From henk at amsterdamned.org Fri Aug 1 01:01:00 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:01:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From henk at amsterdamned.org Fri Aug 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for July 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 67 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 65 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 65 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 54 hermandw (at) skynet.be 44 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 24 svenpran (at) online.no 23 ehaa (at) starpower.net 19 john (at) asimere.com 17 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 17 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 15 Gampas (at) aol.com 13 swillner (at) nhcc.net 12 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 11 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 10 schoderb (at) msn.com 9 sater (at) xs4all.nl 9 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 8 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 8 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 8 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 8 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 6 will-t (at) online.no 6 richard (at) sunnexgroup.com 6 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 5 torsten.astrand (at) telia.com 4 henk (at) ripe.net 4 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 4 ciska.zuur (at) planet.nl 4 anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com 3 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 3 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 3 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 2 matthias.schueller (at) gmx.de 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 2 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 2 andre.kriner (at) gmail.com 2 J.P.Pals (at) uva.nl 2 AlLevy (at) aol.com 1 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 1 martino (at) bridgenz.co.nz 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 daniel.amiguet (at) urbanet.ch 1 bowyerpn (at) gmail.com 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 allevy (at) aol.com 1 adam (at) tameware.com 1 RCraigH (at) aol.com 1 Martin.Sinot (at) Micronas.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 1 01:34:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:34:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] revoke law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edmund Clerihew Bentley, 1875-1956, was inventor of the "clerihew", an irregular form of humorous verse on biographical topics. For example: Sir Christopher Wren Said "I am going to dine with some men. If anyone calls Say I am designing St. Paul's" Matthias Berghaus commenting on Grattan's use of language: >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, >referring to the arches of the ceiling (fornix)). Queen Anne commenting on St. Paul's: "Awful, artificial and amusing." Richard translating Queen Anne's comment into modern English: "Awesome, well-designed and amazing." Kojak commenting on Richard's comment about Grattan: >Well now, things are getting heated up, no? Richard calling >Grattan an "uber-nerd."............? Richard translating Richard's comment into modern English: Grattan is the very model of a modern Major-General. Ton Kooijman: >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? Richard Hills: Indeed. It is not sufficient for the designers of the Lawbook merely to come to an agreement on policy. They must then write down that policy in words which do not need translation from artificial English to awful English, thus permitting Directors who are not uber-nerds to understand the Lawbook. 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 Fri Aug 1 01:19:59 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 00:19:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott +=+ If you take the recently discussed case of the sequence, opponents silent: 1S - 1NT 2D In this the opening bidder was relying on "what everyone does in our club" in intending the 2D bid to be forcing. Partner passed. But supposing he had thought to himself "Almost everyone in our club treats this as forcing, so I will not pass". At this point, surely, there is in operation an understandimng based upon a mutual awareness. It has developed a conscious existence where previously it did not exist. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 1 02:32:19 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:32:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Double vision In-Reply-To: <200807311816.m6VIG9RL005878@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807311816.m6VIG9RL005878@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48925993.9010005@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > But Nigel mentioned "the" infraction. As was discussed some time > ago by (I think) Steve Willner, often there are two infractions, > UI and MI, I heard it from David Stevenson, but I gather "always consider UI whenever there is MI" is standard guidance in the EBU. No matter where it comes from, it's good for TDs to be aware of it. > and it is a question of which one you rectify. As has been mentioned many times, there is nothing in TFLB about how to deal with multiple infractions. I'm sure we all have opinions, some of which may even coincide. :-) From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 1 02:42:11 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:42:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <200807311912.m6VJCCMr015027@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807311912.m6VJCCMr015027@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48925BE3.9030804@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > 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 ? This is exactly the right question. Alain and I seem to be arriving at different answers, though I'm not sure why. A simple "forget" is an example of an unconscious understanding. We don't have any problem with that one, do we? > Replace "agreement" with "understandings", according to TNFLB, and ask > once more whether it is possible to have no understainding at all, yet > guess correctly. Of course it is. That's not the question. The issue is having other relevant agreements, which thereby create an implicit agreement (by my definition). > 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 Yes, exactly so. 2H could be many things in other partnerships, but only two are possible in _this_ partnership. That's an implicit agreement. There probably is indeed no agreement about which of the two applies. I ask again: does anyone think "undiscussed" is not MI? And does anyone think the fact that there is no explicit discussion means no partnership understanding at all? (I think these questions have to have the same answer.) > 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. ... > One group or the other will guess right, of course. This speaks to the practical task of ruling, not to the underlying principle that an implicit agreement exists. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 1 02:45:07 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:45:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday In-Reply-To: <200807312018.m6VKIHFF027979@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200807312018.m6VKIHFF027979@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <48925C93.6030402@nhcc.net> >> After all, what is the definition of "crucial"? > From: > +=+ In the first dictionary I have consulted: > decisive; critical; urgently needed. In context, doesn't "crucial" just mean that the player's action at the table would have been different if he had known the information in question? In other words, if the information would have made no difference, there is no score adjustment? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 1 02:56:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:56:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Ray Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4891A72D.8050903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Australian Bridge Director's Bulletin issue 44, 2005 [Directions rotated 90 degrees for convenience] Championship Final of Australia's most prestigious matchpoint pairs event (the Gold Coast Congress Pairs) North-South play Standard American in the Aussie style >Note this is important; Acol players have the valuable >negative inference that pard's 1D opening bid denies a >balanced minimum. On the other hand, East-West play bridge :-) Dlr: North, Vul: Nil A42 K987 KQ76 43 KJ Q63 A542 Q6 JT3 A QJT5 AK98762 T9875 JT3 98542 --- The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D 2C 3S (1) 4C 4S 5C Pass Pass X (2) Pass 5D Pass Pass Pass (1) Fit-showing limit raise (2) Agreed long hesitation Result: North-South -100 South argued that given that there was a known double fit and having already misled her partner in respect to the strength of her hand, she had no intention of ever defending a doubled contract. She also explained that her initial pass of 5C was made with the faint hope that her partner might actually elect to pass it out. Richard Hills: There is a sliver of logic to South's apparently inconsistent bidding. -400 defending 5C is better than -500 playing 5Dx. But -500 playing 5Dx is better than -550 defending 5Cx. But since both -500 and -550 are likely to garner few matchpoints anyway, it seems to me much more logical to hope that partner's penalty double is consistent with partner holding three defensive tricks. Of course, as long defined in the WBF Code of Practice, and now in the 2007 Law 16B1(b), a "logical alternative" does not have to be logical. David Stevenson (2005): [snip] My own view is that with the South hand just about no one would sit for the double, so I would allow the result to stand, but naturally my consultants might easily prove me wrong. Rich Colker (2005): [snip] So while the UI from North's hesitation clearly made it more attractive for South to pull to 5D, South's hand and her previous bidding - in the context of the subsequently revealed double fit - provide strong evidence that South would never have sat for a double of 5C (would you sit? I wouldn't dream of it) even without the hesitation. So I would allow the table result to stand [snip] Matthew McManus (2005): [snip] I cannot see how South can countenance passing the double after (1) having very significantly misrepresented the strength of her hand, and (2) learning of the quite significant double fit. Even if North had made a "voice of thunder" penalty double, I believe that most players in the South seat would bid 5D, and if it was wrong, later profusely apologise for their frivolousness and promise never to psyche again. If South held seven or eight points, I could see some merit to East's contention, but with one? On the facts as presented, it is a very simple problem. No adjustment. If it goes to appeal, apply the maximum penalty for an appeal without merit. Richard Hills: At the table the TDs did rule no adjustment. It did go to appeal. But the Appeal Committee inexplicably :-) did not rule appeal without merit, instead giving East- West +550 in 5Cx. 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 Aug 1 06:32:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:32:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Never on a Sunday [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48925C93.6030402@nhcc.net> 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." Steve Willner: >In context, doesn't "crucial" just mean that the player's action at >the table would have been different if he had known the information >in question? In other words, if the information would have made no >difference, there is no score adjustment? Richard Hills: I disagree. Take the example of two expert teams playing a 64-board match, with one player making the trivial error of failing to alert partner's Precision 1C on the 64th and final board of the match. Suppose an opponent has a ridiculous memory failure, assumes the 1C opening is natural, so makes a "natural" overcall. Alas, their partnership agreement over a Precision 1C is to play transfer overcalls, so the opponent's partner saves at the 5-level in a non- fit for -1700. The opponent's choice of action at the table would indeed have been different if information had been given by an alert. But what was "crucial" for the opponent's choice of action was their ridiculous memory failure. Ergo, if I was TD, I would let the table score of -1700 stand. 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 Aug 1 11:40:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:40:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************************** > "Sanity is very rare: every man almost, > and every woman, has a dash of madness." > ~ Emerson. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > (Someone wrote:) > What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to > exist, there must be conscience that it exists. > > > +=+ If you take the recently discussed case of the sequence, > opponents silent: > > 1S - 1NT > 2D > > In this the opening bidder was relying on "what everyone > does in our club" in intending the 2D bid to be forcing. > Partner passed. But supposing he had thought to himself > "Almost everyone in our club treats this as forcing, so I > will not pass". At this point, surely, there is in operation > an understandimng based upon a mutual awareness. It > has developed a conscious existence where previously > it did not exist. > AG : the quote is mine. Grattan gave us a very good example, where some knowledge about partner (if only, where he plays) will create an implicit understanding. However, iit is possible that responer be a foreigner, not knowing about the club's habits, and that he decided not to pass on general grounds that "when in doubt, don't pass". In that case, he would have guessed what to do *without* any form of agreement/understanding. Which once again proves that it is possible, and that penalizing those who guess right for precisely this reason is untenable. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 1 11:44:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:44:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4892DAF2.7010802@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************************** > "Sanity is very rare: every man almost, > and every woman, has a dash of madness." > ~ Emerson. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > (Someone wrote:) > What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to > exist, there must be conscience that it exists. > > > +=+ If you take the recently discussed case of the sequence, > opponents silent: > > 1S - 1NT > 2D > > In this the opening bidder was relying on "what everyone > does in our club" in intending the 2D bid to be forcing. > Partner passed. But supposing he had thought to himself > "Almost everyone in our club treats this as forcing, so I > will not pass". At this point, surely, there is in operation > an understandimng based upon a mutual awareness. It > has developed a conscious existence where previously > it did not exist. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Exactly Grattan, and that is why there must be "partnership understanding" here. Which is why I urge all players to explain things like "everyone plays this as forcing, so I guess he does as well". If these two are on the same wavelength, they should have told their opponents as well. I don't think you'll find much disagreement about cases where 2 players are in agreement. The problem is when the two players are not in agreement. One player thinks "everyone plays this as forcing, so I'll bid it with this maximum", while the other one passes. There is no difference in the mind of the bidder between the first case and the second one. Should there be any difference in our ruling then, the ruling that says that opponents are entitled to know that it is forcing? And if you believe there is a difference, merely because the other one thinks differently, then how do you distinguish this case from the one where responder has merely forgotten a truely existing agreement? And if you find that you cannot rule that the system is indeed "forcing", then just ask yourself what you do with a pair who play regularly, and of which one says "i thought it was forcing", and the other "i believe it is non-forcing". If that pair cannot produce evidence to support the second, do you not rule that the first (forcing) was indeed the agreement? I have no problems with partnerships that fail to agree on every single detail. But I don't see why the opponents should be disadvantaged. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 1 11:48:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:48:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Ray Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4892DBF0.20606@skynet.be> Just a side remark: At least Richard is not hiding - he tells us very clearly where he is: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 1 11:55:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:55:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48925BE3.9030804@nhcc.net> References: <200807311912.m6VJCCMr015027@cfa.harvard.edu> <48925BE3.9030804@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4892DD93.8050605@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > A simple "forget" is an example of an unconscious understanding. We > don't have any problem with that one, do we? > > Seems like the disagreement is about what constitutes an unconscious understanding. I wouldn't classify "forget" whithin this category. In fact, I consider it to be a very thin category. >> Replace "agreement" with "understandings", according to TNFLB, and ask >> once more whether it is possible to have no understainding at all, yet >> guess correctly. >> > > Of course it is. That's not the question. It was. Some said that, when you guess right, it proves that there was an implicit understanding, and I'm fighting against this. >> 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 >> > > Yes, exactly so. 2H could be many things in other partnerships, but > only two are possible in _this_ partnership. That's an implicit > agreement. There probably is indeed no agreement about which of the two > applies. > > I ask again: does anyone think "undiscussed" is not MI? In the case above, "undiscussed, but it surely is either a Strong Two or a Constructive Weak Two" would surely be enough ; this doesn't alter the fact that it is indeed undiscussed and that no agreement exists.. And you all know that I'm going to respond, just in case it's a Strong Two. I had a similar case not long ago, when the 2NT response to the double of a weak 2-bid was explained by partner as :"Either natural or lebensohl. We didn't discuss it". The funny part is that I had bid 2NT in the same doubt, but the bid was reasonable in either case (3343 6-count with J9x of spades). And it was true : we'd never discussed it. Now we play lebelsohl. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 1 11:55:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:55:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48925BE3.9030804@nhcc.net> References: <200807311912.m6VJCCMr015027@cfa.harvard.edu> <48925BE3.9030804@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4892DD93.8050605@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > A simple "forget" is an example of an unconscious understanding. We > don't have any problem with that one, do we? > > Seems like the disagreement is about what constitutes an unconscious understanding. I wouldn't classify "forget" whithin this category. In fact, I consider it to be a very thin category. >> Replace "agreement" with "understandings", according to TNFLB, and ask >> once more whether it is possible to have no understainding at all, yet >> guess correctly. >> > > Of course it is. That's not the question. It was. Some said that, when you guess right, it proves that there was an implicit understanding, and I'm fighting against this. >> 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 >> > > Yes, exactly so. 2H could be many things in other partnerships, but > only two are possible in _this_ partnership. That's an implicit > agreement. There probably is indeed no agreement about which of the two > applies. > > I ask again: does anyone think "undiscussed" is not MI? In the case above, "undiscussed, but it surely is either a Strong Two or a Constructive Weak Two" would surely be enough ; this doesn't alter the fact that it is indeed undiscussed and that no agreement exists.. And you all know that I'm going to respond, just in case it's a Strong Two. I had a similar case not long ago, when the 2NT response to the double of a weak 2-bid was explained by partner as :"Either natural or lebensohl. We didn't discuss it". The funny part is that I had bid 2NT in the same doubt, but the bid was reasonable in either case (3343 6-count with J9x of spades). And it was true : we'd never discussed it. Now we play lebelsohl. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 1 12:32:28 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:32:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Ray Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4892E63C.5070309@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] At the table the TDs did rule no adjustment. It did go to appeal. But the Appeal Committee inexplicably :-) did not rule appeal without merit, instead giving East-West +550 in 5Cx. [Nige1] IMO the decision is close. Your 3S bid promises this kind of shape but more strength and indicates a spade lead (which you don't want); so removing the double probably is the preferred option. A poll of the players' peers might demonstrate that pass is a logical alternative; if so: then partner's tank before doubling shows doubt and suggests that removing will work out better; which it did; in these circumstances, damage is clear and the committee's decision is correct. In any case, IMO, it would be unfair to rule "Appeal without merit". From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 1 14:04:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:04:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4892FBC1.20207@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************************** >> "Sanity is very rare: every man almost, >> and every woman, has a dash of madness." >> ~ Emerson. >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> (Someone wrote:) >> What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to >> exist, there must be conscience that it exists. >> > >> +=+ If you take the recently discussed case of the sequence, >> opponents silent: >> >> 1S - 1NT >> 2D >> >> In this the opening bidder was relying on "what everyone >> does in our club" in intending the 2D bid to be forcing. >> Partner passed. But supposing he had thought to himself >> "Almost everyone in our club treats this as forcing, so I >> will not pass". At this point, surely, there is in operation >> an understandimng based upon a mutual awareness. It >> has developed a conscious existence where previously >> it did not exist. >> > AG : the quote is mine. Grattan gave us a very good example, where some > knowledge about partner (if only, where he plays) will create an > implicit understanding. > > However, iit is possible that responer be a foreigner, not knowing about > the club's habits, and that he decided not to pass on general grounds > that "when in doubt, don't pass". > In that case, he would have guessed what to do *without* any form of > agreement/understanding. But in that case, what both players are actually relying upon is world-known knowledge "when in doubt, don't pass". It's only when both players tell us their stories that we know whether they decided on the same meaning from the same sources or by sheer luck from different ones. We should not, as directors, have to rely on the possibly self-serving statements of the players. Rather, the fact that both players had the same idea, should count as evidence towards there being an understanding. > Which once again proves that it is possible, and that penalizing those > who guess right for precisely this reason is untenable. > Why should it be "untenable"? All we are saying is that we do not accept as evidence, self-serving statements from two players. You tell the story with both players' reasoning being given. As director, you are not "given" those reasonings, you are told them. And you don't want to be relying on them, lest you rule against honest people but not against cheats. The honest people deserve the same treatment as the cheats - both being ruled against. The final outcome of this will be that the honest people will not need to be ruled against, since they will explain their guesses. Only the cheats will remain to be ruled on; they will not explain anything, and then hide behind "no agreement" to cover up. Maybe they don't have an agreement, but by ruling that they do, their opponents will get the same treatment that the opponents of the honest people have received (no ruling, but correct information). Isn't that the way you want bridge to be played? > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 1 16:04:29 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:04:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4892FBC1.20207@skynet.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <4892FBC1.20207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <489317ED.3000100@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] But in that case, what both players are actually relying upon is world-known knowledge "when in doubt, don't pass". [Nige1] Herman is talking about complete strangers without understandings. In that context, it is amusing that Herman thinks "when in doubt, don't pass" is general Bridge Knowledge. There are schools of players where, on the contrary, the default is "if you don't understand it and it is possible that it is natural, then pass". This again illustrates that there is little in the way of understandings that can be classified as "General Bridge Knowledge". From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 1 17:11:35 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:11:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:40:35 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************************** >> "Sanity is very rare: every man almost, >> and every woman, has a dash of madness." >> ~ Emerson. >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> (Someone wrote:) >> What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to >> exist, there must be conscience that it exists. >> > >> +=+ If you take the recently discussed case of the sequence, >> opponents silent: >> >> 1S - 1NT >> 2D >> >> In this the opening bidder was relying on "what everyone >> does in our club" in intending the 2D bid to be forcing. >> Partner passed. But supposing he had thought to himself >> "Almost everyone in our club treats this as forcing, so I >> will not pass". At this point, surely, there is in operation >> an understandimng based upon a mutual awareness. It >> has developed a conscious existence where previously >> it did not exist. >> > AG : the quote is mine. Grattan gave us a very good example, where some > knowledge about partner (if only, where he plays) will create an > implicit understanding. > > However, iit is possible that responer be a foreigner, not knowing about > the club's habits, and that he decided not to pass on general grounds > that "when in doubt, don't pass". > In that case, he would have guessed what to do *without* any form of > agreement/understanding. > Which once again proves that it is possible, and that penalizing those > who guess right for precisely this reason is untenable. This last sentence ignores the fact that rulings are based on evidence, not reality. Also, it seems to me that the criteria for making a ruling are different from the criteria for your personal action. So if you firmly believe you have no understanding, then you can say that. You might be wrong -- you forgot, you have meta-agreements that are relevant, etc. -- but you have done your best and your actions are ethically impeachable. But your heartfelt confidence isn't so relevant for the director's ruling. It's like UI. You can ignore the UI. But most people I know take it into consideration and avoid bids that are likely to produce an adverse director's ruling. You can protect yourself pretty simply here, and if you don't want to do it and would rather take the risk of an adverse director's ruling, that's your decision. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 1 17:21:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:21:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <489317ED.3000100@NTLworld.com> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <4892FBC1.20207@skynet.be> <489317ED.3000100@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48932A17.5040400@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Herman De Wael] > But in that case, what both players are actually relying upon is > world-known knowledge "when in doubt, don't pass". > > [Nige1] > Herman is talking about complete strangers without understandings. In > that context, it is amusing that Herman thinks "when in doubt, don't > pass" is general Bridge Knowledge. There are schools of players where, > on the contrary, the default is "if you don't understand it and it is > possible that it is natural, then pass". This again illustrates that > there is little in the way of understandings that can be classified as > "General Bridge Knowledge". > > AG : if that's the case, there is a (about) fifty-fifty chance that both players are on the same wavelength. What do you explain in that case ? For me, once and for all, it's 'undiscussed and no understanding of any kind'. Only if it's true, of course. And there's also a 50-50 chance tu guess right. Now, there is still the UI snag, but if you pass, there will be none, as your pass tells everybody you guessed 'nonforcing' ... Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 1 17:36:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:36:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> Which once again proves that it is possible, and that penalizing those >> who guess right for precisely this reason is untenable. >> > > This last sentence ignores the fact that rulings are based on evidence, > not reality. AG : and that's where my dichotomy argument, expressed many times, comes in. Take 10 players which are complete strangers to Robert Roe (say, strangers /stricto sensu/, to avoid 'club' arguments). In most cases, Mr. Roe's bid will only have two or three possible meanings. If some of the 10 players guess a., some guiess b. and siome guess c., as will often be the case, then some will be right. Whence guessing right isn't evidence of an understanding. Now, there is strong evidence that there was no understanding at all. There can also be evidence from the players' mannerisms. Do you intend to discard this heavy evidence ? [Yes, I know that a;, b., c. isn't dichotomy, but since trichotomy is the art of splitting hairs, I have a problem here ;-) ] > Also, it seems to me that the criteria for making a ruling > are different from the criteria for your personal action. So if you firmly > believe you have no understanding, then you can say that. You might be > wrong -- you forgot, you have meta-agreements that are relevant, etc. -- > but you have done your best and your actions are ethically impeachable. > But your heartfelt confidence isn't so relevant for the director's ruling. Right ! You mean that when you say 'no understanding at all', sometimes you'll be wrong and there will be MI. I only claim that sometimes you won't and there won't. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 1 18:24:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:24:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <489317ED.3000100@NTLworld.com> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <4892FBC1.20207@skynet.be> <489317ED.3000100@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <489338D5.9010905@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > But in that case, what both players are actually relying upon is > world-known knowledge "when in doubt, don't pass". > > [Nige1] > Herman is talking about complete strangers without understandings. In > that context, it is amusing that Herman thinks "when in doubt, don't > pass" is general Bridge Knowledge. There are schools of players where, Herman thinks nothing of the sort. It was Alain's player who thought this. My point was that it should not matter by what means responder thought the bid was forcing (either this "when in doubt" or bidders "everyone in this club plays this"), the fact that both players thought it was forcing should suffice. > on the contrary, the default is "if you don't understand it and it is > possible that it is natural, then pass". This again illustrates that > there is little in the way of understandings that can be classified as > "General Bridge Knowledge". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 1 18:26:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:26:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48932A17.5040400@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <4892FBC1.20207@skynet.be> <489317ED.3000100@NTLworld.com> <48932A17.5040400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48933933.4020203@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Guthrie a ?crit : >> [Herman De Wael] >> But in that case, what both players are actually relying upon is >> world-known knowledge "when in doubt, don't pass". >> >> [Nige1] >> Herman is talking about complete strangers without understandings. In >> that context, it is amusing that Herman thinks "when in doubt, don't >> pass" is general Bridge Knowledge. There are schools of players where, >> on the contrary, the default is "if you don't understand it and it is >> possible that it is natural, then pass". This again illustrates that >> there is little in the way of understandings that can be classified as >> "General Bridge Knowledge". >> >> > AG : if that's the case, there is a (about) fifty-fifty chance that both > players are on the same wavelength. What do you explain in that case ? > For me, once and for all, it's 'undiscussed and no understanding of any > kind'. > Only if it's true, of course. > And how shall the director know that it's true? The Probst cheat will say exactly the same! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 1 18:44:49 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:44:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> A simpler rule, in the spirit of Bobby Wolfe, suggested years ago, might avoid this controversy. "When required to divulge the the meaning of partner's call and you don't know, then you must guess. A wrong guess is treated as misinformation." Exception: The WBF define a *global* standard system (If the local legislature prefers, it can substitute its own *local* standard system). As well as specific auctions, the standard system specifies *generic* understandings (for example: about doubles and cue-bids). Otherwise, unspecified calls are to be treated as natural. If your partnership agree to use the unvarnished *standard system*, you are *not* penalised for forgetting the meaning of partner's bid. This proposal cuts a swathe through disclosure laws. For example, If you adopt a non-standard system, then you must disclose departures from the standard system. This eliminates local disclosure regulations. An even more radical addition Currently, we alert partner's calls and explain them when asked. IMO, instead, you should announce the meaning of all of partner's (formerly alertable) calls. Opponents should have the prerogative to switch off disclosure during the auction. Although they are still entitled to explanations at the end of the auction. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 1 19:18:02 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:18:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <489338D5.9010905@skynet.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <4892FBC1.20207@skynet.be> <489317ED.3000100@NTLworld.com> <489338D5.9010905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4893454A.3010002@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Guthrie wrote: > >> [Herman De Wael] >> But in that case, what both players are actually relying upon is >> world-known knowledge "when in doubt, don't pass". >> >> [Nige1] >> Herman is talking about complete strangers without understandings. In >> that context, it is amusing that Herman thinks "when in doubt, don't >> pass" is general Bridge Knowledge. There are schools of players where, >> > > Herman thinks nothing of the sort. It was Alain's player who thought > this. My point was that it should not matter by what means responder > thought the bid was forcing (either this "when in doubt" or bidders > "everyone in this club plays this"), the fact that both players > thought it was forcing should suffice. > Perhaps it should, but my dichotomy shows it doesn't. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 1 19:19:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:19:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48933933.4020203@skynet.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <4892FBC1.20207@skynet.be> <489317ED.3000100@NTLworld.com> <48932A17.5040400@ulb.ac.be> <48933933.4020203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <489345B3.2030709@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Guthrie a ?crit : >> >>> [Herman De Wael] >>> But in that case, what both players are actually relying upon is >>> world-known knowledge "when in doubt, don't pass". >>> >>> [Nige1] >>> Herman is talking about complete strangers without understandings. In >>> that context, it is amusing that Herman thinks "when in doubt, don't >>> pass" is general Bridge Knowledge. There are schools of players where, >>> on the contrary, the default is "if you don't understand it and it is >>> possible that it is natural, then pass". This again illustrates that >>> there is little in the way of understandings that can be classified as >>> "General Bridge Knowledge". >>> >>> >>> >> AG : if that's the case, there is a (about) fifty-fifty chance that both >> players are on the same wavelength. What do you explain in that case ? >> For me, once and for all, it's 'undiscussed and no understanding of any >> kind'. >> Only if it's true, of course. >> >> > > And how shall the director know that it's true? > The Probst cheat will say exactly the same! > > > As usual, tilting the balance slightly towards severity as a principle and using first evidence, then verisimilitude. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 1 19:34:14 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:34:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > A simpler rule, in the spirit of Bobby Wolfe, suggested years ago, might > avoid this controversy. > > "When required to divulge the the meaning of partner's call and you > don't know, then you must guess. A wrong guess is treated as > misinformation." > Of course it might. Now, determining whether it's good for bridge, with all UI, time loss and resentment that it will create, is a horse of a darker color. Bridge is not a game about compelling opponents to do something they're unable to do, then telling the TD they did it wrongly. Or at least I hope so. > Currently, we alert partner's calls and explain them when asked. IMO, > instead, you should announce the meaning of all of partner's (formerly > alertable) calls. Why on Earth are you so keen to increase the amount of UI and subsequent TD calls ? Regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 1 20:41:53 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:41:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <489358F1.2050106@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] Currently, we alert partner's calls and explain them when asked. IMO, instead, you should announce the meaning of all of partner's (formerly alertable) calls. [Alain Gottcheiner] Why on Earth are you so keen to increase the amount of UI and subsequent TD calls ? [Nige2] - If opponents would normally ask *selectively*, then compared with current practices, the suggested protocol drastically reduces the amount of unauthorised information. - If opponents *always* ask, however, then the suggested protocol saves time. - If the opponents use the option to completely switch of explanations (snipped by Alain because it would undermine is argument), then the suggested protocol virtually eliminates unauthorised information as well as saving time. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 1 20:52:49 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:52:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] A simpler rule, in the spirit of Bobby Wolfe, suggested years ago, might avoid this controversy. "When required to divulge the the meaning of partner's call and you don't know, then you must guess. A wrong guess is treated as misinformation." [Alain Gottcheiner] Of course it might. Now, determining whether it's good for bridge, with all UI, time loss and resentment that it will create, is a horse of a darker color. Bridge is not a game about compelling opponents to do something they're unable to do, then telling the TD they did it wrongly. Or at least I hope so. [Nige1] I think problems with disclosure now cause resentment. The suggestion engenders no additional unathorised information. All players are able to guess. In fact they get lots of practice at it, in both the bidding and the play. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 1 22:01:16 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:01:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:36:30 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> Which once again proves that it is possible, and that penalizing those >>> who guess right for precisely this reason is untenable. >>> >> >> This last sentence ignores the fact that rulings are based on evidence, >> not reality. > AG : and that's where my dichotomy argument, expressed many times, comes > in. > Take 10 players which are complete strangers to Robert Roe (say, > strangers /stricto sensu/, to avoid 'club' arguments). > In most cases, Mr. Roe's bid will only have two or three possible > meanings. > If some of the 10 players guess a., some guiess b. and siome guess c., > as will often be the case, then some will be right. > Whence guessing right isn't evidence of an understanding. Well, not true. Guessing right increases the a priori probability that there was an agreement or understanding; guessing wrong decreases the a priori probability that there was an agreement or understanding. So it's evidence. If you want to argue that it is not very good evidence, fine. Can I ignore this evidence when you misguess partner's meaning. > > Now, there is strong evidence that there was no understanding at all. > There can also be evidence from the players' mannerisms. > Do you intend to discard this heavy evidence ? > > [Yes, I know that a;, b., c. isn't dichotomy, but since trichotomy is > the art of splitting hairs, I have a problem here ;-) ] > >> Also, it seems to me that the criteria for making a ruling >> are different from the criteria for your personal action. So if you >> firmly >> believe you have no understanding, then you can say that. You might be >> wrong -- you forgot, you have meta-agreements that are relevant, etc. -- >> but you have done your best and your actions are ethically impeachable. >> But your heartfelt confidence isn't so relevant for the director's >> ruling. > Right ! You mean that when you say 'no understanding at all', sometimes > you'll be wrong and there will be MI. I only claim that sometimes you > won't and there won't. Right. If I was absolutely confident that we had no agreement, I could still know that maybe I don't have any evidence for that and that if I just say "no agreement", the ruling would go against me. No problems here. > > Best regards > > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 1 22:42:13 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:42:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c8f417$146fde40$3d4f9ac0$@com> [RF] Well, not true. Guessing right increases the a priori probability that there was an agreement or understanding; guessing wrong decreases the a priori probability that there was an agreement or understanding. [DALB] I know that this is the argument Herman always uses, but I am not sure that it is sound. Suppose a stranger tosses a coin and invites me to guess heads or tails. I guess heads. It turns out that the coin was double-headed, but I did not know this. It seems to me that you are interpreting my correct guess as constituting some evidence that I did in fact know this. Moreover, what would you say if it turned out that the stranger had also no idea that the coin was double-headed? David Burn London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 1 23:44:20 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:44:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8f417$146fde40$3d4f9ac0$@com> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8f417$146fde40$3d4f9ac0$@com> Message-ID: <489383B4.2070908@NTLworld.com> [DALB] I know that this is the argument Herman always uses, but I am not sure that it is sound. Suppose a stranger tosses a coin and invites me to guess heads or tails. I guess heads. It turns out that the coin was double-headed, but I did not know this. It seems to me that you are interpreting my correct guess as constituting some evidence that I did in fact know this. Moreover, what would you say if it turned out that the stranger had also no idea that the coin was double-headed? [Nige1] If you did not know it was double-headed then you did not know it was double-headed. Same for the stranger. Full stop. But if the director suspects that you have an agreement or source of unauthorised information then, perhaps, for him, your correct guess provides some Bayesian evidence for his suspicion. And if you guess right every time even when a double-tailed coin is randomly substituted -- or the coin lands on its edge, then that would be better evidence. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 2 11:07:34 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:07:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred><4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <4892FBC1.20207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c8f47f$56776bb0$b9ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ************************************** >> "Sanity is very rare: every man almost, >> and every woman, has a dash of madness." >> ~ Emerson. >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> (Someone wrote:) >> What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to >> exist, there must be conscience that it exists. >> > >> +=+ If you take the recently discussed case of the sequence, >> opponents silent: >> >> 1S - 1NT >> 2D >> >> In this the opening bidder was relying on "what everyone >> does in our club" in intending the 2D bid to be forcing. >> Partner passed. But supposing he had thought to himself >> "Almost everyone in our club treats this as forcing, so I >> will not pass". At this point, surely, there is in operation >> an understanding based upon a mutual awareness. It >> has developed a conscious existence where previously >> it did not exist. >> > AG : the quote is mine. Grattan gave us a very good example, where some > knowledge about partner (if only, where he plays) will create an > implicit understanding. > > However, it is possible that responder be a foreigner, not knowing about > the club's habits, and that he decided not to pass on general grounds > that "when in doubt, don't pass". > In that case, he would have guessed what to do *without* any form of > agreement/understanding. But in that case, what both players are actually relying upon is world-known knowledge "when in doubt, don't pass". It's only when both players tell us their stories that we know whether they decided on the same meaning from the same sources or by sheer luck from different ones. We should not, as directors, have to rely on the possibly self-serving statements of the players. Rather, the fact that both players had the same idea, should count as evidence towards there being an understanding. > Which once again proves that it is possible, and that penalizing those > who guess right for precisely this reason is untenable. > Why should it be "untenable"? All we are saying is that we do not accept as evidence, self-serving statements from two players. You tell the story with both players' reasoning being given. As director, you are not "given" those reasonings, you are told them. And you don't want to be relying on them, lest you rule against honest people but not against cheats. The honest people deserve the same treatment as the cheats - both being ruled against. The final outcome of this will be that the honest people will not need to be ruled against, since they will explain their guesses. Only the cheats will remain to be ruled on; they will not explain anything, and then hide behind "no agreement" to cover up. Maybe they don't have an agreement, but by ruling that they do, their opponents will get the same treatment that the opponents of the honest people have received (no ruling, but correct information). Isn't that the way you want bridge to be played? << +=+ The statement 'no partnership understanding' indicates a referral to general bridge knowledge for an understanding of the auction. Given the provision in Law 40B6(a), I believe such a response satisfies fully, if true, a request for an explanation of the auction under Law 20F. There is, of course, room for NBOs to 'educate players concerning the disclosure of understandings implicitly created. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Aug 2 12:21:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 12:21:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4894351E.9000702@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nige1] > A simpler rule, in the spirit of Bobby Wolfe, suggested years ago, might > avoid this controversy. > > "When required to divulge the the meaning of partner's call and you > don't know, then you must guess. A wrong guess is treated as > misinformation." > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > Of course it might. Now, determining whether it's good for bridge, with > all UI, time loss and resentment that it will create, is a horse of a > darker color. > > Bridge is not a game about compelling opponents to do something they're > unable to do, then telling the TD they did it wrongly. Or at least I > hope so. > > [Nige1] > I think problems with disclosure now cause resentment. The suggestion > engenders no additional unathorised information. > AG : of course it does. When you say you doubt, you tell partner you're about to guess. When you give a guess, you tell partner which way you guessed. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 2 11:17:49 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:17:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net><48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8f417$146fde40$3d4f9ac0$@com> Message-ID: <003a01c8f48a$d231ea90$b9ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > [RF] > > Well, not true. Guessing right increases the a priori probability that > there was an agreement or understanding; guessing wrong decreases the a > priori probability that there was an agreement or understanding. > > [DALB] > > I know that this is the argument Herman always uses, but I am not sure > that > it is sound. Suppose a stranger tosses a coin and invites me to guess > heads > or tails. I guess heads. It turns out that the coin was double-headed, but > I > did not know this. It seems to me that you are interpreting my correct > guess > as constituting some evidence that I did in fact know this. Moreover, what > would you say if it turned out that the stranger had also no idea that the > coin was double-headed? > +=+ However, if I had recently seen the stranger across the room in a shop advertising double-headed coins ............ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 2 12:38:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 11:38:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Undiscussed understandings discussed. Message-ID: <004e01c8f48b$e09ac510$b9ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8f417$146fde40$3d4f9ac0$@com> Message-ID: <489439D3.5040604@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [RF] > > Well, not true. Guessing right increases the a priori probability that > there was an agreement or understanding; guessing wrong decreases the a > priori probability that there was an agreement or understanding. > > [DALB] > > I know that this is the argument Herman always uses, but I am not sure that > it is sound. Suppose a stranger tosses a coin and invites me to guess heads > or tails. I guess heads. It turns out that the coin was double-headed, but I > did not know this. It seems to me that you are interpreting my correct guess > as constituting some evidence that I did in fact know this. Moreover, what > would you say if it turned out that the stranger had also no idea that the > coin was double-headed? > > AG : very clever argument. What's needed is some guide about relativep probabvilities.. Mine could be that partnerships are more prone to have (perhaps implicit) understandings if they're firmly established. IOW, I might consider "we just met at the partnerships' desk" as an item of evidence against the existence of an understanding. The change in probabilities Robert mentioned isn't very marked if the a priori probability of no agreement is huge. If the sequence is uncommon enough that 90% of occasional partnerships won't have an agreement about it, and if there are only two possible meanings, then the fact of guessing right makes it still 82%, applying Bayes' law. In this case, the requirement that th TD apply 'the balance of probabilities' will make one take the same decision as one would before the guess. And this assumes you'll never guess wrong when there in fact an agreement ; else, the decrease is smaller still. As a matter of fact, in cases where you're honest in not finding an agreement (whether it exists or not), I'm not sure you'll guess better when there is. Best regards Alain From emu at fwi.net.au Sun Aug 3 09:10:59 2008 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:10:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <489317ED.3000100@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> [Herman De Wael] But in that case, what both players are actually relying upon is world-known knowledge "when in doubt, don't pass". [Nige1] Herman is talking about complete strangers without understandings. In that context, it is amusing that Herman thinks "when in doubt, don't pass" is general Bridge Knowledge. There are schools of players where, on the contrary, the default is "if you don't understand it and it is possible that it is natural, then pass". This again illustrates that there is little in the way of understandings that can be classified as "General Bridge Knowledge". [Noel] Basically - the Ace is bigger than the King [unless the King is trumps and the Ace isn't!] Or 2S just making is better than 2D just making. I raise these 'understandings' because some of my partners seem to have forgotten them in the past.... ;-) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 3 15:24:54 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:24:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> Message-ID: I have a good example. From yesterday, with opps silent throughout: 1S - 2H (forcing to game) 2NT (balanced) - 3D (natural) 3NT - 5NT Partner said we had no agreement. We certainly had never talked about this bid. She correctly reported that she had no understanding. I estimated an 80% chance that she would figure out the meaning of my bid, but she didn't, she chose an impossible meaning. So the opps got to defend against 6H without knowing the meaning of my bid. Bob From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 3 17:23:53 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:23:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> Message-ID: <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > I have a good example. From yesterday, with opps silent throughout: > > 1S - 2H (forcing to game) > 2NT (balanced) - 3D (natural) > 3NT - 5NT > > Partner said we had no agreement. We certainly had never talked about this > bid. She correctly reported that she had no understanding. I estimated an > 80% chance that she would figure out the meaning of my bid, but she > didn't, she chose an impossible meaning. > > So the opps got to defend against 6H without knowing the meaning of my bid. And do you agree that you had no partnership understanding? (Note: The fact that you had never discussed this situation is irrelevant as such!) In that case I am wondering why you bid 5NT in the first place. If you think that you did have some understanding then you committed a serious violation of Law 20F5(b)! Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Aug 3 19:03:51 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:03:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4894351E.9000702@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> <4894351E.9000702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4895E4F7.7020605@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] I think problems with disclosure now cause resentment. The suggestion engenders no additional unauthorised information. [Alain Gottcheiner] of course it does. When you say you doubt, you tell partner you're about to guess. When you give a guess, you tell partner which way you guessed. [Nige1] Thank you for arguing with me Alain. You make good points and I'll do my best to answer them. Some BLMLers are certain that they're right but I'm not one of them. As far as systemic agreements are concerned, I'm *never* certain. Occasionally, even when I'm 99.9% sure, I still turn out to be mistaken! Hence, like most players, when required to divulge an understanding, I *always* have to guess. What about *unauthorised information*? - I agree that an expression of doubt before an explanation is unauthorised information. There is longer any need for that under the new protocol, because it takes "guessing" for granted. - If you guess *right*, then there is no UI. - I concede that if you guess *wrong*, then there is UI. In this latter case, however (just as under current law), UI is the least of your problems. You are liable to be penalised for giving *misinformation*. Of course, none of this need apply to pick-up-partners or beginners playing the untrammelled (local) standard system. The proposal is no panacea but it is a radical simplification and it does mitigate common problems. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 3 20:03:48 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:03:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:23:53 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> I have a good example. From yesterday, with opps silent throughout: >> >> 1S - 2H (forcing to game) >> 2NT (balanced) - 3D (natural) >> 3NT - 5NT >> >> Partner said we had no agreement. We certainly had never talked about >> this >> bid. She correctly reported that she had no understanding. I estimated >> an >> 80% chance that she would figure out the meaning of my bid, but she >> didn't, she chose an impossible meaning. >> >> So the opps got to defend against 6H without knowing the meaning of my > bid. > > And do you agree that you had no partnership understanding? (Note: The > fact > that you had never discussed this situation is irrelevant as such!) > > In that case I am wondering why you bid 5NT in the first place. > > If you think that you did have some understanding then you committed a > serious violation of Law 20F5(b)! Well, I think it takes two to have an understanding. Just because I have some thought in my head, that doesn't mean it is an understanding. (It is very annoying to play with a partner who thinks that if he thinkgs a bid has a particular meaning, then it has that particular meaning.) If you have been reading this read, you will know that the intentions of the bidder are irrelevant. All the opps are entitled to know is what my partner knows. It kind of goes without saying that when responder thinks a bid is undiscussed, the player who made the bid probably has some intended meaning that he things will be obvious to partner. No one makes meaningless bids. I don't enjoy playing bridge this way, and I would have been happy if there had been some law to support me telling the opponents. And I almost did anyway. But I was swayed by the arguments on this thread that my partner's answer ("undiscussed") was correct. From svenpran at online.no Sun Aug 3 23:21:29 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:21:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> Message-ID: <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:23:53 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > >> I have a good example. From yesterday, with opps silent throughout: > >> > >> 1S - 2H (forcing to game) > >> 2NT (balanced) - 3D (natural) > >> 3NT - 5NT > >> > >> Partner said we had no agreement. We certainly had never talked about > >> this > >> bid. She correctly reported that she had no understanding. I estimated > >> an > >> 80% chance that she would figure out the meaning of my bid, but she > >> didn't, she chose an impossible meaning. > >> > >> So the opps got to defend against 6H without knowing the meaning of my > > bid. > > > > And do you agree that you had no partnership understanding? (Note: The > > fact > > that you had never discussed this situation is irrelevant as such!) > > > > In that case I am wondering why you bid 5NT in the first place. > > > > If you think that you did have some understanding then you committed a > > serious violation of Law 20F5(b)! > > Well, I think it takes two to have an understanding. Just because I have > some thought in my head, that doesn't mean it is an understanding. (It is > very annoying to play with a partner who thinks that if he thinkgs a bid > has a particular meaning, then it has that particular meaning.) > > If you have been reading this read, you will know that the intentions of > the bidder are irrelevant. All the opps are entitled to know is what my > partner knows. > > It kind of goes without saying that when responder thinks a bid is > undiscussed, the player who made the bid probably has some intended > meaning that he things will be obvious to partner. No one makes > meaningless bids. > > I don't enjoy playing bridge this way, and I would have been happy if > there had been some law to support me telling the opponents. And I almost > did anyway. But I was swayed by the arguments on this thread that my > partner's answer ("undiscussed") was correct. No I haven't been reading this thread as I have been away, busy with the Norwegian Bridge Festival that ended yesterday. You are correct that during the auction your opponents are entitled to what your partner knows (only), but during the clarification period (see Law 22B1) each player on the presumed declaring side has a duty to inform opponents when in his opinion partner has given an incorrect description of their partnership understanding (see Law 75B). For this purpose they even have the obligation to consult their own system card (see Law 40B2(b) ). You will no doubt agree that a partnership understanding exists even in the case when partner has completely forgotten a particular agreement that was once established? Only when you realize (for instance from consulting your own system card during the clarification period) after having assumed a particular partnership understanding that your assumption was incorrect may you conceal this assumption from opponents. However, if such revelation on your side is a result of UI from your partner (like missing alert, given alert or explanation from your partner) you may not even base your further calls and play on this revelation but must continue your actions (and even your explanations to opponents given before the clarification period) on your own incorrect assumption! Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Aug 3 23:48:46 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:48:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:21:29 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:23:53 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >> I have a good example. From yesterday, with opps silent throughout: >> >> >> >> 1S - 2H (forcing to game) >> >> 2NT (balanced) - 3D (natural) >> >> 3NT - 5NT >> >> >> >> Partner said we had no agreement. We certainly had never talked about >> >> this >> >> bid. She correctly reported that she had no understanding. I >> estimated >> >> an >> >> 80% chance that she would figure out the meaning of my bid, but she >> >> didn't, she chose an impossible meaning. >> >> >> >> So the opps got to defend against 6H without knowing the meaning of >> my >> > bid. >> > >> > And do you agree that you had no partnership understanding? (Note: The >> > fact >> > that you had never discussed this situation is irrelevant as such!) >> > >> > In that case I am wondering why you bid 5NT in the first place. >> > >> > If you think that you did have some understanding then you committed a >> > serious violation of Law 20F5(b)! >> >> Well, I think it takes two to have an understanding. Just because I have >> some thought in my head, that doesn't mean it is an understanding. (It >> is >> very annoying to play with a partner who thinks that if he thinkgs a bid >> has a particular meaning, then it has that particular meaning.) >> >> If you have been reading this read, you will know that the intentions of >> the bidder are irrelevant. All the opps are entitled to know is what my >> partner knows. >> >> It kind of goes without saying that when responder thinks a bid is >> undiscussed, the player who made the bid probably has some intended >> meaning that he things will be obvious to partner. No one makes >> meaningless bids. >> >> I don't enjoy playing bridge this way, and I would have been happy if >> there had been some law to support me telling the opponents. And I >> almost >> did anyway. But I was swayed by the arguments on this thread that my >> partner's answer ("undiscussed") was correct. > > No I haven't been reading this thread as I have been away, busy with the > Norwegian Bridge Festival that ended yesterday. > > You are correct that during the auction your opponents are entitled to > what > your partner knows (only), but during the clarification period (see Law > 22B1) each player on the presumed declaring side has a duty to inform > opponents when in his opinion partner has given an incorrect description > of > their partnership understanding (see Law 75B). For this purpose they even > have the obligation to consult their own system card (see Law 40B2(b) ). Right. But we had no understanding or agreement. So she gave the thread-approved answer of "no agreement". As I play with this player once a month and all of our time is spent trying to remember our current agreements, the director will certainly accept that we have not talked about the meaning of that bid. Had the director been called. The opps, even without reading this thread, seemed content with no agreement as an explanation. > > You will no doubt agree that a partnership understanding exists even in > the > case when partner has completely forgotten a particular agreement that > was > once established? Right. I am a little confused as to the state of affairs when we have two different agreements and I have forgotten one or more of them. But even when my partner and I forget an agreement, it is still exists -- in Plato's heaven I guess. But there was no forgetting here. (That was a different hand.) From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 4 00:18:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 00:18:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> Message-ID: <000501c8f5b6$d1bb5fb0$75321f10$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ................ > > No I haven't been reading this thread as I have been away, busy with the > > Norwegian Bridge Festival that ended yesterday. > > > > You are correct that during the auction your opponents are entitled to > > what > > your partner knows (only), but during the clarification period (see Law > > 22B1) each player on the presumed declaring side has a duty to inform > > opponents when in his opinion partner has given an incorrect description > > of > > their partnership understanding (see Law 75B). For this purpose they even > > have the obligation to consult their own system card (see Law 40B2(b) ). > > > Right. But we had no understanding or agreement. So she gave the > thread-approved answer of "no agreement". > > As I play with this player once a month and all of our time is spent > trying to remember our current agreements, the director will certainly > accept that we have not talked about the meaning of that bid. Had the > director been called. The opps, even without reading this thread, seemed > content with no agreement as an explanation. > > > > > > > You will no doubt agree that a partnership understanding exists even in > > the > > case when partner has completely forgotten a particular agreement that > > was > > once established? > > Right. I am a little confused as to the state of affairs when we have two > different agreements and I have forgotten one or more of them. But even > when my partner and I forget an agreement, it is still exists -- in > Plato's heaven I guess. > > But there was no forgetting here. (That was a different hand.) Fair enough. As you correctly suspected I do not know your particular case; I actually made my point on the general case of explanations which to me seemed relevant here? Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 4 02:26:25 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 01:26:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP><000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> Message-ID: <002301c8f5c8$e7aae4a0$7fcf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 7:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings Well, I think it takes two to have an understanding. Just because I have some thought in my head, that doesn't mean it is an understanding. << +=+ I suggest that a partnership understanding requires that the two partners shall have a common point of reference. This may be (i) an explicit agreement; or (ii) mutual experience, or (iii) a source* of guidance of which they are mutually aware. [*At the point when both partners are guided by that source, it seems to me a partnership understanding exists and disclosure will be called for. However, one of them may be relying mistakenly on a source he identifies so it is questionable whether they should be asked to draw immediate attention to it. I am inclined to wonder if this might be treated perhaps under Law 20F5(b).] ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 4 04:49:41 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:49:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c8f5c8$e7aae4a0$7fcf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>Well, I think it takes two to have an understanding. >>Just because I have some thought in my head, that >>doesn't mean it is an understanding. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I suggest that a partnership understanding requires > that the two partners shall have a common point of > reference. This may be (i) an explicit agreement; or > (ii) mutual experience, or (iii) a source* of guidance > of which they are mutually aware. [*At the point when > both partners are guided by that source, it seems to > me a partnership understanding exists and disclosure > will be called for. However, one of them may be > relying mistakenly on a source he identifies so it is > questionable whether they should be asked to draw > immediate attention to it. I am inclined to wonder if > this might be treated perhaps under Law 20F5(b).] > ~ G ~ +=+ Law 20F5(b): "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, ***in his opinion,*** his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." Richard Hills: Because of the words "in his opinion", this Law seems to extend the Law 40 requirement to describe the _actual_ mutual understandings of _both_ partners with a further requirement for _one_ partner to describe her unilateral (and possibly erroneous) current _beliefs_ about the mutual partnership understandings. Of course, one partner's correct explanation may instantly rectify the other partner's _momentary_ erroneous belief. If one has misbid and now knows that one has misbid, one now has a _new_ "opinion", so Law 20F5(b) is no longer relevant. Law 75C - Mistaken Call "The partnership agreement is as explained - 2D is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South's call. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, ***and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently.***" 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 Aug 4 11:11:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:11:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> Message-ID: <4896C7AE.9010004@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > I have a good example. From yesterday, with opps silent throughout: > > 1S - 2H (forcing to game) > 2NT (balanced) - 3D (natural) > 3NT - 5NT > > Partner said we had no agreement. We certainly had never talked about this > bid. She correctly reported that she had no understanding. I estimated an > 80% chance that she would figure out the meaning of my bid, but she > didn't, she chose an impossible meaning. > > So the opps got to defend against 6H without knowing the meaning of my bid. > OK Bob. First a few clarifications: - did they press on, asking for an explanation? - did she offer her guess? - did you "correct" before the lead? From your story, I guess three NOes. Also I guess 6H was not a good contract, but perhaps you made it by keeping your "meaning" hidden from them. Probably not. If that had been the case though, would you have felt good about it? Let's now turn the case around. Suppose she guesses correctly what it means. Still however, she replies, "no understanding". They press on, and she refuses to tell her guess. Before the lead, you again say nothing. You make the contract, but if the opponents had known about your intended meaning, they could have defeated the contract. So the Director arrives, and you explain that you did not have an agreement, and that you thought there was an 80% chance that she would understand. Do you really believe that this 80% is not high enough for the TD to rule that you did in fact have an understanding? And if 80% is deemed to high, as well as everything over 60%, what is there to prevent you from saying that you estimated a 59% probability that she would understand? Don't you see that in cases like this, with no written evidence available, the only piece of evidence that the director has is the prima facie evidence of both players having the same idea about the bidding? Should that not be enough to rule that there is an understanding? By Jove, the very reason for the change from agreement to understanding is to make people see that everything that partners "understand" between them is subject to disclosure. We would like to see the game run smoothly and friendly. What is wrong with then being quite liberal with disclosure, and quite harsh on people who seem to wish to hide their understandings? > Bob > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 11:15:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:15:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> Message-ID: <4896C8BE.5040109@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > Well, I think it takes two to have an understanding. Just because I have > some thought in my head, that doesn't mean it is an understanding. (It is > very annoying to play with a partner who thinks that if he thinkgs a bid > has a particular meaning, then it has that particular meaning.) > And it is very annoying if my opponents seem to have an understanding but they hide behind "no agreement". > If you have been reading this read, you will know that the intentions of > the bidder are irrelevant. All the opps are entitled to know is what my > partner knows. If you have been reading this "th"read, you should know your views in this are not universal. All the opps are entitle to know are your understanding. Whether your partner knows them or not. Or do you believe that forgetting an existing agreement is an excuse for not telling opponents about it? > > It kind of goes without saying that when responder thinks a bid is > undiscussed, the player who made the bid probably has some intended > meaning that he things will be obvious to partner. No one makes > meaningless bids. > And how should the Director distinguish if a bid with some intended meaning is undiscussed or not? He only has the words of both players to go on. They might be shameless liars. > I don't enjoy playing bridge this way, and I would have been happy if > there had been some law to support me telling the opponents. And I almost > did anyway. But I was swayed by the arguments on this thread that my > partner's answer ("undiscussed") was correct. > Well, you were listening to only one part of the argument then. I have been very voiced about believing the current laws in fact support the view that you should have told them your intention. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 11:19:21 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:19:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> Message-ID: <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:23:53 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >>>> I have a good example. From yesterday, with opps silent throughout: >>>> >>>> 1S - 2H (forcing to game) >>>> 2NT (balanced) - 3D (natural) >>>> 3NT - 5NT >>>> >>>> Partner said we had no agreement. We certainly had never talked about >>>> this >>>> bid. She correctly reported that she had no understanding. I estimated >>>> an >>>> 80% chance that she would figure out the meaning of my bid, but she >>>> didn't, she chose an impossible meaning. >>>> >>>> So the opps got to defend against 6H without knowing the meaning of my >>> bid. >>> >>> And do you agree that you had no partnership understanding? (Note: The >>> fact >>> that you had never discussed this situation is irrelevant as such!) >>> >>> In that case I am wondering why you bid 5NT in the first place. >>> >>> If you think that you did have some understanding then you committed a >>> serious violation of Law 20F5(b)! >> Well, I think it takes two to have an understanding. Just because I have >> some thought in my head, that doesn't mean it is an understanding. (It is >> very annoying to play with a partner who thinks that if he thinkgs a bid >> has a particular meaning, then it has that particular meaning.) >> >> If you have been reading this read, you will know that the intentions of >> the bidder are irrelevant. All the opps are entitled to know is what my >> partner knows. >> >> It kind of goes without saying that when responder thinks a bid is >> undiscussed, the player who made the bid probably has some intended >> meaning that he things will be obvious to partner. No one makes >> meaningless bids. >> >> I don't enjoy playing bridge this way, and I would have been happy if >> there had been some law to support me telling the opponents. And I almost >> did anyway. But I was swayed by the arguments on this thread that my >> partner's answer ("undiscussed") was correct. > > No I haven't been reading this thread as I have been away, busy with the > Norwegian Bridge Festival that ended yesterday. > > You are correct that during the auction your opponents are entitled to what > your partner knows (only), but during the clarification period (see Law > 22B1) each player on the presumed declaring side has a duty to inform > opponents when in his opinion partner has given an incorrect description of > their partnership understanding (see Law 75B). For this purpose they even > have the obligation to consult their own system card (see Law 40B2(b) ). > > You will no doubt agree that a partnership understanding exists even in the > case when partner has completely forgotten a particular agreement that was > once established? > > Only when you realize (for instance from consulting your own system card > during the clarification period) after having assumed a particular > partnership understanding that your assumption was incorrect may you conceal > this assumption from opponents. > > However, if such revelation on your side is a result of UI from your partner > (like missing alert, given alert or explanation from your partner) you may > not even base your further calls and play on this revelation but must > continue your actions (and even your explanations to opponents given before > the clarification period) on your own incorrect assumption! > > Regards Sven > It is very rare indeed to see me agree so wholeheartedly with one of Sven's post. Well said Sven! Of course the remark about basing your explanations on your own incorrect assumption is wrong. If your own assumption was wrong - Even under the MS view - one has to explain according to the right system, which is the one partner was saying. Of course you don't know this at the time of your explanation (which is before the clarification period, so you are not allowed to check your SC yet), which is one of the main reasons why I believe dWS explanations are better. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 11:22:31 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:22:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> Message-ID: <4896CA57.4050806@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:21:29 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > Right. But we had no understanding or agreement. So she gave the > thread-approved answer of "no agreement". > thread-approved is a) not true b) irrelevant c) not of importance to the TD in your room > As I play with this player once a month and all of our time is spent > trying to remember our current agreements, the director will certainly > accept that we have not talked about the meaning of that bid. Had the > director been called. The opps, even without reading this thread, seemed > content with no agreement as an explanation. > As TD, it is easy to say one believes or not that "no discussion" is true. But it is irrelevant. It is quite possible that you have never discussed a particular sequence, yet you have the same opinion about it when it arrives anyway. Either because of some meta-agreement, some shared club knowledge, some general bridge knowledge, or whatever. Yet you have an "understanding". So while "not discussed" and "no agreement" may be true "no understanding" is not, and that is what the TD should rule on. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 11:25:37 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:25:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4896CB11.7040006@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Law 20F5(b): > > "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents > that, ***in his opinion,*** his partner's explanation was > erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal > opportunity, which is > (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. > (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the > auction." > > Richard Hills: > > Because of the words "in his opinion", this Law seems to > extend the Law 40 requirement to describe the _actual_ > mutual understandings of _both_ partners with a further > requirement for _one_ partner to describe her unilateral > (and possibly erroneous) current _beliefs_ about the mutual > partnership understandings. > Indeed it does! > Of course, one partner's correct explanation may instantly > rectify the other partner's _momentary_ erroneous belief. > > If one has misbid and now knows that one has misbid, one > now has a _new_ "opinion", so Law 20F5(b) is no longer > relevant. > Indeed. > Law 75C - Mistaken Call > > "The partnership agreement is as explained - 2D is strong > and artificial; the mistake was in South's call. Here there > is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an > accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have > no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. > (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to > stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, > rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the > contrary.) South must not correct North's explanation (or > notify the Director) immediately, ***and he has no > responsibility to do so subsequently.***" > BUT: in the cases we are talking about, the player can provide no evidence for misbid, so he must act according to L20 and rectify his partner's non-disclosure of what he (wrongly or rightly) believed his system was. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 11:28:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:28:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000b01c8f47f$56776bb0$b9ce403e@Mildred> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu><4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred><4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <4892FBC1.20207@skynet.be> <000b01c8f47f$56776bb0$b9ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4896CBAB.8090802@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ************************************** > "Sanity is very rare: every man almost, > and every woman, has a dash of madness." > ~ Emerson. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:04 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : >>> Grattan Endicott>> [following address discontinued: >>> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >>> ************************************** >>> "Sanity is very rare: every man almost, >>> and every woman, has a dash of madness." >>> ~ Emerson. >>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> (Someone wrote:) >>> What I wanted to express is that, for an agreement, even implicit, to >>> exist, there must be conscience that it exists. >>> > >>> +=+ If you take the recently discussed case of the sequence, >>> opponents silent: >>> >>> 1S - 1NT >>> 2D >>> >>> In this the opening bidder was relying on "what everyone >>> does in our club" in intending the 2D bid to be forcing. >>> Partner passed. But supposing he had thought to himself >>> "Almost everyone in our club treats this as forcing, so I >>> will not pass". At this point, surely, there is in operation >>> an understanding based upon a mutual awareness. It >>> has developed a conscious existence where previously >>> it did not exist. >>> >> AG : the quote is mine. Grattan gave us a very good example, where some >> knowledge about partner (if only, where he plays) will create an >> implicit understanding. >> >> However, it is possible that responder be a foreigner, not knowing about >> the club's habits, and that he decided not to pass on general grounds >> that "when in doubt, don't pass". >> In that case, he would have guessed what to do *without* any form of >> agreement/understanding. > > But in that case, what both players are actually relying upon is > world-known knowledge "when in doubt, don't pass". > It's only when both players tell us their stories that we know whether > they decided on the same meaning from the same sources or by sheer > luck from different ones. > We should not, as directors, have to rely on the possibly self-serving > statements of the players. Rather, the fact that both players had the > same idea, should count as evidence towards there being an understanding. > >> Which once again proves that it is possible, and that penalizing those >> who guess right for precisely this reason is untenable. >> > > Why should it be "untenable"? All we are saying is that we do not > accept as evidence, self-serving statements from two players. You tell > the story with both players' reasoning being given. As director, you > are not "given" those reasonings, you are told them. And you don't > want to be relying on them, lest you rule against honest people but > not against cheats. The honest people deserve the same treatment as > the cheats - both being ruled against. The final outcome of this will > be that the honest people will not need to be ruled against, since > they will explain their guesses. Only the cheats will remain to be > ruled on; they will not explain anything, and then hide behind "no > agreement" to cover up. Maybe they don't have an agreement, but by > ruling that they do, their opponents will get the same treatment that > the opponents of the honest people have received (no ruling, but > correct information). Isn't that the way you want bridge to be played? > << > +=+ The statement 'no partnership understanding' indicates a referral > to general bridge knowledge for an understanding of the auction. > Given the provision in Law 40B6(a), I believe such a response > satisfies fully, if true, a request for an explanation of the auction under > Law 20F. There is, of course, room for NBOs to 'educate players > concerning the disclosure of understandings implicitly created. Exactly - but one cannot rely on general bridge knowledge if the opponents ask for more clarification. it is OK to answer "no special understandings", but if that leaves more than one (sufficiently distinct) possible meaning, the opponents have the right to enquire which one you believe it is. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 4 11:42:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:42:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> <4896CA57.4050806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c8f616$7c073660$1ec8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > > As TD, it is easy to say one believes or not that "no discussion" is true. > But it is irrelevant. > It is quite possible that you have never discussed a particular > sequence, yet you have the same opinion about it when it arrives anyway. > Either because of some meta-agreement, some shared club knowledge, > some general bridge knowledge, or whatever. > Yet you have an "understanding". > So while "not discussed" and "no agreement" may be true "no > understanding" is not, and that is what the TD should rule on. > +=+ If they say 'no agreement' or 'no understanding' they are saying they are relying on what is general bridge knowledge. This is 'knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players' within the terms of Law 40B6(a). Further explanation is unnecessary, although later of course the Director may on occasionm rule that the understanding does not fall within that category. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ v From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 4 12:56:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:56:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4895E4F7.7020605@NTLworld.com> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> <4894351E.9000702@ulb.ac.be> <4895E4F7.7020605@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4896E05F.4060705@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nige1] > I think problems with disclosure now cause resentment. The suggestion > engenders no additional unauthorised information. > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > of course it does. When you say you doubt, you tell partner you're > about to guess. When you give a guess, you tell partner which way you > guessed. > > [Nige1] > Thank you for arguing with me Alain. You make good points and I'll do my > best to answer them. > > Some BLMLers are certain that they're right but I'm not one of them. As > far as systemic agreements are concerned, I'm *never* certain. > Occasionally, even when I'm 99.9% sure, I still turn out to be mistaken! > Hence, like most players, when required to divulge an understanding, I > *always* have to guess. > > I don't see any problem with this analysis of your state of mind. And I don't think it changes anything to my point of view. Basically, there are three possibilities : a) you're not 100% sure but you seem to remember what it is ; say opponents what you remember. b) you don't know ; tell it. c) you don't know but think there can be only 2 (or perhaps 3) possibilities ; that's the interesting case. In a), it might (unfrequently, I hope) happen that there will be MI and/or UI. However, you complied as best as you could with the Laws. In b), there will be more frequent UI and MI, but still more so if you try a guess. In c), the cas is borderline, and I'm ready to accept a player's claim that guessing got him less TD calls than answering he doesn't know. What we need is the matrix of gains and losses, but it can't be calculated in short time at the table. But the important part is this : 'no agreement' pertains to class a, not b ; that means you answer 'no agreement', not when you don't remember the agreement, but when you're fairly confident (or more) that there isn't any. If you stick to this, problems will be scarce - as uncommon as with other case a) explanations. Against your humble servant, last thursday, a -moderately fitted- partnership of an international expert and a reasonably good player bid as such : 1NT - 2C - 3NT. 2C was 3-step Stayman. I didn't even ask the expert what 3NT meant ; what could he answer about an impossible bid ? Obviously, it wans't agreed upon, especially as their system explicitly mentions '3 steps'. Notice that the only right explanation, 'he has miscounted his strength : he's got 21 HCP' isn't part of any system, so that *any* guess would have been wrong. Would you have compelled the expert to give a meaning to this 3NT bid ? > > Of course, none of this need apply to pick-up-partners or beginners > playing the untrammelled (local) standard system. > What with pick-up partners whio don't know the local standard ? Haven't you ever faced some Poldevain businessman passing through your town ? Your arguments are worth an analysis of gain vs losses, but two things tilt the balance for me : - when I give a blind guess, pretending to know, I tell a lie. And I don't like lying to my opponents. I like even less being compelled to do it. - if you compel a player to give a guess, how are you to enforce it ? You''l quickly end with players giving absurd answers, known to their opponents to be absurd, to avoir giving UI, and you'll have to legiferate against that ; and then you'll come across the player who really doesn't know, and has too little imagination to make up an interpretation. And when he will, there will be obvious UI from his attitude. If practicality wasn't an important concern, we'd use screens and written explanations around the world. And you're suggestion isn't practical. Perhaps your idea of enforcing an explanation may work at a high level, where everybody should know what they"re playing. But in my club, no, thanks. Best regards Alain: From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 4 13:07:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:07:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <002301c8f5c8$e7aae4a0$7fcf403e@Mildred> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP><000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <002301c8f5c8$e7aae4a0$7fcf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4896E2F9.302@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott ************************************** > "As learned commentators view > In Homer, more than Homer knew." > [Jonathan Swift] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 7:03 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] undiscussed understandings > > Well, I think it takes two to have an understanding. > Just because I have some thought in my head, that > doesn't mean it is an understanding. > << > +=+ I suggest that a partnership understanding requires > that the two partners shall have a common point of > reference. This may be (i) an explicit agreement; or > (ii) mutual experience, or (iii) a source* of guidance > of which they are mutually aware. [*At the point when > both partners are guided by that source, it seems to > me a partnership understanding exists and disclosure > will be called for AG : of course. One possible case is when two partners of John Roe agree to play John's system notes the first time they face eachother. And this is a straightforward case of authentic 'no agreement', and with written evidence, when said notes don't contain anything thazt might suggest what the bid meant. Perhaps we should use a kind of 70% rule here (or some other percentage) : if 70% of the player's peers are unable to derive the correct meaning of the bid when given the set of axplicit understandings, then there is no implicit understanding either. This doesn't seem too difficult to be checked by an AC. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 4 13:15:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:15:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4896C8BE.5040109@skynet.be> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <4896C8BE.5040109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4896E4DF.60307@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Robert Frick wrote: > >> Well, I think it takes two to have an understanding. Just because I have >> some thought in my head, that doesn't mean it is an understanding. (It is >> very annoying to play with a partner who thinks that if he thinkgs a bid >> has a particular meaning, then it has that particular meaning.) >> >> > > And it is very annoying if my opponents seem to have an understanding > but they hide behind "no agreement". > Herman, your slip is showing here. You don't want to see that there is a possibility that they *seem* to have an understanding, but in fact don't have. In that case, how can you say they're purposely cooncealing an agreement ? Of course, they'll need to give evidence of that, but calling them liars because they *seem* to have an understanding (your words) is a strange way to act for a TD. Regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 4 13:48:32 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:48:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c8f628$058e0f60$10aa2e20$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > ....... I believe dWS explanations are better. We have been through this before. I consider dWS illegal, period. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 14:11:22 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:11:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000d01c8f616$7c073660$1ec8403e@Mildred> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> <4896CA57.4050806@skynet.be> <000d01c8f616$7c073660$1ec8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4896F1EA.7050001@skynet.be> Grattan, there is a nuance you fail to notice: gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> > +=+ If they say 'no agreement' or 'no understanding' they > are saying they are relying on what is general bridge knowledge. NO. If they are relying on general bridge knowledge, they do have an understanding. They do not need to express this in full, by the: > This is 'knowledge and experience of matters generally known > to bridge players' within the terms of Law 40B6(a). Further But it is an understanding, so saying "no understanding" would be misnomer. If they say OTOH "no special agreements" then they have given a "full" explanation of their understandings. > explanation is unnecessary, although later of course the Director > may on occasionm rule that the understanding does not fall within that > category. Of course. I think this distinction is important. Many readers of this list equate "no agreement" with "only general knowledge". If "no agreement" is said in those terms, I concur that it is a valid and possibly correct explanation - although I would prefer it seeing written on this list as "no special agreements". But the cases in this thread are of a different nature. They concern calls which have two possible (quite distinct) meanings, neither of which is the natural one according to general bridge knowledge. I do not believe that "no agreement" is a valid response here, and I have advocated that it should generally count as MI. People who have opposed this view have all to often transcended the original boundaries of the problem by referring to "general bridge knowledge". Since this thread concerns cases where GBK does not help, those people have failed to grasp the problem set out in this thread. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 4 14:13:15 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:13:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4896E05F.4060705@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> <4894351E.9000702@ulb.ac.be> <4895E4F7.7020605@NTLworld.com> <4896E05F.4060705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4896F25B.7060605@NTLworld.com> [Alain] Basically, there are three possibilities : a) you're not 100% sure but you seem to remember what it is ; say opponents what you remember. b) you don't know ; tell it. c) you don't know but think there can be only 2 (or perhaps 3) possibilities ; that's the interesting case. In a), it might (unfrequently, I hope) happen that there will be MI and/or UI. However, you complied as best as you could with the Laws. In b), there will be more frequent UI and MI, but still more so if you try a guess. In c), the cas is borderline, and I'm ready to accept a player's claim that guessing got him less TD calls than answering he doesn't know. What we need is the matrix of gains and losses, but it can't be calculated in short time at the table. But the important part is this : 'no agreement' pertains to class a, not b ; that means you answer 'no agreement', not when you don't remember the agreement, but when you're fairly confident (or more) that there isn't any. If you stick to this, problems will be scarce - as uncommon as with other case a) explanations. [Nige2] I agree that in case (a) there is no UI in either the current or suggested protocol. Under current laws in cases (b) and (c), you always impart the UI that you don't know or are unsure. Under the suggested protocol, in cases (b) and (c) *either* (i) You guess wrong, in which case there is UI (but your misguess is treated as misinformation not UI). (ii) You guess right, in which case there is no misinformation and no UI. Incidentally, when opponents currently claim "no understanding", if you look at their hands afterwards, they usually seem to have guessed right. So, in practice, there would be little misinformation (and, at worst, about half as much UI). [Alain] Against your humble servant, last thursday, a -moderately fitted- partnership of an international expert and a reasonably good player bid as such : 1NT - 2C - 3NT. 2C was 3-step Stayman. I didn't even ask the expert what 3NT meant ; what could he answer about an impossible bid ? Obviously, it wasn't agreed upon, especially as their system explicitly mentions '3 steps'. Notice that the only right explanation, 'he has miscounted his strength : he's got 21 HCP' isn't part of any system, so that *any* guess would have been wrong. Would you have compelled the expert to give a meaning to this 3NT bid? [Nige2] Yes. [Nige1] Of course, none of this need apply to pick-up-partners or beginners playing the untrammelled (local) standard system. [Alain] What with pick-up partners who don't know the local standard ? Haven't you ever faced some Poldevain businessman passing through your town ? [Nige2] Well if you don't both know the *local* standard system, there remains the chance that you both know the *WBF* standard system. [Alain] Your arguments are worth an analysis of gain vs losses, but two things tilt the balance for me : - when I give a blind guess, pretending to know, I tell a lie. And I don't like lying to my opponents. I like even less being compelled to do it. - if you compel a player to give a guess, how are you to enforce it ? You''l quickly end with players giving absurd answers, known to their opponents to be absurd, to avoir giving UI, and you'll have to legiferate against that ; and then you'll come across the player who really doesn't know, and has too little imagination to make up an interpretation. And when he will, there will be obvious UI from his attitude. If practicality wasn't an important concern, we'd use screens and written explanations around the world. And you're suggestion isn't practical. Perhaps your idea of enforcing an explanation may work at a high level, where everybody should know what they"re playing. But in my club, no, thanks. [Nige2] In answer to your 2 main objections: - The suggested protocol doesn't "force you to *lie*". It mandates that you *guess*. Guessing is not lying. It is not even "pretending you know". At bridge, in the bidding and play, you are often forced to guess. A bid of 7S is a contract to make 13 tricks with spades as trumps. If you fail, no player will accuse you of lying. Admittedly, if you *psych*, a naive opponent might accuse you of lying. But the laws explicitly permit psyching, so there is no moral objection. - You enforce the suggested protocol by penalising failure to guess correctly, as misinformation. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 14:14:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:14:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4896E2F9.302@ulb.ac.be> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP><000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <002301c8f5c8$e7aae4a0$7fcf403e@Mildred> <4896E2F9.302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4896F2A3.7070500@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > Perhaps we should use a kind of 70% rule here (or some other percentage) > : if 70% of the player's peers are unable to derive the correct meaning > of the bid when given the set of axplicit understandings, then there is > no implicit understanding either. This doesn't seem too difficult to be > checked by an AC. > I find this rule even stranger than many proposed here before: If 70% of peers are unable to derive the correct intended meaning, and yet the partner did - that strikes to me as evidence of a partner who knows more than he is telling. I am sure that, given your 3D bid in question, it would take a long time to find the 30% of players who would be able to deduce from your 80-page book the true meaning of your call, yet your partner managed it (or vice versa). > Best regards > > Alain -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 14:15:31 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:15:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4896E4DF.60307@ulb.ac.be> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <4896C8BE.5040109@skynet.be> <4896E4DF.60307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4896F2E3.501@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Well, I think it takes two to have an understanding. Just because I have >>> some thought in my head, that doesn't mean it is an understanding. (It is >>> very annoying to play with a partner who thinks that if he thinkgs a bid >>> has a particular meaning, then it has that particular meaning.) >>> >>> >> And it is very annoying if my opponents seem to have an understanding >> but they hide behind "no agreement". >> > Herman, your slip is showing here. > > You don't want to see that there is a possibility that they *seem* to > have an understanding, but in fact don't have. In that case, how can you > say they're purposely cooncealing an agreement ? Of course, they'll > need to give evidence of that, but calling them liars because they > *seem* to have an understanding (your words) is a strange way to act for > a TD. > OTOH believing everything they tell you seems to me like a strange way to act for a responsible TD. > Regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 14:21:54 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:21:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4896E05F.4060705@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> <4894351E.9000702@ulb.ac.be> <4895E4F7.7020605@NTLworld.com> <4896E05F.4060705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4896F462.7060702@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Against your humble servant, last thursday, a -moderately fitted- > partnership of an international expert and a reasonably good player bid > as such : > 1NT - 2C - 3NT. > 2C was 3-step Stayman. > I didn't even ask the expert what 3NT meant ; what could he answer about > an impossible bid ? Obviously, it wans't agreed upon, especially as > their system explicitly mentions '3 steps'. > > Notice that the only right explanation, 'he has miscounted his strength > : he's got 21 HCP' isn't part of any system, so that *any* guess would > have been wrong. > Would you have compelled the expert to give a meaning to this 3NT bid ? > No, of course not, because the explanation by the bidder (as confirmed by his cards) would have been "I miscounted and found 21 HCP". Obviously that could not have been told by his partner, so there is no MI. But those are not the cases we are talking about. We are talking about cases like: 1D - 3C (holding hearts and spades) The truh could be "we have played ghestem before, but we have not reiterated such an agreement when we started this evening". But explaining that to opponents is too little, at least it has to be added "I'm guessing ... today". Now in cases like this there is no way I am going to rule anything else than that Ghestem is the system. You cannot rely on "hoping he's on the same wavelength" and at the same time not let your opponents know what wavelength that is. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 14:41:19 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:41:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Bayesian Statistics Message-ID: <2da24b8e0808040541y19d9414epf30ec06dbe003e01@mail.gmail.com> I don't know if my work is bleeding into my bridge or my bridge is having some kind of influence on my work; however, its becoming extremely difficult to read the recent threads regarding "Partnership Understandings" without invoking Bayesian Statistics. The following URL might be of some interest to folks http://www.stats.org.uk/bayesian/Bullard2001.pdf The PDF provides a very simple introduction to Bayesian methods which shows how Statisticians frame these types of problems. Even if you don't want to bother reading the entire paper the example that is developed on Page 2 is well worth considering. (It shouldn't be that difficult to move from the "Jumping Frog" example to a Ghestem misunderstanding or what-have-you) Richard (Currently sitting at his desk in The MathWorks wondering whether this is work related email or not) -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 4 15:14:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:14:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8f628$058e0f60$10aa2e20$@no> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> <000001c8f628$058e0f60$10aa2e20$@no> Message-ID: <489700BC.5040501@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. > >> ....... I believe dWS explanations are better. >> > > We have been through this before. > I consider dWS illegal, period. > AG : if I might hazard an answer, I think it is no more illegal than your suggestion of inventing an explanation for a bid you don't understand, i.e.: - it's some kind of a lie ; - it might be useful to avoid some problems - it might create others - the suggestion of making it legal is a minority view, but one that should encounter more consideration than "illegal, period" Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 4 15:28:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:28:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4896F25B.7060605@NTLworld.com> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> <4894351E.9000702@ulb.ac.be> <4895E4F7.7020605@NTLworld.com> <4896E05F.4060705@ulb.ac.be> <4896F25B.7060605@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <489703FF.5020002@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain] > Basically, there are three possibilities : > > a) you're not 100% sure but you seem to remember what it is ; say > opponents what you remember. > b) you don't know ; tell it. > c) you don't know but think there can be only 2 (or perhaps 3) > possibilities ; that's the interesting case. > > In a), it might (unfrequently, I hope) happen that there will be MI > and/or UI. However, you complied as best as you could with the Laws. > > In b), there will be more frequent UI and MI, but still more so if you > try a guess. > In c), the cas is borderline, and I'm ready to accept a player's claim > that guessing got him less TD calls than answering he doesn't know. > What we need is the matrix of gains and losses, but it can't be > calculated in short time at the table. > But the important part is this : 'no agreement' pertains to class a, not > b ; that means you answer 'no agreement', not when you don't remember > the agreement, but when you're fairly confident (or more) that there > isn't any. If you stick to this, problems will be scarce - as uncommon > as with other case a) explanations. > > [Nige2] > I agree that in case (a) there is no UI in either the current or > suggested protocol. Under current laws in cases (b) and (c), you always > impart the UI that you don't know or are unsure. > > Under the suggested protocol, in cases (b) and (c) *either* > (i) You guess wrong, in which case there is UI (but your misguess is > treated as misinformation not UI). > (ii) You guess right, in which case there is no misinformation and no UI. > > AG : in b), under the sensible protocol of saying 'there must be something about it but I don't know what' and letting your partner write it down (or telling while you walk away) gives UI, but less than a wrong guess (he won't know which meaning you assumed), and avoids any MI. > Notice that the only right explanation, 'he has miscounted his strength > : he's got 21 HCP' isn't part of any system, so that *any* guess would > have been wrong. Would you have compelled the expert to give a meaning > to this 3NT bid? > > [Nige2] > Yes. > > AG : but you know there is nothing in their system about that bid. So you're compelling the expert to lie, and furthermore it won't even be very helpful, especially if the bid or some former bid is just a mispull (surely a possibility). That's why I don't like your option. See below. Notice than in the cas of a mispull / miscount, the explanation 'it's impossible' will be much more helpful (and nearer the reality) than any invention. > > - The suggested protocol doesn't "force you to *lie*". It mandates that > you *guess*. Guessing is not lying. AG : you must tell opponents your system. The 3NT bid before isn't in their system. Anybody sane of mind will know that through a glance at their CC. If they pretend it has some meaning, any meaning, they're telling something else than what's in their system. Now, if you don't want to call this a lie, you can substitute any other word, but it still doesn't comply by the obligation of explaining (and sticking to explaining) your system. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 4 15:29:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:29:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4896F2E3.501@skynet.be> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <4896C8BE.5040109@skynet.be> <4896E4DF.60307@ulb.ac.be> <4896F2E3.501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4897043A.8070706@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > OTOH believing everything they tell you seems to me like a strange way > to act for a responsible TD. > > Did I really suggest that ? From emu at fwi.net.au Mon Aug 4 16:20:31 2008 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 00:20:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4896F2A3.7070500@skynet.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > Perhaps we should use a kind of 70% rule here (or some other > percentage) > : if 70% of the player's peers are unable to derive the correct meaning > of the bid when given the set of axplicit understandings, then there is > no implicit understanding either. This doesn't seem too difficult to be > checked by an AC. > I find this rule even stranger than many proposed here before: If 70% of peers are unable to derive the correct intended meaning, and yet the partner did - that strikes to me as evidence of a partner who knows more than he is telling. [Noel] So no one is EVER allowed to guess AND get it right? Sorry - I can't play a game like that... "If in doubt, bid one more" and other things like that become meaningless if you keep using these sorts of rules... From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 4 16:26:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:26:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <489700BC.5040501@ulb.ac.be> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> <000001c8f628$058e0f60$10aa2e20$@no> <489700BC.5040501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c8f63e$1c5c37b0$5514a710$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > We have been through this before. > > I consider dWS illegal, period. > > > AG : if I might hazard an answer, I think it is no more illegal than > your suggestion of inventing an explanation for a bid you don't > understand, i.e.: > - it's some kind of a lie ; > - it might be useful to avoid some problems > - it might create others > - the suggestion of making it legal is a minority view, but one that > should encounter more consideration than "illegal, period" I am definitely not suggesting that a player should invent anything; what I say is that a player should explain what he honestly believes is the understanding. And by the way: I consider "no agreement" or "not discussed" absolutely unacceptable and illegal as explanations, either you believe you know the understanding or the correct answer is: "I have no idea". (Possibly with an additional remark like "this call is not defined in our system") Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 4 16:41:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:41:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8f63e$1c5c37b0$5514a710$@no> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> <000001c8f628$058e0f60$10aa2e20$@no> <489700BC.5040501@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8f63e$1c5c37b0$5514a710$@no> Message-ID: <48971515.7040504@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> >>> We have been through this before. >>> I consider dWS illegal, period. >>> >>> >> AG : if I might hazard an answer, I think it is no more illegal than >> your suggestion of inventing an explanation for a bid you don't >> understand, i.e.: >> - it's some kind of a lie ; >> - it might be useful to avoid some problems >> - it might create others >> - the suggestion of making it legal is a minority view, but one that >> should encounter more consideration than "illegal, period" >> > > I am definitely not suggesting that a player should invent anything; what I > say is that a player should explain what he honestly believes is the > understanding. > > And by the way: I consider "no agreement" or "not discussed" absolutely > unacceptable and illegal as explanations, either you believe you know the > understanding or the correct answer is: "I have no idea". (Possibly with an > additional remark like "this call is not defined in our system") > > Now if you just wished to explain to me what's the practical difference between "not discussed" and "not defined", perhaps we might have found an agreement ;-) From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 4 17:33:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:33:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <48971515.7040504@ulb.ac.be> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> <000001c8f628$058e0f60$10aa2e20$@no> <489700BC.5040501@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8f63e$1c5c37b0$5514a710$@no> <48971515.7040504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701c8f647$6b6e22b0$424a6810$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ................. > Now if you just wished to explain to me what's the practical difference > between "not discussed" and "not defined", perhaps we might have found > an agreement ;-) I have seen arguments to use "Not discussed" as a reply to avoid disclosing "inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players". One thing is excluding "generally known inferences" from a first answer to a request for an explanation, but when players (as it has been alleged here) refuse to further clarify their explanation even when requested to do so, on the ground that the requested knowledge is "general", I prefer "I don't know" to be the only legal alternative to a full description of even alleged "general knowledge (provided he really does not know). Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 17:53:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:53:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489725E7.1020808@skynet.be> Noel & Pamela wrote: > > So no one is EVER allowed to guess AND get it right? > > Sorry - I can't play a game like that... "If in doubt, bid one more" and > other things like that become meaningless if you keep using these sorts of > rules... > Oh, you are allowed to guess, and get it right. But you are not allowed to keep your guess from the opponents. As to your third sentence, that seems to indicate you have not understood the problem. We are not talking about a bid being forcing or non-forcing, those are too close together. Nor of a bid showing 6-9 or 6-11. We are talking of a 3Cl made either on long clubs or on hearts and spades. You are not allowed to make such a call and then leave your opponents in the dark as to which one it is. And if your partner does not know, you take your medicine in the form of a MI ruling. If that means he has to guess, then he'd better also tells them his guess, since that way at least he's certain of not having to face the TD after getting it right. If he guessed wrong, no one should care how one arrives at a zero, whether through the bad guess or the MI ruling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 17:55:04 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:55:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4897043A.8070706@ulb.ac.be> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <4896C8BE.5040109@skynet.be> <4896E4DF.60307@ulb.ac.be> <4896F2E3.501@skynet.be> <4897043A.8070706@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48972658.4040201@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> OTOH believing everything they tell you seems to me like a strange way >> to act for a responsible TD. >> >> > Did I really suggest that ? Yes, in fact you did. All your writings are about the truth being told to opponents, and that being enough. But that truth is only present in the minds of two players, so the only way to accept that truth is by believing what players are saying. Most of the time they will be telling the truth, but you have, as director, no way of checking them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 4 18:02:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:02:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bayesian Statistics In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0808040541y19d9414epf30ec06dbe003e01@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0808040541y19d9414epf30ec06dbe003e01@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4897281E.8020901@skynet.be> Does Richard mean this seriously or does he simply want to show a story of a frog called Herman failing four times out of five? I resent being called a frog, just like Hercule Poirot :) richard willey wrote: > The following URL might be of some interest to folks > > http://www.stats.org.uk/bayesian/Bullard2001.pdf > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 4 18:07:57 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:07:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <489703FF.5020002@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> <4894351E.9000702@ulb.ac.be> <4895E4F7.7020605@NTLworld.com> <4896E05F.4060705@ulb.ac.be> <4896F25B.7060605@NTLworld.com> <489703FF.5020002@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4897295D.4010906@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : in b), under the sensible protocol of saying 'there must be something about it but I don't know what' and letting your partner write it down (or telling while you walk away) gives UI, but less than a wrong guess (he won't know which meaning you assumed), and avoids any MI. [Nige1] That is the "Richard Hills" Protocol and I agree that it is an excellent solution. Especially as it would hardly ever need to be implemented. As soon as it was threatened, players' memories would miraculously improve :) Unfortunately, Richard points out that it is not often applied and is currently legal only after the intervention of a director. But a small law-change and lots of publicity would correct that. Notice that it solves Alain's example of the player's "non-systemic" 3N. - *either* the 3N bid was a mistake. - *or* 3N meant something that the player hoped his partner would be able to infer from other partnership understandings. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 4 19:24:53 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:24:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <4896E05F.4060705@ulb.ac.be> References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> <4894351E.9000702@ulb.ac.be> <4895E4F7.7020605@NTLworld.com> <4896E05F.4060705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > > Against your humble servant, last thursday, a -moderately fitted- > partnership of an international expert and a reasonably good player bid > as such : > 1NT - 2C - 3NT. > 2C was 3-step Stayman. > I didn't even ask the expert what 3NT meant ; what could he answer about > an impossible bid ? Obviously, it wans't agreed upon, especially as > their system explicitly mentions '3 steps'. > > Notice that the only right explanation, 'he has miscounted his strength > : he's got 21 HCP' isn't part of any system, so that *any* guess would > have been wrong. > Would you have compelled the expert to give a meaning to this 3NT bid ? This issue was brought up elsewhere too. I can figure out that something has gone wrong. I was going to guess for a runnable minor. The point is, an expert can figure out the meaning of a bid better than a lessor player, who would probably be clueless and defend as if the 1NT opener had a normal 1NT hand. If the opponents just aren't as good as you in figuring out the meaning of your bid, it's their tough luck. So this is another good example of where "no agreement" is the correct answer. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 4 21:31:39 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:31:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000001c8f63e$1c5c37b0$5514a710$@no> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> <000001c8f628$058e0f60$10aa2e20$@no> <489700BC.5040501@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8f63e$1c5c37b0$5514a710$@no> Message-ID: <089B36F1-473F-4E0F-884B-9ADA335CCABC@starpower.net> On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >> Sven Pran a ?crit : >>> We have been through this before. >>> I consider dWS illegal, period. >>> >> AG : if I might hazard an answer, I think it is no more illegal than >> your suggestion of inventing an explanation for a bid you don't >> understand, i.e.: >> - it's some kind of a lie ; >> - it might be useful to avoid some problems >> - it might create others >> - the suggestion of making it legal is a minority view, but one that >> should encounter more consideration than "illegal, period" > > I am definitely not suggesting that a player should invent > anything; what I > say is that a player should explain what he honestly believes is the > understanding. > > And by the way: I consider "no agreement" or "not discussed" > absolutely > unacceptable and illegal as explanations, either you believe you > know the > understanding or the correct answer is: "I have no idea". (Possibly > with an > additional remark like "this call is not defined in our system") "No agreement" or "not discussed" may be unacceptable by themselves, but IMO the correct disclosure in such situations comes in the form of something like, "We have no specific agreement about this particular auction, but the agreements we do have which might be relevant to it are..." The key words in that sentence are "do" and "might". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 4 22:05:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:05:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000701c8f647$6b6e22b0$424a6810$@no> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> <000001c8f628$058e0f60$10aa2e20$@no> <489700BC.5040501@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8f63e$1c5c37b0$5514a710$@no> <48971515.7040504@ulb.ac.be> <000701c8f647$6b6e22b0$424a6810$@no> Message-ID: <0A2C00FF-1B9A-42A7-8BA5-84AB61DE9A1A@starpower.net> On Aug 4, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > ................. >> Now if you just wished to explain to me what's the practical >> difference >> between "not discussed" and "not defined", perhaps we might have >> found >> an agreement ;-) > > I have seen arguments to use "Not discussed" as a reply to avoid > disclosing > "inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters > generally > known to bridge players". > > One thing is excluding "generally known inferences" from a first > answer to a > request for an explanation, but when players (as it has been > alleged here) > refuse to further clarify their explanation even when requested to > do so, on > the ground that the requested knowledge is "general", I prefer "I > don't > know" to be the only legal alternative to a full description of > even alleged > "general knowledge (provided he really does not know). Right. If your opponents ask you a question about your methods and you know the answer you must reveal it. The mere fact that they did not know it, and had to ask, means that it is not sufficiently general to qualify as "generally known to bridge players". Arrogant experts have been known to state that it's not their job to "teach bridge" to their opponents. But when the "bridge" in question has anything to do with the methods they play, it most assuredly is. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 5 02:10:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:10:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <089B36F1-473F-4E0F-884B-9ADA335CCABC@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >"No agreement" or "not discussed" may be unacceptable by >themselves, but IMO the correct disclosure in such situations >comes in the form of something like, "We have no specific >agreement about this particular auction, but the agreements >we do have which might be relevant to it are..." The key >words in that sentence are "do" and "might". Richard Hills: I agree with "do", but I would change "might be relevant" to "are relevant". The phrase "might be" does not appear in the relevant Law, so in my opinion it is an infraction to confuse the opponents with what "might be" true or "might be" false. 2007 Law 20F1, second sentence: "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." Richard Hills: On the other hand, it is possible that two items of definitely relevant information contradict each other. But now the opponents have definitely true information that your partnership has inconsistent meta-agreements. (A classic example is an undiscussed 4NT having two inconsistent meta- agreements of being both natural and Blackwood; even the famed Meckwell partnership once failed to cross that pons asinorum.) 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 Aug 5 02:28:47 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:28:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bayesian Statistics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4897281E.8020901@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I resent being called a frog, just like Hercule Poirot :) >From the 1978 movie Death on the Nile: Mrs Van Schuyler: "You perfectly foul French upstart!" Hercule Poirot: "Belgian upstart, please, madame." :-) 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 Aug 5 03:31:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:31:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4896CB11.7040006@skynet.be> Message-ID: Niels Bohr, co-author of the Copenhagen Interpretation: "It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Law 20F5(b): "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, ***in his opinion,*** his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." Richard Hills: >>Because of the words "in his opinion", this Law seems to >>extend the Law 40 requirement to describe the _actual_ >>mutual understandings of _both_ partners with a further >>requirement for _one_ partner to describe her unilateral >>(and possibly erroneous) current _beliefs_ about the >>mutual partnership understandings. Herman De Wael: >Indeed it does! Richard Hills: Indeed it doesn't. To be more precise, this is a very limited extension of Law 40. The words "in his opinion" do not appear in Laws 20F1 and 20F2. Nor are they in Law 20F4: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." Richard Hills: Ergo ..... It is always an infraction if she is the first to misexplain her own call (if behind screens, or if the TD has used the option given by the third sentence of Law 20F1). It is always an infraction for her partner to be the first to misexplain her call. It is always an infraction to contradict her partner's explanation if "in her opinion" she believes her partner's explanation to be true. (So if both she and her partner have forgotten the system, she has not infracted Law 20F5, but her partner has still infracted Law 20F1.) Herman De Wael: >BUT: in the cases we are talking about, the player can >provide no evidence for misbid, [snip] Richard Hills: Torturing the English language. "Provide no evidence" is no way synonymous with "in his opinion". 