED8.1020209@t-online.de> <48902D48.10408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48903612.2020700@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> Looks good. If defender keeps quiet for the moment the TD rules penalty >> card. If it turns out that declarer was fooled by the "revoke" and goes >> wrong when playing from dummy we hit defender with "could have known". >> > AG : yes, but with parcimony. The most probable explanation for a revoke > out of turn is that the player thought he was on the lead for that > trick. A deliberate revoke out of turn is something so exotic that very > few people, even among crooks, would think of it. > Agreed. But that does not mean that "could have known" doesn't apply. To quote John (or paraphrase, really): I do not think you did it on purpose, but you did what a cheat would do, so.... Regards Matthias From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 30 11:37:13 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:37:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Ray Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48903649.7050902@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Championship Final of Australia's most prestigious matchpoint pairs event (the Gold Coast Congress Pairs) North-South play Standard American in the Aussie style On the other hand, East-West play bridge :-) Dlr: North, Vul: Nil You, South, hold S:T9875 H:JT3 D:98542 C- ---- 1D (2C) 3S (1) (4C) 4S (5C) ?? (1) Fit-showing limit raise What rebid do you make? What other rebids do you consider making? [Nige1] IMO P=10 5D=1. Even if your 3S bid was intended as a psych it was still ill-advised because it directs a lead that is likely to give you a poor match-pointed pairs score. Anyway, a 3S bid should show much more than this, so the danger of further action is that - partner may take it as a slam try or - opponents wake up and bid their slam. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 30 11:55:19 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:55:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday - was Re: Sykes and MistBeads[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48903A87.9030707@t-online.de> David Kent schrieb: > I find this totally mind-boggling. This convention that they are playing > is, I believe, legal under the GCC or whatever it is called these days. > If you do not have a defence against transfer responses to opening bids > (e.g. 1C-1D showing 4+ hearts), transfer responses to t/o doubles, > transfer advances after overcalls etc. yet you are playing in an event > where LC and DB are playing, I have no sympathy when you get a bad > result because of insufficient preparation. Craig didn't ask for sympathy (IMO), but just told how a non-psych kept him out of the best contract. Yes, some defense against this would have been nice, as complicated conventions are likely in an event where Cohen/Berkowitz are playing (and he might have had one, too, just not one geared to showing spades. Maybe doube would have shown 5+ hearts, with 1S showing 4, like a negative double, just to point out an alternative. I have no idea what defence, if any, he had prepared), but "mind-boggling" is quite an overbid, even if he played there without any defence. Regards Matthias > > ...Dave Kent > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:54 PM, RCraigH at aol.com wrote: > >> You don't need to be playing against a pair that pschs. I just played >> in Las Vegas against Larry Cohen and David Berkowitz, and heard this >> auction: 1D (Precision) by LHO Cohen, double by partner, 1H >> (transfer) by Berkowitz, and I held AJTxx Kx Jx xxxx. We are on for 4 >> Spades, even though Berkowitz actually held KQxx of spades. Because >> of the transfer auction, my partner and I failed the bidding test, but >> had the responder bid 1 Spade, I would have been able to make a >> penalty double, showing our fit, even though there was no psych. >> >> Craig Hemphill >> From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 30 13:09:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:09:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn In-Reply-To: <48903612.2020700@t-online.de> References: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205038464AD@rama.Micronas.com> <488F0ED8.1020209@t-online.de> <48902D48.10408@ulb.ac.be> <48903612.2020700@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48904C06.4020503@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > >> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> >>> Looks good. If defender keeps quiet for the moment the TD rules penalty >>> card. If it turns out that declarer was fooled by the "revoke" and goes >>> wrong when playing from dummy we hit defender with "could have known". >>> >>> >> AG : yes, but with parcimony. The most probable explanation for a revoke >> out of turn is that the player thought he was on the lead for that >> trick. A deliberate revoke out of turn is something so exotic that very >> few people, even among crooks, would think of it. >> >> > > Agreed. But that does not mean that "could have known" doesn't apply. To > quote John (or paraphrase, really): I do not think you did it on > purpose, but you did what a cheat would do, so.... > AG : what I meant is that IMOBO even cheats would seldom have thought of it. Now, L72B1 appeals to the TD's judgment about the "could have known" possibility, and we'd only rule "could have known" if we consider some cheat could (and would have thought of it). I'm not prone to rule "could have known" in this precise case. Only in very obvious cases would I do it (cf. the Alcatraz coup). IOW, I have to protect the NOS against the possibility of a deliberate action, but I judge that this possibility is very tenuous. Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 30 13:44:48 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:44:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn In-Reply-To: <48904C06.4020503@ulb.ac.be> References: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205038464AD@rama.Micronas.com> <488F0ED8.1020209@t-online.de> <48902D48.10408@ulb.ac.be> <48903612.2020700@t-online.de> <48904C06.4020503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48905430.80902@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> Agreed. But that does not mean that "could have known" doesn't apply. To >> quote John (or paraphrase, really): I do not think you did it on >> purpose, but you did what a cheat would do, so.... >> > AG : what I meant is that IMOBO even cheats would seldom have thought of it. > > Now, L72B1 appeals to the TD's judgment about the "could have known" > possibility, and we'd only rule "could have known" if we consider some > cheat could (and would have thought of it). > I'm not prone to rule "could have known" in this precise case. Only in > very obvious cases would I do it (cf. the Alcatraz coup). > > IOW, I have to protect the NOS against the possibility of a deliberate > action, but I judge that this possibility is very tenuous. > We have to agree to disagree, then. I believe it to be pretty routine *for a cheater* to prematurely expose the card he intends to play back after declarer lost the finesse. Sort of insurance.... If it were not for 72B1 the possibility would not be tenuos at all, IMO. Regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jul 30 13:57:03 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:57:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] how many hearts ? In-Reply-To: <48902F46.7090107@ulb.ac.be> References: <48902F46.7090107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4890570F.3090507@t-online.de> As I have no idea what type of hand would bid 2H over a substitute cuebid, a method I do not use, I can't help you very much here. Would xxxx, KQx, x AKxxx bid 2H or 2S in this sequence? If the answer is 2H, then the UI suggests *not* to bid 4H,nor would it do so if partner could have xxx, Qxx, Kx, AKxxx or some such (even KQJxx in clubs, maybe). Anyway, I can't see how 4H can be suggested here if 2C was natural, so 4H it is for me. Could even make opposite the first hand.. Slam tries with a club void are a bit rich for me. The spade suit seems to have disappeared, looks like partner has a few of them. Regards Matthias Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Both vulnerable, double scoring (Board-a-Match + IMPs), you hold, in 4th > seat : > > Qxx > Kxxx > AJ98xx > void > > 1C 2C p 2D > p 2H p > > 2C was natural. > You intended your 2D as natural and constructive (as it would have been > had the opening been in a major), but partenrs' alert makes you suspect > that your 2D might well be (or have been understood as) a substitute > cue-bid. That's UI. > > a) Is there any obvious difference between the meanings of 2H in those > two interpretations, and which one ? > > b) If there is, how do you intend to "bend backwards" ? > > Thank you for your advice > > Alain > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 30 15:15:26 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:15:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn References: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205038464AD@rama.Micronas.com> <488F0ED8.1020209@t-online.de> <48902D48.10408@ulb.ac.be><48903612.2020700@t-online.de> <48904C06.4020503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002c01c8f246$59f52650$fed0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke out of turn Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > >> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> >>> Looks good. If defender keeps quiet for the moment the TD rules penalty >>> card. If it turns out that declarer was fooled by the "revoke" and goes >>> wrong when playing from dummy we hit defender with "could have known". >>> >>> >> AG : yes, but with parcimony. The most probable explanation for a revoke >> out of turn is that the player thought he was on the lead for that >> trick. A deliberate revoke out of turn is something so exotic that very >> few people, even among crooks, would think of it. >> >> > > Agreed. But that does not mean that "could have known" doesn't apply. To > quote John (or paraphrase, really): I do not think you did it on > purpose, but you did what a cheat would do, so.... > AG : what I meant is that IMOBO even cheats would seldom have thought of it. Now, L72B1 appeals to the TD's judgment about the "could have known" possibility, and we'd only rule "could have known" if we consider some cheat could (and would have thought of it). I'm not prone to rule "could have known" in this precise case. Only in very obvious cases would I do it (cf. the Alcatraz coup). IOW, I have to protect the NOS against the possibility of a deliberate action, but I judge that this possibility is very tenuous. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Jul 30 16:16:40 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:16:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003201c8f0ae$a555d2a0$8aca403e@Mildred> References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> <488B47A0.2040503@NTLworld.com> <488CD301.1020808@NTLworld.com> <003201c8f0ae$a555d2a0$8aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <489077C8.3080607@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ We know Nigel's view of 'equity' based rulings and he is entitled to them. However, he is not entitled to say that "victims tend to get inadequate redress" - TDs in England are instructed to assess assigned scores generously to the NOS and 'redress' returns to victims what they have lost. It is no concern of theirs whether there is further punishment or no of the offender, certainly they can have no claim to share it in their score. If that is what he is arguing [Nigel] I've just noticed that Grattan claims that I'm not entitled to say that "victims tend to get inadequate redress". I've supplied reasons for my contention; but belatedly, I wonder why, even if I'm wrong, I'm not entitled to an opinion? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 30 16:35:04 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:35:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <489077C8.3080607@NTLworld.com> References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <002201c8eef4$2b3bf640$5fc9403e@Mildred> <488B47A0.2040503@NTLworld.com> <488CD301.1020808@NTLworld.com> <003201c8f0ae$a555d2a0$8aca403e@Mildred> <489077C8.3080607@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48907C18.3040305@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ We know Nigel's view of 'equity' based rulings and he is > entitled to them. However, he is not entitled to say that "victims tend > to get inadequate redress" - TDs in England are instructed to assess > assigned scores generously to the NOS and 'redress' returns to > victims what they have lost. It is no concern of theirs whether there > is further punishment or no of the offender, certainly they can have > no claim to share it in their score. If that is what he is arguing > [Nigel] > I've just noticed that Grattan claims that I'm not entitled to say that > "victims tend to get inadequate redress". I've supplied reasons for my > contention; but belatedly, I wonder why, even if I'm wrong, I'm not > entitled to an opinion? > I don't understand either. The fact thatr TDs are instructed to be generous towards the NOS when guessing what the redress should be doesn't mean that they achieve it. And there is no law against saying that they don't always do. BTW, I've seen many cases that support Nigel's view. One infamous French case was a TD's decision not to award more than the standard 2 tricks for the revoke, with the argument that "you wouldn't have found that unlikely line of play that gives one more trick", while the first 4 tricks proved that declarer had already found it. Regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 30 19:48:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:48:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <00EC7A64-6797-43D2-9702-D2048B52A9E0@starpower.net> On Jul 18, 2008, at 8:05 PM, allevy at aol.com wrote: > Under the old Law when a player substituted 2H for 1H (1D-1S-1H) > you didn't know what he held. Under the new Law when a player > substitutes 2H he has his 2H bid...otherwise he would Dbl. Almost > all hands that bid 1H fit either Dbl or 2H in many systems. > > The whole idea of allowing a change