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 Aug 5 04:09:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:09:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> Message-ID: Yogi Berra, philosopher and baseballer: "The future ain't what it used to be." Sven Pran: [big snip] >However, if such revelation on your side is a result of UI from your >partner (like missing alert, given alert or explanation from your >partner) you may not even base your further calls and play on this >revelation but must continue your actions [tiny snip] >on your own incorrect assumption! > >Regards Sven Richard Hills: I agree. 2007 Law 75A. But I disagree with the [tiny snip], which is reiterated below. Sven Pran: >(and even your explanations to opponents given before the >clarification period) 2007 Law 20F4: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." Richard Hills: The word used in Law 20F4 is "immediately". Nothing about waiting for the Clarification Period. Plus the word is "realizes", not the phrase "realizes after authorised information". Furthermore, the Law prohibiting use of unauthorised information, 2007 Law 16A3, states: "No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous). Richard Hills: The phrase used in Law 16A3 is "call or play", not "call or play or explanation". Ergo, Sven must not knowingly delay correction of Sven's own MI, no matter what source awakened Sven to Sven's MI. 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 Aug 5 06:22:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:22:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The city of Cincinnati was named after George Washington, due to the popular description of him as the American Cincinnatus. According to the legend related by the Roman historian Livy, the dictator Cincinnatus immediately resigned his authority after the crisis which required his dictatorship was over. Likewise, George Washington did not seek continued authority after the Revolutionary War was over, so Washington was _not_ the first President of the United States. Cincinnati 2000, CASE THIRTY-ONE Subject (MI): Good Inference, Bad Luck Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, 15 Mar 00, First Final Session Bd: 9 David Gurvich Dlr: North AJ2 Vul: E/W J4 AQJ6 Q432 Janet Colchamiro Mel Colchamiro K96 4 T965 A873 943 T72 T76 AJ985 Rachael Moller QT8753 KQ2 K85 K WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D (1) Pass 1S Pass 1NT(2) Pass 3S (3) Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted; could have as few as two diamonds if balanced (2) Alerted; 15-17 balanced (3) Explained as invitational The Facts: 4S made six, +480 for N/S. The opening lead was the H10. The Director was called at the end of the hand. E/W claimed they had been given MI as South appeared to have a game-forcing hand. Both North and South claimed that 3S was invitational and was intended that way. East had played a low club at trick two, expecting his partner to have the king. The Director ruled that South's hand suggested that she intended 3S as forcing and that she did not so inform the opponents before the opening lead. The contract was changed to 4S made five, +450 for N/S ([1997] Laws 47E2b, 40C and 12C2). The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. N/S both maintained that South meant her 3S bid as invitational. Further questioning revealed that South was a relatively inexperienced player with around 200 masterpoints. She stated that the soft values in her hand, which included a singleton king, in her opinion made the hand worth only an invitation. N/S also explained that the other methods available to South were to bid 2C to initiate an invitational sequence with five spades and to bid 2D to show a game-forcing hand. N/S also pointed out that if the South hand did not have the DK, the underlead of the CA would have led to the same result. The Committee Decision: The Committee allowed the table result of 4S made six, +480 for N/S, to stand. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Phil Brady, Harvey Brody, Dick Budd, Abby Heitner Directors' Ruling: 64.7% Committee's Decision: 89.3% Rich Colker, casebook editor 2000: "This case engendered hard feelings from members of the Directing staff when they learned that the Committee's decision reversed the table ruling. I believe it is important that we understand the staff's position, whether we agree with it or not, so that we may maintain a cooperative, working relationship. Several Directors described the thinking behind the ruling by explaining that N/S were a regular partnership and that the South hand with 13 HCP and a decent six-card suit was obviously a game force opposite a strong notrump - even to a beginner. That 3S was not merely invitational was further confirmed when North, holding a bare 15-HCP minimum (even with three-card spade support and a ruffing value, his hand had compensating negatives) accepted the "invitation". They believed the South hand was so out of proportion to the explanation that it was appropriate under [1997] Law 40C to assign an adjusted score based on a lack of full disclosure. In essence, they believed that if N/S had an understanding that South could be this strong and only invite, that constituted a private understanding that the opponents should have been informed of." [snip] Herman De Wael, blmler 2008: [snip] >We should not, as directors, have to rely on the possibly >self-serving statements of the players. Rather, the fact that >both players had the same idea, should count as evidence >towards there being an understanding. [snip] >All we are saying is that we do not accept as evidence, self- >serving statements from two players. You tell the story with >both players' reasoning being given. As director, you are not >"given" those reasonings, you are told them. And you don't >want to be relying on them, lest you rule against honest >people but not against cheats. The honest people deserve the >same treatment as the cheats - both being ruled against. [snip] >Isn't that the way you want bridge to be played? Richard Hills, blmler 2008: No. David Stevenson, casebook panellist 2000: "I feel you had to be there. The Director has made what looks like a terrible ruling, assuming that N/S are lying to him, based on one hand. When a hand is markedly different from an explanation there might be some case, but on this occasion South has a hand that many players would downgrade." "There is a growing feeling in North America that self-serving statements are to be ignored. This is unreasonable in many cases. When someone says they have not hesitated, everyone knows that they are quite likely to be deluding themselves when they have hesitated - but that they are not deliberately lying. This is where the self-serving idea came from (plus, of course, the minority of players who will deliberately lie for their own advantage). But when a player tells you what his basic system is, he is not making this sort of statement. Unless he is deliberately lying, he will be telling it correctly. The Director appears to have assumed that N/S were lying to him." Grattan Endicott, casebook panellist 2000: "The Director's task was to establish the pair's methods, not to sit in judgment upon the player's choice of an invitational rather than a forcing bid. This Director went far astray." 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 Aug 5 07:49:53 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:49:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:22:30 -0400, wrote: > The city of Cincinnati was named after George Washington, > due to the popular description of him as the American > Cincinnatus. > > According to the legend related by the Roman historian > Livy, the dictator Cincinnatus immediately resigned his > authority after the crisis which required his > dictatorship was over. > > Likewise, George Washington did not seek continued > authority after the Revolutionary War was over, so > Washington was _not_ the first President of the United > States. > > Cincinnati 2000, CASE THIRTY-ONE > Subject (MI): Good Inference, Bad Luck > Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, 15 Mar 00, First Final Session > > Bd: 9 David Gurvich > Dlr: North AJ2 > Vul: E/W J4 > AQJ6 > Q432 > Janet Colchamiro Mel Colchamiro > K96 4 > T965 A873 > 943 T72 > T76 AJ985 > Rachael Moller > QT8753 > KQ2 > K85 > K > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D (1) Pass 1S > Pass 1NT(2) Pass 3S (3) > Pass 4S Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Alerted; could have as few as two diamonds if balanced > (2) Alerted; 15-17 balanced > (3) Explained as invitational > > The Facts: 4S made six, +480 for N/S. The opening lead was > the H10. The Director was called at the end of the hand. > E/W claimed they had been given MI as South appeared to > have a game-forcing hand. Both North and South claimed that > 3S was invitational and was intended that way. East had > played a low club at trick two, expecting his partner to > have the king. The Director ruled that South's hand > suggested that she intended 3S as forcing and that she did > not so inform the opponents before the opening lead. The > contract was changed to 4S made five, +450 for N/S ([1997] > Laws 47E2b, 40C and 12C2). > > The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. N/S both > maintained that South meant her 3S bid as invitational. > Further questioning revealed that South was a relatively > inexperienced player with around 200 masterpoints. She > stated that the soft values in her hand, which included a > singleton king, in her opinion made the hand worth only an > invitation. N/S also explained that the other methods > available to South were to bid 2C to initiate an > invitational sequence with five spades and to bid 2D to > show a game-forcing hand. N/S also pointed out that if the > South hand did not have the DK, the underlead of the CA > would have led to the same result. > > The Committee Decision: The Committee allowed the table > result of 4S made six, +480 for N/S, to stand. > > DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff > Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Phil Brady, Harvey Brody, > Dick Budd, Abby Heitner > > Directors' Ruling: 64.7% Committee's Decision: 89.3% > > Rich Colker, casebook editor 2000: > > "This case engendered hard feelings from members of the > Directing staff when they learned that the Committee's > decision reversed the table ruling. I believe it is > important that we understand the staff's position, whether > we agree with it or not, so that we may maintain a > cooperative, working relationship. Several Directors > described the thinking behind the ruling by explaining that > N/S were a regular partnership and that the South hand with > 13 HCP and a decent six-card suit was obviously a game force > opposite a strong notrump - even to a beginner. That 3S was > not merely invitational was further confirmed when North, > holding a bare 15-HCP minimum (even with three-card spade > support and a ruffing value, his hand had compensating > negatives) accepted the "invitation". They believed the South > hand was so out of proportion to the explanation that it was > appropriate under [1997] Law 40C to assign an adjusted score > based on a lack of full disclosure. In essence, they believed > that if N/S had an understanding that South could be this > strong and only invite, that constituted a private > understanding that the opponents should have been informed > of." > > [snip] > > Herman De Wael, blmler 2008: > > [snip] > >> We should not, as directors, have to rely on the possibly >> self-serving statements of the players. Rather, the fact that >> both players had the same idea, should count as evidence >> towards there being an understanding. > > [snip] > >> All we are saying is that we do not accept as evidence, self- >> serving statements from two players. You tell the story with >> both players' reasoning being given. As director, you are not >> "given" those reasonings, you are told them. And you don't >> want to be relying on them, lest you rule against honest >> people but not against cheats. The honest people deserve the >> same treatment as the cheats - both being ruled against. > > [snip] > >> Isn't that the way you want bridge to be played? > > Richard Hills, blmler 2008: > > No. > > David Stevenson, casebook panellist 2000: > > "I feel you had to be there. The Director has made what looks > like a terrible ruling, assuming that N/S are lying to him, > based on one hand. When a hand is markedly different from an > explanation there might be some case, but on this occasion > South has a hand that many players would downgrade." > > "There is a growing feeling in North America that self-serving > statements are to be ignored. This is unreasonable in many > cases. When someone says they have not hesitated, everyone > knows that they are quite likely to be deluding themselves when > they have hesitated - but that they are not deliberately lying. > This is where the self-serving idea came from (plus, of course, > the minority of players who will deliberately lie for their own > advantage). But when a player tells you what his basic system > is, he is not making this sort of statement. Unless he is > deliberately lying, he will be telling it correctly. The > Director appears to have assumed that N/S were lying to him." > > Grattan Endicott, casebook panellist 2000: > > "The Director's task was to establish the pair's methods, not > to sit in judgment upon the player's choice of an invitational > rather than a forcing bid. This Director went far astray." I think you have the point range wrong for the no trump rebid. In Standard American, it is usually 12-14. It's not easy, but I can imagine someone deciding to invite with that hand opposite a 12-14 HCP 1NT rebid. So I can see the directors thinking that she meant it as a forcing bid, but I can see the AC point of view that it could possibly have been meant as invitational, which is probably the normal way to play that bid. No one would knowingly invite opposite a 15-17 HCP no trump. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 5 08:04:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:04:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Cincinnati appeals casebook 2000, closing remarks from the expert panellists David Stevenson, casebook panellist 2000: "Unfortunately, strange views have grown up over 'self- serving statements'. More than one Committee has said that they ignored them because they were self-serving. If this were a reasonable approach, what would be the reason to hear the evidence at all? Most things said to a Committee by both sides are self-serving. "People do not usually tell deliberate lies. The reason for reducing the weight ascribed to things that people say is not because of deliberate lies but that in many situations people will tailor their stories to benefit themselves, often deluding themselves. The most obvious example is when you ask how long a player took to think before a call. One side will tell you that they could have cooked dinner while waiting, the other side will tell you it was fractionally longer than standard but normal tempo for the player involved. Neither side is deliberately lying! "Other statements that are of doubtful value are ones about frequency of occurrences and so on. But if a player says that a bid means something and they discussed it last night, he is very unlikely to be telling anything but the truth. Committees should not discount 'self-serving statements' but merely attach whatever weight to them seems suitable." 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 Tue Aug 5 08:09:37 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:09:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> <001a01c8ed68$a7f349a0$f7d9dce0$@no> Message-ID: On 30/07/2008, 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. > What's this nonsense? Law 27 B1a: "If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination ans in the Director's opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following." This is the same as the 1997 L 27 B1a, slightly rewritten. Thus, if a player makes a insufficient 1H bid (showing 5+ hearts) he can replace this without rectification with a 2H bid (if sufficient) even if this shows 4+ hearts under L27B1a. DON'T MIX L 27B1a and L27B1b!!!! It's for a L27B1b correction the same meaning or a more precise meaning applies. When the insufficient bid and the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination are both "natural", the correction is for free. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > > > > 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! > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 5 08:50:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:50:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick suggests: >I think you have the point range wrong for the no trump >rebid. In Standard American, it is usually 12-14. Richard Hills refutes: Nope, the rebid was indeed promising 15-17 hcp. Robert Frick suggests: >It's not easy, but I can imagine someone deciding to >invite with that hand opposite a 12-14 HCP 1NT rebid. So >I can see the directors thinking that she meant it as a >forcing bid, but I can see the AC point of view that it >could possibly have been meant as invitational, which is >probably the normal way to play that bid. > >No one would knowingly invite opposite a 15-17 HCP no >trump. Rich Colker, casebook editor 2000 refutes: [snip] "I appreciate the Directing staff's position and think it is a useful perspective to bring to cases of this sort. However, I believe it was misapplied in the present case and failed to take into account other bridge-related issues. One of these is that most players below a certain experience level, as South was here, have such undeveloped hand-evaluation skills that it is difficult for us to comprehend. For example, South might have thought to herself, 'My singleton king is worthless and my suit is so weak (no ace or king, mostly low spot cards, no honor sequence or intermediates), that with only 10 working HCP opposite 15 (we need 26 for game) I'll just invite.'" [snip] Richard Hills: I agree with Rich Colker. In my opinion, the directing staff (and Robert Frick) were blinded by their own learning, due to being expert bridge players for so long that they had lost touch with how a beginner thinks. Alexander Pope (1688-1744): "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again." 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 Aug 5 09:09:56 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:09:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>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. Harald Skj?ran: >What's this nonsense? Richard Hills: What's this nonsense saying, "What's this nonsense?"? Harald Skj?ran: >DON'T MIX L 27B1a and L27B1b!!!! Richard Hills: Why not? If the insufficient bidder may use either Law 27B1(a) or Law 27B1(b) to correct the IB, it makes sense to select amongst the two Laws that which permits the sufficient call which is most descriptive. It is not compulsory for an IBer to use Law 27B1(a) merely because that Law is available. Indeed, an IBer may voluntarily choose a Law 27B2 option despite both B1(a) and B1(b) being available. And that is the non-nonsensical point by Al Levy; because an IBer has more options for better description, compared to the 1997 Law 27, it now makes more sense for the IBer's LHO to accept the IB to prevent that better description happening. 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 Tue Aug 5 09:27:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:27:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: <000701c8f647$6b6e22b0$424a6810$@no> References: <7FB8E3B247EB4E47AB9267ECB5FBA220@DESKTOP> <000301c8f57c$f03e3e60$d0babb20$@no> <000401c8f5ae$e5fc2200$b1f46600$@no> <4896C999.3090908@skynet.be> <000001c8f628$058e0f60$10aa2e20$@no> <489700BC.5040501@ulb.ac.be> <000001c8f63e$1c5c37b0$5514a710$@no> <48971515.7040504@ulb.ac.be> <000701c8f647$6b6e22b0$424a6810$@no> Message-ID: <489800E8.5050507@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > ................. > >> Now if you just wished to explain to me what's the practical difference >> between "not discussed" and "not defined", perhaps we might have found >> an agreement ;-) >> > > I have seen arguments to use "Not discussed" as a reply to avoid disclosing > "inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally > known to bridge players". > > One thing is excluding "generally known inferences" from a first answer to a > request for an explanation, but when players (as it has been alleged here) > refuse to further clarify their explanation even when requested to do so, on > the ground that the requested knowledge is "general", I prefer "I don't > know" to be the only legal alternative to a full description of even alleged > "general knowledge (provided he really does not know). > AG : well, it seems there is no more question of imposing an answer when there is none. I would accept such a rule, provided that : - "I don't know" will be considered a complete answer /a posteriori /when there is evidence that the bid was indeed undefined in their system ; - finding the right answer at the table will not discharge the AC from their duty to check that perhaps the "non-exlpanation" was right. Notice that some pairs are conscous of this possibility, sos that they have agreements, not only against such-and-such meanings of some call, but also against "I don't know". One example is this pair playing Neapolitan 1NT openings (15-17, but may go down to 13 with 5 clubs), who regularly hear as an explanation of 1NT-Double : "well, we use penalty doubles of weak notrumps, and such-and-such against strong ones, but I don't know how he considered yours". Since most pairs indeed don't have a specified meaning for their doubles of this rare range of notrumps, the explanation will be correct. This is one case where forcing opponents to specify a meaning would be useful, but at the cost of desroying the board quite often. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 5 09:31:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:31:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bayesian Statistics In-Reply-To: <4897281E.8020901@skynet.be> References: <2da24b8e0808040541y19d9414epf30ec06dbe003e01@mail.gmail.com> <4897281E.8020901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <489801EA.7040200@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Does Richard mean this seriously or does he simply want to show a > story of a frog called Herman failing four times out of five? > I think he's serious. Bayesian computation is what I used recently to argue that, when the probability that one doesn't have any agreement is high, the fact that one guessed right doesn't affect it much. It's needed whenever there are more than one possible cause to an event and you need to compute their probabilities knowing that this event occurred.. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 5 10:27:21 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:27:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] undiscussed understandings In-Reply-To: References: <200807281418.m6SEICP2013414@cfa.harvard.edu> <4891074D.4090004@nhcc.net> <48917EDE.5030407@ulb.ac.be> <000801c8f369$3d8151a0$68ce403e@Mildred> <4892DA13.1060208@ulb.ac.be> <48932D7E.6000107@ulb.ac.be> <48933D81.9000202@NTLworld.com> <48934916.7090303@ulb.ac.be> <48935B81.9000108@NTLworld.com> <4894351E.9000702@ulb.ac.be> <4895E4F7.7020605@NTLworld.com> <4896E05F.4060705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48980EE9.2010208@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick] This issue was brought up elsewhere too. I can figure out that something has gone wrong. I was going to guess for a runnable minor. The point is, an expert can figure out the meaning of a bid better than a lessor player, who would probably be clueless and defend as if the 1NT opener had a normal 1NT hand. If the opponents just aren't as good as you in figuring out the meaning of your bid, it's their tough luck. So this is another good example of where "no agreement" is the correct answer. [Nige1] - An expert like Robert might guess that partner has a runnable minor. - Alain and I might guess that partner has found an ace. - Another player with a more intimate knowledge of other partnership understandings or a few deals experience of playing with this particular partner might make a more accurate guess. I agree with Robert that if you answer "no agreement", then less experienced opponents will suffer an enormous disadvantage. I disagree that the law should simply categorise this as "tough luck". Such an attitude may accord with the *letter* of the law - especially the daft woffle about "general knowledge and experience". But I hope that it clashes with the *spirit* of disclosure law. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 5 10:47:04 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:47:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Bayesian Statistics In-Reply-To: <489801EA.7040200@ulb.ac.be> References: <2da24b8e0808040541y19d9414epf30ec06dbe003e01@mail.gmail.com> <4897281E.8020901@skynet.be> <489801EA.7040200@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48981388.7050705@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Does Richard mean this seriously or does he simply want to show a >> story of a frog called Herman failing four times out of five? >> > I think he's serious. Bayesian computation is what I used recently to > argue that, when the probability that one doesn't have any agreement is > high, the fact that one guessed right doesn't affect it much. It's > needed whenever there are more than one possible cause to an event and > you need to compute their probabilities knowing that this event occurred.. > True Alain, but who says the probability was high to start with? Especially since we don't really have a definition of what constitutes partnership understanding. When two players guess correctly, and it is because they both attach a little bit more weight to one possibility that to another, isn't there some "understanding" that the one possibility is the "system"? Bayesian reasoning can prove the opposite as well - if there is an a priori higher than 50% chance that the chosen otion is the "system", then the fact that both partners did chose this option makes the a posteriori probablility higher! And don't forget that the standard is "absence of evidence". Even if by analysis one finds that there is only a 30% probability that there is an understanding, this is no evidence that there isn't - so the director should rule that there is! IMO. > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 5 11:16:15 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:16:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8f6db$e9d21870$bd764950$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Robert Frick: > > >>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. > > Harald Skj?ran: > > >What's this nonsense? > > Richard Hills: > > What's this nonsense saying, "What's this nonsense?"? > > Harald Skj?ran: > > >DON'T MIX L 27B1a and L27B1b!!!! > > Richard Hills: > > Why not? If the insufficient bidder may use either > Law 27B1(a) or Law 27B1(b) to correct the IB, it makes > sense to select amongst the two Laws that which permits > the sufficient call which is most descriptive. > > It is not compulsory for an IBer to use Law 27B1(a) > merely because that Law is available. Indeed, an IBer > may voluntarily choose a Law 27B2 option despite both > B1(a) and B1(b) being available. > > And that is the non-nonsensical point by Al Levy; > because an IBer has more options for better description, > compared to the 1997 Law 27, it now makes more sense for > the IBer's LHO to accept the IB to prevent that better > description happening. YOU are mixing apples with oranges. " DON'T MIX L27B1a and L27B1b!!!!" Of course a player may select whether he wants to try correcting his insufficient bid under L27B1(a) or under L27B1(b). And some identical correction call can even be consistent with both laws. But the qualification under L27B1(a) is ONLY that the replacement call is a bid at the lowest legal level in the same denomination as the insufficient bid and that both bids (in the director's opinion) are natural. The qualification under L27B1(b) is much more complex. Whether a player will select L27B1(a) or L27B1(b) in a particular situation is entirely up to his own discretion; it is impossible to give a general rule on what he should find most advantageous. Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Tue Aug 5 11:21:07 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 05:21:07 EDT Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, casebook panellist 2000: "The Director's task was to establish the pair's methods, not to sit in judgment upon the player's choice of an invitational rather than a forcing bid. This Director went far astray." I wholeheartedly agree and well put. The other point one might make is that after 1D - 1S - 1NT it is completely normal to play 3S as invitational, especially if playing either checkback, in England, or perhaps new minor forcing, in America. It would be rare for a convention card to include it's meaning, but the general assumption must be that where both sides explain it the same way, that is the partnership agreement, in the absence of conflicting evidence. The North hand, with three spades rather than two, is worth an accept (especially with the male half playing it in a mixed pairs - just teasing before you shoot me down), with game very good opposite QT9xxx xx Tx AKx despite the duplication in hearts. Note also that if you swap round North's majors on the actual hand, then game needs diamonds 3-3, or the defender with 3 trumps to also have four diamonds, otherwise the defence can engineer a diamond ruff. So, South's Three Spade bid was not such an underbid after all, although I completely agree that forcing to game is the percentage action. But the ruling should not be based on how well or badly North-South bid, it should be based on how well or badly North-South explained. "This case engendered hard feelings from members of the Directing staff when they learned that the Committee's decision reversed the table ruling" Madam: How like you this ruling? Queen: The TD doth, methinks, protest too much. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 5 11:59:23 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:59:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> [richard.hills] Cincinnati 2000, CASE THIRTY-ONE Subject (MI): Good Inference, Bad Luck Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, 15 Mar 00, First Final Session Bd: 9 David Gurvich Dlr: North AJ2 Vul: E/W J4 AQJ6 Q432 Janet Colchamiro Mel Colchamiro K96 4 T965 A873 943 T72 T76 AJ985 Rachael Moller QT8753 KQ2 K85 K WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D (1) Pass 1S Pass 1NT(2) Pass 3S (3) Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted; could have as few as two diamonds if balanced (2) Alerted; 15-17 balanced (3) Explained as invitational The Facts: 4S made six, +480 for N/S. The opening lead was the H10. The Director was called at the end of the hand. E/W claimed they had been given MI as South appeared to have a game-forcing hand. Both North and South claimed that 3S was invitational and was intended that way. East had played a low club at trick two, expecting his partner to have the king. The Director ruled that South's hand suggested that she intended 3S as forcing and that she did not so inform the opponents before the opening lead. The contract was changed to 4S made five, +450 for N/S ([1997] Laws 47E2b, 40C and 12C2). The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. N/S both maintained that South meant her 3S bid as invitational. Further questioning revealed that South was a relatively inexperienced player with around 200 masterpoints. She stated that the soft values in her hand, which included a singleton king, in her opinion made the hand worth only an invitation. N/S also explained that the other methods available to South were to bid 2C to initiate an invitational sequence with five spades and to bid 2D to show a game-forcing hand. N/S also pointed out that if the South hand did not have the DK, the underlead of the CA would have led to the same result. The Committee Decision: The Committee allowed the table result of 4S made six, +480 for N/S, to stand. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Phil Brady, Harvey Brody, Dick Budd, Abby Heitner Directors' Ruling: 64.7% Committee's Decision: 89.3% [Rich Colker, casebook editor 2000] This case engendered hard feelings from members of the Directing staff when they learned that the Committee's decision reversed the table ruling. I believe it is important that we understand the staff's position, whether we agree with it or not, so that we may maintain a cooperative, working relationship. Several Directors described the thinking behind the ruling by explaining that N/S were a regular partnership and that the South hand with 13 HCP and a decent six-card suit was obviously a game force opposite a strong notrump - even to a beginner. That 3S was not merely invitational was further confirmed when North, holding a bare 15-HCP minimum (even with three-card spade support and a ruffing value, his hand had compensating negatives) accepted the "invitation". They believed the South hand was so out of proportion to the explanation that it was appropriate under [1997] Law 40C to assign an adjusted score based on a lack of full disclosure. In essence, they believed that if N/S had an understanding that South could be this strong and only invite, that constituted a private understanding that the opponents should have been informed of.[snip] [Herman De Wael, blmler 2008] [snip] We should not, as directors, have to rely on the possibly self-serving statements of the players. Rather, the fact that both players had the same idea, should count as evidence towards there being an understanding. [snip] All we are saying is that we do not accept as evidence, self- serving statements from two players. You tell the story with both players' reasoning being given. As director, you are not "given" those reasonings, you are told them. And you don't want to be relying on them, lest you rule against honest people but not against cheats. The honest people deserve the same treatment as the cheats - both being ruled against. [snip] Isn't that the way you want bridge to be played? [Richard Hills, blmler 2008] No. [David Stevenson, casebook panellist 2000] I feel you had to be there. The Director has made what looks like a terrible ruling, assuming that N/S are lying to him, based on one hand. When a hand is markedly different from an explanation there might be some case, but on this occasion South has a hand that many players would downgrade. There is a growing feeling in North America that self-serving statements are to be ignored. This is unreasonable in many cases. When someone says they have not hesitated, everyone knows that they are quite likely to be deluding themselves when they have hesitated - but that they are not deliberately lying. This is where the self-serving idea came from (plus, of course, the minority of players who will deliberately lie for their own advantage). But when a player tells you what his basic system is, he is not making this sort of statement. Unless he is deliberately lying, he will be telling it correctly. The Director appears to have assumed that N/S were lying to him. [Grattan Endicott, casebook panellist 2000] The Director's task was to establish the pair's methods, not to sit in judgment upon the player's choice of an invitational rather than a forcing bid. This Director went far astray. [Nigel] Thank you Richard. I disagree with Herman de Wael: IMO players' statements, even self-serving statements should be given *some* weight as evidence. I disagree with David Stevenson: We play Crowhurst (the original check-back convention) and I've always assumed that to be the only route with game-forcing hands. Recently, I was amazed when a regular partner told me that he would jump to the 3-level on some game-forcing hands! Before that, had I been asked, I would have misexplained our understanding. But I wouldn't have admitted to *lying*. I disagree with Grattan Endicott: IMO if a player complains that opponents have failed to fully disclose their methods, and relates that to whether, *in practice*, they treat a specific bid as invitational or forcing then that is one of the things that the director should investigate. I think the director probably got it right and the committee got it wrong: - North-South are a regular partnership. - South explains that her partner's 1N rebid shows 15-17 HCP. - South bids 3S with 6 spades and 13 HCP - North explains 3S as "invitational". - North has a quacky minimum and raises to 4S. It is *possible* that North's explanation is a firm NS agreement but is it *likely*? If this agreement is on the pair's system card or in their system notes, then the director may believe it. Otherwise, IMO, in this kind of case, the director is right to rule on the balance of probability. Furthermore "One swallow may make a summer". From Gampas at aol.com Tue Aug 5 12:09:50 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 06:09:50 EDT Subject: [blml] Partial Exposure Message-ID: Recently, in an EBU congress, I was dummy when my LHO held a card in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face. In fact I think his partner would have seen its face. However, it was clear that the declarer could not see the face, and would not be able to tell that the exposed card could be seen. Law 9A2 & 3 is clear that dummy cannot draw attention to this during the play, but what rectification can be made after the play period? Presumably the TD has to judge how play would have gone had declarer been aware of the infraction? From Gampas at aol.com Tue Aug 5 12:26:30 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 06:26:30 EDT Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 05/08/2008 11:00:15 GMT Standard Time, Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes: North has a quacky minimum and raises to 4S. [paul lamford] Have you not read Andy Robson's writings on the significance of the ninth trump? There is a huge difference between North having three spades and having two. And huge is an understatement. A simulation showed the same hand with three trumps, compared with two, getting the following results opposite an invitational hand (I used QT9xxx xx xx AJx.) a) 15-count a1) with three trumps 69% a2) with two trumps 21% b) 16-count b2) with three trumps 76% b3) with two trumps 40% c) 17-count c2) with three trumps 84% c3) with two trumps 57% And we don't care what North's motives were in bidding 4S, nor whether he was good enough to appreciate the ninth trump. It is your view that is quacky not his hand. I would have passed, as vulnerable dealer, KJx QJx QJx Qxxx before Mr Burn told me that (4 3 3 3) hands actually made more tricks than (4 4 3 2) hands according to computer simulation. That does not mean that it should be ruled that I was not playing 12-14 and the opponents had been misinformed. Just that I misassessed the playing strength of my hand. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 5 13:00:07 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:00:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> References: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <489832B7.9070306@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > > [Herman De Wael, blmler 2008] > [snip] We should not, as directors, have to rely on the possibly > self-serving statements of the players. > > [Nigel] > Thank you Richard. > > I disagree with Herman de Wael: IMO players' statements, even > self-serving statements should be given *some* weight as evidence. > Note that this does not contradict what I said. In the cases that I am talking about, there are to pieces of evidence: the fact that there is a seeming understanding, and the statement by the players that there is no understanding. OK, how much weight do you give to each? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 5 13:03:58 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:03:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> References: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <4898339E.7060908@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > > I think the director probably got it right and the committee got it wrong: > - North-South are a regular partnership. > - South explains that her partner's 1N rebid shows 15-17 HCP. > - South bids 3S with 6 spades and 13 HCP > - North explains 3S as "invitational". > - North has a quacky minimum and raises to 4S. > It is *possible* that North's explanation is a firm NS agreement but is > it *likely*? If this agreement is on the pair's system card or in their > system notes, then the director may believe it. Otherwise, IMO, in this > kind of case, the director is right to rule on the balance of > probability. Furthermore "One swallow may make a summer". > So, all in all, while Nigel diasgrees with me when I say that self-serving statements need not be counted, he then agrees with a ruling in which self-serving statements are completely ignored. In both cases, the partners agree on the deal. In my case, the players say they have no agreement - I want to rule they have an agreement, and Nigel disagrees. In this case, the players say they have an agreement - the TD rules they have a different agreement, and Nigel agrees. Nigel needs to get some consistency. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Tue Aug 5 13:28:58 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:28:58 EDT Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 05/08/2008 12:04:07 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be writes: So, all in all, while Nigel diasgrees with me when I say that self-serving statements need not be counted, he then agrees with a ruling in which self-serving statements are completely ignored. [paul lamford] I agree with you if you say that self-serving statements *need* not be counted. But that does not mean what the person has in his hand should necessarily take evidential priority over what he states a bid means. Naturally, both halves of a partnership will say the same thing, unless they are being held at separate TD stations, which is impractical. "Did you hesitate, sir?" "Not significantly". "Do you think your partner hesitated, madam?" "He always takes a little time over his bids." These are as self-serving as the statement that 3S was invitational in our example might be in another situation However, the idea that both North and South connived to attach a different meaning to 3S when asked, anticipating that East would thereby underlead an ace, is too far-fetched, which is why the original ruling was not just bad, but utterly hopeless. Occam's razor indicates that the simplest explanation is the most likely. They both thought it was invitational as they stated, and as everyone who plays any form of checkback would think. Nigel's partner who plays it as forcing despite playing checkback should be asked how he plays 3S after checkback. With the same meaning, perhaps? No, he has not thought about it - perhaps he should pay sufficient attention to the game. Let us say that a pair play 12-14 NT. Dealer miscounts his points and opens 1NT on 16. His partner judges to raise on a chunky 10 count and game is reached. The opponents misdefend. To discount the pair's statement that they are playing 12-14 would be ridiculous. Of course every so often someone will come along and agree with their partner to play a strong NT but to tell everyone they are playing weak. By the second occasion they have done this, the director will be starting to suspect them, and by the third they will be out on their ears. In such a situation "one swallow does not make a summer" is the right and balanced viewpoint. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 5 13:49:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:49:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48983E37.8000405@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Likewise, George Washington did not seek continued > authority after the Revolutionary War was over, so > Washington was _not_ the first President of the United > States. > Really ? All my sources mention him as president with n?1, 1789-1797. Who did they all forget ? > Cincinnati 2000, CASE THIRTY-ONE > Subject (MI): Good Inference, Bad Luck > Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, 15 Mar 00, First Final Session > > Bd: 9 David Gurvich > Dlr: North AJ2 > Vul: E/W J4 > AQJ6 > Q432 > Janet Colchamiro Mel Colchamiro > K96 4 > T965 A873 > 943 T72 > T76 AJ985 > Rachael Moller > QT8753 > KQ2 > K85 > K > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1D (1) Pass 1S > Pass 1NT(2) Pass 3S (3) > Pass 4S Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Alerted; could have as few as two diamonds if balanced > (2) Alerted; 15-17 balanced > (3) Explained as invitational > > > > "I feel you had to be there. The Director has made what looks > like a terrible ruling, assuming that N/S are lying to him, > based on one hand. When a hand is markedly different from an > explanation there might be some case, but on this occasion > South has a hand that many players would downgrade." > AG : I disagree. Even if you discount South's CK, the hand is worth game *facing 15-17*. No amount of downgrading would make anybody bid a nonforcing 3S facing a 1NT opener on Q10xxxx - Kxx - KQx - x. So I would need some stronger evidence than their statements. Perhaps their system notes. Then South would have to explain why she discounted, not only the CK, but also the HK. But if she tells us she forgot 1NT was 15-17 and made an invitational bid facing 12-14 *and* provides evidence that 3S is in fact invitational (not a classical treatment nowadays), then I'll accept their statements. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 5 14:03:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:03:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4898419B.5040502@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > G > > "The Director's task was to establish the pair's methods, not > to sit in judgment upon the player's choice of an invitational > rather than a forcing bid. This Director went far astray." > > I wholeheartedly agree and well put. The other point one might make is that > after 1D - 1S - 1NT it is completely normal to play 3S as invitational, > especially if playing either checkback, in England, or perhaps new minor forcing, > in America. AG : perhaps, but it would be illogical in France, Italy, or for that matter Belgium, where the checkback is used on most invitational hands and jumps are forcing. We Continentals don't want to have two sequences with the same meaning (2C + 3S and 3S). > It would be rare for a convention card to include it's meaning, > AG : Its meaning is on mine. > but the general assumption must be that where both sides explain it the same > way, that is the partnership agreement, in the absence of conflicting > evidence. AG : perhaps not if they can see that's to their interest ... I'll put it another way : South's hand is fairly strong evidence that they don't play it as invitational. Ask South's peers if needed. So, NS will have to provide some evidence that they do.And then we'll use the balance of probabilities. If they only have their declarations for them, my feeling is that the evidence provided by the hand is stronger. This doesn't take away the fact that the TD decided briskly, but my copnclusion would be his - and by the way, we're all told to judge with severity in case of doubt and then go to the AC if they want to. Best regards Alain From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Aug 5 14:32:02 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:32:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Bayesian Statistics In-Reply-To: <489801EA.7040200@ulb.ac.be> References: <2da24b8e0808040541y19d9414epf30ec06dbe003e01@mail.gmail.com> <4897281E.8020901@skynet.be> <489801EA.7040200@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0808050532p67bfcf22h7b4568a5e97de605@mail.gmail.com> On 8/5/08, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I think he's serious. Bayesian computation is what I used recently to > argue that, when the probability that one doesn't have any agreement is > high, the fact that one guessed right doesn't affect it much. It's > needed whenever there are more than one possible cause to an event and > you need to compute their probabilities knowing that this event occurred.. I was at least half serious when I posted the link about Bayesian Statistics to the mailing list. I believe that Bayesian type analytic frameworks are well well suited to many of the issues that we debate. Applying Bayesian methods requires a certain amount of rigour in the way that one structures the problem. It also requires that users are very explict about base assumptions, key parameters and the like. Used properly, this type of framework can be very useful in focusing a debate onto key issues. The reason that I am only halfway serious is that I don't believe for a moment that any of these methods would ever be applied, regardless of their merit. There is far too much inertia built into the system. The main reason that I posted this link was my belief that some folks would find it of academic interest rather than any expectation that this would lead to a substantive change. I am sad to say that the fact that there was a frog named Herman passed completely over my head. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 5 14:42:13 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:42:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48984AA5.1070704@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > > However, the idea that both North and South connived to attach a different > meaning to 3S when asked, anticipating that East would thereby underlead an > ace, is too far-fetched, which is why the original ruling was not just bad, but > utterly hopeless. Occam's razor indicates that the simplest explanation is > the most likely. They both thought it was invitational as they stated, and as > everyone who plays any form of checkback would think. AG : nope. It strongly depends on 'country culture' or 'club culture'. And, while I agree with Occam's principle, is it so obvious that 'misexplanation' is more complicated than 'strange evaluation' ? > Nigel's partner who > plays it as forcing despite playing checkback should be asked how he plays 3S > after checkback. Invitational with 6 cards, suit strong enough to make 3NT possible on quick tricks - sometinh like KQJxxx - Ax - Jx - xxx facing 12-14. This is standard French bridge. Variant : 64 majors, but it isn't very popular (you checked for hearts, then bid your spades). Best regards Alain From Gampas at aol.com Tue Aug 5 15:01:53 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:01:53 EDT Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 05/08/2008 13:42:39 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: [about how one might play 1D - 1S - 1NT - 2C - 2D - 3S] Invitational with 6 cards, suit strong enough to make 3NT possible on quick tricks - sometinh like KQJxxx - Ax - Jx - xxx facing 12-14. This is standard French bridge. [paul lamford] Really; I surveyed a couple of French players on OKbridge who both stated that the sequence was forcing. They would play 3S as the hand you give, although they would probably force with that too, but remove the jack of spades and you are about there. Anyway, it does not matter much which way round it is played. It is quite likely South had no idea what the difference between the sequences was. Then I suppose the answer is "undiscussed". But to answer "invitational" suggests some discussion. If we always ruled misinformation when players did not have their bid, and the CC is silent, we would have over a hundred rulings in one evening at our local club. Some players don't have the slightest idea what is forcing and what isn't - as the regular zeros in four of a minor testify. But they would try to answer to the best of their ability. Paul Lamford From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 5 15:30:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:30:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489855D8.9060806@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > Anyway, it does not matter much which way round it is played. It is quite > likely South had no idea what the difference between the sequences was. Then I > suppose the answer is "undiscussed". But to answer "invitational" suggests > some discussion. If we always ruled misinformation when players did not have > their bid, and the CC is silent, we would have over a hundred rulings in one > evening at our local club. Some players don't have the slightest idea what is > forcing and what isn't - as the regular zeros in four of a minor testify. But > they would try to answer to the best of their ability. > AG : please note that the requirement of the laws isn't that they answer to the best of their ability, it is that the opponents be told the system. Also notice that if the genuine answer was 'undiscussed' and North happened to bid 4S just in cas 3S was forcing, knowing that it would often have some play even when not (not at all impossible in an occasional partnership - when in doubt bid game), then 'invitational' would have been MI, probably stemming from the idea that when not knowing you should guess - as I said before, not for me. Now it boils down to what's the most probable : a - they play 3S invitational and South underbid - and then some (their claim) b - they don't know what they play, North tried to be helpful and gave MI c - they play forcing, North thought otherwise (MI) d - South misread her hand (improbable ; she would have stated it) e - they play invitational, but South minstakenly thought it was forcing (probably not here, she would have said it, but possible and no redress) In favor of a (or e in othercircumstances) we have NS's declarations In favor of b (or c) we have South's hand If it's closse (and I think it is, including on a complexity scale), we have to look for other evidence, and decide b if none. And I don't see why this is calling them liars, given that North's declaration (made in all honesty) might well have influenced South : 'you know this better than me, partner'. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 5 16:07:40 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:07:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Jassem at the bar Message-ID: <48985EAC.5030703@ulb.ac.be> In the final of a mjor (I think it was Spring Nationals), Krzysztof Jassem held the following, NV against V : AKx xx xxx KQJxx Martens Jassem 1D 1H 1S* 1NT 2C p 2H** p 2NT p 3C p p 3H ? * denies 4 spades ** game force (I think it also shows clubs, but I'm not sure) I suppose there were screens ; but anyway 2H wans't alertable (self-alerting). Now Jassem, with every sign of a possible psyche (everybody bidding, vulnerability, partner passing in GF situation), decided there had been a misunderstanding, and carried the partnership to game. The fact that he didn't score well doesn't come from this (although it went down one), but from morbid overbidding by his teammates. My feeling is that, if in this case a psyche isn't the most plausible explanation, then in the former case about 1D 1S 1NT 2D (where there was less opposing bidding and equal vulnerability), it won't even be a LA. Well, I've always thought so. But here is an enlightened testimony. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 5 16:15:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:15:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 5, 2008, at 3:09 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert Frick: > >>> 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. > > Harald Skj?ran: > >> What's this nonsense? > > Richard Hills: > > What's this nonsense saying, "What's this nonsense?"? > > Harald Skj?ran: > >> DON'T MIX L 27B1a and L27B1b!!!! > > Richard Hills: > > Why not? If the insufficient bidder may use either > Law 27B1(a) or Law 27B1(b) to correct the IB, it makes > sense to select amongst the two Laws that which permits > the sufficient call which is most descriptive. > > It is not compulsory for an IBer to use Law 27B1(a) > merely because that Law is available. Indeed, an IBer > may voluntarily choose a Law 27B2 option despite both > B1(a) and B1(b) being available. > > And that is the non-nonsensical point by Al Levy; > because an IBer has more options for better description, > compared to the 1997 Law 27, it now makes more sense for > the IBer's LHO to accept the IB to prevent that better > description happening. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that if an IBer has a L27B1(a) correction available, he may elect to make it. It doesn't matter whether the same call could have been made as a L27B1(b) correction (which need not even be ascertained), nor does it matter whether he has a "more descriptive" L27B1(b) correction available. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 5 16:27:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:27:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <489832B7.9070306@skynet.be> References: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> <489832B7.9070306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <81A9AC05-0223-4E31-B669-D970E4A3FF16@starpower.net> On Aug 5, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Guthrie wrote: >> >> [Herman De Wael, blmler 2008] >> [snip] We should not, as directors, have to rely on the possibly >> self-serving statements of the players. >> >> [Nigel] >> Thank you Richard. >> >> I disagree with Herman de Wael: IMO players' statements, even >> self-serving statements should be given *some* weight as evidence. >> > > Note that this does not contradict what I said. > In the cases that I am talking about, there are to pieces of evidence: > the fact that there is a seeming understanding, and the statement by > the players that there is no understanding. > OK, how much weight do you give to each? "The fact that there is a seeming understanding" is simply restating the hypothesis to be evaluated given the evidence. You do not, logically, evaluate hypotheses by including them in your premises and "weighting" them as such. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 5 16:35:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:35:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <4898339E.7060908@skynet.be> References: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> <4898339E.7060908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0B5F2286-CDAB-43C5-89AF-1EC2E185CEE3@starpower.net> On Aug 5, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Guthrie wrote: > >> I think the director probably got it right and the committee got >> it wrong: >> - North-South are a regular partnership. >> - South explains that her partner's 1N rebid shows 15-17 HCP. >> - South bids 3S with 6 spades and 13 HCP >> - North explains 3S as "invitational". >> - North has a quacky minimum and raises to 4S. >> It is *possible* that North's explanation is a firm NS agreement >> but is >> it *likely*? If this agreement is on the pair's system card or in >> their >> system notes, then the director may believe it. Otherwise, IMO, in >> this >> kind of case, the director is right to rule on the balance of >> probability. Furthermore "One swallow may make a summer". > > So, all in all, while Nigel diasgrees with me when I say that > self-serving statements need not be counted, he then agrees with a > ruling in which self-serving statements are completely ignored. > > In both cases, the partners agree on the deal. > In my case, the players say they have no agreement - I want to rule > they have an agreement, and Nigel disagrees. > In this case, the players say they have an agreement - the TD rules > they have a different agreement, and Nigel agrees. > > Nigel needs to get some consistency. It is nonsense to say that Nigel "completely ignored" anything. Nigel weighed the evidence from the players' statements against the evidence from the player's actual holdings, and made a valid decision based on the "preponderance of the evidence". One may disagree with his conclusion, but his coming to the same conclusion Herman would does not imply that he did so by the same illogical (and illegal) reasoning. There is a difference between "counted" and "accepted as conclusive". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 5 16:42:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:42:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <48984AA5.1070704@ulb.ac.be> References: <48984AA5.1070704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 5, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > >> However, the idea that both North and South connived to attach a >> different >> meaning to 3S when asked, anticipating that East would thereby >> underlead an >> ace, is too far-fetched, which is why the original ruling was not >> just bad, but >> utterly hopeless. Occam's razor indicates that the simplest >> explanation is >> the most likely. They both thought it was invitational as they >> stated, and as >> everyone who plays any form of checkback would think. > > AG : nope. It strongly depends on 'country culture' or 'club culture'. > > And, while I agree with Occam's principle, is it so obvious that > 'misexplanation' is more complicated than 'strange evaluation' ? "Misexplanation" may not be "more complicated" than "strange evaluation", but "coordinated deliberate misexplanation by both members of the partnership" surely is. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 5 16:43:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:43:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <489855D8.9060806@ulb.ac.be> References: <489855D8.9060806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4898671E.3010105@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : >> Anyway, it does not matter much which way round it is played. It is quite >> likely South had no idea what the difference between the sequences was. Then I >> suppose the answer is "undiscussed". But to answer "invitational" suggests >> some discussion. If we always ruled misinformation when players did not have >> their bid, and the CC is silent, we would have over a hundred rulings in one >> evening at our local club. Some players don't have the slightest idea what is >> forcing and what isn't - as the regular zeros in four of a minor testify. But >> they would try to answer to the best of their ability. >> > AG : please note that the requirement of the laws isn't that they answer > to the best of their ability, it is that the opponents be told the system. > > Also notice that if the genuine answer was 'undiscussed' and North > happened to bid 4S just in cas 3S was forcing, knowing that it would > often have some play even when not (not at all impossible in an > occasional partnership - when in doubt bid game), then 'invitational' > would have been MI, probably stemming from the idea that when not > knowing you should guess - as I said before, not for me. > > Now it boils down to what's the most probable : > > a - they play 3S invitational and South underbid - and then some (their > claim) > b - they don't know what they play, North tried to be helpful and gave MI > c - they play forcing, North thought otherwise (MI) > d - South misread her hand (improbable ; she would have stated it) > e - they play invitational, but South minstakenly thought it was forcing > (probably not here, she would have said it, but possible and no redress) > > In favor of a (or e in othercircumstances) we have NS's declarations > In favor of b (or c) we have South's hand > > If it's closse (and I think it is, including on a complexity scale), we > have to look for other evidence, and decide b if none. > > And I don't see why this is calling them liars, given that North's > declaration (made in all honesty) might well have influenced South : > 'you know this better than me, partner'. > Not having analysed the hand myself previously, I may have formed a wrong opinion of this case - but Alain's analysis convinces me that the TD got it right and the AC wrong. Well, maybe the AC did find other evidence. Which leaves me with justone remark - how is this ruling different from the ones we have been discussing this past week? > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 5 17:52:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:52:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: References: <48984AA5.1070704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48987750.90308@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 5, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : >> >> >>> However, the idea that both North and South connived to attach a >>> different >>> meaning to 3S when asked, anticipating that East would thereby >>> underlead an >>> ace, is too far-fetched, which is why the original ruling was not >>> just bad, but >>> utterly hopeless. Occam's razor indicates that the simplest >>> explanation is >>> the most likely. They both thought it was invitational as they >>> stated, and as >>> everyone who plays any form of checkback would think. >>> >> AG : nope. It strongly depends on 'country culture' or 'club culture'. >> >> And, while I agree with Occam's principle, is it so obvious that >> 'misexplanation' is more complicated than 'strange evaluation' ? >> > > "Misexplanation" may not be "more complicated" than "strange > evaluation", but "coordinated deliberate misexplanation by both > members of the partnership" surely is. > > AG : is it ? When North explains 3S as nonforcing, it doesn't take any other incentive to South to say the same. Especially if he knows it will help his side. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 5 17:59:50 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:59:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4898671E.3010105@skynet.be> References: <489855D8.9060806@ulb.ac.be> <4898671E.3010105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <489878F6.2040202@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain's analysis convinces me that > the TD got it right and the AC wrong. Well, maybe the AC did find > other evidence. > > Which leaves me with justone remark - how is this ruling different > from the ones we have been discussing this past week? > > AG : in my opinion, it isn't. In all cases, you'll have to decide which explanation of the events has the most convincing evidence going for it. I don't want TDs deciding MI without checking evidence - my comment on some former cases. I don't want TDs finding no evidence and giving the explanator the benefit of doubt - my comment now. But those tw comments are compatible - at least I hope : I want TDs checking evidence, and agree with the explanator only if there are good reasons to do it. Is it so exotic ? By the way, Herman, what do you think of KP's appointment ? Seems right to me. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 5 19:03:09 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:03:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <81A9AC05-0223-4E31-B669-D970E4A3FF16@starpower.net> References: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> <489832B7.9070306@skynet.be> <81A9AC05-0223-4E31-B669-D970E4A3FF16@starpower.net> Message-ID: <489887CD.8010505@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 5, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Guthrie wrote: >>> [Herman De Wael, blmler 2008] >>> [snip] We should not, as directors, have to rely on the possibly >>> self-serving statements of the players. >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> Thank you Richard. >>> >>> I disagree with Herman de Wael: IMO players' statements, even >>> self-serving statements should be given *some* weight as evidence. >>> >> Note that this does not contradict what I said. >> In the cases that I am talking about, there are to pieces of evidence: >> the fact that there is a seeming understanding, and the statement by >> the players that there is no understanding. >> OK, how much weight do you give to each? > > "The fact that there is a seeming understanding" is simply restating > the hypothesis to be evaluated given the evidence. You do not, > logically, evaluate hypotheses by including them in your premises and > "weighting" them as such. > > Look here Eric, it's all good and well to insist that one needs to look at all the evidence, but we are talking here (or at least I am) of caases that have a lot of things in common: - a pick-up partnership, with some agreements, but not complete; - a bid made by one of them, which in their common background can have two very different meanings, both known to and played by both of them; - no clear meta-agreement available to distinguish which one it should be; - enough previous history to make both agreements possible between them; - a hand that clearly shows which of the two agreements the bidder intended - completely unsuitable moreover for the other agreement; - an action by responder that also clearly shows which of the two agreements the responder chose; Should I add more? Now make a ruling - when both "apparently agree"; disagree. - when responder reveals his guess; when he says "no agreement". There is no need to go into any other cases, there is no need to say "you have to look at all the evidence". I have given you all the evidence that is available. Now make a ruling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 5 19:05:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:05:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <489878F6.2040202@ulb.ac.be> References: <489855D8.9060806@ulb.ac.be> <4898671E.3010105@skynet.be> <489878F6.2040202@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4898886E.9000903@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > By the way, Herman, what do you think of KP's appointment ? Seems right > to me. > Two Belgians talking cricket seems a bit off-topic to me. It was true Vaughan had to go - as batsman, not necessarily as captain. I don't think KP is a good choice for captain though. Too flamboyant. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 5 19:14:50 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:14:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4898339E.7060908@skynet.be> References: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> <4898339E.7060908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48988A8A.2050608@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] So, all in all, while Nigel diasgrees with me when I say that self-serving statements need not be counted, he then agrees with a ruling in which self-serving statements are completely ignored. In both cases, the partners agree on the deal. In my case, the players say they have no agreement - I want to rule they have an agreement, and Nigel disagrees. In this case, the players say they have an agreement - the TD rules they have a different agreement, and Nigel agrees. Nigel needs to get some consistency. [Nigel] I believe I'm consistent *here*. I think: the director should listen to NS's self-serving statements and give them some weight. IMO there are facts that undermine those claims and they have *more* weight. And the director should rule on his judgement of the balance of probability. I don't value intransigence *in general*. I sometimes publicly change my opinion in the light of new facts and arguments. I regard that as a strength not a weakness. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 5 19:30:18 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:30:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48988E2A.70806@NTLworld.com> [Gampas] And we don't care what North's motives were in bidding 4S, nor whether he was good enough to appreciate the ninth trump. It is your view that is quacky not his hand. [Nige1] Perhaps the director should care. Opposite North's 15-17 HCP notrump rebid, South bids 3S, explained by North as an "invitational" bid. IMO that implies that there exist 15-16 HCP hands, on which North would pass. But I concede Gampas point that this may not be one of them. My main problem is believing that South deliberately made a non-forcing bid, knowing that, at worst, the partnership had a combined 8-card fit and 28 HCP. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 5 20:23:37 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:23:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <489887CD.8010505@skynet.be> References: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> <489832B7.9070306@skynet.be> <81A9AC05-0223-4E31-B669-D970E4A3FF16@starpower.net> <489887CD.8010505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6CE119E8-1B22-4695-94F1-E4EB9348BD20@starpower.net> On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Aug 5, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Note that this does not contradict what I said. >>> In the cases that I am talking about, there are to pieces of >>> evidence: >>> the fact that there is a seeming understanding, and the statement by >>> the players that there is no understanding. >>> OK, how much weight do you give to each? >> >> "The fact that there is a seeming understanding" is simply restating >> the hypothesis to be evaluated given the evidence. You do not, >> logically, evaluate hypotheses by including them in your premises and > > it's all good and well to insist that one needs to look at all the > evidence, but we are talking here (or at least I am) of caases that > have a lot of things in common: > [1] - a pick-up partnership, with some agreements, but not complete; > [2] - a bid made by one of them, which in their common background > can have > two very different meanings, both known to and played by both of them; > [3] - no clear meta-agreement available to distinguish which one it > should be; > [4] - enough previous history to make both agreements possible > between them; > [5] - a hand that clearly shows which of the two agreements the bidder > intended - completely unsuitable moreover for the other agreement; > [6] - an action by responder that also clearly shows which of the two > agreements the responder chose; > Should I add more? > Now make a ruling [Numbering added to Herman's bullet points.] If I believe #1-4, as stipulated, then the a priori probability of the partnership agreeing at #5-6 is 50%, and the fact that they did so provides no evidence or indication whatsoever of anything beyond coincidence. The only available evidence that means anything comes from the self-serving assertions of the players involved, so, ultimately, I can only rule based on my conclusions as to their credibility. It would be an egregious dereliction of my duty as a TD to avoid investigating that question by presuming a priori that their statements were to be ignored -- or, for that matter, to be accepted. Herman's fallacy lies in his challenge to "now make a ruling", which suggests that he has given me the information on which I can do so legitimately. Imagine that he had added either (a) "after talking to the players, I am convinced that they are being entirely forthcoming and truthful", or (b) "after talking to the players, I am convinced that there is more to the story than they are telling me". Does anyone out there, except Herman, really expect me to give the same answer in either case? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 6 00:12:04 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:12:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is eight years old and may no reflect David Stevenson's current opinions. I will react to what was said then. On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:04:33 -0400, wrote: > Cincinnati appeals casebook 2000, closing remarks from > the expert panellists > > David Stevenson, casebook panellist 2000: > > "Unfortunately, strange views have grown up over 'self- > serving statements'. More than one Committee has said > that they ignored them because they were self-serving. > If this were a reasonable approach, what would be the > reason to hear the evidence at all? I think this is an excellent point. You should only solicit an unverifiable potentially-self-serving report when it might influence your judgment. Otherwise, you make it look like you think they are lying. (Example, they claim that they meant to double, not bid 1H (on the auction 1C - 1S - 1H. Don't ask them about slips of the fingers. It wasn't a slip of the finger. If you ask, they think you can be convinced. When you are not, they think you thought they were lying.) > Most things said to > a Committee by both sides are self-serving. I would distinguish self-serving unverifiable reports from self-serving verifiable reports. If I say I didn't put my card on the table, that is self-serving, but the opponents are there, to contradict my claim and to know I am a liar. Lying about verifiable claims is not profitable. It is completely different when there is no way to verify the claim. > > "People do not usually tell deliberate lies. If it becomes the policy of directors to accept all lies, and if the players can perceive it, then they will lie too. > The reason > for reducing the weight ascribed to things that people > say is not because of deliberate lies but that in many > situations people will tailor their stories to benefit > themselves, often deluding themselves. The most obvious > example is when you ask how long a player took to think > before a call. One side will tell you that they could > have cooked dinner while waiting, the other side will > tell you it was fractionally longer than standard but > normal tempo for the player involved. Neither side is > deliberately lying! That is just one reason. You also try to avoid procedures that reward liars and punish honest people. > > "Other statements that are of doubtful value are ones > about frequency of occurrences and so on. But if a > player says that a bid means something and they > discussed it last night, he is very unlikely to be > telling anything but the truth. Well, I can discuss one bid with my partner before the game and then he can forget it on the second round. > Committees should not > discount 'self-serving statements' but merely attach > whatever weight to them seems suitable." Can't tell the difference between these two choices. I will pick the second one -- try to ignore them whenever possible. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 6 00:36:09 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:36:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:50:53 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick suggests: > >> I think you have the point range wrong for the no trump >> rebid. In Standard American, it is usually 12-14. > > Richard Hills refutes: > > Nope, the rebid was indeed promising 15-17 hcp. > > Robert Frick suggests: > >> It's not easy, but I can imagine someone deciding to >> invite with that hand opposite a 12-14 HCP 1NT rebid. So >> I can see the directors thinking that she meant it as a >> forcing bid, but I can see the AC point of view that it >> could possibly have been meant as invitational, which is >> probably the normal way to play that bid. >> >> No one would knowingly invite opposite a 15-17 HCP no >> trump. > > Rich Colker, casebook editor 2000 refutes: > > [snip] > > "I appreciate the Directing staff's position and think it > is a useful perspective to bring to cases of this sort. > However, I believe it was misapplied in the present case > and failed to take into account other bridge-related > issues. One of these is that most players below a certain > experience level, as South was here, have such undeveloped > hand-evaluation skills that it is difficult for us to > comprehend. For example, South might have thought to > herself, 'My singleton king is worthless and my suit is so > weak (no ace or king, mostly low spot cards, no honor > sequence or intermediates), that with only 10 working HCP > opposite 15 (we need 26 for game) I'll just invite.'" > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Rich Colker. In my opinion, the directing > staff (and Robert Frick) were blinded by their own > learning, due to being expert bridge players for so long > that they had lost touch with how a beginner thinks. Funny. Rich Colker is completely clueless as to how beginners think. I taught beginners once a week last year. They don't re-evaluate hands based on the location of the honors. They are not even close. The chance of a beginner opening an 18 HCP hand with 1NT (showing 15-17) is fairly good, but that is only because the beginner doesn't know how to show 18 HCP. Or they are afraid of getting too high. The chance of them opening 18 HCP hand because of "soft values" is zero. It takes a very good player to open a bad 18 HCP hand 1NT (15-17). Of course, we are talking about the equivalent of opening a 20 HCP hand 1NT (15-17). There is no such thing. So the problem is this. To explain the 3S as invitational, you need to postulate a raw beginner with no evalauation skills using the skills of an expert. Let's talk about the people I play with every day, neither experts nor beginners. They have limited skills to re-evaluate a hand. They can do it, on occasion. (My partner can upgrade his hand to open 1NT with 14 HCP but he cannot downgrade it to go the other way.) But it is just a little adjustment. I am pretty sure that no one invites with that hand. Not to mention that he is supposed to be an expert -- she pays him the big bucks to bring home those 28 HCP games. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 6 02:03:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:03:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48983E37.8000405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Likewise, George Washington did not seek continued authority >>after the Revolutionary War was over, so Washington was _not_ >>the first President of the United States. Alain Gottcheiner: >Really ? All my sources mention him as president with n?1, >1789-1797. Who did they all forget ? President Samuel Huntington, (March 1, 1781 - July 8, 1781) President Thomas McKean, (July 9, 1781 - November 4, 1781) President John Hanson, (November 5, 1781 - November 3, 1782) President Elias Boudinot, (November 4, 1782 - November 2, 1783) President Thomas Mifflin, (November 3, 1783 - October 31, 1784) President Richard Henry Lee, (November 30, 1784 - November 6, 1785) President John Hancock*, (November 23, 1785 - May 29, 1786) President Nathaniel Gorman, (June 6, 1786 - November 5, 1786) President Arthur St. Clair, (February 2, 1787 - November 4, 1787) President Cyrus Griffin, (January 22, 1788 - November 2, 1788) President George Washington, (April 30, 1789 - March 4, 1797) * During the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin was famously (but perhaps apocryphally) alleged to have told his revolutionary comrades: "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Another apocryphal story about the signing is that John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence with a large and elaborate signature so that "King George could read it without his spectacles". This myth gained such currency that the American colloquial term for a signature is a "John Hancock", hence the name of a recently released popular movie. 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 Aug 6 02:51:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:51:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, casebook panellist 2000: "The Director's task was to establish the pair's methods, not to sit in judgment upon the player's choice of an invitational rather than a forcing bid. This Director went far astray." Richard Hills, blmler 6th August 2008: But were the opponents entitled to have known about the North- South "mutual experience or awareness" (Law 40A1(a)) that the South member of the partnership was a beginner? John (MadDog) Probst, blmler 4th May 2005: As I mentioned, I had a game in Toronto at Kate B-somethings's with she-who-must-be-obeyed. Mise en scene: LHO male mid 30's, RHO dowager witch. I'm in 4S on a 5 bid auction. He rises SA when I lead from hand. He looked ok, so I said "How many master points have you got?". "About as many as you if you ask the question!" So the discussion went on very happily for a while, and eventually I played the hand out per the percentages which was correct. At the end SWMBO looked vacant and DW asked "Why did you take so long over a routine hand?". Happily LHO said "The Limey and I were having a joke" which seemed to shut her up. Was my question illegal? (since I was trying to elicit whether it was her pro getting paid, or her son being kind) His answer told me fwiw. cheers John 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 Aug 6 03:26:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:26:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8f6db$e9d21870$bd764950$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >YOU are mixing apples with oranges. "DON'T MIX L27B1a and L27B1b!!!!" [snip] >Whether a player will select L27B1(a) or L27B1(b) in a particular >situation is entirely up to his own discretion; it is impossible to >give a general rule on what he should find most advantageous. Richard Hills: We seem to be in agreement. That is, we are both mixing bananas with bananas. Compared to the 1997 Law 27, the 2007 Law 27 gives the IBer more discretion to select a call which both describes the IBer's hand and also does not bar the IBer's partner from the auction. So if in the auction 1C - (1S) - 1H both 2H and a negative double are respectively allowable under Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b), it may make sense for the LHO of the IBer to cut the Gordian Knot by accepting the IB of 1H under Law 27A. That way the 1C opener will remain in the dark as to whether the IBer holds 10+ hcp and 5+ hearts (a Law 27B1(a) replacement call of 2H) or whether the IBer holds 6+ hcp and 4+ hearts (a Law 27B1(b) replacement call of a negative double). What's the problem? 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 Aug 6 04:00:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Partial Exposure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >Recently, in an EBU congress, I was dummy when my LHO held a card in a >position in which his partner could possibly see its face. In fact I >think his partner would have seen its face. Law 49: "Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender's concession." Paul Lamford: >However, it was clear that the declarer could not see the face, and >would not be able to tell that the exposed card could be seen. > >Law 9A2 & 3 is clear that dummy cannot draw attention to this during >the play, but what rectification can be made after the play period? Law 42B3 - Dummy's Rights - Qualified Rights "Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations stated in Law 43. He may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded." Paul Lamford: >Presumably the TD has to judge how play would have gone had declarer >been aware of the infraction? Richard Hills: Declarer's awareness of the infraction is not relevant. The question is whether the infraction in and of itself caused damage. Law 12B1: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b)." Richard Hills: The defenders failing to draw attention to their partially exposed card is not an infraction - Law 9A2 contains the word "may", plus Law 72B2 states: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2)." So if I was TD, the only possible adjustment I might make would be a Law 16 adjustment, if and only if the partially exposed card provided useful information to the other defender. 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 Aug 6 07:43:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:43:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4898419B.5040502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael, blml 2nd June 2008: [big snip] Who is to say your story was the first time this happened, and not the second one, when after the first such occurrence you decided on the new point ranges, but forgot to change the system notes and forgot to tell this to the opponents? Of course I would never imagine that any player could actually do this, but isn't it better to just rule that he could have? Richard Hills: If "never imagine", then that possibility has little weight in the scales of justice, while the verbal "easy to imagine as correct" self-serving story has greater weight (as per David Stevenson's 2000 advice). Ergo, the 2007 Law 85A "balance of probabilities" requires the TD to assume that a credible story is true (although, of course, an incredible story may be ruled false, e.g. an EBU player attempting to blarney his way out of a clearcut "Red Psyche" ruling). Alain Gottcheiner: [big snip] and by the way, we're all told to judge with severity in case of doubt and then go to the AC if they want to. Richard Hills: Not any more. Edgar Kaplan's 1980s recommendation that a TD should automatically rule "with severity" against the (apparent) offending side was reversed in the WBF CoP. And that reversal was also reiterated later in the 2007 "balance of probabilities" version of Law 85. WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of evidence presented. For this reason the Director must inform the committee if a ruling in favour of the non-offending side reflects a margin of doubt that continues to exist after the appropriate consultation procedure." William Schoder ("Kojak"), blml 13th September 2005: It's refreshing to find anyone interpreting in the Laws as they exist, without of what "I'd rather have." I think that BLML, with its frailties, would be better served if we looked at what applies, how to rule, and then reserve comments about what we think the law should perhaps differently to handle extant procedure. I can't for a moment believe that the organizations that have Mr. Herman de Wael in any official capacity would allow him to deviate from the Laws because he demanded his interpretations to be the correct ones. Although, I do have to admit that there are times, rare as they are, when he gets the Laws right. Sorry that it is so little. But then my knowledge of European Bridge Politics is limited. [snip] I find arguments in BLML mostly posturing, ego satisfying, and nit-picking. The ubiquitous posters, for the most part, are not in the least interested in getting the game "right" but rather in impressing all of us with their erudition and ability to "lawyer" the language. And that goes for some rather highly placed laws officials who seem to have the idea that their position assures them with certain inalienable abilities to be the only ones who know what is right. It also applies the those whose participation must be indicative of their ability to have the time and inclination to show us how brilliant they are, as silly as their posts may be....... I've looked my previous words over with care to make sure that I am not talking about those who would like to know what to do and hopefully have not included them in my critical comments. For the rest, I remain singularly unimpressed ........ (that's supposed to soften disagreement and enhance collegiality) ......... Kojak, without any personal agendas. Luv ya' all, (mostly used for family only) kojak Best wishes Richard James Hills Nit-picking silly savant -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Aug 6 08:00:11 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:00:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000001c8f6db$e9d21870$bd764950$@no> Message-ID: On 06/08/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Sven Pran: > > >YOU are mixing apples with oranges. "DON'T MIX L27B1a and L27B1b!!!!" > > [snip] > > >Whether a player will select L27B1(a) or L27B1(b) in a particular > >situation is entirely up to his own discretion; it is impossible to > >give a general rule on what he should find most advantageous. > > Richard Hills: > > We seem to be in agreement. That is, we are both mixing bananas with > bananas. > > Compared to the 1997 Law 27, the 2007 Law 27 gives the IBer more > discretion to select a call which both describes the IBer's hand and > also does not bar the IBer's partner from the auction. > > So if in the auction 1C - (1S) - 1H both 2H and a negative double are > respectively allowable under Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b), it may make > sense for the LHO of the IBer to cut the Gordian Knot by accepting the > IB of 1H under Law 27A. > > That way the 1C opener will remain in the dark as to whether the IBer > holds 10+ hcp and 5+ hearts (a Law 27B1(a) replacement call of 2H) or > whether the IBer holds 6+ hcp and 4+ hearts (a Law 27B1(b) replacement > call of a negative double). > > What's the problem? There's no problem at all with the above. What WAS the problem at the point I entered the discussion was that it seemed like L27B1a was non-existent. And that corrections under that law was impossible. :-) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 6 09:44:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:44:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48988A8A.2050608@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: >>>So, all in all, while Nigel disagrees with me when I say that self- >>>serving statements need not be counted, he then agrees with a >>>ruling in which self-serving statements are completely ignored. [snip] >>>Nigel needs to get some consistency. Nigel Guthrie refutes Herman: >I believe I'm consistent *here*. I think: the director should listen >to NS's self-serving statements and give them some weight. IMO there >are facts that undermine those claims and they have *more* weight. Eric Landau also refutes Herman: >>There is a difference between "counted" and "accepted as conclusive". Nigel Guthrie continues to refute Herman: >And the director should rule on his judgement of the balance of >probability. Richard Hills additionally refutes Herman: Not rule on his judgement of what Law 85 ought to say in 2018. Nor rule according to his personal dictionary which apparently tortures the English language by defining "verbal evidence" as "not evidence". Nigel Guthrie once again refutes Herman: >I don't value intransigence *in general*. I sometimes publicly change >my opinion in the light of new facts and arguments. I regard that as a >strength not a weakness. W.S. Gilbert, "The Mikado", operatically refutes Herman: Our great De Wael, virtuous man, When he to rule our land began, Resolved to try A plan whereby Young men might best be steadied. So he decreed, in words succinct, That all who flirted, leered or winked (Unless connubially linked), Should forthwith be beheaded. And I expect you'll all agree That he was right to so decree. And I am right, And you are right, And all is right as right can be! Richard Hills commends Herman: I am merely criticising (most of) Herman De Wael's interpretations of the Lawbook. Herman shows excellent judgement in critiquing the appointment of Kevin Pietersen as captain of the English cricket team. Note that Ian Botham's critical part in winning the 1981 Ashes series for England, despite trailing 0-1 with one draw, happened _after_ Botham resigned as captain. 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 Wed Aug 6 10:29:36 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:29:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > I am merely criticising (most of) Herman De Wael's interpretations of the > Lawbook. Herman shows excellent judgement in critiquing the appointment > of Kevin Pietersen as captain of the English cricket team. Note that Ian > Botham's critical part in winning the 1981 Ashes series for England, > despite trailing 0-1 with one draw, happened _after_ Botham resigned as > captain. > I was going to make the analogy with Botham's captaincy then thought there might be too many Americans on the list who wouldn't have a clue who we were talking about. As to the laws discussion - I think most of you don't understand what I am trying to do - I am looking at a fairly common situation, and tell you how we should deal with that. Your comments are dismissive, not because you think I am wrong, but because I am categoric - you accuse me of not listening to all the evidence. I believe that the cases I am talking about do not have any further evidence, so IMO I am looking at _all_ the available evidence. Do you think my rulings are wrong in that light? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 6 10:36:04 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:36:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <6CE119E8-1B22-4695-94F1-E4EB9348BD20@starpower.net> References: <4898247B.6000404@NTLworld.com> <489832B7.9070306@skynet.be> <81A9AC05-0223-4E31-B669-D970E4A3FF16@starpower.net> <489887CD.8010505@skynet.be> <6CE119E8-1B22-4695-94F1-E4EB9348BD20@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48996274.2030706@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> On Aug 5, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> Note that this does not contradict what I said. >>>> In the cases that I am talking about, there are to pieces of >>>> evidence: >>>> the fact that there is a seeming understanding, and the statement by >>>> the players that there is no understanding. >>>> OK, how much weight do you give to each? >>> "The fact that there is a seeming understanding" is simply restating >>> the hypothesis to be evaluated given the evidence. You do not, >>> logically, evaluate hypotheses by including them in your premises and >> it's all good and well to insist that one needs to look at all the >> evidence, but we are talking here (or at least I am) of caases that >> have a lot of things in common: >> [1] - a pick-up partnership, with some agreements, but not complete; >> [2] - a bid made by one of them, which in their common background >> can have >> two very different meanings, both known to and played by both of them; >> [3] - no clear meta-agreement available to distinguish which one it >> should be; >> [4] - enough previous history to make both agreements possible >> between them; >> [5] - a hand that clearly shows which of the two agreements the bidder >> intended - completely unsuitable moreover for the other agreement; >> [6] - an action by responder that also clearly shows which of the two >> agreements the responder chose; >> Should I add more? >> Now make a ruling > > [Numbering added to Herman's bullet points.] > > If I believe #1-4, as stipulated, then the a priori probability of > the partnership agreeing at #5-6 is 50%, and the fact that they did > so provides no evidence or indication whatsoever of anything beyond > coincidence. The only available evidence that means anything comes > from the self-serving assertions of the players involved, so, > ultimately, I can only rule based on my conclusions as to their > credibility. It would be an egregious dereliction of my duty as a TD > to avoid investigating that question by presuming a priori that their > statements were to be ignored -- or, for that matter, to be accepted. > > Herman's fallacy lies in his challenge to "now make a ruling", which > suggests that he has given me the information on which I can do so > legitimately. Imagine that he had added either (a) "after talking to > the players, I am convinced that they are being entirely forthcoming > and truthful", or (b) "after talking to the players, I am convinced > that there is more to the story than they are telling me". Does > anyone out there, except Herman, really expect me to give the same > answer in either case? > > Eric, the only thing they will be telling you is that they did not discuss this - and you are allowed to believe this. Let's give an example - 1NT - pass - 2Di. "We did not discuss this evening that we are playing transfers" (in an environment where the whole room and the rest of the city play transfers). Are you really going to rule they do not have an understanding about transfers? Now add a double after the 1NT. Now they can really say they did not discuss this, and that it's not as universal to play transfers any more. But it the 1D bidder has hearts, and the 1NT opener respnds 2H, why should you make any other decision that that they still have an understanding? If you don't, then you're faced with the problem of when to swith from one ruling to the other. Please notice that there can be 27 ways in which they can have reached the same conclusion, but that their statement "we have not discussed this tonight" is in all likelihood true. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Aug 6 10:39:51 2008 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:39:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6 Aug 2008, at 02:26, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > So if in the auction 1C - (1S) - 1H both 2H and a negative double are > respectively allowable under Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b), it may make > sense for the LHO of the IBer to cut the Gordian Knot by accepting the > IB of 1H under Law 27A. > > That way the 1C opener will remain in the dark as to whether the IBer > holds 10+ hcp and 5+ hearts (a Law 27B1(a) replacement call of 2H) or > whether the IBer holds 6+ hcp and 4+ hearts (a Law 27B1(b) replacement > call of a negative double). > > What's the problem? It's likely for many players that a L27B1(b) replacement of 1H with a negative double won't be available, but LHO may have difficulty working this out prior to deciding whether or not to accept the insufficient bid. Gordon Rainsford From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Aug 6 11:13:56 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:13:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c8f7a4$c4e10e80$2401a8c0@p41600> Just need to call it a "ball game", they'll get that ;-) > I was going to make the analogy with Botham's captaincy then thought > there might be too many Americans on the list who wouldn't have a clue > who we were talking about. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 6 11:43:26 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:43:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4899723E.6080604@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> Really ? All my sources mention him as president with n?1, >> 1789-1797. Who did they all forget ? >> > > President Samuel Huntington, (March 1, 1781 - July 8, 1781) > President Thomas McKean, (July 9, 1781 - November 4, 1781) > President John Hanson, (November 5, 1781 - November 3, 1782) > President Elias Boudinot, (November 4, 1782 - November 2, 1783) > President Thomas Mifflin, (November 3, 1783 - October 31, 1784) > President Richard Henry Lee, (November 30, 1784 - November 6, 1785) > President John Hancock*, (November 23, 1785 - May 29, 1786) > President Nathaniel Gorman, (June 6, 1786 - November 5, 1786) > President Arthur St. Clair, (February 2, 1787 - November 4, 1787) > President Cyrus Griffin, (January 22, 1788 - November 2, 1788) > President George Washington, (April 30, 1789 - March 4, 1797) > > Woaw ! Would you mind to correct at least Wikipedia, as the others can't be corected so easily ? The official count indeed starts with Washington, according to a bunch of excellent sources. But I think I understand where the problem lies. It is generally considered that a country is born when its Constitution is adopted, so that US became a country in 1789, the moment when the Constitution was adopted by 12 former colonies (RI took a bit more time). Which would mean the names you give are internationally considered only the names of presidents of a temporazry assembly (whatever its name), not of a nation. Similarly, the 4 leaders of France in 1945-1948 (de Gaulle, Gouin, Bidault, Blum) weren't Presidents, nor Presidents of the Assembly (= Prime Ministers), only Presidents of the Temporary Government. . Thank you for the information. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 6 11:55:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:55:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489974F9.6000403@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Herman shows excellent judgement in critiquing the appointment > of Kevin Pietersen as captain of the English cricket team. Note that Ian > Botham's critical part in winning the 1981 Ashes series for England, > despite trailing 0-1 with one draw, happened _after_ Botham resigned as > captain. > > AG : you mean, the famous 'Botham vs Australia' ? Here, Herman suggests the opposite. I don't see how one could follow his suggestion that Vaughan be replaced as a batsman and still remain captain. Second, it appears that, in the present English team, few players have a sure place, and those who are are perhaps too young, or else too flamboyant, as Herman puts it. Default choice ? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Aug 6 12:51:41 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:51:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4899823D.7000604@NTLworld.com> Two of the problems with existing disclosure law are: - The waivers about "general knowledge and experience". IMO all such references should be expunged from the law-books. - The prohibition against "guessing": I'm afraid that few players are certain of their agreements. Increasingly, players are using these to rationalise prevarication. Hence I support Herman de Wael's one-man crusade for better disclosure. Herman recommends that you should try to guess what *partner* means by his call; and that to do so is *legal* I believe that guessing is currently *illegal*. I hope that the law will be changed to make it legal. But I quibble with Herman: I think that you should be mandated to guess the *systemic* meaning of partner's call. How should you guess? IMO, when partner makes a call that you don't recognise as part of your methods: there are three main possibilities: [A] He may have made a mistake, for example a mechanical error. If you think that is the case and that the bid can have absolutely no systemic meaning, then that is the way you should explain it. [B] He may be making a deliberate "meaningless" *random call*, outwith your agreements, to disrupt the auction. He hopes that opponents will be more disconcerted than you are. IMO such calls are of doubtful legality; but if that is likely, then you should say so. [C] Otherwise, even if a call is undiscussed, partner hopes that you can work out its meaning from other partnership agreements and mutual experience. IMO this latter is what Alain calls a tacit agreement, and you should try to explain it as best as you can. Additionally or alternatively: I like the "Richard Hills" protocol: if all else fails, then you leave the table and partner explains the systemic meaning of his own call. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 6 13:54:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:54:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4899823D.7000604@NTLworld.com> References: <4899823D.7000604@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <489990DF.3040904@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [A] He may have made a mistake, for example a mechanical error. If you > think that is the case and that the bid can have absolutely no systemic > meaning, then that is the way you should explain it. > > [B] He may be making a deliberate "meaningless" *random call*, outwith > your agreements, to disrupt the auction. He hopes that opponents will be > more disconcerted than you are. IMO such calls are of doubtful legality; > but if that is likely, then you should say so. > > AG : how are you to distinguish between a) and b) ? (and don't forget the case where partner's error isn't mechanical, but induced by his misunderstandigng of the system) IMOBO, the only demand we can make is that the player answer "it isn't in our system" when it isn't, because opponents will know as much as we do, and that's the spirit of alerts and explanations. > Additionally or alternatively: I like the "Richard Hills" protocol: if > all else fails, then you leave the table and partner explains the > systemic meaning of his own call. > > AG : and so do I. I would join any group suggesting that this protocol be implemented. And I've occasionally suggested to use it at the table. It usually meets approval. And how could it be otherwise ? Reduced risk of MI. UI, but of reduced use. And if it was a muspull or other lapse, they'll know it. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 6 14:14:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:14:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <489974F9.6000403@ulb.ac.be> References: <489974F9.6000403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4899959A.6070208@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Herman shows excellent judgement in critiquing the appointment >> of Kevin Pietersen as captain of the English cricket team. Note that Ian >> Botham's critical part in winning the 1981 Ashes series for England, >> despite trailing 0-1 with one draw, happened _after_ Botham resigned as >> captain. >> >> > AG : you mean, the famous 'Botham vs Australia' ? > > Here, Herman suggests the opposite. I don't see how one could follow his > suggestion that Vaughan be replaced as a batsman and still remain > captain. Second, it appears that, in the present English team, few > players have a sure place, and those who are are perhaps too young, or > else too flamboyant, as Herman puts it. Default choice ? > What Richard meant, and I agree with it, is that players like Botham are not good captains. They need to be able to just bat or bowl. I think Pietersen's batting may well suffer from captaining. OTOH, Vaughan was not a bad captain, but his recent batting form means he should not be able to count on automatic selection. Stepping down as captain is the obvious consequence - someone else may want to pick him or not, but he needn't to. Terribly off-topic, this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 6 14:23:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:23:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4899823D.7000604@NTLworld.com> References: <4899823D.7000604@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <489997C4.9070406@skynet.be> Nigel makes a lot of sense here - but I would not be called Herman if I did not have a few quibbles. Guthrie wrote: > Two of the problems with existing disclosure law are: > - The waivers about "general knowledge and experience". IMO all such > references should be expunged from the law-books. Nonsense. There are many things everyone agrees is general knowledge. If the waiver is expunged, all these need to be told. "That is an opening call, which means he has a minimum of 13 points, with an ace counting as 4, ...". Of course GKE must remain. As soon as an opponent states he does not know something, it is not GKE, and there is no waiver. There are no problems with this one. > - The prohibition against "guessing": I'm afraid that few players are > certain of their agreements. > Indeed. If I'm 99% sure a call means something, I will tell this. Yet, in fact, I am guessing. If I were not allowed to express this, I would be committing MI, since in fact the system is like I thought it was. > Increasingly, players are using these to rationalise prevarication. > > Hence I support Herman de Wael's one-man crusade for better disclosure. > Herman recommends that you should try to guess what *partner* means by > his call; and that to do so is *legal* > Of course it is legal - what gives anyone the idea that it isn't? Nothing in the lawbook says it is. The opponents are entitled to correct information, and whether you know this or merely guess at it, that is what they should be told. > I believe that guessing is currently *illegal*. I hope that the law will > be changed to make it legal. But I quibble with Herman: I think that you > should be mandated to guess the *systemic* meaning of partner's call. > Of course, you cannot guess what he has, only what he intends showing. > How should you guess? IMO, when partner makes a call that you don't > recognise as part of your methods: there are three main possibilities: > > [A] He may have made a mistake, for example a mechanical error. If you > think that is the case and that the bid can have absolutely no systemic > meaning, then that is the way you should explain it. > add [Abis] You may have made a mistake. > [B] He may be making a deliberate "meaningless" *random call*, outwith > your agreements, to disrupt the auction. He hopes that opponents will be > more disconcerted than you are. IMO such calls are of doubtful legality; > but if that is likely, then you should say so. > But then you need not "guess". You explain what you know about the system, and that the call in question is not among those you have talked about. But this is not the problem we were talking about. > [C] Otherwise, even if a call is undiscussed, partner hopes that you can > work out its meaning from other partnership agreements and mutual > experience. IMO this latter is what Alain calls a tacit agreement, and > you should try to explain it as best as you can. > Indeed. > Additionally or alternatively: I like the "Richard Hills" protocol: if > all else fails, then you leave the table and partner explains the > systemic meaning of his own call. > It should be allowed, but personally I would never do it. If I guess incorrectly, I'm bound for a bad score anyway. If I do guess correctly, but I refuse to tell my guess, I have given UI to partner and valuable, non-entitled information to opponents. In general, I prefer giving MI over UI. But that's known. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 6 15:29:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:29:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81ADD91C-7257-432D-959B-04BA4CDF22FE@starpower.net> On Aug 5, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:04:33 -0400, wrote: > >> Committees should not >> discount 'self-serving statements' but merely attach >> whatever weight to them seems suitable." > > Can't tell the difference between these two choices. I will pick the > second one -- try to ignore them whenever possible. That sounds to me like coming to a ruling with a pre-established bias. Your judgment as to the value of a self-serving statement should reflect your judgment as to its credibility. Assessing the latter in the course of finding the facts is part of the TD's job. Presumptively dismissing a key piece of evidence because it comes in the form of a "self-serving" statement (what other kind of statement do you ever get to hear?) is as inappropriate as presumptively accepting it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 6 16:33:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:33:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <81ADD91C-7257-432D-959B-04BA4CDF22FE@starpower.net> References: <81ADD91C-7257-432D-959B-04BA4CDF22FE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4899B625.5010600@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Aug 5, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:04:33 -0400, wrote: >> >> >>> Committees should not >>> discount 'self-serving statements' but merely attach >>> whatever weight to them seems suitable." >>> >> Can't tell the difference between these two choices. I will pick the >> second one -- try to ignore them whenever possible. >> > > That sounds to me like coming to a ruling with a pre-established > bias. Your judgment as to the value of a self-serving statement > should reflect your judgment as to its credibility. Assessing the > latter in the course of finding the facts is part of the TD's job. > Presumptively dismissing a key piece of evidence because it comes in > the form of a "self-serving" statement (what other kind of statement > do you ever get to hear?) is as inappropriate as presumptively > accepting it. > AG : for example, 'I would always have pulled the double' would be a self-serving statement after a slow double, but it's highly credible if there were screens and you told your screenmate, before making your last call, 'I'll pull if partner doubles'. I once accepted a potentially self-serving statement that 'I'll always lead a club from my K10xx suit after partner's opening 2NT and their overcall, because I've told partner never to open 2NT without a honor in every suit' - I tested this by showing some hands to said partner and asking what she'd have opened and why. The case was : 2NT Xa p 3Ca ...p 3D X Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 6 16:38:13 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:38:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <81ADD91C-7257-432D-959B-04BA4CDF22FE@starpower.net> References: <81ADD91C-7257-432D-959B-04BA4CDF22FE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4899B755.9090201@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > That sounds to me like coming to a ruling with a pre-established > bias. Your judgment as to the value of a self-serving statement > should reflect your judgment as to its credibility. Assessing the > latter in the course of finding the facts is part of the TD's job. > Presumptively dismissing a key piece of evidence because it comes in > the form of a "self-serving" statement (what other kind of statement > do you ever get to hear?) is as inappropriate as presumptively > accepting it. > Eric, you are absolutely right, but we're not talking about self-serving statements in general, but about a particular statement in a particular case. "We did not discuss this" may well be true, but is it important? It is self-serving in the sense that the players do not address the real issue here - what they did have in common, and what they used as the basis for coming to an "understanding". So I am quite willing to weigh all the evidence, but any evidence I get will be positive "we did discuss this three years ago", and the only thing the players can do to avoid being ruled against is keep quiet and repeat "we did not discuss this". So please tell me what other evidence I need to rule here, unbiased and all. And I'm not talking about players inventing system on the spot. We are talking about quite common systems, like 3Cl showing either clubs or hearts and diamonds (for example). Both systems are common, both players know both systems, they did not discuss at the start of the session what they would be playing and yet they have the same idea at the same time - why? Maybe they discussed it, maybe they both play it with a common partner, maybe they only guessed. I will never find out for certain, and I really don't care. > > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 6 17:10:23 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:10:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4899723E.6080604@ulb.ac.be> References: <4899723E.6080604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:43:26 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >>> Really ? All my sources mention him as president with n?1, >>> 1789-1797. Who did they all forget ? >>> >> >> President Samuel Huntington, (March 1, 1781 - July 8, 1781) >> President Thomas McKean, (July 9, 1781 - November 4, 1781) >> President John Hanson, (November 5, 1781 - November 3, 1782) >> President Elias Boudinot, (November 4, 1782 - November 2, 1783) >> President Thomas Mifflin, (November 3, 1783 - October 31, 1784) >> President Richard Henry Lee, (November 30, 1784 - November 6, 1785) >> President John Hancock*, (November 23, 1785 - May 29, 1786) >> President Nathaniel Gorman, (June 6, 1786 - November 5, 1786) >> President Arthur St. Clair, (February 2, 1787 - November 4, 1787) >> President Cyrus Griffin, (January 22, 1788 - November 2, 1788) >> President George Washington, (April 30, 1789 - March 4, 1797) >> >> > Woaw ! Would you mind to correct at least Wikipedia, as the others can't > be corected so easily ? > > The official count indeed starts with Washington, according to a bunch > of excellent sources. > > But I think I understand where the problem lies. It is generally > considered that a country is born when its Constitution is adopted, so > that US became a country in 1789, the moment when the Constitution was > adopted by 12 former colonies (RI took a bit more time). Which would > mean the names you give are internationally considered only the names of > presidents of a temporazry assembly (whatever its name), not of a > nation. Similarly, the 4 leaders of France in 1945-1948 (de Gaulle, > Gouin, Bidault, Blum) weren't Presidents, nor Presidents of the Assembly > (= Prime Ministers), only Presidents of the Temporary Government. A little off-topic, methinks. But.... As far as I can tell, the start of the United States was considered, at the time, to be the constitution. So George Washington was the first president. That is still taught in schools. Deleware brags about being the first state because it was the first to ratify the constitution. However, children here also learn Lincoln's Gettysberg address, which starts "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are equal." That dates the start of the country as being the Declaration of independence. I rate that as a lie, and I think Lincoln knew it wasn't really true. But it was a good lie and AFAIK americans believe that their country was founded on principle that all people are created equal. But "when a country starts" isn't formally defined, so it is a matter of opinion when the U.S. started. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Aug 6 19:40:49 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:40:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <81ADD91C-7257-432D-959B-04BA4CDF22FE@starpower.net> References: <81ADD91C-7257-432D-959B-04BA4CDF22FE@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:29:28 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 5, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:04:33 -0400, wrote: >> >>> Committees should not >>> discount 'self-serving statements' but merely attach >>> whatever weight to them seems suitable." >> >> Can't tell the difference between these two choices. I will pick the >> second one -- try to ignore them whenever possible. > > That sounds to me like coming to a ruling with a pre-established > bias. Your judgment as to the value of a self-serving statement > should reflect your judgment as to its credibility. Assessing the > latter in the course of finding the facts is part of the TD's job. > Presumptively dismissing a key piece of evidence because it comes in > the form of a "self-serving" statement (what other kind of statement > do you ever get to hear?) is as inappropriate as presumptively > accepting it. The statement "if the South hand did not have the DK, the underlead of the CA would have led to the same result" was self-serving but verifiable opinion. It would have been wrong of the committee to ignore it just because it was self-serving. But they should have formed their own opinion on the issue and the North-South self-serving opinion should be given zero weight. There was no self-serving claim from North that he actually said the bid was forcing. If he had said that, then your only evidence on the issue would have been the self-serving claim from North and the self-serving claim from East-West. This is an unpleasant though not too difficult call to make (IMO), but you would wish for a tape-recording in which case you would give both self-serving claims zero weight. South claimed that she meant her bid as invitational. That's semi-verifiable. You can look at her hand. If she has an invitational hand, no problem. If it is borderline, then you maybe accept the self-serving claim. If it isn't even borderline invitational, then you reject her claim. So I would give her claim weight in this case. Or maybe you want to give her a chance to explain why she thought her hand was invitational. There is no report of this happening at the table. Usually players don't have an explanation. But suppose she said she had soft values. Then, if you don't know what soft values are, you have to consult with people who do and see if this hand becomes invitational when these are taking into account. This is partially a completely unverifiable claim -- that is what she was thinking -- and a partially verifiable claim, that the hand warrants being invitational when soft values are taken into account. Suppose by your own knowledge or your poll, you know that soft values don't justify treating this hand as invitational. The mistake, IMO, is now trying to collect more evidence to see if she is really telling the truth. Does she cry in front of the AC when she describes the misjustice of people questioning her claim? NOT RELEVANT. Do you think you are good enough to tell a fake cry from a real cry? You are probably deluding yourself. Do you think you will catch her making contradictory claims? You might, but that is not a pleasant situation for you or her. The mystery of civilization, and it applies to bridge, is that you have to build laws and procedures that work for psychopaths. Then human beings need a social structure built on trust and cooperation. Thty don't fit together very well, I know. And collecting more information is dangerous about the truth of an unverifiable claim that you have good reason to doubt is bad, because it commits you to using the extra evidence. You say "Sorry, I can't accept that" and move on to whatever happens if South intended her bid as forcing. If she says it's true, tell her that isn't the issue. If you start collecting a lot more evidence, then reject her, it will look even moreso like you are calling her a liar. Accepting obviously false claims is dangerous, because that encourages a culture of lying. Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 6 20:06:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:06:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <489997C4.9070406@skynet.be> References: <4899823D.7000604@NTLworld.com> <489997C4.9070406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6B601C94-78BA-4341-870E-C9AB6EA811B6@starpower.net> On Aug 6, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Guthrie wrote: > >> Hence I support Herman de Wael's one-man crusade for better >> disclosure. >> Herman recommends that you should try to guess what *partner* >> means by >> his call; and that to do so is *legal* > > Of course it is legal - what gives anyone the idea that it isn't? > Nothing in the lawbook says it is. The opponents are entitled to > correct information, and whether you know this or merely guess at it, > that is what they should be told. "The opponents are entitled to correct information, and whether you know this or merely guess at it, that is what they should be told." Quite so. The illegality here has nothing to do with knowing or guessing; it is ignoring the lawbook's definition of "correct information". The laws require "correct information" about your agreements and methods; giving your opponents information (even if "correct") about "what *partner* means by his call" is not the same thing, and substituting it for the mandated disclosure violates the laws. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 6 21:06:31 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:06:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <4899B755.9090201@skynet.be> References: <81ADD91C-7257-432D-959B-04BA4CDF22FE@starpower.net> <4899B755.9090201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5D9A9358-ADB9-4F82-A130-A5DB2600DD1C@starpower.net> On Aug 6, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> That sounds to me like coming to a ruling with a pre-established >> bias. Your judgment as to the value of a self-serving statement >> should reflect your judgment as to its credibility. Assessing the >> latter in the course of finding the facts is part of the TD's job. >> Presumptively dismissing a key piece of evidence because it comes in >> the form of a "self-serving" statement (what other kind of statement >> do you ever get to hear?) is as inappropriate as presumptively >> accepting it. > > Eric, you are absolutely right, but we're not talking about > self-serving statements in general, but about a particular statement > in a particular case. > "We did not discuss this" may well be true, but is it important? > It is self-serving in the sense that the players do not address the > real issue here - what they did have in common, and what they used as > the basis for coming to an "understanding". > > So I am quite willing to weigh all the evidence, but any evidence I > get will be positive "we did discuss this three years ago", and the > only thing the players can do to avoid being ruled against is keep > quiet and repeat "we did not discuss this". In my games, that won't keep them from being ruled against; quite the contrary. If all they're going to do is repeat "we did not discuss this" the roof will fall on their heads. > So please tell me what > other evidence I need to rule here, unbiased and all. You need to find out whether they have or have not disclosed their relevant understandings. On this question, so far, you have no evidence at all. > And I'm not talking about players inventing system on the spot. We are > talking about quite common systems, like 3Cl showing either clubs or > hearts and diamonds (for example). Both systems are common, both > players know both systems, they did not discuss at the start of the > session what they would be playing and yet they have the same idea at > the same time - why? A very good question. But you shouldn't be asking me -- you should be asking them. Like, "So you thought partner would be likely to take it as X even though you never discussed it. Why?" *This* is what's called "gathering evidence". > Maybe they discussed it, maybe they both play it > with a common partner, maybe they only guessed. I will never find out > for certain, and I really don't care. You will never find out for certain, but if you never find out with enough confidence to make an evidence-based rather than a presumptive ruling then you simply aren't doing your job. If you really don't care, you're not even trying to do your job. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 6 21:25:36 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:25:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <6B601C94-78BA-4341-870E-C9AB6EA811B6@starpower.net> References: <4899823D.7000604@NTLworld.com> <489997C4.9070406@skynet.be> <6B601C94-78BA-4341-870E-C9AB6EA811B6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4899FAB0.4070608@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 6, 2008, at 8:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Guthrie wrote: >> >>> Hence I support Herman de Wael's one-man crusade for better >>> disclosure. >>> Herman recommends that you should try to guess what *partner* >>> means by >>> his call; and that to do so is *legal* >> Of course it is legal - what gives anyone the idea that it isn't? >> Nothing in the lawbook says it is. The opponents are entitled to >> correct information, and whether you know this or merely guess at it, >> that is what they should be told. > > "The opponents are entitled to correct information, and whether you > know this or merely guess at it, that is what they should be told." > Quite so. The illegality here has nothing to do with knowing or > guessing; it is ignoring the lawbook's definition of "correct > information". The laws require "correct information" about your > agreements and methods; giving your opponents information (even if > "correct") about "what *partner* means by his call" is not the same > thing, and substituting it for the mandated disclosure violates the > laws. > Now that's just plain silly. Telling them more cannot be against the laws, surely! You are criticizing my methods because I would illegally tell the opponents more than what (you believe) they are entitled to? You'll have to do better than that if you want to argue against my method of ruling. > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 6 22:17:10 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:17:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4899723E.6080604@ulb.ac.be> References: <4899723E.6080604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 6, 2008, at 5:43 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >>> Really ? All my sources mention him as president with n?1, >>> 1789-1797. Who did they all forget ? >> >> President Samuel Huntington, (March 1, 1781 - July 8, 1781) >> President Thomas McKean, (July 9, 1781 - November 4, 1781) >> President John Hanson, (November 5, 1781 - November 3, 1782) >> President Elias Boudinot, (November 4, 1782 - November 2, 1783) >> President Thomas Mifflin, (November 3, 1783 - October 31, 1784) >> President Richard Henry Lee, (November 30, 1784 - November 6, 1785) >> President John Hancock*, (November 23, 1785 - May 29, 1786) >> President Nathaniel Gorman, (June 6, 1786 - November 5, 1786) >> President Arthur St. Clair, (February 2, 1787 - November 4, 1787) >> President Cyrus Griffin, (January 22, 1788 - November 2, 1788) >> President George Washington, (April 30, 1789 - March 4, 1797) > > Woaw ! Would you mind to correct at least Wikipedia, as the others > can't > be corected so easily ? > > The official count indeed starts with Washington, according to a bunch > of excellent sources. > > But I think I understand where the problem lies. It is generally > considered that a country is born when its Constitution is adopted, so > that US became a country in 1789, the moment when the Constitution > was > adopted by 12 former colonies (RI took a bit more time). Which would > mean the names you give are internationally considered only the > names of > presidents of a temporazry assembly (whatever its name), The "Continental Congress". > not of a > nation. Similarly, the 4 leaders of France in 1945-1948 (de Gaulle, > Gouin, Bidault, Blum) weren't Presidents, nor Presidents of the > Assembly > (= Prime Ministers), only Presidents of the Temporary Government. > . > > Thank you for the information. > > Best regards > > Alain > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 6 22:26:39 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:26:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus In-Reply-To: <5D9A9358-ADB9-4F82-A130-A5DB2600DD1C@starpower.net> References: <81ADD91C-7257-432D-959B-04BA4CDF22FE@starpower.net> <4899B755.9090201@skynet.be> <5D9A9358-ADB9-4F82-A130-A5DB2600DD1C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <489A08FF.8050405@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> So I am quite willing to weigh all the evidence, but any evidence I >> get will be positive "we did discuss this three years ago", and the >> only thing the players can do to avoid being ruled against is keep >> quiet and repeat "we did not discuss this". > > In my games, that won't keep them from being ruled against; quite the > contrary. If all they're going to do is repeat "we did not discuss > this" the roof will fall on their heads. > So, they'll tell you something more, and then you'll rule just like I do, that they have an understanding. ;) >> So please tell me what >> other evidence I need to rule here, unbiased and all. > > You need to find out whether they have or have not disclosed their > relevant understandings. On this question, so far, you have no > evidence at all. > Which is not what we're supposed to be doing. We should be looking for evidence that they do NOT have understandings. Since we can't find anny, we should rule that they DO. That's the way L75 works! >> And I'm not talking about players inventing system on the spot. We are >> talking about quite common systems, like 3Cl showing either clubs or >> hearts and diamonds (for example). Both systems are common, both >> players know both systems, they did not discuss at the start of the >> session what they would be playing and yet they have the same idea at >> the same time - why? > > A very good question. But you shouldn't be asking me -- you should > be asking them. Like, "So you thought partner would be likely to > take it as X even though you never discussed it. Why?" *This* is > what's called "gathering evidence". > OK, but what is that going to achieve? You'll find out what I've been suggesting all along - that they have some understanding! >> Maybe they discussed it, maybe they both play it >> with a common partner, maybe they only guessed. I will never find out >> for certain, and I really don't care. > > You will never find out for certain, but if you never find out with > enough confidence to make an evidence-based rather than a presumptive > ruling then you simply aren't doing your job. If you really don't > care, you're not even trying to do your job. > But what evidence can there be? By the veyr nature of this problem, there can be no evidence to support that they do NOT have an understanding. If there is (like they're form Zambia and Afghanistan), you already know about it. But this is a pick-up pair from the same club, so any evidence they do have will only strengthen your case? Why badger them into admitting that they have understandings, when you could simply rule "I don't know what type of understanding you have, but you present no evidence that you haven't, so you have". After all, isn't that what we're doing if they give a wrong explanation? They cannot prove the bid was a misbid, so it's misinformation? Even when we believe they may be telling the truth about a misbid? Why should it be any different about a non-complete set of firm agreements? Especially when they seem to agree! Eric, theoretically you are right - you cannot rule without gathering all the evidence. But I gave you all the evidence! Now rule! > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 7 01:23:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:23:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4899723E.6080604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >>President Samuel Huntington, (March 1, 1781 - July 8, 1781) >>President Thomas McKean, (July 9, 1781 - November 4, 1781) >>President John Hanson, (November 5, 1781 - November 3, 1782) >>President Elias Boudinot, (November 4, 1782 - November 2, 1783) >>President Thomas Mifflin, (November 3, 1783 - October 31, 1784) >>President Richard Henry Lee, (November 30, 1784 - November 6, 1785) >>President John Hancock*, (November 23, 1785 - May 29, 1786) >>President Nathaniel Gorman, (June 6, 1786 - November 5, 1786) >>President Arthur St. Clair, (February 2, 1787 - November 4, 1787) >>President Cyrus Griffin, (January 22, 1788 - November 2, 1788) >>President George Washington, (April 30, 1789 - March 4, 1797) Alain Gottcheiner: >Wow ! Would you mind to correct at least Wikipedia, as the others >can't be corrected so easily ? Richard Hills: Why correct what is accurate? Alain Gottcheiner: >The official count indeed starts with Washington, according to a >bunch of excellent sources. Richard Hills: And blml is an excellent source on the official interpretation of the Duplicate Laws? Not always. Alain Gottcheiner: >But I think I understand where the problem lies. It is generally >considered that a country is born when its Constitution is adopted, >so that US became a country in 1789, the moment when the Constitution >was adopted by 12 former colonies (RI took a bit more time). Which >would mean the names you give are internationally considered only the >names of presidents of a temporary assembly (whatever its name), not >of a nation. Similarly, the 4 leaders of France in 1945-1948 (de >Gaulle, Gouin, Bidault, Blum) weren't Presidents, nor Presidents of >the Assembly (= Prime Ministers), only Presidents of the Temporary >Government. Richard Hills: It was _before_ March 1st 1781 that the United States had a temporary government. I am glad that Alain mentioned France as an example. The current French form of government is known as the Fifth Republic, because France has had five republican constitutions. The fifth constitution was inaugurated in 1958 (a change from a British-style parliamentary government to a semi-presidential government). Likewise, what Alain dubs "the" American constitution is actually the _second_ American constitution. The first one, adopted on March 1st 1781, was the Articles of Confederation, which provided for a weak federal government a la Switzerland. So if the Americans used French nomenclature, George Washington would have been the First President of the Second American Republic, corresponding to Charles de Gaulle being the First President of the Fifth French Republic. 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 Aug 7 02:31:43 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:31:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] Partial Exposure In-Reply-To: <200808052135.m75LZ4xX011345@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200808052135.m75LZ4xX011345@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <489A426F.8030000@nhcc.net> > From: Gampas at aol.com > Recently, in an EBU congress, I was dummy when my LHO held a card in a > position in which his partner could possibly see its face. Isn't this a standard case for L12A1 (2007)? But for that, we need a "violation." Is there explicitly anything that prohibits a defender showing a card? (I'm sure we all know it's a bad idea!) The alternative is L12C3, which requires only an "irregularity." I have no doubt a defender showing a card to partner qualifies! The adjustment may be quite different depending on which of these applies. In the first case, it would be to the result had the card not been exposed, whereas in the second, it would be to what would have happened if the defender had had a penalty card. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 7 03:49:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:49:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael >As to the laws discussion - I think most of you don't understand >what I am trying to do - Richard Hills: Last night I reread Edgar Kaplan's 1984 article on how Appeals Committees should determine disputed facts. In a particular circumstance (a dispute about whether or not a hesitation had actually occurred, with one side asserting categorically "Yes", and the other side asserting categorically "No"). Edgar Kaplan noted that 99 times out of 100 "Yes" was correct. But Edgar also noted that there was that 1 pair in a 100 with grey ethics who try vexatious litigation to gain at an Appeals Committee what they cannot gain at the table. What Herman is trying to do is to assume that all 100 pairs have grey ethics to prevent that 1 pair gaining. This is a correct assumption for a Law 23 "could have been aware" ruling, but a totally incorrect assumption for a Law 85 "balance of probabilities" ruling. Herman De Wael: >I am looking at a fairly common situation, and tell you how we >should deal with that. Your comments are dismissive, not because >you think I am wrong, but because I am categoric - you accuse me >of not listening to all the evidence. I believe that the cases I >am talking about do not have any further evidence, so IMO I am >looking at _all_ the available evidence. Do you think my rulings >are wrong in that light? Richard Hills: Enlightenment will appear in my next posting, when Edgar Kaplan speaks from the grave to reveal a key piece of evidence that Herman De Wael's tunnel vision has always ignored. While we wait, can other blmlers avoid a similar Law 85 error committed by David Burn? (I realise that I am sticking my neck out, given that David Burn is very expert and very witty, while I am half an expert and a half wit.) Matchpoint pairs, North-South vulnerable Two card ending (declarer, South, on lead): --- 9 7 --- --- --- T6 J8 --- --- --- --- --- --- 86 --- Earlier play not recorded, so complete deal not relevant. Result at table: 4C by South. 8 tricks made before trick 11, result disputed Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: The TD was called by E/W at the end of play as regards a disputed 2- card ending. South was on lead (as declarer) at trick 12. He states that he played D8 and then quickly said (putting the card on the table) that D6 "was good" - he was in effect claiming both tricks. E/W both strongly contend that they both only saw the D6 and that they win the final heart trick in dummy. The TD asked declarer to replay how he claimed the last 2 tricks - this was disputed by E/W. N/S contend it would be irrational to play D6 in this situation. Director's ruling: One trick to E/W Score for both sides: 4C - 1 by South, NS -100 Details of ruling: Compulsory play of card by declarer (L45C2) Appeal lodged by: North-South Basis of appeal: South played D8 before D6 Director's comments: The TD is in an invidious position where both N/S and E/W maintain two opposing perspectives of what happened. In the end the TD ruled in favour of E/W (South played D6) purely because the last 2 tricks were played quickly and thus there is scope for error. Comments by North-South: At trick 11 I ruffed with my last trump. By this time I knew both my diamonds were winners and laid the D8 to cater for the D7 in dummy and then the D6 on the last trick. Comments by East-West: At trick 11 declarer ruffed with his last trump and put the D6 on the deck. We then claimed trick 13 knowing that trumps were finished. It was only at this point that the D8 appeared on the deck. As the Appeals Committee chairman, how do you vote? 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 Thu Aug 7 08:45:58 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:45:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 07/08/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael > > >As to the laws discussion - I think most of you don't understand > >what I am trying to do - > > Richard Hills: > > Last night I reread Edgar Kaplan's 1984 article on how Appeals > Committees should determine disputed facts. In a particular > circumstance (a dispute about whether or not a hesitation had > actually occurred, with one side asserting categorically "Yes", > and the other side asserting categorically "No"). Edgar Kaplan > noted that 99 times out of 100 "Yes" was correct. But Edgar also > noted that there was that 1 pair in a 100 with grey ethics who > try vexatious litigation to gain at an Appeals Committee what they > cannot gain at the table. > > What Herman is trying to do is to assume that all 100 pairs have > grey ethics to prevent that 1 pair gaining. This is a correct > assumption for a Law 23 "could have been aware" ruling, but a > totally incorrect assumption for a Law 85 "balance of > probabilities" ruling. > > Herman De Wael: > > >I am looking at a fairly common situation, and tell you how we > >should deal with that. Your comments are dismissive, not because > >you think I am wrong, but because I am categoric - you accuse me > >of not listening to all the evidence. I believe that the cases I > >am talking about do not have any further evidence, so IMO I am > >looking at _all_ the available evidence. Do you think my rulings > >are wrong in that light? > > Richard Hills: > > Enlightenment will appear in my next posting, when Edgar Kaplan > speaks from the grave to reveal a key piece of evidence that Herman > De Wael's tunnel vision has always ignored. While we wait, can > other blmlers avoid a similar Law 85 error committed by David Burn? > > (I realise that I am sticking my neck out, given that David Burn is > very expert and very witty, while I am half an expert and a half > wit.) > > Matchpoint pairs, North-South vulnerable > > Two card ending (declarer, South, on lead): > > --- > 9 > 7 > --- > --- --- > T6 J8 > --- --- > --- --- > --- > --- > 86 > --- > > Earlier play not recorded, so complete deal not relevant. > > Result at table: > 4C by South. 8 tricks made before trick 11, result disputed > > Director first called: > At end of hand > > Director's statement of facts: > The TD was called by E/W at the end of play as regards a disputed 2- > card ending. South was on lead (as declarer) at trick 12. He states > that he played D8 and then quickly said (putting the card on the > table) that D6 "was good" - he was in effect claiming both tricks. > E/W both strongly contend that they both only saw the D6 and that > they win the final heart trick in dummy. > > The TD asked declarer to replay how he claimed the last 2 tricks - > this was disputed by E/W. > > N/S contend it would be irrational to play D6 in this situation. > > Director's ruling: > One trick to E/W > > Score for both sides: > 4C - 1 by South, NS -100 > > Details of ruling: > Compulsory play of card by declarer (L45C2) > > Appeal lodged by: > North-South > > Basis of appeal: > South played D8 before D6 > > Director's comments: > The TD is in an invidious position where both N/S and E/W maintain two > opposing perspectives of what happened. In the end the TD ruled in > favour of E/W (South played D6) purely because the last 2 tricks were > played quickly and thus there is scope for error. > > Comments by North-South: > At trick 11 I ruffed with my last trump. By this time I knew both my > diamonds were winners and laid the D8 to cater for the D7 in dummy and > then the D6 on the last trick. > > Comments by East-West: > At trick 11 declarer ruffed with his last trump and put the D6 on the > deck. We then claimed trick 13 knowing that trumps were finished. It > was only at this point that the D8 appeared on the deck. > > As the Appeals Committee chairman, how do you vote? I'd tell EW to sit down again and play bridge, if they happen to know that game. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 Thu Aug 7 09:36:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:36:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: >It's likely for many players that a L27B1(b) replacement of 1H with >a negative double won't be available, but LHO may have difficulty >working this out prior to deciding whether or not to accept the >insufficient bid. Law 20F1: " ..... He is entitled to know about ..... relevant alternative calls available that were not made ..... " Richard Hills: So a player might ask, "If you had chosen not to undercall 1H, but instead chosen a negative double, would that negative double have _guaranteed_ a holding of at least four hearts?" Or maybe not. Law 20F1: " ..... may request, but only at his own turn to call ..... " Richard Hills: When RHO has perpetrated an insufficient bid, is it your own turn to call, or is it still RHO's turn to call? That is, is a Law 27A acceptance of an insufficient bid a call out of turn which happens to be legal? 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 Aug 7 09:45:41 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:45:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489AA825.7070900@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Enlightenment will appear in my next posting, when Edgar Kaplan speaks from the grave to reveal a key piece of evidence that Herman De Wael's tunnel vision has always ignored. While we wait, can other blmlers avoid a similar Law 85 error committed by David Burn? (I realise that I am sticking my neck out, given that David Burn is very expert and very witty, while I am half an expert and a half wit.) Matchpoint pairs, North-South vulnerable. Two card ending (declarer, South, on lead): --- 9 7 --- --- --- T6 J8 --- --- --- --- --- --- 86 --- Earlier play not recorded, so complete deal not relevant. Result at table: 4C by South. 8 tricks made before trick 11, result disputed Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: The TD was called by E/W at the end of play as regards a disputed 2-card ending. South was on lead (as declarer) at trick 12. He states that he played D8 and then quickly said (putting the card on the table) that D6 "was good" - he was in effect claiming both tricks. E/W both strongly contend that they both only saw the D6 and that they win the final heart trick in dummy. The TD asked declarer to replay how he claimed the last 2 tricks - this was disputed by E/W. N/S contend it would be irrational to play D6 in this situation. Director's ruling: One trick to E/W. Score for both sides: 4C - 1 by South, NS -100 Details of ruling: Compulsory play of card by declarer (L45C2) Appeal lodged by: North-South Basis of appeal: South played D8 before D6 Director's comments: The TD is in an invidious position where both N/S and E/W maintain two opposing perspectives of what happened. In the end the TD ruled in favour of E/W (South played D6) purely because the last 2 tricks were played quickly and thus there is scope for error. Comments by North-South: At trick 11 I ruffed with my last trump. By this time I knew both my diamonds were winners and laid the D8 to cater for the D7 in dummy and then the D6 on the last trick. Comments by East-West: At trick 11 declarer ruffed with his last trump and put the D6 on the deck. We then claimed trick 13 knowing that trumps were finished. It was only at this point that the D8 appeared on the deck. As the Appeals Committee chairman, how do you vote? [Nigel] I wonder of North (dummy) backed South's version of events? IMO the poor director did have an unenviable task. Do you believe - the self-serving statements of the defenders? - or the (more plausible) self-serving statement of declarer? In such cases, perhaps the director should toss a coin :). If forced to make a rational decision with no more relevant information, I think the declarer/committee should rule in favour of declarer. Amusingly, this problem would sometimes be avoided, if the laws were changed, to clearly state that: - You may not lead to the next trick before the current trick is quitted. Then the turned cards in front of each player provide more reliable evidence of the play. (I argued for that law several years ago; but the new laws deliberately leave this issue undecided). - Declarer claims by (i) stating a number of tricks and (ii) placing his hand face-up on the table. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 7 10:04:30 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:04:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489AAC8E.5060608@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael > >> As to the laws discussion - I think most of you don't understand >> what I am trying to do - > > Richard Hills: > > Last night I reread Edgar Kaplan's 1984 article on how Appeals > Committees should determine disputed facts. In a particular > circumstance (a dispute about whether or not a hesitation had > actually occurred, with one side asserting categorically "Yes", and > the other side asserting categorically "No"). Edgar Kaplan noted > that 99 times out of 100 "Yes" was correct. But Edgar also noted > that there was that 1 pair in a 100 with grey ethics who try > vexatious litigation to gain at an Appeals Committee what they > cannot gain at the table. > > What Herman is trying to do is to assume that all 100 pairs have > grey ethics to prevent that 1 pair gaining. This is a correct > assumption for a Law 23 "could have been aware" ruling, but a > totally incorrect assumption for a Law 85 "balance of > probabilities" ruling. > But this is NOT a L85 ruling - it's a L75 ruling - is there a misbid or a misexplanation? And I don't even want to go into the argument that it cannot be a misbid, since the hand conforms to at least one of the possible meanings. Just look at it as a misinformation or not. Can they prove "we have not discussed this"? NO. And even if we want to believe them, the real explanation they have given to opponents is "we have no understandings about this". Understandings includes things like "three years ago we once played together and at the start of that tournament we agreed to play it like so". They cannot provide evidence for the negative of that one. So by L75, the Director is to presume mistaken explanation. > Herman De Wael: > >> I am looking at a fairly common situation, and tell you how we >> should deal with that. Your comments are dismissive, not because >> you think I am wrong, but because I am categoric - you accuse me >> of not listening to all the evidence. I believe that the cases I >> am talking about do not have any further evidence, so IMO I am >> looking at _all_ the available evidence. Do you think my rulings >> are wrong in that light? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Aug 7 10:59:28 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:59:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c8f86b$e65f6620$b31e3260$@nl> [RH] Matchpoint pairs, North-South vulnerable Two card ending (declarer, South, on lead): --- 9 7 --- --- --- T6 J8 --- --- --- --- --- --- 86 --- [HvS] When the facts are disputed, and there is no way to undispute them, the director must decide on which facts to base his ruling. You could use the previous 11 tricks as evidence of course, but based on the facts that the 9H is not even second best it is highly likely declarer knows this. And crossing with the 6D to the 7D, which must therefore be high, and then playing a card which is probably not high, compared to cashing two cards that are high(if the 7 is high, the 8 is assuredly more so), seems lunatic. Therefore I will base my ruling on the version of the facts by the declaring side, and tell EW they can appeal this. I furthermore instruct the appeal committee to laugh in their faces, and convert the appeal money into beer or charity, whatever the local custom. Hans From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Aug 7 11:24:36 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:24:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01c8f86f$6b4436b0$41cca410$@nl> [RH] Matchpoint pairs, North-South vulnerable Two card ending (declarer, South, on lead): --- 9 7 --- --- --- T6 J8 --- --- --- --- --- --- 86 --- [HvS] When the facts are disputed, and there is no way to undispute them, the director must decide on which facts to base his ruling. You could use the previous 11 tricks as evidence of course, but based on the facts that the 9H is not even second best it is highly likely declarer knows this. And crossing with the 6D to the 7D, which must therefore be high, and then playing a card which is probably not high, compared to cashing two cards that are high(if the 7 is high, the 8 is assuredly more so), seems lunatic. Therefore I will base my ruling on the version of the facts by the declaring side, and tell EW they can appeal this. I furthermore instruct the appeal committee to laugh in their faces, and convert the appeal money into beer or charity, whatever the local custom. [HvS] As usual I reacted too quickly. Does not happen at the table usually. Of course South would never play the 6 willingly, but of course it could have been a mechanical error. In a sense, if EW are not a bunch of jerks, their story is actually more likely than the story of NS in that case. However, I still have to decide, and basing your decision on your opinion of the gentlemanness of NS vs EW is doubtful. I probably would still rule in favor of NS, but I withdraw my comments about the laughing and the beer. Hans From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 7 15:39:55 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:39:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Partial Exposure Message-ID: <002101c8f893$13b921c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Partial Exposure > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:31 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Partial Exposure > > >>> From: Gampas at aol.com > Recently, in an EBU congress, I was dummy when my LHO held a card in a > position in which his partner could possibly see its face. >> > (SW) > Isn't this a standard case for L12A1 (2007)? But for that, we > need a "violation." Is there explicitly anything that prohibits a > defender showing a card? (I'm sure we all know it's a bad idea!) >> > The alternative is L12C3, which requires only an "irregularity." > I have no doubt a defender showing a card to partner qualifies! >> > The adjustment may be quite different depending on which of > these applies. In the first case, it would be to the result had the > card not been exposed, whereas in the second, it would be to > what would have happened if the defender had had a penalty > card. >> > +=+ If the card is exposed it *is* a penalty card. (Law 50). > No further action is required on the part of anyone to make > it so. > However, if it is not played, we must consider whether > Law 50D2(b) applies and whether Law 52B1(b) applies. > The other Laws that I am looking at are 10B and 11. > But declarer was, I believe, at the table. He has taken > no action with regard to the irregularity that dummy alleges, > so it would seem he did not observe any irregularity. I am > less than enthusiastic for an alteration of the table score (but > still thinking). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From john at asimere.com Thu Aug 7 16:08:22 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:08:22 +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> <002c01c8f246$59f52650$fed0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <00f401c8f897$0d29ea20$4001a8c0@JOHN> >> >> > > 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. Could have known means that if you apply your mind to it after you have unintentionally infracted, and in so doing are aware that opponent might have been; might be; might be about to be damaged, than you deserve a L23 adjustment. The point is that L23 does NOT think you're a cheat. It just adjusts for what a cheat; the probst cheat; might have done. John Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 7 17:31:37 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:31:37 +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><002c01c8f246$59f52650$fed0403e@Mildred> <00f401c8f897$0d29ea20$4001a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <002d01c8f8a2$ba995320$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke out of turn > > >>> >>> >> >> 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. > > Could have known means that if you apply your mind to it after you have > unintentionally infracted, and in so doing are aware that opponent might > have been; might be; might be about to be damaged, than you deserve a L23 > adjustment. The point is that L23 does NOT think you're a cheat. It just > adjusts for what a cheat; the probst cheat; might have done. John > > Best regards > > Alain > +=+ I realize this 'conversazione' is in shorthand. However, it is perhaps quite worthwhile to examine the actual words in Law 23: " .... could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage ....." There may be a couple of points to discuss among the three elements present in this. ~ G ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 19:34:13 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:34:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> > > I'd tell EW to sit down again and play bridge, if they happen to know that game. > Ah, the pointlessly rude style of directing. I would rather not experience such directing at my table, even if I am North. Why are there no proprieties for directors? I always hear from directors that we don't need them, but I think we do. Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Aug 7 22:44:56 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:44:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] AI, UI, and insufficient bids. In-Reply-To: <489AA825.7070900@NTLworld.com> References: <489AA825.7070900@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: The question is about use of information after an L27B1(b) correction. Consider this auction: 1NT - 2D (natural) - 2D/3H - P ? You partner has made a 2D insufficient bid which was then corrected to 3H. You are playing Lebensohl, so 3H shows 5 hearts, is forcing to game, and (in your system) denies a diamond stopper. This is an L27B1(b) correction. You are undecided between bidding 4H or 3NT. Just before you put down the 3NT card, you realize that partner could not show 5 hearts, force to game, and show a diamond stopper. He would normally do that by first bidding 2NT, but 2NT would bar you. Therefore, he might have stretched his bid and made it with a diamond stopper. (The likelihood of him doing this might increase if he thinks you could figure this out.) That tips the balance. Now you want to bid 3NT. Can you? One answer is no. Law 16D -- The withdrawn bid and all information arising from it is UI, so you have to treat the second auction like the first. A second answer is yes, because the intent of the lawmakers was probably that Law 16D should not apply to L27B1(b) corrections. L16D doesn't apply to L27B1(a) corrections, why should it apply to L27B1(b) corrections? Also, this portion of the law is similar or built on an older law in which L16D did not apply. Maybe the lawmakers just didn't realize the need for it. A third answer is yes, but 16D prevents only inferences based on the identity of the insufficient bid. The fact that there was an insufficient bid, that it was corrected to 3H, etc. are all AI. So in the above auction, you cannot make inferences from the actual 2D, but that isn't what helps you. This third possibility perhaps is captured in this example. You LHO opens 1C, you then fall asleep for a moment. When you wake up your partner is passing and the director, who came to the table while you are asleep, is telling you you are barred from the auction. It is presumably AI that you are barred, and you can see no cards face up in front of partner. So you can infer that partner must have tried to open 1C, insufficient, and decided to replace it with a pass. That means partner has 12+ points, probably close to 12, and probably 3 clubs and did not want to bid clubs on the two level. This information won't help in the bidding, but it could help place high cards in the play. Is it AI or UI? Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 8 00:45:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:45:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World June 1984, Appeals Committee XVII, Issues of Fact: "... A Committee should consider the surrounding circumstances and the inherent probabilities. In the long run, though, it will have to trust to common sense and ordinary human intuition in deciding whom to believe. Thus, it is important to hear all four players, not just one from each side - sometimes, questions will reveal that one player is not nearly so sure as his partner, that he is merely being loyal in backing up his partner's version (if one player fails to appear at the hearing, it is fair to conclude that this may be the case). Still, there is no arithmetical rule. Even if the witnesses appear to be two-to-one, or three-to-one, for a particular version, the committee members may find themselves more impressed by the one. Then they should rule that way, the way their instincts tell them the balance of probability lies. ..." Matchpoint pairs, North-South vulnerable Two card ending (declarer, South, on lead): --- 9 7 --- --- --- T6 J8 --- --- --- --- --- --- 86 --- Earlier play not recorded, so complete deal not relevant. Result at table: 4C by South. 8 tricks made before trick 11, result disputed Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: The TD was called by E/W at the end of play as regards a disputed 2- card ending. South was on lead (as declarer) at trick 12. He states that he played D8 and then quickly said (putting the card on the table) that D6 "was good" - he was in effect claiming both tricks. E/W both strongly contend that they both only saw the D6 and that they win the final heart trick in dummy. The TD asked declarer to replay how he claimed the last 2 tricks - this was disputed by E/W. N/S contend it would be irrational to play D6 in this situation. Director's ruling: One trick to E/W Score for both sides: 4C - 1 by South, NS -100 Details of ruling: Compulsory play of card by declarer (L45C2) Appeal lodged by: North-South Basis of appeal: South played D8 before D6 Director's comments: The TD is in an invidious position where both N/S and E/W maintain two opposing perspectives of what happened. Edgar Kaplan, June 1984: "... There are a few general principles that are often helpful in arriving at a decision. All things being equal, in a dispute over _whether_ one bid or another, one play or another, was actually made, the recollection of the player who made the bid or play is a trifle more likely to be accurate than the recollections of opponents who just saw or heard. ..." Director's comments (continued): In the end the TD ruled in favour of E/W (South played D6) purely because the last 2 tricks were played quickly and thus there is scope for error. Richard Hills, July 2008: "In the end as TD I rule in favour of N/S (South played D8) purely because the last 2 tricks were played quickly and thus there is scope for E/W to misunderstand South's valid claim. "My experience is that often opponents are confused by a valid claim, but less often does declarer claim totally irrationally by blocking equals of eight, seven, six." Comments by North-South: At trick 11 I ruffed with my last trump. By this time I knew both my diamonds were winners and laid the D8 to cater for the D7 in dummy and then the D6 on the last trick. Comments by East-West: At trick 11 declarer ruffed with his last trump and put the D6 on the deck. We then claimed trick 13 knowing that trumps were finished. It was only at this point that the D8 appeared on the deck. Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Deposit returned Appeals Committee comments (David Burn chairman): It seems to us that if the D8 had been played there would not have an issue. As far as we can see, the TD has ascertained the facts efficiently and the ruling is therefore allowed as per Laws 85 and 84. Richard Hills, July 2008: "It seems to me that D8 was played first, but opponents created an issue because they were confused. "Scientific investigation of miscarriages of justice in real-life court cases show that statements of eye-witnesses to an event tend to be much less reliable than statements of actors in that event." 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 00:56:03 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:56:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0808071556l25f99cd2w9b803e166f6ca011@mail.gmail.com> [Richard] In a particular circumstance (a dispute about whether or not a hesitation had actually occurred, with one side asserting categorically "Yes", and the other side asserting categorically "No"). Edgar Kaplan noted that 99 times out of 100 "Yes" was correct. [Richard] "Scientific investigation of miscarriages of justice in real-life court cases show that statements of eye-witnesses to an event tend to be much less reliable than statements of actors in that event." [Jerry] Interesting how Richard's two rules of thumb in this thread conflict. I wonder which one he endorses. By the way, I claim that 98% of the time that "99%" appears in BLML, it is inaccurately high. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 8 01:36:37 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:36:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: Partial Exposure In-Reply-To: <200808071532.m77FWstY025166@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200808071532.m77FWstY025166@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <489B8705.8010102@nhcc.net> > From: "Grattan" > +=+ If the card is exposed it *is* a penalty card. (Law 50). > No further action is required on the part of anyone to make > it so. A very interesting observation and one I had missed. It still isn't clear to me exactly where we find a "violation," though. I would not like to have a situation where defenders can show each other their cards as long as declarer doesn't happen to notice. (If neither declarer nor dummy notices, nothing can be done, but either one should suffice.) Of course if the defenders are prepared to lie, they can probably get away with it once or maybe twice. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 8 01:42:37 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:42:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn In-Reply-To: <200808071537.m77FbeMC026027@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200808071537.m77FbeMC026027@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <489B886D.6060709@nhcc.net> > From: "Grattan" > ... it is perhaps > quite worthwhile to examine the actual words in Law 23: > " .... could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that > this could well damage ....." Wow! There's a lot I haven't picked up on in the new Laws. "Likely to damage" has been replaced by "could well damage." That's a much weaker standard and suggests L23 adjustments should be given more freely than L72B1 adjustments in the past. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Aug 8 01:53:56 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:53:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] AI, UI, and insufficient bids. In-Reply-To: <200808072143.m77LhlQL018307@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200808072143.m77LhlQL018307@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <489B8B14.4000403@nhcc.net> > From: "Robert Frick" > 1NT - 2D (natural) - 2D/3H - P > Your partner has made a 2D insufficient bid which was then corrected to 3H. > You are playing Lebensohl, so 3H shows 5 hearts, is forcing to game, and > (in your system) denies a diamond stopper. This is an L27B1(b) correction. It might be L27B2 (barring partner) for many pairs, but that's not your point. Let's assume for _this_ pair 27B1b is OK. > You are undecided between bidding 4H or 3NT. Just before you put down the > 3NT card, you realize that partner could not show 5 hearts, force to game, > and show a diamond stopper. He would normally do that by first bidding > 2NT, but 2NT would bar you. He could also have less strength than a normal GF and have decided that overbidding in hearts is preferable to letting opponents play diamonds. > Law 16D -- The withdrawn bid and all information arising > from it is UI, so you have to treat the second auction like the first. As Robert has noticed, there is no "L16D does not apply" in 27B1b. He is asking the exact right question: is the consequence of the IB "operation of Law," which is AI, or is the IB UI? Max Bavin's writeup, if I understand it, says the former: opener is entitled to take into account that responder might have "fudged." I can understand his having reached that conclusion, but I don't think it's obvious. Maybe the key is Robert's point that it doesn't matter what the IB was; all that matters is that one occurred. Of course if the "fudging" and "allowing" give an abnormally good result for the OS, L27D takes the benefit away, but if all they do is get back to normal, they keep the result. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 8 01:56:54 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 00:56:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] AI, UI, and insufficient bids. References: <489AA825.7070900@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <004201c8f8ea$a88f52e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 9:44 PM Subject: [blml] AI, UI, and insufficient bids. > A second answer is yes, because the intent of the lawmakers was probably that Law 16D should not apply to L27B1(b) corrections. L16D doesn't apply to L27B1(a) corrections, why should it apply to L27B1(b) corrections? Also, this portion of the law is similar or built on an older law in which L16D did not apply. Maybe the lawmakers just didn't realize the need for it. > +=+ Desirably or not as you may view it, the lawmakers decided to exclude application of Law 16D in Law 27B1(a) cases but not to exclude it in 27B1(b) cases. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 8 02:06:33 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 01:06:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0808071556l25f99cd2w9b803e166f6ca011@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004301c8f8ea$a8c15f60$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] <<< > By the way, I claim that 98% of the time that "99%" appears in BLML, > it is inaccurately high. <<< +=+ Well, 99% of the time actually.... ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 8 02:42:07 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 01:42:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn References: <200808071537.m77FbeMC026027@cfa.harvard.edu> <489B886D.6060709@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <008401c8f8ef$95f3bc70$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 12:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke out of turn >> From: "Grattan" >> ... it is perhaps >> quite worthwhile to examine the actual words in Law 23: >> " .... could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that >> this could well damage ....." > > Wow! There's a lot I haven't picked up on in the new Laws. "Likely to > damage" has been replaced by "could well damage." That's a much weaker > standard and suggests L23 adjustments should be given more freely than > L72B1 adjustments in the past. > +=+ On a personal plane, thinking of 'likely' I envisage a probability somewhere above 60%; 'could well' suggests to me something more like 35% or more. This was discussed in committee at length and it was a deliberate choice of words after several experiments. Being potentially aware at the time of the infraction, not when prodded by some subsequent occurrence, is also key. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 8 04:17:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:17:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004301c8f8ea$a8c15f60$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman, August 2008: >>By the way, I claim that 98% of the time that "99%" appears in >>BLML, it is inaccurately high. Grattan Endicott, August 2008: >+=+ Well, 99% of the time actually.... ~ G ~ +=+ Edgar Kaplan, June 1984: It is rare for there to be a dramatic conflict of testimony: "He huddled for a long time," versus, "I didn't hesitate one bit." Normally, the huddler can be coaxed into acknowledging a break in tempo. ("Surely you couldn't have been happy about doubling with your singleton deuce - didn't you think at all about passing around to partner?" "Oh, maybe I did think a _little_, but not for very long.") When a stubborn conflict does persist, a Committee can be influenced by the alleged huddler's hand - would he be likely to have a problem? However, what sways a Committee most is a fact of life: There are 100 players who deny indignantly that they huddled, when they did, for every one player who claims that an opponent huddled, when he didn't. There is that one player though. The chances are that committee members have seen him before, and they will surely see him again (whenever he gets a horrible score he conjures up some opponent's impropriety to blame it on). Still, even the chronic complainer may be justified on occasion - and he probably is if he has complained early, before he learned that he was headed for an infuriating zero. 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 Fri Aug 8 05:23:09 2008 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:23:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AEC09B5-D208-4B23-ADBA-9FB430AE8311@gmail.com> I aplologize for top-posting. I find it difficult to post inline from my phone. If declarer were sure that the diamonds were good, why did he ruff a loser at trick 11? All he had to do was lead a D from dummy and claim. Having failed to do this, I would be more inclined to believe the E/W version of the events. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2008, at 6:45 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World June 1984, Appeals Committee XVII, > Issues of Fact: > > "... A Committee should consider the surrounding circumstances > and the inherent probabilities. In the long run, though, it will > have to trust to common sense and ordinary human intuition in > deciding whom to believe. Thus, it is important to hear all four > players, not just one from each side - sometimes, questions will > reveal that one player is not nearly so sure as his partner, > that he is merely being loyal in backing up his partner's version > (if one player fails to appear at the hearing, it is fair to > conclude that this may be the case). Still, there is no > arithmetical rule. Even if the witnesses appear to be two-to-one, > or three-to-one, for a particular version, the committee members > may find themselves more impressed by the one. Then they should > rule that way, the way their instincts tell them the balance of > probability lies. ..." > > Matchpoint pairs, North-South vulnerable > > Two card ending (declarer, South, on lead): > > --- > 9 > 7 > --- > --- --- > T6 J8 > --- --- > --- --- > --- > --- > 86 > --- > > Earlier play not recorded, so complete deal not relevant. > > Result at table: > 4C by South. 8 tricks made before trick 11, result disputed > > Director first called: > At end of hand > > Director's statement of facts: > The TD was called by E/W at the end of play as regards a disputed 2- > card ending. South was on lead (as declarer) at trick 12. He states > that he played D8 and then quickly said (putting the card on the > table) that D6 "was good" - he was in effect claiming both tricks. > E/W both strongly contend that they both only saw the D6 and that > they win the final heart trick in dummy. > > The TD asked declarer to replay how he claimed the last 2 tricks - > this was disputed by E/W. > > N/S contend it would be irrational to play D6 in this situation. > > Director's ruling: > One trick to E/W > > Score for both sides: > 4C - 1 by South, NS -100 > > Details of ruling: > Compulsory play of card by declarer (L45C2) > > Appeal lodged by: > North-South > > Basis of appeal: > South played D8 before D6 > > Director's comments: > The TD is in an invidious position where both N/S and E/W maintain two > opposing perspectives of what happened. > > Edgar Kaplan, June 1984: > > "... There are a few general principles that are often helpful in > arriving at a decision. All things being equal, in a dispute over > _whether_ one bid or another, one play or another, was actually made, > the recollection of the player who made the bid or play is a trifle > more likely to be accurate than the recollections of opponents who > just saw or heard. ..." > > Director's comments (continued): > > In the end the TD ruled in favour of E/W (South played D6) purely > because the last 2 tricks were played quickly and thus there is scope > for error. > > Richard Hills, July 2008: > > "In the end as TD I rule in favour of N/S (South played D8) purely > because the last 2 tricks were played quickly and thus there is scope > for E/W to misunderstand South's valid claim. > > "My experience is that often opponents are confused by a valid claim, > but less often does declarer claim totally irrationally by blocking > equals of eight, seven, six." > > Comments by North-South: > At trick 11 I ruffed with my last trump. By this time I knew both my > diamonds were winners and laid the D8 to cater for the D7 in dummy and > then the D6 on the last trick. > > Comments by East-West: > At trick 11 declarer ruffed with his last trump and put the D6 on the > deck. We then claimed trick 13 knowing that trumps were finished. It > was only at this point that the D8 appeared on the deck. > > Appeals Committee decision: > Director's ruling upheld > Deposit returned > > Appeals Committee comments (David Burn chairman): > It seems to us that if the D8 had been played there would not have an > issue. As far as we can see, the TD has ascertained the facts > efficiently and the ruling is therefore allowed as per Laws 85 and 84. > > Richard Hills, July 2008: > > "It seems to me that D8 was played first, but opponents created an > issue because they were confused. > > "Scientific investigation of miscarriages of justice in real-life > court > cases show that statements of eye-witnesses to an event tend to be > much > less reliable than statements of actors in that event." > > > 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 07:05:12 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 07:05:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> References: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 07/08/2008, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > > I'd tell EW to sit down again and play bridge, if they happen to know that game. > > > > > Ah, the pointlessly rude style of directing. I would rather not > experience such directing at my table, even if I am North. Why are > there no proprieties for directors? I always hear from directors that > we don't need them, but I think we do. > Come off it, will you, Jerry? Go back and see what question I replied to before bashing me. I'd never be rude to a player at the table as a TD. The question was how you'd vote as a member of an AC, which to me is a different kettle of fish, although I'd still do my very best not to be rude or insulting. There's different ways of acting when you tell people down, and it's pretty easy to do this in a friendly manner and still get your meaning through. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > Jerry Fusselman From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Aug 8 07:48:11 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:48:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080808154548.03a1ea88@mail.optusnet.com.au> Harald: > I'd still do my very best not to be >rude or insulting. There's different ways of acting when you tell >people down, and it's pretty easy to do this in a friendly manner and >still get your meaning through. I had a client today who said "I would have called you but I knew you'd only be sarcastic" Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 8 08:28:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:28:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: "Why are there no proprieties for directors?" http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/ABDA_Code_of_Ethics.pdf [snip] * A Tournament Director shall remain courteous at all times in all dealings with players. * A Tournament Director shall not consume alcohol on the floor of an event during session time and shall not direct any session when in any way under the influence of alcohol. * A Tournament Director shall at all times be neatly dressed. * A Tournament Director should consistently promote the principle of Active Ethics. In particular, he should always be impartial and not exhibit favouritism towards any player or players. 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 Aug 8 09:23:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 17:23:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <489AAC8E.5060608@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: >But this is NOT a L85 ruling - it's a L75 ruling - is there >a misbid or a misexplanation? Richard Hills quibbles: (a) The 2007 Law 85 is about rulings on disputed facts. (b) The 2007 Law 85 requires disputed facts to be resolved according to "the balance of probabilities". (c) In the original case in the original Cincinnatus thread the facts were disputed. (d) It so happened that the disputed facts in the original Cincinnatus thread are Mistaken Call or Mistaken Explanation? (e) So what? (f) By referring to Law 75, Herman is presumably referring to a phrase in the 2007 Law 75C, which is repeated as the 2007 Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." (g) By using the word NOT (in capitals), Herman is presumably arguing that the 2007 Law 21B1(b) completely repeals the 2007 Law 85 if the disputed facts to be resolved are Mistaken Call or Mistaken Explanation. (h) Balderdash. Of course Herman is wrong. (i) "When someone says 'of course' that means that that proposition is highly debatable." (j) _In my opinion_ Herman is wrong, because _in my opinion_ the 2007 Law 21B1(b) is a tie-breaking and supplementary Law, with the 2007 Law 85 being the primary Law. (k) _In my opinion_ a typical tie-breaker for which the 2007 Law 21B1(b) should be used is when declarer and dummy have an unresolved difference of opinion during the Clarification Period as to what their agreed methods actually are. Herman De Wael asserted: >They cannot provide evidence for the negative of that one. Pocket Oxford Dictionary quibbles: evidence, n. (Law) information given personally or drawn from document, etc 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 Aug 8 09:44:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 17:44:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5AEC09B5-D208-4B23-ADBA-9FB430AE8311@gmail.com> Message-ID: David Kent: >If declarer were sure that the diamonds were good, why >did he ruff a loser at trick 11? All he had to do was >lead a D from dummy and claim. Having failed to do >this, I would be more inclined to believe the E/W >version of the events. Richard Hills: In an earlier thread, David Stevenson proudly related how he (accurately) claimed about four times in every session. This left me wondering why David was the declarer for only about four times in every session. :-) Poor players often waste time playing futile tricks when an expert player would have long since claimed. However, merely because this declarer (or David Stevenson) chooses to play a futile trick does not imply that this declarer (or David Stevenson) is more likely to later play a totally irrational card. Furthermore, David Kent's argument that declarer might have thought that the defenders had a diamond winner cuts both ways. Such a declarer would have played diamonds at trick 11 to achieve one off rather than two off. So I would argue that the lack of a diamond play suggested declarer having confidence in all the diamonds being high, and perhaps also suggested that this particular South might (illegally) have been trying some mind games. Law 74B4: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent." Best wishes Richard James Hills 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 Aug 8 10:29:53 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:29:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5AEC09B5-D208-4B23-ADBA-9FB430AE8311@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c8f930$eef96f90$ccec4eb0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > ...... So I would argue that the lack of a diamond play > suggested declarer having confidence in all the diamonds > being high, and perhaps also suggested that this > particular South might (illegally) have been trying some > mind games. > > 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." Can we agree that by claiming instead of just playing on this player actually prolonged play excessively? His claim even resulted in a TD call and AC meeting that would otherwise have been unnecessary. All for the alleged saving of possibly just one second? Law 74B specifically states that a player "should refrain" from playing on when the purpose of playing rather than claiming is to "disconcert an opponent". My assertion is that it would have been in no way wrong for South to play on rather than claim in this situation. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 8 11:55:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:55:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489C182A.4030904@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > When RHO has perpetrated an insufficient bid, is it your own turn to > call, or is it still RHO's turn to call? That is, is a Law 27A > acceptance of an insufficient bid a call out of turn which happens to > be legal? > > AG : I'd say the procedure is two-stepped : 1) you say whether you want it to be your turn or RHO's. 2) if the former, it becomes your turn and your call is in turn. And it's true that it seems you aren't allowed to enquire before 1) and it's too late after 1) if your intent is to decide which option you'll use. This seems unfair and I'd welcome an official information that you're allowed to ask when it *could* be your turn. (and so partner isn't allowed to ask after your RHO's insufficient bid) Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Fri Aug 8 12:06:36 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:06:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke out of turn References: <200808071537.m77FbeMC026027@cfa.harvard.edu> <489B886D.6060709@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001701c8f93e$716e4600$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 12:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke out of turn >> From: "Grattan" >> ... it is perhaps >> quite worthwhile to examine the actual words in Law 23: >> " .... could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that >> this could well damage ....." > > Wow! There's a lot I haven't picked up on in the new Laws. "Likely to > damage" has been replaced by "could well damage." That's a much weaker > standard and suggests L23 adjustments should be given more freely than > L72B1 adjustments in the past. I HAD noticed; made me VERY happy; I can use L23 even more freely; probably even for aggravated revokes. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Aug 8 12:10:19 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:10:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be><2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080808154548.03a1ea88@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <002a01c8f93e$f6aa65b0$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Harald: > >> I'd still do my very best not to be >>rude or insulting. There's different ways of acting when you tell >>people down, and it's pretty easy to do this in a friendly manner and >>still get your meaning through. > > I had a client today who said "I would have called > you but I knew you'd only be sarcastic" I often try "Is my abuse up to its usual standard??" That generally raises a smile. John > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 8 12:25:26 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:25:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Not all tied to the same brush [was Re: David Burn (was Cincinnatus)] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005101c8f941$1cb93770$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 3:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > However, what sways a Committee most is a fact of life: There are 100 > players who deny indignantly that they huddled, when they did, for > every one player who claims that an opponent huddled, when he didn't. > > There is that one player though. The chances are that committee > members have seen him before, and they will surely see him again > (whenever he gets a horrible score he conjures up some opponent's > impropriety to blame it on). Still, even the chronic complainer may > be justified on occasion - and he probably is if he has complained > early, before he learned that he was headed for an infuriating zero. > +=+ What Edgar was describing was his own personal approach to situations in appeals committees. Other AC members have their several ways and there are as many as there are committeemen. The most useful asset for a committee member is a third ear, the one that listens to what lies behind the words spoken. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 8 13:19:09 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:19:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489C2BAD.4090807@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> But this is NOT a L85 ruling - it's a L75 ruling - is there a >> misbid or a misexplanation? > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > (a) The 2007 Law 85 is about rulings on disputed facts. Yes, but there are no facts under dispute - they tell you they have not discussed it, which you might well believe. You have to make a ruling on whether they have an understanding. That is not a "fact" to which they have given any evidence. It is your ruling, according to L75. > (b) The 2007 Law 85 requires disputed facts to be resolved > according to "the balance of probabilities". Since I'm not talking about L85 , it's no use harping on about it. > (c) In the original > case in the original Cincinnatus thread the facts were disputed. I don't recall the original thread - was it the one where 3S was invitational or not? Hardly a "fact" to which L85 refers, but a matter of system. > (d) It so happened that the disputed facts in the original > Cincinnatus thread are Mistaken Call or Mistaken Explanation? About which we have a specific law: L75. > (e) > So what? Are you trying to impress us with arguments all the way up to (z)? > (f) By referring to Law 75, Herman is presumably referring > to a phrase in the 2007 Law 75C, which is repeated as the 2007 Law > 21B1(b): > > "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > Of course he is doing so. > (g) By using the word NOT (in capitals), Herman is presumably > arguing that the 2007 Law 21B1(b) completely repeals the 2007 Law > 85 if the disputed facts to be resolved are Mistaken Call or > Mistaken Explanation. balderdash. > (h) Balderdash. Of course Herman is wrong. Your best argument yet. > (i) "When someone says 'of course' that means that that proposition > is highly debatable." You said it, I did not. > (j) _In my opinion_ Herman is wrong, because > _in my opinion_ the 2007 Law 21B1(b) is a tie-breaking and > supplementary Law, with the 2007 Law 85 being the primary Law. Balderdash. Whenever Richard disagrees with Herman, Richard states that the law that supports his vision is -obviously- the stronger law. Circular reasoning. I should not bother with arguments like these. > (k) > _In my opinion_ a typical tie-breaker for which the 2007 Law > 21B1(b) should be used is when declarer and dummy have an > unresolved difference of opinion during the Clarification Period as > to what their agreed methods actually are. > Balderdash. Richard, Richard, why can you never admit that you used a stupid argument, why must you always confound your errors by painting yourself into a corner. Is anyone really fooled by Richards use of letters A-K into believing he actually has a point? > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> They cannot provide evidence for the negative of that one. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary quibbles: > > evidence, n. (Law) information given personally or drawn from > document, etc > Balderdash. > > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Aug 8 17:13:55 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:13:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <489C182A.4030904@ulb.ac.be> References: <489C182A.4030904@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:55:54 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Richard Hills: >> >> When RHO has perpetrated an insufficient bid, is it your own turn to >> call, or is it still RHO's turn to call? That is, is a Law 27A >> acceptance of an insufficient bid a call out of turn which happens to >> be legal? "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." My guess is that everyone would interpret this as being "at his own turn to take action" and it should be interpreted this way. Assuming you want to do this, you can justify it as common sense (http://bridge.rfrick.info/tdnotjustlaws.htm). But, while I agree with Alain (it is not your turn to bid until you decide whether or not to accept the insufficient bid), many people will probably prefer the interpretation that LHO can bid, therefore you can interpret the situation as it being LHO's turn to bid. (I am pretty sure that I heard this from Eric.) > > AG : I'd say the procedure is two-stepped : > > 1) you say whether you want it to be your turn or RHO's. > 2) if the former, it becomes your turn and your call is in turn. > > And it's true that it seems you aren't allowed to enquire before 1) and > it's too late after 1) if your intent is to decide which option you'll > use. > This seems unfair and I'd welcome an official information that you're > allowed to ask when it *could* be your turn. (and so partner isn't > allowed to ask after your RHO's insufficient bid) > > Best regards > > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 8 20:06:21 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 19:06:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <489C182A.4030904@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001a01c8f981$800b22d0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott +=+ From Law 18 we learn that an insufficient bid does not supersede the last preceding bid. The turn does not pass to the IBer's LHO. Only if the LHO elects to treat it as legal under Law 27A does the turn pass to him. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 20:43:23 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:43:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0808081143qb652d75h45ddbfa6d5438b77@mail.gmail.com> [Harald] I'd tell EW to sit down again and play bridge, if they happen to know that game. [Jerry] Ah, the pointlessly rude style of directing. I would rather not experience such directing at my table, even if I am North. Why are there no proprieties for directors? I always hear from directors that we don't need them, but I think we do. [Harald] Come off it, will you, Jerry? Go back and see what question I replied to before bashing me. I'd never be rude to a player at the table as a TD. The question was how you'd vote as a member of an AC, which to me is a different kettle of fish, although I'd still do my very best not to be rude or insulting. There's different ways of acting when you tell people down, and it's pretty easy to do this in a friendly manner and still get your meaning through. [Jerry] Oh I wasn't bashing you, I was taking exception to one sentence. For all I know, you might be best and politest director on earth. I assume you endeavor to polite at the table. I interpreted your sentence to mean --- I'd tell EW, "Sit down again and play bridge, if you happen to know that game." --- I have heard statements like this from directors many times, and I find it pointlessly rude. It makes little difference to me whether such a statement occurs at the table or away from the table. Many directors seem to consider pointless rudeness to be a job perk. Probably not you. Perhaps your meaning was more like this: --- In the appeal room I'd tell EW "Sit down again and play bridge" if they happened to know that game. --- I'm not sure this interpretation makes much sense. NS were the appellates. You ended with this interesting assertion: "There's different ways of acting when you tell people down, and it's pretty easy to do this in a friendly manner and still get your meaning through." Really? First, why do you have to tell people down? Perhaps a better approach is to explain what needs explaining, and not focus on telling people down. And I would love see the words or style or whatever it is that enables you to convey the message "Sit down again and play bridge, if you happen to know that game" in a friendly manner. Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand, but I wish you would at least try to explain it to me. Jerry Fusselman From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Aug 9 01:39:18 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 00:39:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c8f9af$fa7bf5c0$ef73e140$@com> Matchpoint pairs, North-South vulnerable Two card ending (declarer, South, on lead): --- 9 7 --- --- --- T6 J8 --- --- --- --- --- --- 86 --- Earlier play not recorded, so complete deal not relevant. Result at table: 4C by South. 8 tricks made before trick 11, result disputed Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: The TD was called by E/W at the end of play as regards a disputed 2- card ending. South was on lead (as declarer) at trick 12. He states that he played D8 and then quickly said (putting the card on the table) that D6 "was good" - he was in effect claiming both tricks. E/W both strongly contend that they both only saw the D6 and that they win the final heart trick in dummy. The TD asked declarer to replay how he claimed the last 2 tricks - this was disputed by E/W. N/S contend it would be irrational to play D6 in this situation. Director's ruling: One trick to E/W Score for both sides: 4C - 1 by South, NS -100 Details of ruling: Compulsory play of card by declarer (L45C2) Appeal lodged by: North-South Basis of appeal: South played D8 before D6 Director's comments: The TD is in an invidious position where both N/S and E/W maintain two opposing perspectives of what happened. In the end the TD ruled in favour of E/W (South played D6) purely because the last 2 tricks were played quickly and thus there is scope for error. Comments by North-South: At trick 11 I ruffed with my last trump. By this time I knew both my diamonds were winners and laid the D8 to cater for the D7 in dummy and then the D6 on the last trick. Comments by East-West: At trick 11 declarer ruffed with his last trump and put the D6 on the deck. We then claimed trick 13 knowing that trumps were finished. It was only at this point that the D8 appeared on the deck. Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit returned. Appeals Committee comments (David Burn chairman): It seems to us that if the D8 had been played there would not have been an issue. As far as we can see, the TD has ascertained the facts efficiently and the ruling is therefore allowed as per Laws 85 and 84. [DALB] I'm not quite sure what all this fuss is about. I recall the case, and the question was a simple one: [A] had South actually played (per L45) the six of diamonds and then tried to claim on the basis that he would play the eight before the six, in which case he loses a trick; or [B] had he exposed both cards (with or without the six of diamonds uppermost, or appearing on the table before the eight) and made a claim, in which case he makes the last two tricks? Like the Director, the committee questioned all players as to what had actually happened. It seemed to us that we would never know for certain, but on the basis of the answers we were given we determined that [A] was by far the more likely. It is of course possible to pull a wrong card at trick 12 just as at any other time; no doubt declarer did not intend to play the six of diamonds, but this does not preclude the six of diamonds from becoming a played card, however irrational it would be to play it. Now, Richard may feel that he would have come to a different conclusion, but he was not present at the table or for the hearing. By and large, if a director has ruled on the basis of facts that he has tried to establish close to the time the incident occurred, a committee should incline to rely on what the director has determined. Here the director determined that he was dealing with two cards played to tricks 12 and 13, not with a claim, and it seemed to him and to us that those two cards had indeed been played in the order D6, D8 (the latter, of course, being out of turn). We might have been wrong. But there is no legal or meta-legal principle involved here. David Burn London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Aug 9 09:32:58 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:32:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Weighting scores Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080809171754.03aa8bb8@mail.optusnet.com.au> A pair open 2D which is misexplained as forcing to game. In fact a late addition to their system card (not provided at the table), gives 2D as weak. They arrive at 5Dx for -800. The opposing pair feel that they might have bid 6H for 1430, had they had correct information. At the other table, the opposing pair missed bidding the slam with less interference. Supppose I think that without the MI, they might have got 800 1/3 of the time, +680 1/3 of the time, and +1430 1/3 of the time, do I simply calculate their approximate damage as : about a third of the time you would have scored 1430, so that is x IMPs. Or do I subtract some of the cases where they might have scored only 680 (i.e. not damaged by the MI). Sorry not too clear, but this is my first under L12C (c) Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From sater at xs4all.nl Sat Aug 9 09:40:58 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:40:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Weighting scores In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080809171754.03aa8bb8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080809171754.03aa8bb8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <00e301c8f9f3$43c1e990$cb45bcb0$@nl> Just the calculation: 1430 would score 13 imps 680 would score 0 800 would score 3 Average is 13+0+3 divided by 3 is 5.33 Normally I round this in the advantage of the non offender, giving them 6 IMPs Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove Sent: zaterdag 9 augustus 2008 9:33 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] Weighting scores A pair open 2D which is misexplained as forcing to game. In fact a late addition to their system card (not provided at the table), gives 2D as weak. They arrive at 5Dx for -800. The opposing pair feel that they might have bid 6H for 1430, had they had correct information. At the other table, the opposing pair missed bidding the slam with less interference. Supppose I think that without the MI, they might have got 800 1/3 of the time, +680 1/3 of the time, and +1430 1/3 of the time, do I simply calculate their approximate damage as : about a third of the time you would have scored 1430, so that is x IMPs. Or do I subtract some of the cases where they might have scored only 680 (i.e. not damaged by the MI). Sorry not too clear, but this is my first under L12C (c) Cheers, Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 9 10:40:02 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:40:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Weighting scores References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080809171754.03aa8bb8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <00e301c8f9f3$43c1e990$cb45bcb0$@nl> Message-ID: <000a01c8f9fb$8b515590$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Weighting scores > Just the calculation: > 1430 would score 13 imps > 680 would score 0 > 800 would score 3 > > Average is 13+0+3 divided by 3 is 5.33 > Normally I round this in the advantage of the non offender, giving them 6 > IMPs > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > Sent: zaterdag 9 augustus 2008 9:33 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] Weighting scores > > A pair open 2D which is misexplained as forcing > to game. In fact a late addition to their system > card (not provided at the table), gives 2D > as weak. They arrive at 5Dx for -800. > > The opposing pair feel that they might have bid > 6H for 1430, had they had correct information. > At the other table, the opposing pair missed > bidding the slam with less interference. > > Supppose I think that without the MI, they might > have got 800 1/3 of the time, +680 1/3 of the > time, and +1430 1/3 of the time, do I simply > calculate their approximate damage as : > > about a third of the time you would have scored > 1430, so that is x IMPs. Or do I subtract some > of the cases where they might have scored > only 680 (i.e. not damaged by the MI). > > Sorry not too clear, but this is my first under > L12C (c) > > 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Aug 9 12:03:09 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:03:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Weighting scores In-Reply-To: <000a01c8f9fb$8b515590$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080809171754.03aa8bb8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <00e301c8f9f3$43c1e990$cb45bcb0$@nl> <000a01c8f9fb$8b515590$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080809200048.03b2be88@mail.optusnet.com.au> Thanks for this. I presume that under the old 12C2 I would have had to give +1430, but now with slightly different weightings, I could say "you've probably got enough" Tony At 06:40 PM 9/08/2008, you wrote: >Grattan Endicottalso ************************************** >The more skilful counsellor does not >cast his light upon the problem, he >reflects the client's own light onto it. >''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >+=+ One third of 13 imps = 4.33 imps > One third of 0 imps = 0.00 imps > One third of 3 imps = 1.00 imps > Aggregate* = 5.33 imps > Normally rounded in favour of NOS but if scoring > copes with decimals it can alternatively stay as it is. > (*Net if one of the elements were a minus swing). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >------------------------------------------------------- > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Hans van Staveren" >To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:40 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Weighting scores > > > > Just the calculation: > > 1430 would score 13 imps > > 680 would score 0 > > 800 would score 3 > > > > Average is 13+0+3 divided by 3 is 5.33 > > Normally I round this in the advantage of the non offender, giving them 6 > > IMPs > > > > Hans > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > > On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > > Sent: zaterdag 9 augustus 2008 9:33 > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: [blml] Weighting scores > > > > A pair open 2D which is misexplained as forcing > > to game. In fact a late addition to their system > > card (not provided at the table), gives 2D > > as weak. They arrive at 5Dx for -800. > > > > The opposing pair feel that they might have bid > > 6H for 1430, had they had correct information. > > At the other table, the opposing pair missed > > bidding the slam with less interference. > > > > Supppose I think that without the MI, they might > > have got 800 1/3 of the time, +680 1/3 of the > > time, and +1430 1/3 of the time, do I simply > > calculate their approximate damage as : > > > > about a third of the time you would have scored > > 1430, so that is x IMPs. Or do I subtract some > > of the cases where they might have scored > > only 680 (i.e. not damaged by the MI). > > > > Sorry not too clear, but this is my first under > > L12C (c) > > > > 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 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Aug 9 13:18:23 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:18:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Weighting scores References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080809171754.03aa8bb8@mail.optusnet.com.au><00e301c8f9f3$43c1e990$cb45bcb0$@nl><000a01c8f9fb$8b515590$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080809200048.03b2be88@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <001301c8fa12$2f3ecfa0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Weighting scores > Thanks for this. I presume that under the old 12C2 > I would have had to give +1430, but now with > slightly different weightings, I could say "you've > probably got enough" > > Tony > > > At 06:40 PM 9/08/2008, you wrote: > > >>Grattan Endicott>also >************************************** >>The more skilful counsellor does not >>cast his light upon the problem, he >>reflects the client's own light onto it. >>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>+=+ One third of 13 imps = 4.33 imps >> One third of 0 imps = 0.00 imps >> One third of 3 imps = 1.00 imps >> Aggregate* = 5.33 imps >> Normally rounded in favour of NOS but if scoring >> copes with decimals it can alternatively stay as it is. >> (*Net if one of the elements were a minus swing). >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>------------------------------------------------------- >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Hans van Staveren" >>To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >>Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 8:40 AM >>Subject: Re: [blml] Weighting scores >> >> >> > Just the calculation: >> > 1430 would score 13 imps >> > 680 would score 0 >> > 800 would score 3 >> > >> > Average is 13+0+3 divided by 3 is 5.33 >> > Normally I round this in the advantage of the non offender, giving them >> > 6 >> > IMPs >> > >> > Hans >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org >> > [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> > On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove >> > Sent: zaterdag 9 augustus 2008 9:33 >> > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> > Subject: [blml] Weighting scores >> > >> > A pair open 2D which is misexplained as forcing >> > to game. In fact a late addition to their system >> > card (not provided at the table), gives 2D >> > as weak. They arrive at 5Dx for -800. >> > >> > The opposing pair feel that they might have bid >> > 6H for 1430, had they had correct information. >> > At the other table, the opposing pair missed >> > bidding the slam with less interference. >> > >> > Supppose I think that without the MI, they might >> > have got 800 1/3 of the time, +680 1/3 of the >> > time, and +1430 1/3 of the time, do I simply >> > calculate their approximate damage as : >> > >> > about a third of the time you would have scored >> > 1430, so that is x IMPs. Or do I subtract some >> > of the cases where they might have scored >> > only 680 (i.e. not damaged by the MI). >> > >> > Sorry not too clear, but this is my first under >> > L12C (c) >> > >> > 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 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Sat Aug 9 14:34:40 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:34:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Weighting scores In-Reply-To: <00e301c8f9f3$43c1e990$cb45bcb0$@nl> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080809171754.03aa8bb8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <00e301c8f9f3$43c1e990$cb45bcb0$@nl> Message-ID: <489D8EE0.3020804@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > Just the calculation: > 1430 would score 13 imps > 680 would score 0 > 800 would score 3 > > Average is 13+0+3 divided by 3 is 5.33 > Normally I round this in the advantage of the non offender, giving them 6 > IMPs > The EBL AC normally rounds to the nearest whole IMP (here 5) except when the result has exactly a half, when the rounding is done in favour of the NOS. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Aug 10 20:03:20 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:03:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Weighting scores Message-ID: <489F2D68.5040500@nhcc.net> > From: Tony Musgrove > I presume that under the old 12C2 > I would have had to give +1430... [three possible NOS results: +680, +800, +1430] It depends on RA guidelines as to "likely" and "at all probable." Under former ACBL guidelines, 1/3 chance was right on the border. If you think +1430 is at least that likely, give it to the NOS; if you think a hair less likely, the NOS gets +800. If +1430 is anywhere near 1/3, it is easily "at all probable" (which used to be 1/6 in the ACBL), so regardless of what you give the NOS, the OS gets -1430. Follow L12C4 for KO play; otherwise give separate VPs or matchpoints for each side. (Some years ago, the ACBLLC removed the numerical guidelines; I have no idea what we are supposed to do now except guess.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 11 00:35:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:35:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c8f9af$fa7bf5c0$ef73e140$@com> Message-ID: David Burn now: [snip] >By and large, if a director has ruled on the basis of facts >that he has tried to establish close to the time the incident >occurred, a committee should incline to rely on what the >director has determined. [snip] >We might have been wrong. But there is no legal or meta-legal >principle involved here. Richard Hills: The legal principle is in the WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of evidence presented." The meta-legal question is whether an Appeals Committee is entitled to over-rule the Director when the basis of the appeal is not the Director having an incomplete collection of (conflicting) evidence, but is rather the Director having a complete collection of (conflicting) evidence which was then _incorrectly evaluated_ by the Director. David Burn then: >It seems to us that if the D8 had been played there would not >have been an issue. Richard Hills: The meta-legal question is whether the existence of a dispute about facts is merely evidence that the facts are disputed. Or is it evidence that a particular disputing side is correct? 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 Aug 11 03:05:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:05:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Not all tied to the same brush [was Re: David Burn (was Cincinnatus)] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005101c8f941$1cb93770$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >The most useful asset for a committee member is a third ear, the >one that listens to what lies behind the words spoken. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Gafiated blmler (and Aussie international player) Peter Gill once told me of a time when he sat on a committee when a player gave verbal evidence against her own side, stating that she had not misbid, but rather that her partner had misexplained. No doubt, if Herman De Wael had been on that committee, Herman would immediately have voted for a misexplanation ruling, citing the 2007 Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Actually, given Herman's anti-dictionary philosophy (verbal evidence = not evidence), he would no doubt have voted for a misexplanation ruling earlier, before wasting time by hearing any verbal evidence. But Peter Gill listened with his third ear, discovering through diligent questioning that the player was so embarrassed about her incompetence in misbidding that she was prepared to deliberately lie that her partner's accurate explanation was MI. So, thanks to Peter Gill's third ear, he and the rest of the committee decided that the eventual verbal evidence was sufficient, under Law 85, to rule misbid and therefore not any infraction. 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 Aug 11 04:27:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:27:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Partial Exposure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <489A426F.8030000@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >Recently, in an EBU congress, I was dummy when my LHO held a card >in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face. Edgar Kaplan, June 1984: The standard for whether a _defender's_ card is "played" is: was it possible for partner to see the face of the card? Whether partner did see it is irrelevant (as a matter of fact, he didn't - in the long history of Appeals Committees, no defender has ever seen his partner's card). And it is irrelevant that declarer or dummy could name the card - nothing is easier to hold a card so that an opponent, but not partner, can see its face. Really, the key is more the angle than the position - a card held vertically, at right angles to the table, cannot be seen by partner; but the instant it is given a dip to the horizontal it can be glimpsed. Almost invariably there are two separate motions employed in moving a card from hand to table: (a) first, a detaching motion, straight up from the hand; (b) then, a sweeping, arc-like motion towards the table. A defender who has made only motion (a) has not played his card, even if he keeps the card out of his hand while enjoying his second thoughts. However, the moment he starts motion (b), even if he swiftly goes into reverse, he has played the card. 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 Aug 11 08:26:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:26:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] There's a hole in my bucket [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills, 17th February 2005: >>Nowadays it is conceivable that an "all pass" auction could >>include MI. >> >>For example: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>Pass(1) Pass(1) Pass(2) Pass(1) >> (3) >> >>(1) A normal pass, could be a balanced 11 hcp. >>(2) By partnership agreement, a third seat pass guarantees >> 0-7 hcp, but East's pass was not alerted by West. >>(3) After South passes, East summons the TD and corrects >> West's MI, pursuant to [the 1997] Law 75D2. Adam Beneschan, 18th February 2005: >Actually, Law 75D2 doesn't really apply here, as it's written!! >It says, "After calling the Director at the earliest legal >opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or >dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player >must inform the opponents that, ..." > >Well, which is it? East is not going to be declarer or dummy, >and he is not going to be a defender, so there is apparently no >legal opportunity for him to call the Director. So you can add >Law 75D2 to the list of Laws that needs a rewrite to deal with >the all-pass auction. 2007 Law 20F5(b): "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction." Richard Hills, 11th August 2008: As TD, I would interpret the 2007 Law 20F5(b)(ii) phrase "declarer or dummy" as meaning "a player who is not a defender". Therefore, I would rule that the right time for East to correct West's MI is _after_ the fourth and final pass, but _before_ the four hands have been returned to the board. 2007 Law 22B2: "If no player bids (see A1) the auction period ends when all four hands have been returned to the board." Since, despite the four passes, the auction period has not yet ended, as TD I give South the option of retracting her Pass. 2007 Law 21B1(a): "Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation." 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 Mon Aug 11 09:43:23 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:43:23 EDT Subject: [blml] There's a hole in my bucket [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 11/08/2008 07:27:02 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: As TD, I would interpret the 2007 Law 20F5(b)(ii) phrase "declarer or dummy" as meaning "a player who is not a defender". Therefore, I would rule that the right time for East to correct West's MI is _after_ the fourth and final pass, but _before_ the four hands have been returned to the board. [paul lamford] Then you would be acting contrary to the definitions section in the front of the Laws where declarer and dummy are exactly defined. And these are part of the Laws. But sometimes the law is an ass. I believe that the requirement to have a bale of hay inside a taxi in England is still part of the Law, but I would hope that no prosecution for a breach would succeed. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Aug 11 09:56:37 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:56:37 EDT Subject: [blml] Partial Exposure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 11/08/2008 03:28:07 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: The standard for whether a _defender's_ card is "played" is: was it possible for partner to see the face of the card? Whether partner did see it is irrelevant (as a matter of fact, he didn't - in the long history of Appeals Committees, no defender has ever seen his partner's card). And it is irrelevant that declarer or dummy could name the card - nothing is easier to hold a card so that an opponent, but not partner, can see its face. Really, the key is more the angle than the position - a card held vertically, at right angles to the table, cannot be seen by partner; but the instant it is given a dip to the horizontal it can be glimpsed. Almost invariably there are two separate motions employed in moving a card from hand to table: (a) first, a detaching motion, straight up from the hand; (b) then, a sweeping, arc-like motion towards the table. A defender who has made only motion (a) has not played his card, even if he keeps the card out of his hand while enjoying his second thoughts. However, the moment he starts motion (b), even if he swiftly goes into reverse, he has played the card. [paul lamford] In the case in question LHO fumbled in playing to a trick, and exposed a card which was not played to the trick in question. The card was briefly rotated through about 150 degrees in the plane of the vertical line upward from the table to the ceiling, making it clearly visible by me and it could have been seen by the partner of the player. I remained silent, and at the end of the hand judged that the exposed card did not matter, but an evidential issue arises, similar to the dispute about the eight of diamonds and the six of diamonds in another thread. If the dummy waits until the end of the hand before calling the director, and the opponents now have either forgotten the fumble or deny that a fumble occurred, then it would be impossible for the TD to rule in favour of the non-offenders, as the dummy would now have seen all 13 cards of the fumbler. However, if the TD were to be called at the time, which would require a Law change, then the incident would be fresh in the minds of those committing the infraction, and dummy would be able to name the exposed card which had not yet been played. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 10:08:25 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:08:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808081143qb652d75h45ddbfa6d5438b77@mail.gmail.com> References: <489960F0.2010102@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0808071034s719b7c8epc4dc973136bb884d@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0808081143qb652d75h45ddbfa6d5438b77@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 08/08/2008, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Harald] > > I'd tell EW to sit down again and play bridge, if they happen to know that game. > > [Jerry] > > Ah, the pointlessly rude style of directing. I would rather not > experience such directing at my table, even if I am North. Why are > there no proprieties for directors? I always hear from directors that > we don't need them, but I think we do. > > [Harald] > > Come off it, will you, Jerry? > > Go back and see what question I replied to before bashing me. > I'd never be rude to a player at the table as a TD. > The question was how you'd vote as a member of an AC, which to me is a > different kettle of fish, although I'd still do my very best not to be > rude or insulting. There's different ways of acting when you tell > people down, and it's pretty easy to do this in a friendly manner and > still get your meaning through. > > [Jerry] > > Oh I wasn't bashing you, I was taking exception to one sentence. For > all I know, you might be best and politest director on earth. I > assume you endeavor to polite at the table. > > I interpreted your sentence to mean > > --- I'd tell EW, "Sit down again and play bridge, if you happen to > know that game." --- > > I have heard statements like this from directors many times, and I > find it pointlessly rude. It makes little difference to me whether > such a statement occurs at the table or away from the table. > > Many directors seem to consider pointless rudeness to be a job perk. > Probably not you. > > Perhaps your meaning was more like this: > > --- In the appeal room I'd tell EW "Sit down again and play bridge" if > they happened to know that game. --- > > I'm not sure this interpretation makes much sense. NS were the appellates. > > You ended with this interesting assertion: "There's different ways of > acting when you tell people down, and it's pretty easy to do this in a > friendly manner and still get your meaning through." > > Really? First, why do you have to tell people down? Perhaps a better > approach is to explain what needs explaining, and not focus on telling > people down. > > And I would love see the words or style or whatever it is that enables > you to convey the message "Sit down again and play bridge, if you > happen to know that game" in a friendly manner. Maybe I'm not smart > enough to understand, but I wish you would at least try to explain it > to me. You'll have to do it with humour, Jerry. The right tone, a friendly smile and the correct twinkle in your eyes...:-) It works just fine. > > Jerry Fusselman > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 11 10:44:41 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:44:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] There's a hole in my bucket [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001901c8fb8e$830f6090$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 7:26 AM Subject: [blml] There's a hole in my bucket [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Adam Beneschan, 18th February 2005: > >>Actually, Law 75D2 doesn't really apply here, as it's written!! >>It says, "After calling the Director at the earliest legal >>opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or >>dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player >>must inform the opponents that, ..." >> >>Well, which is it? East is not going to be declarer or dummy, >>and he is not going to be a defender, so there is apparently no >>legal opportunity for him to call the Director. So you can add >>Law 75D2 to the list of Laws that needs a rewrite to deal with >>the all-pass auction. > +=+ Adam misreads the law here. The restriction in parenthesis only applies to players who are about to be declarer, dummy or a defender. In the example cited (all four players have passed) none of the four players fits any of these descriptions, so for them the Law is to be read omitting the parenthetical matter. As Richard observes the relevant 2007 statement is in Law 20F5(b). With no player answering to any description listed, all from 'which is' to the end is inapplicable and the law for a player not in such categories is to be read terminating 'at his first legal opportunity'. What follows after that restricts only players in the categories listed. To establish the legal opportunity during the auction period for a player who is not to be declarer, dummy or a defender, we look at Law 9A. There is no prohibition by Law in the case of such a player. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 11 11:04:25 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:04:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re hole in bucket (SEC=UNOFFICIAL) Message-ID: <000801c8fb91$44b918b0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34: Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social scientists call "calibrating" their judgments. If your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a sense of how likely it is that your judgment is correct. But experts are much more like normal people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood that they're right. A survey on the question of overconfidence by economist Terrence Odean found that physicians, nurses, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and investment bankers all believed that they knew more than they did. Similarly, a recent study of foreign-exchange traders found that 70 percent of the time, the traders overestimated the accuracy of their exchange-rate predictions. In other words, it wasn't just that they were wrong; they also didn't have any idea how wrong they were. And that seems to be the rule among experts. The only forecasters whose judgments are routinely well calibrated are expert bridge players and weathermen. It rains on 30 percent of the days when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance of rain. * * * Imps, final of a Canberra Bridge Club championship East-West were playing a canape relay system. North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. You, West, hold: A5 Q9862 AK43 Q6 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Dorothy Richard 1D(1) 3C(2) Dble(3) 4C 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass ? (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major {Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, West held maximum values for their opening bid of 1D.} (2) Preempt (3) Negative (4) Break in tempo In your well calibrated judgment, what does partner's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? In your well calibrated judgment, which logical alternative do you now legally select? 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 Tue Aug 12 02:33:59 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:33:59 +1200 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560808111733m4f6cadcbg3fa5e55af74f1ee0@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/12 : > > James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34: > > Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social > scientists call "calibrating" their judgments. If > your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a > sense of how likely it is that your judgment is > correct. But experts are much more like normal > people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood > that they're right. > > A survey on the question of overconfidence by > economist Terrence Odean found that physicians, > nurses, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and > investment bankers all believed that they knew more > than they did. Similarly, a recent study of > foreign-exchange traders found that 70 percent of > the time, the traders overestimated the accuracy of > their exchange-rate predictions. In other words, > it wasn't just that they were wrong; they also > didn't have any idea how wrong they were. And that > seems to be the rule among experts. The only > forecasters whose judgments are routinely well > calibrated are expert bridge players and > weathermen. It rains on 30 percent of the days > when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance > of rain. > > * * * > > Imps, final of a Canberra Bridge Club championship > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > You, West, hold: > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D(1) 3C(2) Dble(3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass > ? > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > {Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, > West held maximum values for their opening > bid of 1D.} > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > > In your well calibrated judgment, what does > partner's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? > > In your well calibrated judgment, which logical > alternative do you now legally select? > > East could have been: 1. Stretching to bid 5H 2. Unsure whether a forcing pass applied 3. wondering whether there was a slam Without further information it is unclear to me what a slow 5H demonstrably suggests. Without further information I would allow any action from partner. On the actual hand I would pass the west hand whatever I thought partner was doing - unless it was something completely different than the options above. I am balanced with cQx so to me it is irrelevant that I am maximum. I hope I can make 5H. Wayne From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Aug 12 05:01:28 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:01:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:17:13 -0400, wrote: > Imps, final of a Canberra Bridge Club championship > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > You, West, hold: > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D(1) 3C(2) Dble(3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass > ? > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > {Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, > West held maximum values for their opening > bid of 1D.} > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > > In your well calibrated judgment, what does > partner's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? This is not a situation in which bridge players will make well-calibrated judgments. This player has to choose between double, pass, 5H, or making a slam try. Plus he/she has to work out the "forcing pass" problem. Plus, if a double shows minimum values, he/she has to figure out what he/she has shown, and if a pass says go to give with extra values, he has to figure out what those are. Hesitating is probably the least informative thing this player could have done, as far as I can see. A quick bid of 5H would probably be more useful information -- that shows extra values suited for offense. I would be suspicious of the 6H bid in that circumstance. (I you want to try calling the director on a lack of hesitation auction.) > > In your well calibrated judgment, which logical > alternative do you now legally select? pass or 6H. I think that looking for a suit is too much suggested by the hesitation. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 12 07:55:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:55:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6CE119E8-1B22-4695-94F1-E4EB9348BD20@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau, 6th August 2008: [snip] Herman's fallacy lies in his challenge to "now make a ruling", which suggests that he has given me the information on which I can do so legitimately. Imagine that he had added either (a) "after talking to the players, I am convinced that they are being entirely forthcoming and truthful", or (b) "after talking to the players, I am convinced that there is more to the story than they are telling me". Does anyone out there, except Herman, really expect me to give the same answer in either case? John (MadDog) Probst, 14th September 2006: >I enjoyed this one. LOL passes AJT Axxx Jxx Axx in first, and >competes to 3H which famous lady international (married to well >known grumpy bulletin writer and international) expresses contempt >for. When dummy hits she calls in the NYPD. "Why did you pass 14 >High?" I ask. "9 losers" says LOL, counting them for my benefit. >"WTFP?" says I to FLI. "Will you record it?" says she. "Why? you've >heard the lady's explanation" says I. > >I was amused that some FLI players have no idea that there exist >players who are perpetual beginners. 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 Tue Aug 12 08:58:16 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:58:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/08/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34: > > Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social > scientists call "calibrating" their judgments. If > your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a > sense of how likely it is that your judgment is > correct. But experts are much more like normal > people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood > that they're right. > > A survey on the question of overconfidence by > economist Terrence Odean found that physicians, > nurses, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and > investment bankers all believed that they knew more > than they did. Similarly, a recent study of > foreign-exchange traders found that 70 percent of > the time, the traders overestimated the accuracy of > their exchange-rate predictions. In other words, > it wasn't just that they were wrong; they also > didn't have any idea how wrong they were. And that > seems to be the rule among experts. The only > forecasters whose judgments are routinely well > calibrated are expert bridge players and > weathermen. It rains on 30 percent of the days > when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance > of rain. > > * * * > > Imps, final of a Canberra Bridge Club championship > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > You, West, hold: > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D(1) 3C(2) Dble(3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass > ? > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > {Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, > West held maximum values for their opening > bid of 1D.} > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > > In your well calibrated judgment, what does > partner's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? Hard to tell. I'd need to know the partnership understandings to be able to answer that. Partner might be uncertain whether a forcing pass applies. Thus partner might just as well been thinking about our methods and what calls are strong/weak as about evaluating his/her hand. For now I'm unable to draw any conclusions. > > In your well calibrated judgment, which logical > alternative do you now legally select? If I've shown a strong canape by rebidding 4H, I've completely shown my values by that bid. Actually, with a 6.5 loser hand and C Qx I'm dead minimum. And pass is absolutely obvious, UI or not. If I haven't shown a maximum hand by rebidding 4H, I'm better than minimum for my calls this far. But I'm not close to a maximum, even then. It's still a clear pass IMO, but closer to a bid, without UI restrictions. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 12 09:02:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:02:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4899FAB0.4070608@skynet.be> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>"The opponents are entitled to correct information, and whether >>you know this or merely guess at it, that is what they should be >>told." Quite so. The illegality here has nothing to do with >>knowing or guessing; it is ignoring the lawbook's definition of >>"correct information". The laws require "correct information" >>about your agreements and methods; giving your opponents >>information (even if "correct") about "what *partner* means by >>his call" is not the same thing, and substituting it for the >>mandated disclosure violates the laws. Herman De Wael: >Now that's just plain silly. >Telling them more cannot be against the laws, surely! >You are criticizing my methods because I would illegally tell the >opponents more than what (you believe) they are entitled to? >You'll have to do better than that if you want to argue against >my method of ruling. "Plainly not silly" WBF Laws Committee minute, 24th August 1998: "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." "Surely legal" 2007 Introduction, first sentence: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure." 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 12 10:20:01 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:20:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004301c8fc58$5820df10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:17 AM Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34: > > Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social > scientists call "calibrating" their judgments. If > your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a > sense of how likely it is that your judgment is > correct. But experts are much more like normal > people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood > that they're right. > +=+ Interesting of itself, this statement is irrelevant here since there are no experts subscribing. . :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 12 10:49:22 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:49:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004401c8fc58$5850a1a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:17 AM Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Imps, final of a Canberra Bridge Club championship > > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > You, West, hold: > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D(1) 3C(2) Dble(3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass > ? > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > {Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, > West held maximum values for their opening > bid of 1D.} > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > > In your well calibrated judgment, what does > partner's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? (A) > > In your well calibrated judgment, which logical > alternative do you now legally select? (B) > +=+ A. That very likely we are already too high. B. There is no logical alternative to Pass. The Director might possibly rule, however, that I am free to make any call. ~ G* ~ +=+ (* uncalibrated pseud) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 12 11:16:09 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:16:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002301c8fc5c$171c98c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > "Surely legal" 2007 Introduction, first sentence: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure." > +=+ The subcommittee's use of 'adequate' lies* at the core of the distinction between Law 12C1(e) and the default position in Law 12C1. ~ G ~ +=+ * see bon mot and interpret as you will. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 12 12:00:25 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:00:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A15F39.3070309@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Imps, final of a Canberra Bridge Club championship East-West were playing a canape relay system. North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. You, West, hold S:A5 H:Q9862 D:AK43 C:Q6 The bidding has gone: Dorothy Richard 1D(1) 3C(2) Dble(3) 4C 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass ? (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major {Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, West held maximum values for their opening bid of 1D.} (2) Preempt (3) Negative (4) Break in tempo In your well calibrated judgment, what does partner's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? In your well calibrated judgment, which logical alternative do you now legally select? [Nigel] Whatever the break in tempo suggests, it is easier for the partnership to decode its own message than for an opponent or director to do so. For example - a naive player's BIT usually implies extra values. - an dodgy experienced player's BIT usually tells partner to pass. Pass, 5S and 6H are logical alternatives. Playing a strong club, this hand passes the late John McLaren's "Ace extra test" - you could bid this way without the Ace of spades; so I mark _P = 10, 5S = 9, 6H = 7 Given the BIT and no more relevant information, you should pass. Partner may be off his head; but on what grounds have some BLMLers already reached that conclusion. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 12 13:28:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:28:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A15F39.3070309@NTLworld.com> References: <48A15F39.3070309@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48A173E5.1040601@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > Imps, final of a Canberra Bridge Club championship > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > You, West, hold S:A5 H:Q9862 D:AK43 C:Q6 > The bidding has gone: > Dorothy Richard > 1D(1) 3C(2) Dble(3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass > ? > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > {Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, > West held maximum values for their opening > bid of 1D.} > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > In your well calibrated judgment, what does > partner's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? > In your well calibrated judgment, which logical > alternative do you now legally select? > I'm coming a bit late into this thread, but I feel 5H isn't a very strong bid, especially if pass were forcing (what's the vulnerability, by the way ?). Since your hand isn't as maximum as stated (the CQ is ornamental), and since you suggested 5 Hearts (open 1H with 45, yes ?), passing is obvious and I don't see any LA to this. Whence I would accept 5H, whatever the inferences from partner's tempo, and disallow anything else. But FWIW, I think the slow tempo suggests extra values NV, and a lesser pattern than expected Vul (where 5CX might be an inadequate compensation if partner holds, say, 4432). Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 12 15:08:22 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:08:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48A15F39.3070309@NTLworld.com> <48A173E5.1040601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001301c8fc7c$c5060730$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Whence I would accept 5H, whatever the inferences from partner's tempo, and disallow anything else. But FWIW, I think the slow tempo suggests extra values NV, and a lesser pattern than expected Vul (where 5CX might be an inadequate compensation if partner holds, say, 4432). +=+ I would expect a pass to be forcing, and to show a club control. Double without club control. 5H is to play - and may well be going light in view of the placement of the values in 'my' hand. The hesitation may well reflect time spent in working out what the options are; I think it is inconclusive in regard to any UI conveyed and the Director may well rule there is no retsriction on the player's choice of action. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 12 15:30:10 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:30:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21850E32-A4F5-4E4D-B17D-7C7059D490C9@starpower.net> On Aug 11, 2008, at 8:17 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > East-West were playing a canape relay system. > North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. > > You, West, hold: > > A5 > Q9862 > AK43 > Q6 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Dorothy Richard > 1D(1) 3C(2) Dble(3) 4C > 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass > ? > > (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major > {Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, > West held maximum values for their opening > bid of 1D.} > (2) Preempt > (3) Negative > (4) Break in tempo > > In your well calibrated judgment, what does > partner's break in tempo demonstrably suggest? Nothing in particular. He might have been considering selling, or doubling, or, with no slam try available, might have been thinking about bidding a slam. Most likely he was just thinking about the implications of the (rather unusual) auction, trying to figure out what everyone had. Legally, we can presume that he had some sort of problem, but we have no indication of which it might be. > In your well calibrated judgment, which logical > alternative do you now legally select? I would pass. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 12 17:56:47 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:56:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A1B2BF.2090703@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >>> "The opponents are entitled to correct information, and whether >>> you know this or merely guess at it, that is what they should be >>> told." Quite so. The illegality here has nothing to do with >>> knowing or guessing; it is ignoring the lawbook's definition of >>> "correct information". The laws require "correct information" >>> about your agreements and methods; giving your opponents >>> information (even if "correct") about "what *partner* means by >>> his call" is not the same thing, and substituting it for the >>> mandated disclosure violates the laws. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Now that's just plain silly. >> Telling them more cannot be against the laws, surely! >> You are criticizing my methods because I would illegally tell the >> opponents more than what (you believe) they are entitled to? >> You'll have to do better than that if you want to argue against >> my method of ruling. > > "Plainly not silly" WBF Laws Committee minute, 24th August 1998: > > "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an > action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, > other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The > Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states > that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified > in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an > infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the > auction or the play." > > "Surely legal" 2007 Introduction, first sentence: > > "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide > an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct > procedure." > The laws do not provide for me to show my hand to my opponents, so if I do, I shall be penalized? How? How can you be seriously suggesting that telling more than is necessary constitutes an infraction? Or even if it is an infraction - that you intend to penalize this infraction? Since the opponents benefit from it so cannot possibly be damaged? Really - too silly to spend much more thought on. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 12 18:02:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:02:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A1B42F.2020200@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau, 6th August 2008: > > [snip] > > Herman's fallacy lies in his challenge to "now make a ruling", which > suggests that he has given me the information on which I can do so > legitimately. Imagine that he had added either (a) "after talking to > the players, I am convinced that they are being entirely forthcoming > and truthful", or (b) "after talking to the players, I am convinced > that there is more to the story than they are telling me". Does > anyone out there, except Herman, really expect me to give the same > answer in either case? > I notice that you refuse to tell me what information you want more, or what your ruling would be if you got the answer you want. As to your (a) or (b), I think I have added that you may assume that the players are forthcoming and truthful in their statement. They did not discuss - today - the bid in question. Now give me a ruling as to whether they have an understanding or not. Please note that they "guessed" correctly. You may want to ask them more questions, such as "where were you both on the 14th of february 2005?" in order to establish whether or not they discussed this sequence on that date. So Richard, please tell me what questions you intend to ask, and what responses might lead you to rule either way. Let's make this a serious case: 1He - (3Cl) - pass - (3Di) - all pass. responder maintains that they did not discusse Ghestem today, but confirms that this is the only two-suiter they could be playing. Yet responder failed to alert and third hand would have another bid if there had been an alert and there is damage as a result of the pass. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 12 20:12:16 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:12:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A1B2BF.2090703@skynet.be> References: <48A1B2BF.2090703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c8fca6$f4050700$dc0f1500$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ......... > >>> "The opponents are entitled to correct information, and whether > >>> you know this or merely guess at it, that is what they should be > >>> told." Quite so. The illegality here has nothing to do with > >>> knowing or guessing; it is ignoring the lawbook's definition of > >>> "correct information". The laws require "correct information" > >>> about your agreements and methods; giving your opponents > >>> information (even if "correct") about "what *partner* means by > >>> his call" is not the same thing, and substituting it for the > >>> mandated disclosure violates the laws. > > > > Herman De Wael: > > > >> Now that's just plain silly. > >> Telling them more cannot be against the laws, surely! > >> You are criticizing my methods because I would illegally tell the > >> opponents more than what (you believe) they are entitled to? > >> You'll have to do better than that if you want to argue against > >> my method of ruling. > > > > "Plainly not silly" WBF Laws Committee minute, 24th August 1998: > > > > "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an > > action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, > > other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The > > Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states > > that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified > > in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an > > infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the > > auction or the play." > > > > "Surely legal" 2007 Introduction, first sentence: > > > > "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide > > an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct > > procedure." > > > > The laws do not provide for me to show my hand to my opponents, so if > I do, I shall be penalized? How? Read the minute again: "You MAY be penalized", it doesn't say that "you SHALL be penalized" A deviation from prescribed procedures is of course a violation of laws, but the penalty (if any) for such violation must obviously depend on the circumstances and possible damage or inconvenience caused and is up to the director's discretion. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 12 20:39:19 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:39:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c8fca6$f4050700$dc0f1500$@no> References: <48A1B2BF.2090703@skynet.be> <000401c8fca6$f4050700$dc0f1500$@no> Message-ID: <48A1D8D7.4080807@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ......... >>>>> "The opponents are entitled to correct information, and whether >>>>> you know this or merely guess at it, that is what they should be >>>>> told." Quite so. The illegality here has nothing to do with >>>>> knowing or guessing; it is ignoring the lawbook's definition of >>>>> "correct information". The laws require "correct information" >>>>> about your agreements and methods; giving your opponents >>>>> information (even if "correct") about "what *partner* means by >>>>> his call" is not the same thing, and substituting it for the >>>>> mandated disclosure violates the laws. >>> Herman De Wael: >>> >>>> Now that's just plain silly. >>>> Telling them more cannot be against the laws, surely! >>>> You are criticizing my methods because I would illegally tell the >>>> opponents more than what (you believe) they are entitled to? >>>> You'll have to do better than that if you want to argue against >>>> my method of ruling. >>> "Plainly not silly" WBF Laws Committee minute, 24th August 1998: >>> >>> "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an >>> action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, >>> other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The >>> Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states >>> that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified >>> in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an >>> infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the >>> auction or the play." >>> >>> "Surely legal" 2007 Introduction, first sentence: >>> >>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide >>> an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct >>> procedure." >>> >> The laws do not provide for me to show my hand to my opponents, so if >> I do, I shall be penalized? How? > > > Read the minute again: "You MAY be penalized", it doesn't say that "you > SHALL be penalized" > > A deviation from prescribed procedures is of course a violation of laws, but > the penalty (if any) for such violation must obviously depend on the > circumstances and possible damage or inconvenience caused and is up to the > director's discretion. > > Sven > Sven, don't confoud the issue with trivialities. Please just go back to the original statement and agree with me that it is plain silly. Of course the penalty shall depend on the circumstances - but the circumstances were described quite completely. So tell me how they can cause damage. Please comment on the original, not on my rebuttal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Tue Aug 12 20:48:21 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:48:21 EDT Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man Message-ID: It is paradoxical that the Laws can punish a player admitting a revoke before it becomes established at trick 12: ....................AQ ....................none ....................none ....................none 2......................................K3 none.................................none none.................................none 2......................................none ...................54 ...................none ...................none ...................none Declarer leads a spade and West plays a club. Declarer plays the ace, and East the 3. West now says that he has a spade. So the revoke is not established, and declarer can change his card, but East has a MPC, so must play the 3 on the queen. If West says nothing instead, E-W get a trick. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 12 21:22:07 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:22:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A1E2DF.2060905@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > It is paradoxical that the Laws can punish a player admitting a revoke > before it becomes established at trick 12: > > ....................AQ > ....................none > ....................none > ....................none > > 2......................................K3 > none.................................none > none.................................none > 2......................................none > ...................54 > ...................none > ...................none > ...................none > > Declarer leads a spade and West plays a club. Declarer plays the ace, and > East the 3. West now says that he has a spade. So the revoke is not > established, and declarer can change his card, but East has a MPC, so must play the 3 on > the queen. > > If West says nothing instead, E-W get a trick. > If west can play a club in trick 12, east has three more spades in two cards. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 12 22:28:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:28:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5EB5C668-0BF1-46B8-BFBD-B0FC08D594F1@starpower.net> On Aug 12, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > It is paradoxical that the Laws can punish a player admitting a > revoke > before it becomes established at trick 12: > > ....................AQ > ....................none > ....................none > ....................none > > 2......................................K3 > none.................................none > none.................................none > 2......................................none > ...................54 > ...................none > ...................none > ...................none > > Declarer leads a spade and West plays a club. Declarer plays the > ace, and > East the 3. West now says that he has a spade. So the revoke is not > established, and declarer can change his card, but East has a MPC, > so must play the 3 on > the queen. > > If West says nothing instead, E-W get a trick. E-W always get a trick. The S3 was correctly played (in turn and following suit), so it is a played card, not a penalty card. If declarer changes his played card, so may East, "without further rectification" [L47D]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 12 22:33:54 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:33:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A1D8D7.4080807@skynet.be> References: <48A1B2BF.2090703@skynet.be> <000401c8fca6$f4050700$dc0f1500$@no> <48A1D8D7.4080807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c8fcba$bd8e8610$38ab9230$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > >>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide > >>> an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct > >>> procedure." > >>> > >> The laws do not provide for me to show my hand to my opponents, so if > >> I do, I shall be penalized? How? > > > > > > Read the minute again: "You MAY be penalized", it doesn't say that "you > > SHALL be penalized" > > > > A deviation from prescribed procedures is of course a violation of laws, but > > the penalty (if any) for such violation must obviously depend on the > > circumstances and possible damage or inconvenience caused and is up to the > > director's discretion. > > > > Sven > > > > Sven, don't confoud the issue with trivialities. > Please just go back to the original statement and agree with me that > it is plain silly. > Of course the penalty shall depend on the circumstances - but the > circumstances were described quite completely. So tell me how they can > cause damage. > Please comment on the original, not on my rebuttal. Frankly, it was your rebuttal that I found "silly". Of course any deviation from correct procedures is a violation of the law describing such procedures. Of course not every violation of law is penalized but any violation MAY be penalized. There is no such thing in the laws that a violation SHALL be penalized. (Here I use the term penalty as different from rectification) Of course these are trivialities. And I do not find these laws silly. End of my comments. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 12 22:51:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:51:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601c8fcbd$280f02b0$782d0810$@no> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > It is paradoxical that the Laws can punish a player admitting a revoke > before it becomes established at trick 12: > > ....................AQ > ....................none > ....................none > ....................none > > 2......................................K3 > none.................................none > none.................................none > 2......................................none > ...................54 > ...................none > ...................none > ...................none > > Declarer leads a spade and West plays a club. Declarer plays the ace, and > East the 3. West now says that he has a spade. So the revoke is not > established, and declarer can change his card, but East has a MPC, so must play > the 3 on the queen. > > If West says nothing instead, E-W get a trick. If West says nothing (and the revoke is discovered before all four hands have been returned to the board) then the revoke must be corrected (Law 62D). During the process of correcting the revoke Declarer may change the Ace of spades to the Queen of spades but East must still play his 3 to the trick. (Law 47D, and this law refers to Law 62C2 which establishes the 3 of spades as a major penalty card!) Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 12 23:52:58 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:52:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c8fcba$bd8e8610$38ab9230$@no> References: <48A1B2BF.2090703@skynet.be> <000401c8fca6$f4050700$dc0f1500$@no> <48A1D8D7.4080807@skynet.be> <000501c8fcba$bd8e8610$38ab9230$@no> Message-ID: <48A2063A.60508@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. >>>>> "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide >>>>> an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct >>>>> procedure." >>>>> >>>> The laws do not provide for me to show my hand to my opponents, so if >>>> I do, I shall be penalized? How? >>> >>> Read the minute again: "You MAY be penalized", it doesn't say that "you >>> SHALL be penalized" >>> >>> A deviation from prescribed procedures is of course a violation of laws, > but >>> the penalty (if any) for such violation must obviously depend on the >>> circumstances and possible damage or inconvenience caused and is up to > the >>> director's discretion. >>> >>> Sven >>> >> Sven, don't confoud the issue with trivialities. >> Please just go back to the original statement and agree with me that >> it is plain silly. >> Of course the penalty shall depend on the circumstances - but the >> circumstances were described quite completely. So tell me how they can >> cause damage. >> Please comment on the original, not on my rebuttal. > > Frankly, it was your rebuttal that I found "silly". > But my rebuttal referred to the original case - you argue only on my rebuttal. Richard (IIRC) argued that to say more than an agreed argument was an infraction. I rebutted by saying that such an infraction could not possiblydo damage. You only pick up on my rebuttal, saying that even when something does no damage, it can still be illegal. Which is in itself true - but when applied to the crazy notion that to say more than agreed is illegal is truely insignificant. After all, what I meant was not that it did no damage - it actually helps opponents. In fact, Richard (IIRC) is completely wrong. There can be no infr?action called "saying too much", as the infraction which is mentioned in the lawbook is not "saying something ELSE than the agreements" but "saying something LESS than the agreements". So basically - Richard (IIRC) is simply wrong, and your comment on my rebuttal has no bearing on the original at all. > Of course any deviation from correct procedures is a violation of the law > describing such procedures. > Of course not every violation of law is penalized but any violation MAY be > penalized. > There is no such thing in the laws that a violation SHALL be penalized. > (Here I use the term penalty as different from rectification) > > Of course these are trivialities. And I do not find these laws silly. > The only thing I called silly was Richard's (IIRC) interpretation. And I apologise to Richard if I indeed did not remember correctly that it was him who made the silly comment. > End of my comments. > And mine. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 12 23:55:43 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:55:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: <000601c8fcbd$280f02b0$782d0810$@no> References: <000601c8fcbd$280f02b0$782d0810$@no> Message-ID: <48A206DF.8090608@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > >> It is paradoxical that the Laws can punish a player admitting a revoke >> before it becomes established at trick 12: >> >> ....................AQ >> ....................none >> ....................none >> ....................none >> >> 2......................................K3 >> none.................................none >> none.................................none >> 2......................................none >> ...................54 >> ...................none >> ...................none >> ...................none >> >> Declarer leads a spade and West plays a club. Declarer plays the ace, and >> East the 3. West now says that he has a spade. So the revoke is not >> established, and declarer can change his card, but East has a MPC, so > must play >> the 3 on the queen. >> >> If West says nothing instead, E-W get a trick. > > If West says nothing (and the revoke is discovered before all four hands > have been returned to the board) then the revoke must be corrected (Law > 62D). During the process of correcting the revoke Declarer may change the > Ace of spades to the Queen of spades but East must still play his 3 to the > trick. (Law 47D, and this law refers to Law 62C2 which establishes the 3 of > spades as a major penalty card!) > > Regards Sven > Easy one, Sven, you're wrong: by L47D East may first change his card -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 13 00:22:45 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:22:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Ignorance is preferable to error" - Jefferson. Message-ID: <002301c8fcca$37ababd0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <000601c8fcbd$280f02b0$782d0810$@no> Message-ID: <003401c8fccb$f2697fa0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelfth Man > On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > >> It is paradoxical that the Laws can punish a player admitting a revoke >> before it becomes established at trick 12: >> >> ....................AQ >> ....................none >> ....................none >> ....................none >> >> 2......................................K3 >> none.................................none >> none.................................none >> 2......................................none >> ...................54 >> ...................none >> ...................none >> ...................none >> >> Declarer leads a spade and West plays a club. Declarer plays the ace, >> and >> East the 3. West now says that he has a spade. So the revoke is not >> established, and declarer can change his card, but East has a MPC, so > must play >> the 3 on the queen. >> >> If West says nothing instead, E-W get a trick. > > If West says nothing (and the revoke is discovered before all four hands > have been returned to the board) then the revoke must be corrected (Law > 62D). During the process of correcting the revoke Declarer may change the > Ace of spades to the Queen of spades but East must still play his 3 to the > trick. (Law 47D, and this law refers to Law 62C2 which establishes the 3 > of > spades as a major penalty card!) > +=+ If West has committed an infraction and at the same time East has lost count of the Spade suit, should I worry? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 13 01:25:49 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:25:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: <48A206DF.8090608@skynet.be> References: <000601c8fcbd$280f02b0$782d0810$@no> <48A206DF.8090608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c8fcd2$c1539070$43fab150$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 12. august 2008 23:56 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Twelfth Man > > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > > > >> It is paradoxical that the Laws can punish a player admitting a revoke > >> before it becomes established at trick 12: > >> > >> ....................AQ > >> ....................none > >> ....................none > >> ....................none > >> > >> 2......................................K3 > >> none.................................none > >> none.................................none > >> 2......................................none > >> ...................54 > >> ...................none > >> ...................none > >> ...................none > >> > >> Declarer leads a spade and West plays a club. Declarer plays the ace, and > >> East the 3. West now says that he has a spade. So the revoke is not > >> established, and declarer can change his card, but East has a MPC, so > > must play > >> the 3 on the queen. > >> > >> If West says nothing instead, E-W get a trick. > > > > If West says nothing (and the revoke is discovered before all four hands > > have been returned to the board) then the revoke must be corrected (Law > > 62D). During the process of correcting the revoke Declarer may change the > > Ace of spades to the Queen of spades but East must still play his 3 to the > > trick. (Law 47D, and this law refers to Law 62C2 which establishes the 3 of > > spades as a major penalty card!) > > > > Regards Sven > > > > Easy one, Sven, you're wrong: by L47D East may first change his card On rereading L62C2 I think this is correct. It still doesn't matter if West says anything to the effect that he has revoked; East will never have his 3 of spades becoming a (major) penalty card until after he in case has replaced it with his King. (The applicable law is 62C2!) Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 13 01:34:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:34:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: <003401c8fccb$f2697fa0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000601c8fcbd$280f02b0$782d0810$@no> <003401c8fccb$f2697fa0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000b01c8fcd4$008fceb0$01af6c10$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan ............. > > On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > > > >> It is paradoxical that the Laws can punish a player admitting a revoke > >> before it becomes established at trick 12: > >> > >> ....................AQ > >> ....................none > >> ....................none > >> ....................none > >> > >> 2......................................K3 > >> none.................................none > >> none.................................none > >> 2......................................none > >> ...................54 > >> ...................none > >> ...................none > >> ...................none > >> > >> Declarer leads a spade and West plays a club. Declarer plays the ace, > >> and East the 3. West now says that he has a spade. So the revoke is > >> not established, and declarer can change his card, but East has a MPC, > >> so must play the 3 on the queen. > >> > >> If West says nothing instead, E-W get a trick. > > > > If West says nothing (and the revoke is discovered before all four hands > > have been returned to the board) then the revoke must be corrected (Law > > 62D). During the process of correcting the revoke Declarer may change the > > Ace of spades to the Queen of spades but East must still play his 3 to the > > trick. (Law 47D, and this law refers to Law 62C2 which establishes the 3 > > of > > spades as a major penalty card!) > > > +=+ If West has committed an infraction and at the same time > East has lost count of the Spade suit, should I worry? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I don't think there is any need for it. I used the general law (47D) rather than the specific law (L62C2) and was too quick when reading L62C2: Regardless of what West does, the 3 of spades originally played by East will not become a (major) penalty card until after he in case has replaced it with his King, so EW will always get one of the last two tricks. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 13 02:15:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:15:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A206DF.8090608@skynet.be> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >>(Law 47D, and this law refers to Law 62C2 which establishes the 3 >>of spades as a major penalty card!) Herman De Wael: >Easy one, Sven, you're wrong: by L47D East may first change his card Richard Hills: Easy one, Herman, you're wrong. Law 47D: "After an opponent's change of play a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.)" Law 62C2: "After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw his played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender, and see Law 16D." Richard Hills: (Note: The Law 62C2 reference to "a penalty card" should have been a reference to "a major penalty card", since the withdrawn card was not exposed unintentionally, thus never a minor penalty card.) So the 3 of spades is withdrawn and another card may be substituted by East after the non-offending North plays again. But because the 3 of spades is a major penalty card, the other card to be substituted by East is the 3 of 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 Wed Aug 13 02:37:19 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:37:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c8fcd2$c1539070$43fab150$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >On rereading L62C2 I think this is correct. It still doesn't matter if >West says anything to the effect that he has revoked; East will never >have his 3 of spades becoming a (major) penalty card until after he in >case has replaced it with his King. (The applicable law is 62C2!) Richard Hills: I think Sven's second thoughts are wrong, and his first thoughts were right. In my opinion, Laws 62A, B and C are the applicable Laws. (z) Law 62A requires West to correct their non-established revoke. (y) Law 62B preface requires West to substitute their non-established revoke card with a legal card. (x) Law 62C1 permits dummy to withdraw their ace of spades. (w) Law 62C2 permits East to withdraw their three of spades, but then defines the three of spades as a penalty card. The trick then reboots with West's new legal card, followed by dummy's change of card from ace of spades to queen of spades, then East's forced play of the three of spades major penalty card. What's the problem? 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 Aug 13 03:06:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:06:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford >It is paradoxical that the Laws can punish a player admitting a revoke >before it becomes established at trick 12: [snip] >If West says nothing instead, E-W get a trick. Law 64B6: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: if it is a revoke on the twelfth trick." Law 62A "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." Richard Hills: If a player could have been aware of Law 64B6, and also could have been aware of the damaging effects of a penalty card, that player could have an incentive to hypothetically infract Law 62A. Alas, the usual "could have been aware" Law 23 does not apply in this situation, since West's known revoke could never benefit the offending side; it is the later unknown hypothetical infraction of Law 62A which is beneficial to a hypothetical West with grey ethics. A similar problem arises with 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." Because of the adverb "knowingly", Law 79A2 is difficult to enforce, giving a short-term edge to a player with grey ethics. In the long run, of course, players with grey ethics find themselves before a Conduct and Ethics disciplinary hearing. 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 Aug 13 03:25:51 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:25:51 EDT Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man Message-ID: In a message dated 12/08/2008 23:36:18 GMT Standard Time, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: +=+ If West has committed an infraction and at the same time East has lost count of the Spade suit, should I worry? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree I have no sympathy for East-West, who clearly were paying insufficient attention to the game and therefore breaching 74B1. I am slightly uncomfortable with the fact that when they say and do nothing, which I accept is not a further infraction, they avoid a penalty. And all TDs to whom I spoke here at the EBU Congress agree that the correct ruling is two tricks when they admit the infraction and only one trick when they remain silent. From Gampas at aol.com Wed Aug 13 03:27:50 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:27:50 EDT Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man Message-ID: In a message dated 12/08/2008 20:22:20 GMT Standard Time, hermandw at skynet.be writes: If west can play a club in trick 12, east has three more spades in two cards. But you assume that a pair incapable of following suit is able to count to 13, and as the Hideous Hog would say, "Bah!" From Gampas at aol.com Wed Aug 13 03:42:49 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:42:49 EDT Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? Message-ID: LAW 53 - LEAD OUT OF TURN ACCEPTED A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead ... LAW 55 - DECLARER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN A. Declarer?s Lead Accepted If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction . If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail. [paul lamford] The above two clauses seem incomplete, in that they do not specify what happens if both of the following occur: a) the defender who is not next to play after the lead out of turn makes a statement that the said lead should be treated as a correct lead b) his partner subsequently indicates that he does not agree with that statement, and wants the lead to be made from the correct hand. The remedy to the contradiction, if this is is the WBFLC intention, is to add, in Law 53, either a cross-reference to Law 55A or to add something along the lines of, "unless the defender who is next to play after the lead out of turn makes an additional statement overruling this request before he plays to the trick". From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 13 04:04:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:04:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A173E5.1040601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >I feel 5H isn't a very strong bid, especially if >pass were forcing (what's the vulnerability, by >the way ?). Richard Hills: My bad. East-West vul, North-South not vul. Some partnerships (not necessarily this one) play that the vulnerability can affect whether or not a high- level Pass is forcing. Nigel Guthrie: >- a naive player's BIT usually implies extra values. >..... >Given the BIT and no more relevant information, you >should pass. Richard Hills naive guess: My naive guess would be that East's BIT implied a club void, thinking about punting 6H. So, I naively join Nigel in believing that West's only legal call (per Laws 16 and 73C) is Pass. Grattan Endicott sophisticated guess: >+=+ I would expect a pass to be forcing, and to show >a club control. Double without club control. 5H is >to play - and may well be going light in view of the >placement of the values in 'my' hand. > The hesitation may well reflect time spent in >working out what the options are; I think it is >inconclusive in regard to any UI conveyed and the >Director may well rule there is no restriction on >the player's choice of action. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Dlr: West Vul: East-West J97 --- T876 AKJT43 A5 KQ42 Q9862 AJT7 AK43 Q52 Q6 52 T863 K543 J9 987 East-West were playing a canape relay system. North-South were playing Dorothy Acol. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Dorothy Richard 1D(1) 3C(2) Dble(3) 4C 4H 5C 5H(4) Pass 6H(4) Pass Pass Pass (1) Natural, but possibly holds a longer major {Since East-West's system uses a strong 1C, West held maximum values for their opening bid of 1D.} (2) Preempt (3) Negative (4) Break in tempo Dorothy cashed the king and ace of clubs at tricks one and two, and I later scored my king of trumps for two off. West's optimism in bidding the slam cost his side only one imp, since my team-mates were permitted to score +620 in 4H. Marvin French, June 2005: >Also, established partnerships seem able to sense >what partner was thinking about, whether to pass, >double, or bid. They never get it wrong, do they?. David Stevenson, June 2005: >Yes, often. > >But those hands never reach TDs, ACs, RGB, IBLF or >BLML. 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 04:49:34 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:49:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0808121949g476bb19fgcd7c069f756a9caa@mail.gmail.com> Gampas wrote: > > I agree I have no sympathy for East-West, who clearly were paying > insufficient attention to the game and therefore breaching 74B1. I'll ask again my question on L74B1, and for the third time on BLML, probably still with no takers. *Sufficient* *for* *what?* Sufficient by itself makes for an incomplete sentence. If I say that "I ran sufficiently quickly to catch the train" it is clear what I mean. If I say "I ran sufficiently quickly" and stop there, it's bad English unless the context is clear. Has anyone anywhere tried to explain or hint at what 74B1 covers and does not cover? Do BLMLers really think that any time a pair's play is substandard to the director's personal evaluation of his own skill, he gets to rub it in with 74B1 and say that the pair not only is substandard, but also is disobeying the laws of bridge? Are all irregularities double irregularities when L74B1 is considered? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 13 05:24:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:24:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford asserted: >I agree I have no sympathy for East-West, who clearly were paying >insufficient attention to the game and therefore breaching 74B1. Richard Hills quibbles: Reading Law 74B1 in context with the Law 74B preamble ("As a matter of courtesy..."), and in context with the other clauses of Law 74B, suggests that 74B1 is not aimed at an unintended revoke, but rather at, for example, flirting with the waitress when one should be playing cards. Grattan Endicott recently noted that the WBF LC specifically over- ruled a suggestion by Bobby Wolff that a misbid could be an infraction of Law 74B1. Paul Lamford asserted: >I am slightly uncomfortable with the fact that when they say and do >nothing, which I accept is not a further infraction, Richard Hills quibbles: 2007 Law 72B2 cross-references 2007 Law 62A. So intentionally doing nothing is an infraction. Paul Lamford asserted: >they avoid a penalty. And all TDs to whom I spoke here at the EBU >Congress agree that the correct ruling is two tricks when they >admit the infraction and only one trick when they remain silent. Richard Hills quibbles: Declarer, if feeling kind, could continue to play the ace of spades from dummy at trick 12, thus scoring only one trick. But such kindness may itself be an infraction of 2007 Law 72A: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." 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 Aug 13 05:35:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:35:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808121949g476bb19fgcd7c069f756a9caa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >Has anyone anywhere tried to explain or hint at what 74B1 >covers and does not cover? Richard Hills: Not since 1987. In the 1975 Lawbook, the Propriety corresponding to the current Law 74B1 had an indicative example attached. For whatever reason (perhaps Grattan would know why) the indicative example was deleted in the 1987 Lawbook, and Law 74B1 has been unchanged in the two decades since. 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 Aug 13 06:36:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:36:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cincinnatus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: [big snip] >And collecting more information is dangerous about the truth >of an unverifiable claim that you have good reason to doubt >is bad, because it commits you to using the extra evidence. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle quibbled: "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data." Robert Frick asserted: [snip] >Accepting obviously false claims is dangerous, because that >encourages a culture of lying. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle quibbled: "There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." 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 Aug 13 07:15:25 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:15:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808121949g476bb19fgcd7c069f756a9caa@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2b1e598b0808121949g476bb19fgcd7c069f756a9caa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080813151403.02b5fec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Jerry: >Do BLMLers really think that any time a pair's play is substandard to >the director's personal evaluation of his own skill, he gets to rub it >in with 74B1 and say that the pair not only is substandard, but also >is disobeying the laws of bridge? Quite so. I get to say: "the good news is I won't penalise you under 74B1 this time" Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 13 07:15:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:15:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c8fc5c$171c98c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: [big snip] >And collecting more information is dangerous about the truth >of an unverifiable claim that you have good reason to doubt >is bad, because it commits you to using the extra evidence. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle quibbled: "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data." Canberra Bridge Club, East-West were playing old-fashioned Standard American. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1C 1H 1S (1) Pass Pass ? (1) Forcing for one round, not a negative free bid, due to East-West playing old-fashioned Standard American You, South, hold: J84 KQJ9632 A76 --- You have "good reason to doubt" East's 1C opening, but... What dangerous information do you collect before calling? What other unverifiable data do you consider collecting? 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 Wed Aug 13 08:03:35 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:03:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8fd0a$52fbc0b0$f8f34210$@com> [PL] LAW 55 - DECLARER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN A. Declarer?s Lead Accepted If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction. [DALB] I recall a declarer who won my opening lead and immediately played a low card towards dummy's king-jack. I, who had the queen but not the ace, considered the matter for some time before playing low. Declarer put up the king and, when this lost to my partner's ace, screamed blue murder. Declarer had won the opening lead in dummy (the lead was an innocuous low trump and declarer had forgotten to overtake dummy's pip), then led from the wrong hand to the next trick. Did I have a "demonstrable bridge reason" for acting as I did at trick two? Callaghan and I played that if declarer led from the wrong hand, whichever defender was to the left of the lead would always pause, whatever his holding, in order to give partner time to object. Should this have been on our convention card? David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 13 08:21:02 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:21:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004e01c8fd12$26b899d0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Declarer, if feeling kind, could continue to play the ace of spades > from dummy at trick 12, thus scoring only one trick. But such > kindness may itself be an infraction of 2007 Law 72A: > > "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance > with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than > other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and > ethical standards set out in these laws." > +=+ Richard might helpfully list all the laws mentioned in this thread and put against each 'yes' or 'no' as to whether it applies in the circumstances of the incident under discussion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 13 08:54:06 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:54:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? References: Message-ID: <005001c8fd12$2717f7e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Who Cares Wins? > LAW 53 - LEAD OUT OF TURN ACCEPTED > > A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead > > Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law > 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the > case may > be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made > from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead ... > > LAW 55 - DECLARER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN > > A. Declarer?s Lead Accepted > > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender > may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction > . If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the > player next in turn shall prevail. > > [paul lamford] The above two clauses seem incomplete, in that they do > not specify what happens if both of the following occur: > > a) the defender who is not next to play after the lead out of turn > makes a statement that the said lead should be treated as a correct > lead > > b) his partner subsequently indicates that he does not agree with that > statement, and wants the lead to be made from the correct hand. > > The remedy to the contradiction, if this is is the WBFLC intention, is to > add, in Law 53, either a cross-reference to Law 55A or to add something > along the lines of, "unless the defender who is next to play after the > lead > out of turn makes an additional statement overruling this request before > he plays to the trick". > +=+ If Law 55A applies its application is not dependent on the presence of a cross-reference. "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." (Intro to the 2007 Laws.) Paul does not explain what dilemma he finds in this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 13 08:37:17 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:37:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man References: <2b1e598b0808121949g476bb19fgcd7c069f756a9caa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004f01c8fd12$26e85c60$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelfth Man I'll ask again my question on L74B1, and for the third time on BLML, probably still with no takers. *Sufficient* *for* *what?* Sufficient by itself makes for an incomplete sentence. > +=+ Fowler discusses butter and addresses the question "Is there enough butter?". The judgement as to what is enough is made in the mind of the person addressed. In bridge what degree of attention is sufficient is determined under Law 81C2. Responding to Richard Hills, in 1987 it was decided that the statement of the law was enough* without an example of its application attached. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* or, indeed, sufficient :-)] From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 13 09:13:46 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:13:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? References: <000001c8fd0a$52fbc0b0$f8f34210$@com> Message-ID: <005a01c8fd14$21ad7c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Who Cares Wins? > [PL] > > LAW 55 - DECLARER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN > > A. Declarer?s Lead Accepted > > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction. > > [DALB] > > I recall a declarer who won my opening lead and immediately played a low card towards dummy's king-jack. I, who had the queen but not the ace, considered the matter for some time before playing low. Declarer put up the king and, when this lost to my partner's ace, screamed blue murder. > > Declarer had won the opening lead in dummy (the lead was an innocuous low trump and declarer had forgotten to overtake dummy's pip), then led from the wrong hand to the next trick. Did I have a "demonstrable bridge reason" for acting as I did at trick two? > > Callaghan and I played that if declarer led from the wrong hand, whichever defender was to the left of the lead would always pause, whatever his holding, in order to give partner time to object. Should this have been on our convention card? > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Partner should possibly have alerted, or perhaps the regulation said 'alert nothing in the play' (in which case you might have informed declarer yourself that your pause was not for thought). But what did the Director rule? - no matter by whom summoned. . It may be a Law 40B3 case now if your implicit understanding is that you do not make such pauses? ~ G ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Aug 13 09:16:17 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:16:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: <003401c8fccb$f2697fa0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: > +=+ If West has committed an infraction and at the same time East has lost count of the Spade suit, should I worry? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: Strange reaction. Meanwhile some of of you might have found the right law, I am not eager to check that. The meaning of L62C2 of course is that East may play the King and then (let us assume this takes place in an earlier trick than 12) his played card becomes a PC. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 09:29:29 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:29:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? In-Reply-To: <005a01c8fd14$21ad7c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000001c8fd0a$52fbc0b0$f8f34210$@com> <005a01c8fd14$21ad7c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On 13/08/2008, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A truth's prosperity is like a jest's, > it lies in the ear of him that hears it." > ~ Samuel Butler. > [A falsehood's prosperity is like a truth's, > it also lies in the ear of him that hears it. > :-) G. ] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:03 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Who Cares Wins? > > > > [PL] > > > > LAW 55 - DECLARER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN > > > > A. Declarer's Lead Accepted > > > > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, > either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, > or require its retraction. > > > > [DALB] > > > > I recall a declarer who won my opening lead and immediately > played a low card towards dummy's king-jack. I, who had the > queen but not the ace, considered the matter for some time before > playing low. Declarer put up the king and, when this lost to my > partner's ace, screamed blue murder. > > > > Declarer had won the opening lead in dummy (the lead was > an innocuous low trump and declarer had forgotten to overtake > dummy's pip), then led from the wrong hand to the next trick. > Did I have a "demonstrable bridge reason" for acting as I did > at trick two? > > > > Callaghan and I played that if declarer led from the wrong > hand, whichever defender was to the left of the lead would > always pause, whatever his holding, in order to give partner > time to object. Should this have been on our convention card? > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > +=+ Partner should possibly have alerted, or perhaps the > regulation said 'alert nothing in the play' (in which case > you might have informed declarer yourself that your pause > was not for thought). But what did the Director rule? - > no matter by whom summoned. . > It may be a Law 40B3 case now if your implicit > understanding is that you do not make such pauses? > ~ G ~ +=+ Ehh, the only infraction here is by declarer. The only sensible 'countermeasure' for the defenders after declarers lead out of turn is the one David suggests. There's an obvious 'bridge reason' for the pause - to let partner have a chance to decide what's the best defense (allow the lead out of turn or not). Of course, declarer isn't paying enough attention to the game, and won't know this. Pity for him! -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 09:39:09 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:39:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: <48a28a5b.07ed300a.1c04.ffffab03SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <003401c8fccb$f2697fa0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48a28a5b.07ed300a.1c04.ffffab03SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 13/08/2008, ton wrote: > > > +=+ If West has committed an infraction and at the same time > East has lost count of the Spade suit, should I worry? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ton: > > Strange reaction. > > Meanwhile some of of you might have found the right law, I am not eager to > check that. The meaning of L62C2 of course is that East may play the King > and then (let us assume this takes place in an earlier trick than 12) his > played card becomes a PC. Yes. I thought this was obvious. Why should he be allowed to withdraw it if he's got to play it the next second? From the replies in this thread that might not be true. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Aug 13 09:48:48 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:48:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Twelfth_Man?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1KTB68-1qnduy0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > > > On rereading L62C2 I think this is correct. It still doesn't matter > > if West says anything to the effect that he has revoked; East will > > never have his 3 of spades becoming a (major) penalty card until > > after he in case has replaced it with his King. (The applicable law > > is 62C2!) > > Richard Hills: > > I think Sven's second thoughts are wrong, and his first thoughts were > right. > > In my opinion, Laws 62A, B and C are the applicable Laws. > > (z) Law 62A requires West to correct their non-established revoke. > (y) Law 62B preface requires West to substitute their non-established > revoke card with a legal card. > (x) Law 62C1 permits dummy to withdraw their ace of spades. > (w) Law 62C2 permits East to withdraw their three of spades, but then > defines the three of spades as a penalty card. > > The trick then reboots with West's new legal card, followed by dummy's > change of card from ace of spades to queen of spades, then East's > forced play of the three of spades major penalty card. > > What's the problem? Peter Eidt: Richard, you do no believe, what you're writing here, do you? Let's rethink carefully about Law 62 C2 and the circumstances unden which it appears. 1. We have an offending side and the offending (revoking) player was the first one of the offending side who played a card. 2. The revoke does not become established and has to be corrected (following Law 62 A or 62 D1 or whatever). 3. Then the first member of the non-offending side did retract his card which he had already played to the trick. 4. Then the second member of the offending side is addressed in part C2 of the law and this player is allowed to withdraw his (already) played card. 5. As this (second) player originally played a card to the trick and this card did not constitute a revoke, this player (in question) played a legal card. 6. Now, if the law wants to allow this player to retract his card and tells him at the same moment (as Richard reads it), that this card is a penalty card _for this trick_ and therefore has to be played _to this trick_, this would be a) rather ridicolous; and b) very poor worded. So, IMO the one and only sensible interpretation of this law must be, that the originally played card of the second member of the offending side becomes a penalty card for the subsequent tricks - if this side are is the defending side. From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 13 10:03:57 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:03:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000a01c8fcd2$c1539070$43fab150$@no> Message-ID: <000301c8fd1b$2379ac60$6a6d0520$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ........... > Sven Pran: > > >On rereading L62C2 I think this is correct. It still doesn't matter if > >West says anything to the effect that he has revoked; East will never > >have his 3 of spades becoming a (major) penalty card until after he in > >case has replaced it with his King. (The applicable law is 62C2!) > > Richard Hills: > > I think Sven's second thoughts are wrong, and his first thoughts were > right. > > In my opinion, Laws 62A, B and C are the applicable Laws. > > (z) Law 62A requires West to correct their non-established revoke. > (y) Law 62B preface requires West to substitute their non-established > revoke card with a legal card. > (x) Law 62C1 permits dummy to withdraw their ace of spades. > (w) Law 62C2 permits East to withdraw their three of spades, but then > defines the three of spades as a penalty card. > > The trick then reboots with West's new legal card, followed by dummy's > change of card from ace of spades to queen of spades, then East's forced > play of the three of spades major penalty card. > > What's the problem? You make me feel unsure! (Except that the applicable law is indeed 62 and not 47D) When I qualified as a licensed TD in 1980 the offender's partner was not allowed to retract and replace a card he had played to the revoke trick subsequent to his RHO replacing his played card (except when the card played by offender's partner itself was a revoke). Initially this rule had stuck in my mind. The law on the subject received its present text in 1987 and the important question is if the actions of retracting and replacing a card as allowed offender's partner in Law 62C2 is considered one single action or two separate actions? In other words: Does the retracted card become a major penalty card immediately on retraction or only after the change of play is completed? Why was the law text changed from an absolute prohibition to permission for the offender's partner to withdraw and replace a card played in this situation? If the retracted card immediately becomes a major penalty card the effect is that the player can only change his play when that play also was a revoke, but this right existed (with other words) already before 1987. I can only assume that my second thoughts are indeed correct: The offender's partner is permitted to change his play following a change of play by his RHO, and if he does so then his retracted card becomes a major penalty card (effective for subsequent plays). Note that whichever way we read and understand L62C2 the result of the board will be the same whether West discloses his revoke immediately or waits until play is completed! Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Wed Aug 13 10:04:40 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:04:40 EDT Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? Message-ID: In a message dated 13/08/2008 07:59:19 GMT Standard Time, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: +=+ If Law 55A applies its application is not dependent on the presence of a cross-reference. "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." (Intro to the 2007 Laws.) Paul does not explain what dilemma he finds in this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree with the Law not depending on a cross-reference, and it might be normal to assume that if both Law 53 and Law 55A could apply, in that there is both a statement by a defender, and that they choose differently, then the latter takes priority. But that does not seem to be the opinion of EBU directors at Brighton, who interpret "If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail." as not overriding a statement in Law 53. Presumably therefore they think the latter means: "If the defenders simultaneously choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail." From Gampas at aol.com Wed Aug 13 11:13:36 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:13:36 EDT Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 13/08/2008 06:16:19 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: You have "good reason to doubt" East's 1C opening, but... What dangerous information do you collect before calling? What other unverifiable data do you consider collecting? [paul lamford] I would suspect that East believed 1S to be non-forcing, and would want to establish if they had specifically discussed the sequence. I presume I am not entitled to establish if East plays negative free bids with other partners, as it is only the system of this particular East-West to which I am entitled. In any case I would bid 2H. If they now reach their grand slam in spades, I will apologise. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 13 11:19:14 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:19:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? References: Message-ID: <001d01c8fd27$d57a67e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Who Cares Wins? > In a message dated 13/08/2008 07:59:19 GMT Standard Time, > grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: > > +=+ If Law 55A applies its application is not dependent on > the presence of a cross-reference. "Where headings remain > they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does > the omission of a cross-reference." (Intro to the 2007 Laws.) > Paul does not explain what dilemma he finds in this. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I agree with the Law not depending on a cross-reference, and it might be > normal to assume that if both Law 53 and Law 55A could apply, in that > there is > both a statement by a defender, and that they choose differently, then the > latter takes priority. But that does not seem to be the opinion of EBU > directors > at Brighton, who interpret "If the defenders choose differently the option > expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail." as not overriding a > statement in Law 53. Presumably therefore they think the latter means: "If > the > defenders simultaneously choose differently the option expressed by the > player > next in turn shall prevail." > +=+ If the LHO states his contrary wish before either defender plays a card Law 55A applies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 13 11:32:56 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:32:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? References: <000001c8fd0a$52fbc0b0$f8f34210$@com><005a01c8fd14$21ad7c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001e01c8fd27$d5aa2a70$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Who Cares Wins? >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Burn" >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:03 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Who Cares Wins? >> >> >> > [PL] >> > >> > LAW 55 - DECLARER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN >> > >> > A. Declarer's Lead Accepted >> > >> > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, >> either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, >> or require its retraction. >> > >> > [DALB] >> > >> > I recall a declarer who won my opening lead and immediately >> played a low card towards dummy's king-jack. I, who had the >> queen but not the ace, considered the matter for some time before >> playing low. Declarer put up the king and, when this lost to my >> partner's ace, screamed blue murder. >> > >> > Declarer had won the opening lead in dummy (the lead was >> an innocuous low trump and declarer had forgotten to overtake >> dummy's pip), then led from the wrong hand to the next trick. >> Did I have a "demonstrable bridge reason" for acting as I did >> at trick two? >> > >> > Callaghan and I played that if declarer led from the wrong >> hand, whichever defender was to the left of the lead would >> always pause, whatever his holding, in order to give partner >> time to object. Should this have been on our convention card? >> > >> > David Burn >> > London, England >> > >> +=+ Partner should possibly have alerted, or perhaps the >> regulation said 'alert nothing in the play' (in which case >> you might have informed declarer yourself that your pause >> was not for thought). But what did the Director rule? - >> no matter by whom summoned. . >> It may be a Law 40B3 case now if your implicit >> understanding is that you do not make such pauses? >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > Ehh, the only infraction here is by declarer. > The only sensible 'countermeasure' for the defenders after declarers > lead out of turn is the one David suggests. There's an obvious 'bridge > reason' for the pause - to let partner have a chance to decide what's > the best defense (allow the lead out of turn or not). Of course, > declarer isn't paying enough attention to the game, and won't know > this. Pity for him! > +=+ The Director should have been summoned. David's hesitation, unexplained, before playing to the trick has misled declarer. He should have had the opportunity to consider a play other than the King. If declarer did not summon the Director a defender should have done so. Note that "Declarer ........... screamed blue murder" - attention was drawn to the irregularity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Wed Aug 13 11:34:24 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:34:24 EDT Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 13/08/2008 09:05:16 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: I can only assume that my second thoughts are indeed correct: The offender's partner is permitted to change his play following a change of play by his RHO, and if he does so then his retracted card becomes a major penalty card (effective for subsequent plays). [paul lamford] This is indeed a sensible interpretation, but it conflicts with the requirement that the penalty card is played at the first legal opportunity, which is clearly the current trick. Adding "at the end of the current trick" corrects this, I believe, so that 62C2 would read: After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw his played card, which becomes a penalty card at the end of the current trick if the player is a defender, and see Law 16D. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 13 12:35:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:35:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A2B8F8.6010807@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > It is paradoxical that the Laws can punish a player admitting a revoke > before it becomes established at trick 12: > > ....................AQ > ....................none > ....................none > ....................none > > 2......................................K3 > none.................................none > none.................................none > 2......................................none > ...................54 > ...................none > ...................none > ...................none > > Declarer leads a spade and West plays a club. Declarer plays the ace, and > East the 3. West now says that he has a spade. So the revoke is not > established, and declarer can change his card, but East has a MPC, so must play the 3 on > the queen. > > If West says nothing instead, E-W get a trick. > > The strange thing is that the card legally taken back by East according to L62C2 becomes a penalty card, which usually means it has to be played anyway, hence it was no help to pull it back. Perhaps L62C2 should be understood as "the card that was pulled back becomes a MPC after this trick is completed". This seems to be the spirit of the law. Best regards Alain > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 13 12:46:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:46:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Well calibrated [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A2BB7B.6080101@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >> I feel 5H isn't a very strong bid, especially if >> pass were forcing (what's the vulnerability, by >> the way ?). >> > > Richard Hills: > > My bad. East-West vul, North-South not vul. Some > partnerships (not necessarily this one) play that > the vulnerability can affect whether or not a high- > level Pass is forcing. > Then I confirm that East's pass would most probably be forcing, which makes 5H a defensive bid more than anything else, so that the tempo suggests more values. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 13 17:18:37 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:18:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A2FB4D.8090705@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Sven Pran: > >> On rereading L62C2 I think this is correct. It still doesn't matter if >> West says anything to the effect that he has revoked; East will never >> have his 3 of spades becoming a (major) penalty card until after he in >> case has replaced it with his King. (The applicable law is 62C2!) > > Richard Hills: > > I think Sven's second thoughts are wrong, and his first thoughts were > right. > > In my opinion, Laws 62A, B and C are the applicable Laws. > > (z) Law 62A requires West to correct their non-established revoke. > (y) Law 62B preface requires West to substitute their non-established > revoke card with a legal card. > (x) Law 62C1 permits dummy to withdraw their ace of spades. > (w) Law 62C2 permits East to withdraw their three of spades, but then > defines the three of spades as a penalty card. > > The trick then reboots with West's new legal card, followed by dummy's > change of card from ace of spades to queen of spades, then East's forced > play of the three of spades major penalty card. > > What's the problem? > > Richard, the problem is that you don't think. What use is it if the laws provide for a card to be retracted if they then would also force the player to re-play it in the same trick. Such laws would make no sense. The applicable Law is L46D. After an opponent (in this case dummy) has changed a played card (in this case the SA to the SQ), a player is entitled to also change his played card (in this case East's S3 into a SK). It then says that L62C2 may apply - which indicates that the S3 becomes a penalty card. If you believe this means he now has to re-play this card then the laws are so badly written I would urge Grattan to change them a bit sooner than 2017. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 13 17:25:07 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:25:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Ignorance is preferable to error" - Jefferson. In-Reply-To: <002301c8fcca$37ababd0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <002301c8fcca$37ababd0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48A2FCD3.2060702@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A truth's prosperity is like a jest's, > it lies in the ear of him that hears it." > ~ Samuel Butler. > [A falsehood's prosperity is like a truth's, > it also lies in the ear of him that hears it. > :-) G. ] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > (H. De W.) > How can you be seriously suggesting that telling more > than is necessary constitutes an infraction? Or even if > it is an infraction - that you intend to penalize this > infraction? Since the opponents benefit from it so > cannot possibly be damaged? > < > (G.E.) > +=+ This last statement is misconceived. There is no > certainty that opponents will benefit. For example, > partner may have acted uncharacteristically and the > purveyor of surplus advice may cause opponents to > do what they would not have done without it. > The Introduction to the 2007 Laws states: > "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure > and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a > departure from correct procedure." > In harmony with the WBFLC decree on the 1997 > 'Scope of the Laws', we say that "telling more than > is necessary" is extraneous. Herman does not mean > 'necessary', he means 'more than is called for in the > laws and regulations'. Apart from UI which he may > occasionally create for partner, the additional and > extraneous information may lead to situations in > which opponents who use it in the bidding or play > are damaged by using it (regardless of its accuracy > or otherwise, since it involves a departure from > correct procedure). > No matter how benign the intention, any violation > of correct procedure may be the subject of a Law 90 > penalty, especially if aggravated (for example if violations > are repetitious). Departure from the requirements in Law > 40B6(a) is a violation and the Director may apply Law > 12A1. > The above accords with past pronouncements of > the WBF Laws Committee. It is not open to a player > to judge differently. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The cases you justifiably talk about, Grattan, are cases where it becomes clear that the addition was not correct - and that the complete system can be known. We are talking about cases where the addition is correct, and no-one, including the players, knows what the system should be. You cannot rule against a player who says - I think it's hearts and diamonds, when partner indeed has hearts and diamonds, intended to show hearts and diamonds - on the simple basis that "aha, you had not really agreed than, had you?" if a wrong explanation "it's clubs" might have led to a better result of the NOS. If you intend to rule like that, I'm outta here. And so are the players. Of both sides. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Aug 13 17:41:34 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:41:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Ignorance is preferable to error" - Jefferson. In-Reply-To: <48A2FCD3.2060702@skynet.be> References: <002301c8fcca$37ababd0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A2FCD3.2060702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48A300AE.2050304@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Grattan wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************** >> "A truth's prosperity is like a jest's, >> it lies in the ear of him that hears it." >> ~ Samuel Butler. >> [A falsehood's prosperity is like a truth's, >> it also lies in the ear of him that hears it. >> :-) G. ] >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> (H. De W.) >> How can you be seriously suggesting that telling more >> than is necessary constitutes an infraction? Or even if >> it is an infraction - that you intend to penalize this >> infraction? Since the opponents benefit from it so >> cannot possibly be damaged? >> < >> AG : telling more than what was agreed upon might transmit UI, mainly about how you intend to continue the sequence. Whence it should be disallowed, under very Hermanian grounds that you aren't allowed to deliberately transmit UI.. Example (live case) : 1S p 3Ca 3C means : limit or better 4-card raise ; explained as : limit or better 4-card raise with club suit. It happens that partner indeed holds clubs, so opponents aren't decieved in the auction. But the explanation gives partner the hint that your ensuing 4C bid won't be a mere control bid, but a top honor (one doesn't cue shortness in partner's main suit). > The cases you justifiably talk about, Grattan, are cases where it > becomes clear that the addition was not correct - and that the > complete system can be known. > > We are talking about cases where the addition is correct, and no-one, > including the players, knows what the system should be. > > You cannot rule against a player who says - I think it's hearts and > diamonds, when partner indeed has hearts and diamonds, intended to > show hearts and diamonds - on the simple basis that "aha, you had not > really agreed than, had you?" if a wrong explanation "it's clubs" > might have led to a better result of the NOS. > > If you intend to rule like that AG : I don't see where and how Grattan suggested such a thing. After all, if both players intended the bid the same way, and the hand confirms the explanation, then it's strong enough evidence about the meaning, an evidence that even the CC (which might be obsolete) wouldn't counter IMHO. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 13 18:25:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:25:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Ignorance is preferable to error" - Jefferson. In-Reply-To: <48A300AE.2050304@ulb.ac.be> References: <002301c8fcca$37ababd0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A2FCD3.2060702@skynet.be> <48A300AE.2050304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48A30AF4.601@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> > AG : telling more than what was agreed upon might transmit UI, mainly > about how you intend to continue the sequence. Whence it should be > disallowed, under very Hermanian grounds that you aren't allowed to > deliberately transmit UI.. > > Example (live case) : 1S p 3Ca > 3C means : limit or better 4-card raise ; explained as : limit or better > 4-card raise with club suit. It happens that partner indeed holds clubs, > so opponents aren't decieved in the auction. > But the explanation gives partner the hint that your ensuing 4C bid > won't be a mere control bid, but a top honor (one doesn't cue shortness > in partner's main suit). > True case, and indeed quite difficult to detect. But I don't think we don't have the tools to handle this. Nor does it in the least resemble the cases I was talking about to begin with. So it'ss unfair to harp on about this - I consider it Herman-bashing. > > AG : I don't see where and how Grattan suggested such a thing. > After all, if both players intended the bid the same way, and the hand > confirms the explanation, then it's strong enough evidence about the > meaning, an evidence that even the CC (which might be obsolete) wouldn't > counter IMHO. > It was not Grattan who suggested it, it was Richard; But Grattan thinks he needs to comment on my negative comments about Richard's (IIRC) silly notion. > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 13 18:27:05 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:27:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? In-Reply-To: <000001c8fd0a$52fbc0b0$f8f34210$@com> References: <000001c8fd0a$52fbc0b0$f8f34210$@com> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "David Burn" Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 01:03 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blml] Who Cares Wins? > [PL] > > LAW 55 - DECLARER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN > > A. Declarer?s Lead Accepted > > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender > may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction. > > [DALB] > > I recall a declarer who won my opening lead and immediately played a low > card towards dummy's king-jack. I, who had the queen but not the ace, > considered the matter for some time before playing low. Declarer put up > the king and, when this lost to my partner's ace, screamed blue murder. > > Declarer had won the opening lead in dummy (the lead was an innocuous low > trump and declarer had forgotten to overtake dummy's pip), then led from > the wrong hand to the next trick. Did I have a "demonstrable bridge > reason" for acting as I did at trick two? > > Callaghan and I played that if declarer led from the wrong hand, whichever > defender was to the left of the lead would always pause, whatever his > holding, in order to give partner time to object. Should this have been on > our convention card? > > David Burn > London, England Consider the case where declarer?s opponents are rather skillful [as less skillful are not so likely to discern the intricacies of L53/55] and declarer wants to see if he can find out if a defender holds AQ [if LHO then 2 tricks may be possible but if RHO then probably no tricks]. He might do so by leading from the wrong hand towards the KJ and if LHO objects he can choose to take the inference that LHO is more likely than normal to hold AQ; while if RHO condones a possible inference is that it is more likely than normal that RHO has them both so it probably would be a good idea to abandon the suit. Such inferences are not necessarily sound, but the point is that the opponents have to do something- and out of that something [which includes especially calling the TD] valuable inferences could arise out of the way the defenders do what they do and thereby an edge gained. Now turn it around. Maybe RHO can see that to object to the lead will put declarer on the right track so he won?t object; or, that partner?s holding will be pickled so he will object. Is it obvious that LHO will notice his partner?s binary choice and then possibly discern accurately from that choice something of his partner?s holdings that could prove useful- if not vital? You can put it any way you want but this is a system of communication between partners other than by call or play. And L73B has something to say about that: 73B.1. 