in bid to a more precise > meaning is to allow bridge to be played. THAT'S THE IDEA OF THE > NEW LAW. I am not missing the point, as Hans says. The idea of > the new law was to allow the insufficient bidder to describe his > hand accurately if he could do so without giving unauthorized > information, thus his bid has to be more precise and, in addition, > the original insufficient bid has to not convey any unauthorized > information. > > So often it will be to the opponent's advantage to allow the > insufficient bid, e.g., 1D-1S-1H-3S/4S I think this misconstrues the new L27B. An IBer who meets the conditions for a penalty-free (LSBSD) RC given in L27B1(b) is free to make that call without penalty under the terms of L27B1(b), regardless of whether or not he has one or more other RCs that would be penalty-free by the conditions of L27B1(a), and regardless of whether the LSBSD would be allowed by L27B1(a) as well. There is nothing in L27B1(b) to suggest that it doesn't apply as written just because the IBer could have made a more descriptive L27B1(a) correction. An IBer may make any legal RC without condition or constraint. L27B1 merely tells us whether his chosen call will or will not bar his partner for the rest of the auction. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 30 20:05:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:05:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: <000601c8eec3$f9c0ba90$6401a8c0@Anne> References: <03eb01c8ee38$8cb8ce00$0100a8c0@stefanie><000201c8ee56$de457070$edcb403e@Mildred> <057f01c8eeb7$ed516720$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000601c8eec3$f9c0ba90$6401a8c0@Anne> Message-ID: On Jul 25, 2008, at 10:04 PM, Anne Jones wrote: > Maybe thats because you are not on the mailing list Stephanie. I > can assure > you there was wide consultation. "Wide consultation" does not compute in combination with "on the mailing list". When one consults only with the inevitably more-or- less like-minded members of one's own mailing list, it doesn't matter how many names are on it. The ACBL Board of Directors can provide object lessons in how to create large and seemingly diverse "review committees" out of members whose leanings are known to them and can be counted on to reach the Board's desired conclusions. Had the "consultors" been interested in the views of the general public, the process would have been open to all interested parties. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 30 20:35:23 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:35:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <001a01c8ed68$a7f349a0$f7d9dce0$@no> References: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> <001a01c8ed68$a7f349a0$f7d9dce0$@no> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:38:32 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > The 2007 laws made no change in the old rules for correcting an > insufficient > bid without barring partner. What the 2007 laws did was to introduce > alternative ways of correcting insufficient bids without barring > partner. So > when 1D- 1S - 1H is corrected to . 2H you know exactly as much or as > little > as you did with the old laws. As Al Levy has already pointed out, this is not true. Under the old laws, a player might correct to 2H to avoid barring partner, even with 4 hearts. Under the new laws, a player would correct to a negative double with 4 hearts and would bid 2H only with five. > > > Regards Sven > > > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of allevy at aol.com > Sent: 19. juli 2008 02:06 > To: blml at amsterdamned.org > Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid > > > Hans, > Under the old Law when a player substituted 2H for 1H (1D-1S-1H) you > didn't > know what he held. Under the new Law when a player substitutes 2H he has > his 2H bid...otherwise he would Dbl. Almost all hands that bid 1H fit > either Dbl or 2H in many systems. > > The whole idea of allowing a change in bid to a more precise meaning is > to > allow bridge to be played. THAT'S THE IDEA OF THE NEW LAW. I am not > missing the point, as Hans says. The idea of the new law was to allow > the > insufficient bidder to describe his hand accurately if he could do so > without giving unauthorized information, thus his bid has to be more > precise > and, in addition, the original insufficient bid has to not convey any > unauthorized information. > > So often it will be to the opponent's advantage to allow the insufficient > bid, e.g., 1D-1S-1H-3S/4S > > Al > > > > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:44:40 +0200 > From: "Hans van Staveren" > Subject: Re: [blml] accepting insufficient bid > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Message-ID: <00c501c8e646$44371960$cca54c20$@nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > What Al seems to miss is that the bid should be more precise, but need > not > necessarily reflect bidders hand more precise. > > So all at the table will know to treat such bids with a bit of reserve. > > > > Hans > > > _____ > > The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get > the > TMZ Toolbar Now! > From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 30 20:55:07 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:55:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:05:34 -0400, wrote: ..... > > So often it will be to the opponent's advantage to allow the > insufficient bid, e.g., 1D-1S-1H-3S/4S Maybe not "often", but I think this is a good example. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 31 01:41:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:41:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >"Wide consultation" does not compute in combination with "on the >mailing list". When one consults only with the inevitably more- >or-less like-minded members of one's own mailing list, it doesn't >matter how many names are on it. Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. I am not "like-minded", since my mind is weirder than most, but I served on that mailing list. Eric Landau: >The ACBL Board of Directors can provide object lessons in how to >create large and seemingly diverse "review committees" out of >members whose leanings are known to them and can be counted on to >reach the Board's desired conclusions. Richard Hills: If three blmlers are marooned on a desert island, the result is four different interpretations of Law 20F5(a). Neither did a monoculture exist in the Drafting Sub-Committee. As Grattan Endicott noted in a blml post, the reverse problem applied. If any one of the eight DSC members had been solely responsible for the 2007 Lawbook, eight entirely different hypothetical Lawbooks would have emerged Eric Landau: >Had the "consultors" been interested in the views of the general >public, the process would have been open to all interested parties. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the above statement is an oxymoron. The "general public" are not "interested" in debating the difference between the 1997 Law 72B1 phrase "could have known" and the 2007 Law 23 phrase "could have been aware". In my experience "not interested" is an understatement - "bored rigid" or "fleeing at the speed of light back to the bridge table" would be more accurate. And while many TDs (and players) are grateful that the 2007 Lawbook is less ambiguous and easier to use than the 1997 Lawbook, only a very few of those TDs (and players) are nerdishly "interested" in the "process" of Lawbook design. Fortunately there is a high concentration of such "interested" nerds in blml. And since blml's uber-nerd is Coordinator of the Drafting Sub-Committee, this process of Lawbook design was informally open (some blml threads impacted on decisions of the DSC) even if it was technically formally closed. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jul 31 02:29:01 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:29:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > But in the case above, it is impossible that the case presented itself > before.... how could the understanding "grow over time" ? Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let's try again. I am distinguishing three types of partnership agreement: explicit agreements: obvious meaning tacit agreements: those that grow over time without discussion implicit agreements: those that arise as consequences of the first two At some level, this taxonomy doesn't matter. These are all subsets of "partnership understanding" and subject to disclosure, at least in my view. However, the Laws aren't so clear as they might be. Alain's case, where partners had an undiscussed sequence but both knew exactly what it had to be, is a perfect example of "implicit agreement" as defined above. > Don't you think we explained it ? I expect no less of any BLML reader. But suppose another pair says nothing more than "undiscussed." Don't you think that's MI? > What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to > exist, there must be conscience that it exists. I'm not so sure about that. Suppose one of you (say the partner of the bidder) had been unable to work out the meaning during the auction, but in fact the meaning is inarguable once you think about it. Isn't that an implicit agreement? How is it different than forgetting an explicit agreement? To take a simpler case, suppose we agree weak NT, and the sequence 1C-1H-1NT comes up. Now if I tell my opponents "11-14 balanced," isn't that MI even if we haven't discussed this auction? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 31 04:52:41 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:52:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >Suppose one of you (say the partner of the bidder) had >been unable to work out the meaning during the auction, but >in fact the meaning is inarguable once you think about it. > >Isn't that an implicit agreement? Richard Hills: In my opinion, no. In my opinion, the 2007 Law 40A1(b) clearly states that partnership understandings exist "before commencing play", not ex-post facto created in the post mortem. (Although, of course, it is commonplace for post mortems to create _new_ partnership understandings which apply to _later_ deals.) Steve Willner: >How is it different than forgetting an explicit agreement? Richard Hills: The difference is that there is not any Law against having a hole in one's system. Unless an unfilled hole is contrary to Law 74B1: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: paying insufficient attention to the game." Grattan Endicott (18th July 2008): >>+=+ Believe me I have heard the argument before - in the >>WBFLC and propounded by the illustrious Bobby Wolff. >> >>The LC opined that 'attention to the game' was concerned >>with happenings at the table and not to a player's >>preparation. A player is permitted by the laws to misbid - >>see Law 75C, which also clarifies that opponents' >>entitlement is to an accurate description of the players' >>partnership agreement - not to a description of the hands - >>and there is no infraction if they have received the >>description they are entitled to. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Steve Willner: >To take a simpler case, suppose we agree weak NT, and the >sequence 1C-1H-1NT comes up. Now if I tell my opponents >"11-14 balanced," isn't that MI even if we haven't discussed >this auction? Richard Hills: Not necessarily. If we are talking about partnership understandings agreed "implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players" (2007 Law 40A1(a)), then a lot depends on the local environment where that experience and awareness occurs. If 1NT is weak, then 1C-1H-1NT = 15-18 in Canberra Bridge Club Acol, but = 15-16 in George Jesner Acol, and = 12-16 in Eric Crowhurst Acol. Meanwhile many beginners do have the agreement that 1C-1H-1NT is 11-14 balanced despite them having recently switched from strong NT to weak NT - those beginners simply have not realised that it is beneficial to make consequential changes to their system. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 31 07:07:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:07:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Ray Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Championship Final of Australia's most prestigious matchpoint pairs event (the Gold Coast Congress Pairs) North-South play Standard American in the Aussie style On the other hand, East-West play bridge :-) Dlr: North, Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D 2C 3S (1) 4C 4S 5C ? (1) Fit-showing limit raise You, South, hold: T9875 JT3 98542 --- What rebid do you make? What other rebids do you consider making? Paul Lamford: >I would not give up on slam just yet, and make a try with >5H, surely "last train to Clarksville" style. If pard has >as little as AJxx none AKxxxx xxx, then 6D is excellent, >just needing a spade position. Bob Hamman's Rules, Number 2: "Never play Robert for the perfect hand. He never has it." Paul Lamford: >But weren't you worth a 4C splinter on the first round - >as the fit-showing jump understated your values? Bob Hamman's Rules, Number 5: "Be practical." Paul Lamford: >So I would bid 5H, and consider bidding 5S. Bob Hamman's Rules, Number 3: "If everyone at the table seems to be bidding his head off, trust them, not Robert." Nigel Guthrie: >IMO P=10 5D=1. > >Even if your 3S bid was intended as a psych it was still >ill-advised because it directs a lead that is likely to >give you a poor match-pointed pairs score. > >Anyway, a 3S bid should show much more than this, so the >danger of further action is that >- partner may take it as a slam try or >- opponents wake up and bid their slam. Bobby Wolff's Rule: "Passing is too dangerous." The bidding continued: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D 2C 3S (1) 4C 4S 5C Pass Pass X Pass ? (1) Fit-showing limit raise You, South, hold: T9875 JT3 98542 --- What dangerous call do you make? What other dangerous calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 31 07:47:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:47:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48905430.80902@t-online.de> Message-ID: 2007 Law 23 - Awareness of Potential Damage "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass." Alain Gottcheiner: >>I'm not prone to rule "could have known" in this precise case. >>Only in very obvious cases would I do it (cf. the Alcatraz coup). Richard Hills: I note that Law 23 begins with "Whenever", not with "Only in very obvious cases". Matthias Berghaus: >We have to agree to disagree, then. I believe it to be pretty >routine *for a cheater* to prematurely expose the card he intends to >play back after declarer lost the finesse. Sort of insurance.... If >it were not for [1997 Law] 72B1 [now 2007 Law 23] the possibility >would not be tenuous at all, IMO. Richard Hills: Yes, a case where I would adjust under Law 23 in these circumstances would be if declarer had a choice between a simple finesse and a ruffing finesse. Declarer sees RHO's prematurely exposed card of a different suit, so declarer innocently takes the losing simple finesse. On the other hand, this ploy is _similar_ to Alain's obvious case of an Alcatraz Coup. Perhaps it should be called the Guantanamo Coup. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jul 31 09:04:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:04:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF Tournament Regulations [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ABF Tournament Regulations, clause 3.2: "As a consequence of incidents that may occur in an ABF Tournament, Championship, Festival or Congress, the ABF reserves the right in its discretion to reject the entry of any player, pair or team for any future ABF Tournament, Championship, Festival or Congress conducted by the ABF or otherwise under its auspices whether for a limited or unlimited time and without assigning any reason for such rejection." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jul 31 01:59:10 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:59:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Well now, things are getting heated up, no? Richard calling Grattan an "uber-nerd."............? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Eric Landau: >"Wide consultation" does not compute in combination with "on the >mailing list". When one consults only with the inevitably more- >or-less like-minded members of one's own mailing list, it doesn't >matter how many names are on it. Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. I am not "like-minded", since my mind is weirder than most, but I served on that mailing list. Eric Landau: >The ACBL Board of Directors can provide object lessons in how to >create large and seemingly diverse "review committees" out of >members whose leanings are known to them and can be counted on to >reach the Board's desired conclusions. Richard Hills: If three blmlers are marooned on a desert island, the result is four different interpretations of Law 20F5(a). Neither did a monoculture exist in the Drafting Sub-Committee. As Grattan Endicott noted in a blml post, the reverse problem applied. If any one of the eight DSC members had been solely responsible for the 2007 Lawbook, eight entirely different hypothetical Lawbooks would have emerged Eric Landau: >Had the "consultors" been interested in the views of the general >public, the process would have been open to all interested parties. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the above statement is an oxymoron. The "general public" are not "interested" in debating the difference between the 1997 Law 72B1 phrase "could have known" and the 2007 Law 23 phrase "could have been aware". In my experience "not interested" is an understatement - "bored rigid" or "fleeing at the speed of light back to the bridge table" would be more accurate. And while many TDs (and players) are grateful that the 2007 Lawbook is less ambiguous and easier to use than the 1997 Lawbook, only a very few of those TDs (and players) are nerdishly "interested" in the "process" of Lawbook design. Fortunately there is a high concentration of such "interested" nerds in blml. And since blml's uber-nerd is Coordinator of the Drafting Sub-Committee, this process of Lawbook design was informally open (some blml threads impacted on decisions of the DSC) even if it was technically formally closed. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080730/1a422325/attachment-0001.htm From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Jul 31 10:15:52 2008 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:15:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> <001a01c8ed68$a7f349a0$f7d9dce0$@no> Message-ID: <34D9C323-FFB6-4F48-8166-A6325B5D1AA4@btinternet.com> On 30 Jul 2008, at 19:35, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:38:32 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> The 2007 laws made no change in the old rules for correcting an >> insufficient >> bid without barring partner. What the 2007 laws did was to introduce >> alternative ways of correcting insufficient bids without barring >> partner. So >> when 1D- 1S - 1H is corrected to . 2H you know exactly as much or as >> little >> as you did with the old laws. > > As Al Levy has already pointed out, this is not true. Under the old > laws, > a player might correct to 2H to avoid barring partner, even with 4 > hearts. > Under the new laws, a player would correct to a negative double with 4 > hearts and would bid 2H only with five. Under the new L27B1(b), the likelihood of a player being able to correct an insufficient 1H bid with a negative double is remote. Do they play negative doubles as guaranteeing four hearts? Do they respond 1H with longer diamonds? Do they respond 1H with five spades and four hearts? Do they respond 1H with five spades and five hearts? Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080731/4168903d/attachment.htm From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jul 31 10:44:10 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:44:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48917B5A.8060209@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Yes, a case where I would adjust under Law 23 in these circumstances > would be if declarer had a choice between a simple finesse and a > ruffing finesse. Declarer sees RHO's prematurely exposed card of a > different suit, so declarer innocently takes the losing simple > finesse. Lots of other situations. Finesse or drop, ducking to guard against a bad split, even situations where offender does not gain a trick, but "persuades" declarer to lose that trick to him early, preserving partner's entry, or just to gain the lead to be able to push the "penalty card" through declarer. Regards Matthias From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 31 10:59:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:59:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > >> Don't you think we explained it ? >> > > I expect no less of any BLML reader. But suppose another pair says > nothing more than "undiscussed." Don't you think that's MI? > > This raises the problem of whether there exists such a thing as an unconscious understanding. If the pair don't realize the implications of other agreements, are they transgressing the Laws by not revealing those implications ? And that's not an uncommon case. >> What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to >> exist, there must be conscience that it exists. >> > > I'm not so sure about that. Suppose one of you (say the partner of the > bidder) had been unable to work out the meaning during the auction, but > in fact the meaning is inarguable once you think about it. Isn't that > an implicit agreement? How is it different than forgetting an explicit > agreement? To take a simpler case, suppose we agree weak NT, and the > sequence 1C-1H-1NT comes up. Now if I tell my opponents "11-14 > balanced," isn't that MI even if we haven't discussed this auction? > > This isn't perhaps the right example. A pair playing Precision with 12-15 NT doesn't play 1D-1S-1NT as strong. I think it still is 12-15, but with 4 hearts and unwilling to open 1NT because of two weak suits, one of which spades. But the initial question is something different, I think. Replace "agreement" with "understandings", according to TNFLB, and ask once more whether it is possible to have no understainding at all, yet guess correctly. Take the example of a pair who plays strong twos vulnerable, but weak twos non-vulnerable. They also play mini-notrumps NV and strong NT vul, but revert to strong NT 4th NV. A member of this pair opens 2H 4th in hand, nonvul. They didn't discuss it. They really don't know, in all honesty. There are two logical possibilities, and only two if one (sensibly) considers that non-discussed bids won't be complex : a) revert to "vul", i.e. strong two, applying the rules for NT openings. b) do as others do when playing weak twos, i.e. the bid is a very constructive weak 2-bid, about 9-13. Now, if we're called as an emergency replacement facing somebody we don't know but whose system we're told, we have to guess. Some players will, aften being told the agreements, choose a), while others will choose b). In fact, I asked some good players about this some months ago, and the result was 6 to 3 in favor of b). One group or the other will guess right, of course. Without any understandings, even implicit. As a proof, the fact tthat players put into this position disagree. That's an extreme case, but it's enough to falsify the implication "if he guesses right, he must have an understanding". Best regards Alain . From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 31 10:59:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:59:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > >> Don't you think we explained it ? >> > > I expect no less of any BLML reader. But suppose another pair says > nothing more than "undiscussed." Don't you think that's MI? > > This raises the problem of whether there exists such a thing as an unconscious understanding. If the pair don't realize the implications of other agreements, are they transgressing the Laws by not revealing those implications ? And that's not an uncommon case. >> What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to >> exist, there must be conscience that it exists. >> > > I'm not so sure about that. Suppose one of you (say the partner of the > bidder) had been unable to work out the meaning during the auction, but > in fact the meaning is inarguable once you think about it. Isn't that > an implicit agreement? How is it different than forgetting an explicit > agreement? To take a simpler case, suppose we agree weak NT, and the > sequence 1C-1H-1NT comes up. Now if I tell my opponents "11-14 > balanced," isn't that MI even if we haven't discussed this auction? > > This isn't perhaps the right example. A pair playing Precision with 12-15 NT doesn't play 1D-1S-1NT as strong. I think it still is 12-15, but with 4 hearts and unwilling to open 1NT because of two weak suits, one of which spades. But the initial question is something different, I think. Replace "agreement" with "understandings", according to TNFLB, and ask once more whether it is possible to have no understainding at all, yet guess correctly. Take the example of a pair who plays strong twos vulnerable, but weak twos non-vulnerable. They also play mini-notrumps NV and strong NT vul, but revert to strong NT 4th NV. A member of this pair opens 2H 4th in hand, nonvul. They didn't discuss it. They really don't know, in all honesty. There are two logical possibilities, and only two if one (sensibly) considers that non-discussed bids won't be complex : a) revert to "vul", i.e. strong two, applying the rules for NT openings. b) do as others do when playing weak twos, i.e. the bid is a very constructive weak 2-bid, about 9-13. Now, if we're called as an emergency replacement facing somebody we don't know but whose system we're told, we have to guess. Some players will, aften being told the agreements, choose a), while others will choose b). In fact, I asked some good players about this some months ago, and the result was 6 to 3 in favor of b). One group or the other will guess right, of course. Without any understandings, even implicit. As a proof, the fact tthat players put into this position disagree. That's an extreme case, but it's enough to falsify the implication "if he guesses right, he must have an understanding". Best regards Alain . From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 31 11:08:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:08:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <34D9C323-FFB6-4F48-8166-A6325B5D1AA4@btinternet.com> References: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> <001a01c8ed68$a7f349a0$f7d9dce0$@no> <34D9C323-FFB6-4F48-8166-A6325B5D1AA4@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <48918113.7020300@ulb.ac.be> Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > > On 30 Jul 2008, at 19:35, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:38:32 -0400, Sven Pran > > wrote: >> >> >>> The 2007 laws made no change in the old rules for correcting an >>> >>> insufficient >>> >>> bid without barring partner. What the 2007 laws did was to introduce >>> >>> alternative ways of correcting insufficient bids without barring >>> >>> partner. So >>> >>> when 1D- 1S - 1H is corrected to . 2H you know exactly as much or as >>> >>> little >>> >>> as you did with the old laws. >>> >> >> As Al Levy has already pointed out, this is not true. Under the old >> laws, >> >> a player might correct to 2H to avoid barring partner, even with 4 >> hearts. >> >> Under the new laws, a player would correct to a negative double with 4 >> >> hearts and would bid 2H only with five. >> > > Under the new L27B1(b), the likelihood of a player being able to > correct an insufficient 1H bid with a negative double is remote. I'm sorry, Sir, our system notes say the Double is the equivalent of a 1H bid, but with less that game strength if 5+ cards (would bid 2H), so it's a perfect subset of 1H. > Do they play negative doubles as guaranteeing four hearts? Yes Sir. > Do they respond 1H with longer diamonds? Yes Sir, in case we have less than game-going strength (and if we have it, we don't negative double either, we bid 2D). > Do they respond 1H with five spades and four hearts? I don't understand this. Because of the way the double is defined, I wouldn't double. I would most probably either pass (hoping that we set it enough) or punt 3NT if strong enough. Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jul 31 11:34:36 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:34:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: s Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au ton: Do you have time for blml at the moment ? As I understand it your gov. has drastically changed its policy towards immigrants? Which should lead to a lot of work for your department? By the way, let me give you an impression of the job of the DSC. What is the definition of an immigrant? Does it include somebody stepping off a boat 200 miles west from Darwin? ton Upgrade Your Email - Click here! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080731/c81c642b/attachment.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 31 12:05:02 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:05:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn References: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205038464AD@rama.Micronas.com> <488F0ED8.1020209@t-online.de><48902D48.10408@ulb.ac.be> <48903612.2020700@t-online.de> Message-ID: <006501c8f2f5$3d44fda0$e6d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke out of turn But that does not mean that "could have known" doesn't apply. To quote John (or paraphrase, really): I do not think you did it on purpose, but you did what a cheat would do, so.... Regards Matthias +=+ However, before play from dummy offender has revealed that he has a card of the suit led, so this is not a Law 23 case. Exploring the facts given: Trick 3: North is dummy. West leads (say a Heart) and before a card is played from Dummy East plays a card. It is not a Heart and East then says "Sorry. I must follow suit. Director". Dummy has still not played to the trick. Laws to look at: Let us start with Law 45A. We are told that East 'played' the card. It is a revoke card. The revoke is revealed before it becomes established. Law 47A applies and when withdrawn the card, being a defender's card, will become a penalty card. Law 49. The card is clearly 'exposed'. There is a question to decide whether this is 'in the normal course of play'. Law 50. A card prematurely exposed, but not led, by a defender is a penalty card (here major) unless the Director designates otherwise. Unless the true position is revealed before declarer plays from Dummy Law 50E3 may apply, so it was well that East spoke up in timely fashion. Law 57. This refers to defender's 'premature' play but here the play is not 'premature' within the meaning of this Law since the play is not 'before his partner has played to the current trick'. Law 60. South has not played, so East's play is to be treated as out of turn. Law 62A Under this Law the player is required to correct his revoke "if" he becomes aware of it before it becomes established (as is the case). Law 62B. Tells us how East corrects his revoke. Also tells us the revoke card will become a major penalty card. Nothing in this Law from 62B2 to the end applies. ...................................................................................................... Crucial question: is offender to substitute a legal card before declarer plays from dummy? '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' My enquiries have failed to unearth a recorded precedent. In the case under discussion: Laws 44B, 49 and 57 identify the play as out of turn but not premature. I view that as not being 'in the normal course of play'. The card is prematurely exposed but not led. Law 50A applies. It will remain a major penalty card when the infraction is corrected. Law 62A tells us that a revoke must be corrected 'if' the offender becomes aware of it before it becomes established. It makes no statement as to timing of the correction. A play by dummy before the revoke is corrected does not invoke Law 60 which only applies to plays after RHO's play out of turn or prematurely. Law 62B tells us how to correct the revoke. Again it expresses no requirement as to when this shall be done. The requirement as to the timing of the correction thus appears to be inferential. We know from Law 60A2 that if South plays before East has made the correction the illegal play will be treated as if it were in turn. The revoke cannot be allowed to become established. We may infer from 60A1 that the intention is that the correction be made before South plays. I conclude that the correction is tempestive and in good season if effected no later than the offender's turn to play. I take solace in thinking that by my interpretation the normality of the legal plays, and of the eventual bridge result, is disturbed as little as possible. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 31 12:26:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:26:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] I'd still do it, even at my age. Message-ID: <008c01c8f2f7$e7fe8480$e6d6403e@Mildred> Grattan EndicottFrom play some fifty years ago. Opponents silent. 1C - 1H 2D - P x.x. Q J x x x x x x x Ax I do not recall partner's hand, except that his diamonds were A K x.. (One light). From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Jul 31 13:51:09 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:51:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Ray Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4891A72D.8050903@NTLworld.com> [Richard James Hills] WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D 2C 3S (1) 4C 4S 5C Pass Pass X Pass ? (1) Fit-showing limit raise You, South, hold: T9875 JT3 98542 --- What dangerous call do you make? What other dangerous calls do you consider making? [Nigel] My guess 5D=10 5S=8 P=6 I now regret my 3S bid even more because even if 5C is a poor contract, the spade lead that I directed is likely to do it no harm. I don't think that this as a forcing pass sequence. If I had that agreement, I would have considered bidding 5D directly over 5C, because passing and pulling (usually) promises extra values. Gampas (tongue in cheek?) implies that this hand has values undisclosed by 3S. Presumably he means extra shape. I agree that the club void is an asset but partner will normally expect five (or four good diamonds) because playing 2/1 he needs only a 3 card suit to open 1D. A fit jump also shows a good side suit of at least 5 cards. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Jul 31 15:41:13 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:41:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn In-Reply-To: <006501c8f2f5$3d44fda0$e6d6403e@Mildred> References: <00fc01c8f143$14ce5af0$3e6b10d0$@nl> <488EC4F2.6000909@t-online.de> <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A5205038464AD@rama.Micronas.com> <488F0ED8.1020209@t-online.de><48902D48.10408@ulb.ac.be> <48903612.2020700@t-online.de> <006501c8f2f5$3d44fda0$e6d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4891C0F9.1090405@t-online.de> gesta at tiscali.co.uk schrieb: > Grattan Endicott +=+ However, before play from dummy offender has revealed > that he has a card of the suit led, so this is not a Law 23 case. True, Alain and I allowed our discussion to drift away from the case I posted. The rest of your post is clear and elucidating, as always (read: in all cases when you do not confuse non-natives and natives alike with your superior command of the English language :-) I had to mull over "tempestive" for a time, but decided to trust my intuition and what Latin I remember... Reminds me of the scene in a book where A speaks to B about the wonderful fornication, refering to the arches of the ceiling (fornix)). I take solace in the fact that no clear solution can be derived from the laws, so I did not rule _complete_ nonsense, even if I now agree that offender cannot be forced to correct his revoke before declarer plays from dummy. In the actual hand any discussion was prevented by declarer, who played from dummy before offender substituted his card, because "it doesn't matter, I want to win the trick in my hand anyway". Best regards Matthias > Exploring the facts given: > Trick 3: North is dummy. West leads (say a Heart) and before > a card is played from Dummy East plays a card. It is not a Heart > and East then says "Sorry. I must follow suit. Director". Dummy > has still not played to the trick. > Laws to look at: > Let us start with Law 45A. We are told that East 'played' > the card. It is a revoke card. The revoke is revealed before it > becomes established. > Law 47A applies and when withdrawn the card, being a > defender's card, will become a penalty card. > Law 49. The card is clearly 'exposed'. There is a question > to decide whether this is 'in the normal course of play'. > Law 50. A card prematurely exposed, but not led, by > a defender is a penalty card (here major) unless the Director > designates otherwise. Unless the true position is revealed before > declarer plays from Dummy Law 50E3 may apply, so it was well > that East spoke up in timely fashion. > Law 57. This refers to defender's 'premature' play but here > the play is not 'premature' within the meaning of this Law since the > play is not 'before his partner has played to the current trick'. > Law 60. South has not played, so East's play is to be treated > as out of turn. > Law 62A Under this Law the player is required to correct > his revoke "if" he becomes aware of it before it becomes established > (as is the case). > Law 62B. Tells us how East corrects his revoke. Also tells us > the revoke card will become a major penalty card. > Nothing in this Law from 62B2 to the end applies. > ...................................................................................................... > Crucial question: is offender to substitute a legal card before > declarer plays from dummy? > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > My enquiries have failed to unearth a recorded precedent. > In the case under discussion: > Laws 44B, 49 and 57 identify the play as out of turn but not > premature. I view that as not being 'in the normal course of play'. > > The card is prematurely exposed but not led. Law 50A applies. It > will remain a major penalty card when the infraction is corrected. > > Law 62A tells us that a revoke must be corrected 'if' the offender > becomes aware of it before it becomes established. It makes no > statement as to timing of the correction. A play by dummy before > the revoke is corrected does not invoke Law 60 which only applies > to plays after RHO's play out of turn or prematurely. > > Law 62B tells us how to correct the revoke. Again it expresses no > requirement as to when this shall be done. > > The requirement as to the timing of the correction thus appears to > be inferential. We know from Law 60A2 that if South plays before > East has made the correction the illegal play will be treated as if it > were in turn. The revoke cannot be allowed to become established. > We may infer from 60A1 that the intention is that the correction be > made before South plays. > > I conclude that the correction is tempestive and in good season if > effected no later than the offender's turn to play. I take solace in > thinking that by my interpretation the normality of the legal plays, > and of the eventual bridge result, is disturbed as little as possible. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 31 16:08:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:08:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] revoke law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463D4510-BE77-4016-9C52-8DAA4B9231CE@starpower.net> On Jul 30, 2008, at 7:41 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> "Wide consultation" does not compute in combination with "on the >> mailing list". When one consults only with the inevitably more- >> or-less like-minded members of one's own mailing list, it doesn't >> matter how many names are on it. > > Richard Hills: > > Begging the question, petitio principii. I am not "like-minded", > since my mind is weirder than most, but I served on that mailing > list. > > Eric Landau: > >> The ACBL Board of Directors can provide object lessons in how to >> create large and seemingly diverse "review committees" out of >> members whose leanings are known to them and can be counted on to >> reach the Board's desired conclusions. > > Richard Hills: > > If three blmlers are marooned on a desert island, the result is > four different interpretations of Law 20F5(a). > > Neither did a monoculture exist in the Drafting Sub-Committee. As > Grattan Endicott noted in a blml post, the reverse problem applied. > If any one of the eight DSC members had been solely responsible for > the 2007 Lawbook, eight entirely different hypothetical Lawbooks > would have emerged > > Eric Landau: > >> Had the "consultors" been interested in the views of the general >> public, the process would have been open to all interested parties. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, the above statement is an oxymoron. The "general > public" are not "interested" in debating the difference between the > 1997 Law 72B1 phrase "could have known" and the 2007 Law 23 phrase > "could have been aware". > > In my experience "not interested" is an understatement - "bored > rigid" or "fleeing at the speed of light back to the bridge table" > would be more accurate. > > And while many TDs (and players) are grateful that the 2007 Lawbook > is less ambiguous and easier to use than the 1997 Lawbook, only a > very few of those TDs (and players) are nerdishly "interested" in > the "process" of Lawbook design. > > Fortunately there is a high concentration of such "interested" nerds > in blml. And since blml's uber-nerd is Coordinator of the Drafting > Sub-Committee, this process of Lawbook design was informally open > (some blml threads impacted on decisions of the DSC) even if it was > technically formally closed. For months (years?) the privileged few BLMLers involved in the lawmaking process hinted at various proposals, discussions, notes, drafts and the like, which the "'interested' nerds in BLML" clamored to see, only to be told that we could see only the final product after it was (allegedly) cast in stone for the next ten years. Meanwhile the DSC told us that we were supposed to participate in the process within our own NCBOs, causing raucus laughter on this side of the Atlantic. The ACBLLC held all information so tightly that not even the ACBL's top-rated TDs got a look at any of the new material until the final version was distributed to BLML and subsequently passed on. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net