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. Yes, that is what DALB and partner are doing. [Now, don?t get your nose bent, at least not yet.] Which begs the question, ?if players are to not communicate other than by call or play, why does L55 tell them to do it: 55A.If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail. After all, the law could have been written: ?Only offender?s LHO may condone, or not, a LOOT.? And if you wanted to really cut down on LOOTs [which some people believe to be a good thing while others believe it to be a bad thing] every retracted lead could be a PC. But, it wasn?t. And this is reinforced by: 16A.1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: ... (c) it is information ? when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or?. So, the law requires players to not communicate other than by call or play, yet calls upon them to do so. And, even though the law requires players to not communicate other than by call or play, it authorizes such information communicated to be used by the partners. Enough digression. The law tells players to communicate by the penalty option selected and that includes DALB, The issue is that declarer took an inference from DALB?s waiting for his partner?s opinion. The problem being an accusation of improper deception. To begin with I think that DALB holds that LHO?s 5 second pause waiting for pard?s possible objection to the LOOT is a legitimate bridge reason to pause. And I quite agree with him. L53A so provides and L16A1c so authorizes use of the information. And if nothing else, if declarer doesn?t want the defenders communicating in that way then he shouldn?t be caught throwing the first stone. So, even though DALB could know that declarer would likely get the honor position wrong [if it could be gotten wrong] after his pause, there is the legitimate defence [to the due care provision to avoid improper deception] that there are valid reasons for the pause other than DALB has the A or AQ. And the real question is about whether or not to disclose the defender agreement to pause after a LOOT. I say yes, but in my opinion it lies in the regulations regarding disclosure, namely, is there a prohibition [including implied prohibition] against methods that are prohibited by law [see L73B1]? regards roger pewick From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 13 21:41:27 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:41:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man In-Reply-To: <48A2FB4D.8090705@skynet.be> References: <48A2FB4D.8090705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <24A505E7-A5B5-4E19-8543-F0D44A035E4C@starpower.net> On Aug 13, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Sven Pran: >> >>> On rereading L62C2 I think this is correct. It still doesn't >>> matter if >>> West says anything to the effect that he has revoked; East will >>> never >>> have his 3 of spades becoming a (major) penalty card until after >>> he in >>> case has replaced it with his King. (The applicable law is 62C2!) >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I think Sven's second thoughts are wrong, and his first thoughts were >> right. >> >> In my opinion, Laws 62A, B and C are the applicable Laws. >> >> (z) Law 62A requires West to correct their non-established revoke. >> (y) Law 62B preface requires West to substitute their non-established >> revoke card with a legal card. >> (x) Law 62C1 permits dummy to withdraw their ace of spades. >> (w) Law 62C2 permits East to withdraw their three of spades, but then >> defines the three of spades as a penalty card. >> >> The trick then reboots with West's new legal card, followed by >> dummy's >> change of card from ace of spades to queen of spades, then East's >> forced >> play of the three of spades major penalty card. >> >> What's the problem? > > What use is it if the laws provide for a card to be retracted if they > then would also force the player to re-play it in the same trick. > Such laws would make no sense. > The applicable Law is L46D. Typo alert: should be L47D. > After an opponent (in this case dummy) has changed a played card (in > this case the SA to the SQ), a player is entitled to also change his > played card (in this case East's S3 into a SK). > > It then says that L62C2 may apply - which indicates that the S3 > becomes a penalty card. > > If you believe this means he now has to re-play this card then the > laws are so badly written I would urge Grattan to change them a bit > sooner than 2017. I think it is clear that Sven and Herman are correct here. Nobody yet has mentioned that L47D quite explicitly says that "another card may be substituted" before it gets to the parenthetical "(Law... 62C2 may apply.)". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Aug 14 00:57:09 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:57:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?=A712C1c?= Message-ID: <48A366C5.1050209@aol.com> Ahoy blmlers! Since there seems to be interest in law 12C1c I thought I might relate the following hand. It happened at a large central European tournament (teams in this case) and, since we have been applying this rule for a number of years it was nothing new for us. But it may well establish a record for the number of weighted scores. Bidding: East dealer E S W N Ps 1di 2di* Ps 2sp Ps 4cl** Ps 4sp x Ps Ps xx all pass * = alerted ** = false explanation as strong with club suit Before the opening lead this explanation was corrected. Here are the hands: K53 AQ3 9 Q96543 QJ10762 984 10 K98752 AKQJ62 85 -- 72 A J64 10743 AKJ108 Table result was 4spxx -1 (-400) We considered the following results to be possible without misinformation: South 5cl= +600 (10%) West 5spx -2 +500 (30%) West 5spx -1 +200 (30%) (depends on opening lead) West 4spxx -1 +400 (10%) (We considered this most unlikely but it was the contract at the table so couldn't be totally ignored.) West 4spxx= -1080 (10%) (again depends on opening lead) West 4sp= -620 (10%) At the other table the contract was 6spx -2 (+500). We hadn't even considered this at all likely so didn't include it; otherwise there would have been 7 weighted scores. Okay, the results (weighted) were compared with the result at the other table and the IMP result in each case determined. They were (from the top): 0.3 0 -2.1 -0.3 -1.7 -1.5 This gives us a total of -5.3 MPs, rounded down to -5. The players were so impressed by the effort we made that they all accepted the result immediately. Obviously many of you will feel that the weighting could be different; that is your right and will be the opinion of any TD. That is not the point of this posting. It might serve as an example of how to apply ?12C1c (unless someone out there disagrees) and also to show a most unusual case where 6 different weighted scores were needed (and the other table gave us a 7th result). Ciao, JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 14 01:45:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:45:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Ignorance is preferable to error" - Jefferson. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A2FCD3.2060702@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: The cases you justifiably talk about, Grattan, are cases where it becomes clear that the addition was not correct - and that the complete system can be known. We are talking about cases where the addition is correct, and no-one, including the players, knows what the system should be. Grattan Endicott: [snip] >Herman does not mean 'necessary', he means 'more than is >called for in the laws and regulations'. [snip] Herman De Wael: You cannot rule against a player who says - I think it's hearts and diamonds, when partner indeed has hearts and diamonds, intended to show hearts and diamonds - on the simple basis that "aha, you had not really agreed than, had you?" Grattan Endicott: [snip] > No matter how benign the intention, any violation >of correct procedure may be the subject of a Law 90 >penalty, especially if aggravated (for example if violations >are repetitious). Departure from the requirements in Law >40B6(a) is a violation and the Director may apply Law 12A1. [snip] Herman De Wael: if a wrong explanation "it's clubs" might have led to a better result of the NOS. Fowler, "Modern English Usage": >_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the >question'. The fallacy of founding a >conclusion on a basis that as much needs >to be proved as the conclusion itself. > >*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety >of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are >that capital punishment is necessary >because without it murders would increase, >and that democracy must be the best form >of government because the majority are >always right. Richard Hills: "Wrong explanation" begs the question, since the explanation is so-called "wrong" merely in describing partner's cards. What is required by Law 40B6(a) is an explanation which describes the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding (or describes the lack of understanding by a statement such as "neither an explicit nor an implicit pre-existing mutual partnership understanding"). Herman De Wael: If you intend to rule like that, I'm outta here. Richard Hills: Au revoir. Blml will be less entertaining in Herman's absence, since his idiosyncratic views prompted refutations from other blmlers who might otherwise have been silent. Celsus was a Greek philosopher of the 2nd century, whose masterwork "The True Word" was a tome criticising Christianity. But the only surviving excerpts of "The True Word" are found in the Christian philosopher Origen's counter-polemic "Against Celsus". Likewise, many blml lurkers have configured their email software to automatically block Herman's postings, so the only surviving excerpts of De Wael School philosophy they receive are when the DwS is refuted by posters such as Grattan Endicott. 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 Thu Aug 14 02:04:26 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:04:26 EDT Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? Message-ID: In a message dated 13/08/2008 17:27:55 GMT Standard Time, axman22 at hotmail.com writes: And the real question is about whether or not to disclose the defender agreement to pause after a LOOT. [paul lamford] I have added to my CC with Stefanie that we now allow a reasonable time for the RHO of the offending leader (sounds like a salacious front-page article in a tabloid) to make a statement after a LOOT. Nothing in the Laws suggests that the pauser or pausee (that sounds wrong too) needs to make a comment at that time. And this would seem to be a *demonstrable bridge reason* for a BIT. If the declarer is miffed, the simple answer is "Don't lead from the wrong hand." From Gampas at aol.com Thu Aug 14 02:11:48 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:11:48 EDT Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man Message-ID: In a message dated 13/08/2008 20:42:49 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: Nobody yet has mentioned that L47D quite explicitly says that "another card may be substituted" [paul lamford] But this does not grammatically exclude that the only card that may be substituted is the MPC. Unless you argue that it makes no sense to substitute the same card. But there are plenty of examples of the player being forced to subsitute the same bid. For example, if he bids when it is RHO's turn to bid, and the latter substitutes Pass. I do not see the illogical aspect of that. Let's face it - the Laws are wrongly worded, and the correct and intended meaning is that the original card only becomes a MPC at the end of the trick in which the revoke occurred. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 14 02:21:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:21:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >I would suspect that East believed 1S to be >non-forcing, Richard Hills: No, she believed it to be forcing. Paul Lamford: >and would want to establish if they had >specifically discussed the sequence. I >presume I am not entitled to establish if >East plays negative free bids with other >partners, as it is only the system of this >particular East-West to which I am entitled. Richard Hills: Bunnies do not play negative free bids. People who *think* that they are experts play negative free bids. People who are experts do not play negative free bids (as it is a convention whose costs outweigh its benefits). Paul Lamford: >In any case I would bid 2H. If they now reach >their grand slam in spades, I will apologise. Richard Hills: Players who *think* that they are experts try to show how clever they are by frequently psyching. But players who *think* that they are experts consider old-fashioned Standard American beneath their dignity; they try to show how clever they are by playing a hyper- modern system with lots of hyper-modern gadgets. So, as for the hand, Pass is the *only* logical alternative for a player who is a *real* expert. What happened at the table (names changed to protect the guilty) -> Hideous Hog 2 854 J965 T6543 Timothy the Toucan Rueful Rabbit AQ9765 KT3 A T7 Q3 KT42 QJ87 AK92 Karapet the Unlucky J84 KQJ9632 A76 --- WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH T.T H.H. R.R. Karapet --- Pass(1) 1C 1H 1S Pass(2) Pass(3) 2H(4) 4S Pass Pass Pass(5) (1) Tends to show not many values. (2) Tends to show even fewer values. (3) The Rabbit originally intended to make the old-fashioned Standard American rebid of 1NT. But once Karapet overcalled 1H, a 1NT rebid was not possible since the Rabbit lacked a heart stopper. What could the Rabbit do but pass? (4) Too unlucky to consider passing. (5) Too pessimistic to double, but only a slightly above-average score for the Hog, since most of the East-West field failed to diagnose the perfect fit for slam. Robert Frick asserted: [snip] >Accepting obviously false claims is >dangerous, because that encourages a >culture of lying. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle quibbled: "There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." Richard Hills: There is an old Aussie political saying: "If one has to choose between a conspiracy and a stuff-up, go for the stuff-up" The above deal is another example of how a bunny can perpetrate a non-systemic stuff-up in the auction. So in the original Cincinnati deal, I differ from Robert Frick's "obvious" assessment that North and South conspired to lie about their agreed system, and instead support the actual Appeals Committee ruling that the bunny sitting South stuffed up by misevaluating her game-force values as game-invitation values. 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 Thu Aug 14 02:45:24 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:45:24 EDT Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 14/08/2008 01:22:45 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: So in the original Cincinnati deal, I differ from Robert Frick's "obvious" assessment that North and South conspired to lie about their agreed system, and instead support the actual Appeals Committee ruling that the bunny sitting South stuffed up by misevaluating her game-force values as game-invitation values. [paul lamford] I agreed with this view at the time, and I have always thought that conspiracy theories are the least likely. But I was right in your follow-up example that East did think One Spade was non-forcing in that she passed it despite having a normal opening bid. Even a Rabbit can raise partner's One Spade response with 3-card support and no heart stop. After all, all self-respecting rabbits have been pre-conditioned to raise partner whenever possible, and only to bid no-trumps in an emergency. So this was not your typical Rabbit, playing standard Hobbit with the the Hog, where, with the Hog opening the bidding, 1S - 3NT is a transfer to 4S. So I must conclude that the answer was too difficult, and not in accord with normal rabbit behaviour. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 14 03:11:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:11:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01c8fd12$26b899d0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Richard might helpfully list all the laws mentioned in this >thread and put against each 'yes' or 'no' as to whether it >applies in the circumstances of the incident under discussion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: While there are a number of fascinating peripheral issues, there is high-level disagreement on whether the 3 of spades becomes a penalty card at trick twelve or trick thirteen, so I will focus solely on that topic. It seems to me that a key phrase occurs in Law 62C1, in which the non-offending players "return to hand" any cards they played after the non-established revoke. If the phrase had instead been "may change" any cards, then there would be more logic to a deferred-to-trick-thirteen 3 of spades penalty card. As it is, it still seems to me that dummy is returning the ace of spades to dummy's hand, but East is leaving the 3 of spades face up on the table as a penalty card. Law 45C5: "A penalty card, major or minor, may have to be played (see Law 50)." Law 47A: "A card once played may be withdrawn when required by rectification following an irregularity (but a defender's withdrawn card may become a penalty card, see Law 49)." Law 47D: "After an opponent's change of play a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.)" Law 50A: "A penalty card must be left face up on the table immediately before the player to whom it belongs, until a rectification has been selected." Law 50D1(a): "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping. If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played." Law 62B prologue: "To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card." Law 62C1: "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)." Law 62C2: "After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw his played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender, and see Law 16D." 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 Thu Aug 14 03:27:23 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:27:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <004e01c8fd12$26b899d0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080814112446.02affec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 11:11 AM 14/08/2008, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott: > > >+=+ Richard might helpfully list all the laws mentioned in this > >thread and put against each 'yes' or 'no' as to whether it > >applies in the circumstances of the incident under discussion. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Richard Hills: > >While there are a number of fascinating peripheral issues, there >is high-level disagreement on whether the 3 of spades becomes a >penalty card at trick twelve or trick thirteen, so I will focus >solely on that topic. I think another issue is whether there has been a change of law in 2007. Like Sven (1), I have always ruled that the offender's partner cannot change a played card in the discussed situation. So I like Richard's confirmation of that position, but I like the counter argument as well, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 14 03:32:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:32:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >But I was right in your follow-up example that East did >think One Spade was non-forcing in that she passed it Richard Hills: In the "David Burn" thread, the eponymous David Burn astutely observed that a TD at the table may be better able to determine facts than someone getting second- hand information. I was at the table (the pseudonymous Hideous Hog), and I discovered in the post-mortem that East was fully aware that 1S was systemically forcing, but felt that she did not have a systemic rebid available, so she cut the Gordian Knot with a Pass. Paul Lamford: >despite having a normal opening bid. Even a Rabbit can >raise partner's One Spade response with 3-card support >and no heart stop. Richard Hills: This particular Rabbit-Toucan partnership are one of the worst pairs of the Canberra Bridge Club, so are rather incompetent at playing in Moysian 4-3 fits. Hence they have an agreement that 4-card support is necessary to raise partner's One Spade response. Paul Lamford: >not in accord with normal rabbit behaviour. Richard Hills: Different rabbits make different mistakes in different ways. You have to know your customers. Of course Karapet the Unlucky was aware of the nature of his opponents, but could not resist the siren song of his 7-card heart suit. 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 Aug 14 04:20:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:20:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080814112446.02affec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>It seems to me that a key phrase occurs in Law 62C1, in which >>the non-offending players "return to hand" any cards they played >>after the non-established revoke. Tony Musgrove: >I think another issue is whether there has been a change of law >in 2007. Like Sven (1), I have always ruled that the offender's >partner cannot change a played card in the discussed situation. >So I like Richard's confirmation of that position, but I like the >counter argument as well, Richard Hills: Apart from a technical change in a cross-reference, the only difference between the 1997 Law 62C1 and the 2007 Law 62C1 is that the 1997 phrase is "without penalty, withdraw any card" while the 2007 phrase is "withdraw and return to his hand any card". Apart from the same technical change in a cross-reference, just a minor difference between the 1997 Law 62C2 and the 2007 Law 62C2. The 1997 words "hand" and "its" became the 2007 words "player" and "his". 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 Aug 14 07:12:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:12:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1KTB68-1qnduy0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: [snip] >6. Now, if the law wants to allow this player to retract his >card and tells him at the same moment (as Richard reads it), >that this card is a penalty card _for this trick_ and therefore >has to be played _to this trick_, this would be >a) rather ridiculous; and >b) very poorly worded. Richard Hills: Firstly, because a Law is alleged to be rather ridiculous and very poorly worded does not remove from a TD their obligation to obey that Law. A classic example was the 1997 Law 25B (which at least allowed TDs with an Aussie sense of humour some harmless fun as they watched punters grappling with its intricacies). Secondly, I am arguing that this Law creates a penalty card for _this trick or later tricks_, so therefore it is to be played to _this trick or later tricks_. For example, a slightly different two-card ending: Dummy AQ --- --- --- LHO RHO 2 K --- --- --- --- 2 3 Declarer 43 --- --- --- Declarer leads a spade, LHO gets her black deuces confused and plays the two of clubs, dummy plays the ace of spades. Then RHO assumes that LHO has led a club, so plays the three of clubs. LHO discovers her revoke, so corrects to the two of spades. Declarer acting on dummy's behalf withdraws and returns to dummy's hand her ace of spades. RHO withdraws the three of clubs, but leaves it faced on the table as a major penalty card. Now declarer, with a complete count of LHO's cards, replaces dummy's withdrawn ace of spades by playing instead the ace of spades. Despite Peter Eidt's assertion that RHO's penalty card "has to be played to this trick", RHO instead obeys Law 44C: "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Aug 14 08:04:18 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:04:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Twelfth_Man?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1KTVwZ-153BNg0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Peter Eidt: > > [snip] > > > 6. Now, if the law wants to allow this player to retract his > > card and tells him at the same moment (as Richard reads it), > > that this card is a penalty card _for this trick_ and therefore > > has to be played _to this trick_, this would be > > a) rather ridiculous; and > > b) very poorly worded. > > Richard Hills: > > Firstly, because a Law is alleged to be rather ridiculous and > very poorly worded does not remove from a TD their obligation to obey > that Law. ?A classic example was the 1997 Law 25B (which at least > allowed TDs with an Aussie sense of humour some harmless > fun as they watched punters grappling with its intricacies). > > Secondly, I am arguing that this Law creates a penalty card for _this > trick or later tricks_, so therefore it is to be played to _this trick > or later tricks_. > > For example, a slightly different two-card ending: > > Dummy > AQ > --- > --- > --- > LHO ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?RHO > 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?K > --- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--- > --- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--- > 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3 > Declarer > 43 > --- > --- > --- > > Declarer leads a spade, LHO gets her black deuces confused and > plays the two of clubs, dummy plays the ace of spades. ?Then RHO > assumes that LHO has led a club, so plays the three of clubs. > > LHO discovers her revoke, so corrects to the two of spades. > Declarer acting on dummy's behalf withdraws and returns to dummy's > hand her ace of spades. ?RHO withdraws the three of clubs, but > leaves it faced on the table as a major penalty card. PeterE: No Firstly, withdrawing and then playing again is no longer withdrawing; secondly, RHO does is not allowed to do anything with his played card, until "dummy" finally has played to the trick (but RHO may call attention to his revoke). > Now declarer, with a complete count of LHO's cards, replaces > dummy's withdrawn ace of spades by playing instead the ace of > spades. ?Despite Peter Eidt's assertion that RHO's penalty card "has > to be played to this trick", PeterE: I have never asserted, that RHO's penalty card has to be played to this trick - more the opposite! > RHO instead obeys Law 44C: > > "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. > This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these > Laws." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 14 08:31:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:31:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080813075740.21E88D17A6D@mailgw2.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: "When someone says 'of course' that means that that proposition is highly debatable." Ton Kooijman, Chief Director of The Netherlands, Chair of the WBF Laws Committee, Co-author of the 2007 Lawbook, Emperor of all that he surveys: >The meaning of L62C2 of course is that East may play the King >and then (let us assume this takes place in an earlier trick >than 12) his played card becomes a PC. Richard Hills, upstart Canberra occasional club director: "Of course" I think that the Emperor is wearing New Clothes. In all other situations where an exposed card is deemed to be a major penalty card, the rule is that one may not play a new card of the same suit until one has disposed of the major penalty card in that suit. Law 50D1(a): "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping. If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played." But "of course" it is possible for the Emperor to quibble about the quality of the New Clothes fabric he is wearing. Law 49 (current version): "...each such card becomes a penalty card..." Law 49 (hypothetical version): "...each such card immediately becomes a penalty card..." Maybe the Emperor would argue that a "becomes" suit of New Clothes has a different texture to a hypothetical "immediately becomes" suit of New Clothes. However, both possibilities have the same look and feel to me. :-) 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 Thu Aug 14 10:57:32 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:57:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080814112446.02affec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000601c8fdeb$ca5a5a40$5f0f0ec0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ................ > Apart from a technical change in a cross-reference, the only > difference between the 1997 Law 62C1 and the 2007 Law 62C1 is that > the 1997 phrase is "without penalty, withdraw any card" while the > 2007 phrase is "withdraw and return to his hand any card". > > Apart from the same technical change in a cross-reference, just a > minor difference between the 1997 Law 62C2 and the 2007 Law 62C2. > The 1997 words "hand" and "its" became the 2007 words "player" and > "his". The important change in Law 62 was made in 1987! Before 1987 the offender's partner was explicitly prohibited from changing his card played to the trick after the revoke unless that card itself was a revoke. When the revoke occurred in trick twelve before offender's partner's turn to play to that trick any player on the non-offending side could decide which of his two remaining cards that partner should play when both could legally be played. A commentary in my law book from that time makes it clear that WBF was fully aware of Law 62 partly being severely unreasonable and that a change was to be made in the next law revision (1987). Since 1987 we have the present rule: "After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw his played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender, and see Law 16D." Now please try to imagine any situation where this law change in 1987 would have any effect unless the withdrawn card could remain not played to the current trick? I cannot. Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Aug 14 11:55:40 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:55:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A4011C.6060107@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Law 47D: > > "After an opponent's change of play a played card may be withdrawn > and returned to the hand without further rectification and another > card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.)" > May be withdrawn....and another card may be substituted. What else is there to read in this law? After _substituting_, how can I play another card to the current trick? Please note that no card (except the illegal revoke card) is automatically withdrawn. Offender substitutes a legal card for his illegal card, which becomes a major penalty card if he is a defender. Nothing in the law says that the trick is replayed. It stands as played, except that a non-offender may _change_ a play made subsequent to the irregularity, and offender's partner _may_ change his play _if_ non-offender changed his play. There is no penalty card for revoker's partner yet. Only when he substitutes a card his withdrawn card becomes a penalty card. I am at a loss to understand what this discussion is about. This law is crystal clear. Regards Matthias From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 14 13:22:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:22:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Ignorance is preferable to error" - Jefferson. In-Reply-To: <48A30AF4.601@skynet.be> References: <002301c8fcca$37ababd0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A2FCD3.2060702@skynet.be> <48A300AE.2050304@ulb.ac.be> <48A30AF4.601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48A41591.9060609@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>>> >>>> >> AG : telling more than what was agreed upon might transmit UI, mainly >> about how you intend to continue the sequence. Whence it should be >> disallowed, under very Hermanian grounds that you aren't allowed to >> deliberately transmit UI.. >> >> Example (live case) : 1S p 3Ca >> 3C means : limit or better 4-card raise ; explained as : limit or better >> 4-card raise with club suit. It happens that partner indeed holds clubs, >> so opponents aren't decieved in the auction. >> But the explanation gives partner the hint that your ensuing 4C bid >> won't be a mere control bid, but a top honor (one doesn't cue shortness >> in partner's main suit). >> >> > > True case, and indeed quite difficult to detect. > But I don't think we don't have the tools to handle this. > Nor does it in the least resemble the cases I was talking about to > begin with. So it'ss unfair to harp on about this - I consider it > Herman-bashing. > This is indded the problem. The role of some of us, including HdW, is to issue genreal rules, suggestions and comments. The role of some others, including YT, is to put these rules, suggestions and comments to the test. This is my primary job, after all. And that includes researching the odd case where the rule, suggestion or comment won't work that well.. Some enjoy both roles. Now, if you misunderstand any attempt at rule-bashing as Herman-bashing, the whole scheme is at jeopardy. Yes, to be a lawmaker, one needs to lower one's reactivity. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 14 13:48:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:48:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A41BA5.9050506@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 14/08/2008 01:22:45 GMT Standard Time, > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > So in the original Cincinnati deal, I differ > from Robert Frick's "obvious" assessment that > North and South conspired to lie about their > agreed system, and instead support the actual > Appeals Committee ruling that the bunny > sitting South stuffed up by misevaluating her > game-force values as game-invitation values. > > [paul lamford] I agreed with this view at the time, and I have always > thought that conspiracy theories are the least likely. But I was right in your > follow-up example that East did think One Spade was non-forcing in that she > passed it despite having a normal opening bid. Even a Rabbit can raise partner's > One Spade response with 3-card support and no heart stop. AG : IBTD. Against YT, on thursday July 31th, a bunny passed in a similar situation (1C 1H 1S p), because she held a bare minimum and "no possible bid" (IIRC : Kxx - Jx - KJxx - KJxx). She perfectly well knew 1S was forcing, but decided passing it would be the lesser of evils. 1S made 2. 3NT could win, but didn't always. Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Aug 14 15:36:32 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:36:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c8fdeb$ca5a5a40$5f0f0ec0$@no> Message-ID: Sven: Since 1987 we have the present rule: "After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw his played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender, and see Law 16D." Now please try to imagine any situation where this law change in 1987 would have any effect unless the withdrawn card could remain not played to the current trick? I cannot. ton: I cannot either and though I am willing to admit that the wording could be more clear all mails trying to maintain the position that such card (if otherwise legal) has to be played are contraproductive. It hasn't. I like the support Sven is giving but as far as I know my history he is mixing up things. We did change L62D2. The problem presented here has nothing to do with trick 12. ton From Gampas at aol.com Thu Aug 14 18:46:47 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:46:47 EDT Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 14/08/2008 07:32:40 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Maybe the Emperor would argue that a "becomes" suit of New Clothes has a different texture to a hypothetical "immediately becomes" suit of New Clothes. However, both possibilities have the same look and feel to me. :-) [paul lamford] I agree. Just because the Law is silly does not mean that an alternative interpretation which is less silly but does not conform with the literal meaning should be adopted. The sequence is this: a) the player withdraws a card which becomes an immediate penalty card, because of his opponent's infraction. b) he is now obliged to play it to the current trick. This is no different to him dropping a card of honour rank while declarer is thinking about what to play from dummy, where he has Kx over AQ. Tough. That card does not become a penalty card at the end of the current trick. It becomes a penalty card immediately. Now, I agree that what should happen is that it becomes a penalty card after the current trick. But, please, don't try to pretend that is what the Law means. Paul Lamford From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 14 20:11:33 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:11:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200808141357.m7EDv7UH004990@mail30.nsc.no> References: <000601c8fdeb$ca5a5a40$5f0f0ec0$@no> <200808141357.m7EDv7UH004990@mail30.nsc.no> Message-ID: <000301c8fe39$2f869800$8e93c800$@no> On Behalf Of ton ......... > I like the support Sven is giving but as far as I know my history he is > mixing up things. We did change L62D2. The problem presented here has > nothing to do with trick 12. > > ton Thanks Ton, Sorry for the confusion, i am aware of the distinction. The reason why I included the reference to revoke in trick 12 was that my law book from 1980 (actually the Danish commented translation) included such reference in law 62C2; the law that I consider relevant for the problem discussed here and which was also changed in 1987. (I fully agree that it was the change in L62D2 that fixed the worst undesirable effects of the revoke laws at that time). Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 15 01:05:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:05:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A4011C.6060107@t-online.de> Message-ID: Law 47D: "After an opponent's change of play a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.)" Matthias Berghaus: [big snip] >Only when he substitutes a card his withdrawn card becomes a >penalty card. > >I am at a loss to understand what this discussion is about. This >law is crystal clear. Richard Hills: Yes, it is crystal clear to me that the words "62C2 may apply" mean that if relevant circumstances activate Law 62C2, then the Director applies Law 62C2 and does not apply Law 47D. Note that the "without further rectification" phrase in Law 47D obviously includes "without creating a penalty card", which is in direct contradiction to what Law 62C2 says. Hence Law 62C2 is a specific Law which over-rides the more general Law of Law 47D. 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 Aug 15 03:11:37 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:11:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c8fdeb$ca5a5a40$5f0f0ec0$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >The important change in Law 62 was made in 1987! > >Before 1987 the offender's partner was explicitly prohibited >from changing his card played to the trick after the revoke >unless that card itself was a revoke. [snip] >A commentary in my law book from that time makes it clear that >WBF was fully aware of Law 62 partly being severely >unreasonable and that a change was to be made in the next law >revision (1987). > >Since 1987 we have the present rule: "After a non-offender so >withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in >rotation may withdraw his played card, which becomes a penalty >card if the player is a defender, and see Law 16D." > >Now please try to imagine any situation where this law change >in 1987 would have any effect unless the withdrawn card could >remain not played to the current trick? Richard Hills: Merely because the drafters of the Laws want a change to a Law to a have a meaningful effect does not mean that that happens. A classic case in point is Law 65. In the 1975 Lawbook, Law 65 concluded with: "Any player may request that a card incorrectly pointed be turned in the proper direction." This sentence was deleted in the 1987 and 1997 Lawbooks, with the drafters of the Laws fondly believing that this made such requests illegal. Alas, not so. Grattan Endicott, 11th October 2006: >>+=+ For information. This topic has been laid before >>the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee by Ton Kooijman >>(who is now 'hors de PC' until late in November). I am >>in no doubt that removal of the relevant wording in 1987 >>was intended to remove the authority to draw attention >>to a mispointed card. However, I am thinking that the >>intention was poorly implemented since the authority >>appears to transfer to Law 9A2. (Mispointing the card >>is a failure to conform to correct procedure, ergo an >>irregularity - albeit perhaps not an infraction. I fail to >>find in the laws any prohibition of drawing attention to >>it.) I have invited my colleagues to address my reading >>of the position, correct me if there is something I have >>overlooked, and in any case sort out what the intention >>is to be at some future time and how to express this >>effectively. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Likewise, either the intention to change the 1975 Law 62C2 to the 1987 Law 62C2 was poorly implemented, or the new 2007 wording for Law 62C1 ("withdraw and return to his hand") has unintended consequences. I suggest this alternative wording for a hypothetical 2018 Law 62C2: "After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw his played card, which later* becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender, and see Law 16D. * not on this trick, but during and after the following trick" 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 Aug 15 04:19:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:19:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1KTVwZ-153BNg0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: For example, a slightly different two-card ending: Dummy AQ --- --- --- LHO RHO 2 K --- --- --- --- 2 3 Declarer 43 --- --- --- Declarer leads a spade, LHO gets her black deuces confused and plays the two of clubs, dummy plays the ace of spades. Then RHO assumes that LHO has led a club, so plays the three of clubs. LHO discovers her revoke, so corrects to the two of spades. Declarer acting on dummy's behalf withdraws and returns to dummy's hand her ace of spades. RHO withdraws the three of clubs, but leaves it faced on the table as a major penalty card. Now declarer, with a complete count of LHO's cards, replaces dummy's withdrawn ace of spades by playing instead the ace of spades. Peter Eidt: >No > >Firstly, withdrawing and then playing again is no longer >withdrawing; Definitions: "Withdrawn - actions said to be 'withdrawn' include actions that are 'cancelled' and cards that are 'retracted'." Richard Hills: Merely because a player retracts a card and then later decides to play that card does not mean that the card was never retracted. Peter Eidt: >secondly, RHO does is not allowed to do anything with his played >card, until "dummy" finally has played to the trick Richard Hills: The first phrase of Law 62C2 is "After a non-offender so withdraws a card" _not_ "After a non-offender so withdraws a card and then replaces the card". Peter Eidt: >(but RHO may call attention to his revoke). Richard Hills: No, RHO _must_ call attention to her revoke if she is now aware that she has revoked. Law 62A. In a five-card ending it is possible that this could affect declarer's play, as in such a five- card ending declarer might think the spade finesse is 100% should RHO instead keep schtum. 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 Aug 15 06:01:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:01:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] something a bit more... shiny [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Southwest Pacific Teams Dlr: South Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D 3C (1) Pass Pass X Pass 3D Pass ? (1) Preemptive You, South, hold: A42 AK74 AKJ3 43 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Aug 15 08:16:47 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:16:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A51F4F.9010100@t-online.de> > Richard Hills: > > Merely because a player retracts a card and then later decides to > play that card does not mean that the card was never retracted. > Where does this come from? If a player decides to let the card he played stand ( even if he is entitled to substitute another card), then he has never retracted any card. Would you care to point out to me where it says that all cards played after an irregularity are automatically retracted? I can't find that in the laws. Regards Matthias From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Aug 15 08:58:35 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:58:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] something a bit more... shiny [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15/08/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Southwest Pacific Teams > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D > 3C (1) Pass Pass X > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) Preemptive > > You, South, hold: > > A42 > AK74 > AKJ3 > 43 > > What call do you make? Pass, and hope to avoid going down. Partner is either very weak or lack 4-card support (or both). > What other calls do you consider making? None. Definitely.. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 Fri Aug 15 09:27:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:27:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obvious fact (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle quibbled: "There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass 2S Pass(3) Pass 3C ? (1) 15-17 (2) Alerted and explained as both majors (3) Break in tempo You, South, hold: AJ95 76 T842 KQ9 Is it an obvious fact that East has infracted Law 16? What call do you make? Is your call, "Director"? 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 Aug 15 09:58:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:58:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A51F4F.9010100@t-online.de> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Merely because a player retracts a card and then later decides to >>play that card does not mean that the card was never retracted. Matthias Berghaus asked: >Where does this come from? If a player decides to let the card he >played stand (even if he is entitled to substitute another card), >then he has never retracted any card. [snip] Richard Hills: I am a simple soul. If a Law specifies that a card is returned to the hand, then to me that card is a "withdrawn" / "retracted" card. Law 24 prologue: "...If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand..." Law 41A: "...the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender's hand." Law 45C4(b): "...that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand..." Law 45D: "...a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played..." Law 45E2: "...it is returned to the hand..." Law 47C: "A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand..." Law 47D: "...a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand..." Law 62C1: "...may withdraw and return to his hand any card..." 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 Fri Aug 15 10:40:23 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:40:23 EDT Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 14/08/2008 12:49:29 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: She perfectly well knew 1S was forcing, but decided passing it would be the lesser of evils. [paul lamford] In the auction 1X - (1Y) - 1S, most pairs play that 1S is *unlimited* and forcing, so the rabbit was unaware of this, or she would surely have bid. Her understanding of which hands belonged to the "forcing" set was flawed, so she did not really know that 1S was forcing. "To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge.- Benjamin Disraeli" From Gampas at aol.com Fri Aug 15 11:51:45 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:51:45 EDT Subject: [blml] something a bit more... shiny [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 15/08/2008 05:01:51 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Southwest Pacific Teams Dlr: South Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D 3C (1) Pass Pass X Pass 3D Pass ? (1) Preemptive You, South, hold: A42 AK74 AKJ3 43 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [paul lamford] Partner has a bad hand, and I would pass, and do not think there is an alternative. From Gampas at aol.com Fri Aug 15 12:10:26 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:10:26 EDT Subject: [blml] Obvious fact (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 15/08/2008 08:28:13 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle quibbled: "There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: Nil The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass 2S Pass(3) Pass 3C ? (1) 15-17 (2) Alerted and explained as both majors (3) Break in tempo You, South, hold: AJ95 76 T842 KQ9 Is it an obvious fact that East has infracted Law 16? What call do you make? Is your call, "Director"? [paul lamford] No, it is not obvious, without seeing East's hand, but reserving the right to call the director later would be appropriate. I do not yet have "substantial reason" to believe that Law 16 has been infracted. And I would Pass - I would presume that East has something like xx xx AK AJT9xxx when Pass of 2S is not a logical alternative to 3C. That would be a reasonable hand for East, as his partner is likely to use the "psyche control" of Stayman, which can be passed. We could guess that West is something like QTx KQxx QJxx xx and North will then be Kxxx AJxxx xxx x, and everybody has their bids and West just about has his hesitation. On this layout, we beat 3C by a trick, and 2S was going off. But double looks too tight. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Aug 15 15:58:57 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:58:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A58BA1.5010301@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Richard Hills: > >>> Merely because a player retracts a card and then later decides to >>> play that card does not mean that the card was never retracted. > > Matthias Berghaus asked: > >> Where does this come from? If a player decides to let the card he >> played stand (even if he is entitled to substitute another card), >> then he has never retracted any card. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I am a simple soul. If a Law specifies that a card is returned to > the hand, then to me that card is a "withdrawn" / "retracted" card. > > Law 24 prologue: > > "...If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked > up and returned to the hand..." > > Law 41A: > > "...the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender's hand." > > Law 45C4(b): > > "...that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his > hand..." > > Law 45D: > > "...a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played..." > > Law 45E2: > > "...it is returned to the hand..." > > Law 47C: > > "A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand..." > > Law 47D: > > "...a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand..." > > Law 62C1: > > "...may withdraw and return to his hand any card..." > What has any of the above to do with the case at hand? There is no discussion about revoker's card. Of course that is a penalty card. There never was any doubt about that. We are talking about his partner's card here. He has not substituted any card yet, so he cannot have any penalty card. He played in turn, he followed suit, everything perfectly legal. L47 says that he may _substitute_ a card, and L62 says that this becomes a penalty card, the player in question being a defender. But he cannot play the penalty card to this trick, as he already legally played the substituted card. Ergo he can play the penalty card to the following trick at the earliest. I cannot understand why you try to argue differently. The whole idea behind the current laws is to let people play Bridge, which your interpretation would make completely impossible, leading to all kinds of ridiculous results. Let us assume that 3 spades are missing in trick 12. So declarer knows West has revoked. Now he can play the queen for free (with your reading of the laws), for if East wins with the king he can change his play to the ace, while East has to drop his king under the ace now, yes? Is that the way you want to play Bridge?? Is that the way you want anybody to play Bridge? I don't care whether this law could have been worded better, it is good enough for me. Regards Matthias From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Aug 15 18:51:08 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:51:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A58BA1.5010301@t-online.de> References: <48A58BA1.5010301@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000301c8fef7$1fc68420$5f538c60$@com> [MB] I cannot understand why you try to argue differently. The whole idea behind the current laws is to let people play Bridge, which your interpretation would make completely impossible, leading to all kinds of ridiculous results. Let us assume that 3 spades are missing in trick 12. So declarer knows West has revoked. Now he can play the queen for free (with your reading of the laws), for if East wins with the king he can change his play to the ace, while East has to drop his king under the ace now, yes? Is that the way you want to play Bridge? Is that the way you want anybody to play Bridge? [DALB] I might not particularly want to play bridge when some revokes cost two tricks, others one, and others none at all. But that is what the law says I have to do, so I do it. Similarly, if the law says that I may withdraw a card, but must then play it anyway because it is a penalty card, then that is what I must do. By itself, Law 62C2 certainly does not preclude such an interpretation. But Law 47D says: After an opponent's change of play a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.) This suggests the following sequence: the offending side's player is asked whether he wishes to withdraw his card and substitute another card. If so, the replacement card is the card played to the current trick. Now Law 62C2 is consulted, where it is determined that the replaced card is a penalty card, so it becomes one, to be played at the earliest opportunity following the completion of the current trick. David Burn London, England From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Aug 15 23:10:11 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:10:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new Message-ID: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> Ahoy blmlers! Have been directing for far too many years but, at a recent large tournament encountered something new. I'd welcome your opinion(s). Bidding: S W N E Ps Ps 4he Ps* Ps x Ps 4sp 5H Ps Ps x Ps Ps xx all pass The hands (EW vul) J9 KQ7532 AK63 10 K1065 AQ743 10 A94 972 J84 AQJ96 K3 82 J86 Q105 87542 The players: West and North were very strong players, East was a member of the national team of a major bridge nation. South was unknown but probably weaker than the others. Now to what occurred. It was a team match (10 bds. per session) and after North bid 4 hearts East asked if it were the last bd. of the session. It was. He then said he hadn't noted the scores and asked for the official score sheet (scored by North). It was given to him and he proceeded to copy all of the scores. This took (estimate of NS) between 1-1/2 and 2 minutes. He then glanced at his hand again and passed. He had probably had about 20 seconds to look at his hand before he asked for the official score sheet. Okay, when NS appeal to you, (call you) what do you decide? East estimated that it took him about 30-35 seconds before he passed over 4 hearts. Before scrolling down consider your decision as TD. When the TD(s) tried to get info they asked East how long he had taken before bidding. He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer. The TDs had been careful to first say that they were only trying to establish exactly what happened at the table, they were neither making an accusation nor insinuating anything. After a number of repetitions of the question East finally (air of obvious disgust) said that it was about 30-35 seconds. When later asked by the TD (and the appeals committee) he said he (now) realised that he shouldn't have first recorded the scores and then called. (TD had asked why he didn't record the previous results after the hand or at least after calling -- he had seen his cards for about 20-30 (30 including skip bid warning) seconds so should have been able to make a call before asking for the official score sheet.) Problem for TD: East has an opening bid (1sp for example) so it would not be unexpected for him to have to consider his options after the 4he opening. But he had studied his hands for about 20 seconds + 10 more seconds after the skip bid. If he hesitated much longer there would be a possibility of UI for his partner. For the moment let us disregard the unfortunate 5he bid and the equally unfortunate (or tactical?) redouble. They were subsequent to the incident, not consequent. Do you as TD allow the 4sp. bid? You may well decide to give NS the table result (5hexx -2) but what about EW? Ciao, JE Postscriptum: I'd be particularly interested in the opinions of Kojak and Grattan. From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 15 23:49:35 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:49:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> Message-ID: <001901c8ff20$cf552800$6dff7800$@no> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > Ahoy blmlers! Have been directing for far too many years but, at a > recent large tournament encountered something new. I'd welcome your > opinion(s). > > Bidding: S W N E > Ps Ps 4he Ps* > Ps x Ps 4sp > 5H Ps Ps x > Ps Ps xx all pass > > The hands (EW vul) > > J9 > KQ7532 > AK63 > 10 > K1065 AQ743 > 10 A94 > 972 J84 > AQJ96 K3 > 82 > J86 > Q105 > 87542 > > The players: West and North were very strong players, East was a member > of the national team of a major bridge nation. South was unknown but > probably weaker than the others. > > Now to what occurred. It was a team match (10 bds. per session) and > after North bid 4 hearts East asked if it were the last bd. of the > session. It was. He then said he hadn't noted the scores and asked for > the official score sheet (scored by North). It was given to him and he > proceeded to copy all of the scores. This took (estimate of NS) between > 1-1/2 and 2 minutes. He then glanced at his hand again and passed. > He had probably had about 20 seconds to look at his hand before he asked > for the official score sheet. > > Okay, when NS appeal to you, (call you) what do you decide? > East estimated that it took him about 30-35 seconds before he passed > over 4 hearts. > > Before scrolling down consider your decision as TD. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the TD(s) tried to get info they asked East how long he had taken > before bidding. He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first > refused to answer. The TDs had been careful to first say that they were > only trying to establish exactly what happened at the table, they were > neither making an accusation nor insinuating anything. After a number > of repetitions of the question East finally (air of obvious disgust) > said that it was about 30-35 seconds. > > When later asked by the TD (and the appeals committee) he said he (now) > realised that he shouldn't have first recorded the scores and then > called. (TD had asked why he didn't record the previous results after > the hand or at least after calling -- he had seen his cards for about > 20-30 (30 including skip bid warning) seconds so should have been able > to make a call before asking for the official score sheet.) > > Problem for TD: East has an opening bid (1sp for example) so it would > not be unexpected for him to have to consider his options after the 4he > opening. But he had studied his hands for about 20 seconds + 10 more > seconds after the skip bid. If he hesitated much longer there would be > a possibility of UI for his partner. > > For the moment let us disregard the unfortunate 5he bid and the equally > unfortunate (or tactical?) redouble. They were subsequent to the > incident, not consequent. Do you as TD allow the 4sp. bid? You may > well decide to give NS the table result (5hexx -2) but what about EW? Of course I allow the 4S bid. If there is any player at the table that has UI it must be West who has seen his partner entering into a time consuming process that was inappropriate at this time, possibly using this process as a disguise for giving himself extra time to consider his call. But East deserves a heavy PP for his behavior; he is deliberately delaying the game and causing annoyance to the other players by his extraneous activities. Regards Sven From jrhind at therock.bm Sat Aug 16 01:54:31 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:54:31 -0300 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> Message-ID: IMO, pass is a logical alternative for West given the vulnerability but NS have severed the link here with the RDBL. I would give NS the table result and adjust EW to 4H down one. I would give a PP for East's the behaviour exhibited at the table. Jack On 8/15/08 6:10 PM, "Jeff Easterson" wrote: > Ahoy blmlers! Have been directing for far too many years but, at a > recent large tournament encountered something new. I'd welcome your > opinion(s). > > Bidding: S W N E > Ps Ps 4he Ps* > Ps x Ps 4sp > 5H Ps Ps x > Ps Ps xx all pass > > The hands (EW vul) > > J9 > KQ7532 > AK63 > 10 > K1065 AQ743 > 10 A94 > 972 J84 > AQJ96 K3 > 82 > J86 > Q105 > 87542 > > The players: West and North were very strong players, East was a member > of the national team of a major bridge nation. South was unknown but > probably weaker than the others. > > Now to what occurred. It was a team match (10 bds. per session) and > after North bid 4 hearts East asked if it were the last bd. of the > session. It was. He then said he hadn't noted the scores and asked for > the official score sheet (scored by North). It was given to him and he > proceeded to copy all of the scores. This took (estimate of NS) between > 1-1/2 and 2 minutes. He then glanced at his hand again and passed. > He had probably had about 20 seconds to look at his hand before he asked > for the official score sheet. > > Okay, when NS appeal to you, (call you) what do you decide? > East estimated that it took him about 30-35 seconds before he passed > over 4 hearts. > > Before scrolling down consider your decision as TD. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the TD(s) tried to get info they asked East how long he had taken > before bidding. He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first > refused to answer. The TDs had been careful to first say that they were > only trying to establish exactly what happened at the table, they were > neither making an accusation nor insinuating anything. After a number > of repetitions of the question East finally (air of obvious disgust) > said that it was about 30-35 seconds. > > When later asked by the TD (and the appeals committee) he said he (now) > realised that he shouldn't have first recorded the scores and then > called. (TD had asked why he didn't record the previous results after > the hand or at least after calling -- he had seen his cards for about > 20-30 (30 including skip bid warning) seconds so should have been able > to make a call before asking for the official score sheet.) > > Problem for TD: East has an opening bid (1sp for example) so it would > not be unexpected for him to have to consider his options after the 4he > opening. But he had studied his hands for about 20 seconds + 10 more > seconds after the skip bid. If he hesitated much longer there would be > a possibility of UI for his partner. > > For the moment let us disregard the unfortunate 5he bid and the equally > unfortunate (or tactical?) redouble. They were subsequent to the > incident, not consequent. Do you as TD allow the 4sp. bid? You may > well decide to give NS the table result (5hexx -2) but what about EW? > > Ciao, JE > > Postscriptum: I'd be particularly interested in the opinions of Kojak > and Grattan. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Sat Aug 16 02:17:24 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:17:24 EDT Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 15/08/2008 15:00:03 GMT Standard Time, ziffbridge at t-online.de writes: The whole idea behind the current laws is to let people play Bridge [paul lamford] No it isn't. The whole idea behind the current laws is to regulate the conduct of the game. And that is what Laws are supposed to do. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Aug 16 02:35:58 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:35:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> Message-ID: <99978645F3D5431A9607E65DEDB11B14@erdos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 5:10 PM Subject: [blml] something new > Ahoy blmlers! Have been directing for far too many years but, at a > recent large tournament encountered something new. I'd welcome your > opinion(s). > > Bidding: S W N E > Ps Ps 4he Ps* > Ps x Ps 4sp > 5H Ps Ps x > Ps Ps xx all pass > > The hands (EW vul) > > J9 > KQ7532 > AK63 > 10 > K1065 AQ743 > 10 A94 > 972 J84 > AQJ96 K3 > 82 > J86 > Q105 > 87542 > > The players: West and North were very strong players, East was a member > of the national team of a major bridge nation. South was unknown but > probably weaker than the others. > > Now to what occurred. It was a team match (10 bds. per session) and > after North bid 4 hearts East asked if it were the last bd. of the > session. It was. He then said he hadn't noted the scores and asked for > the official score sheet (scored by North). It was given to him and he > proceeded to copy all of the scores. This took (estimate of NS) between > 1-1/2 and 2 minutes. He then glanced at his hand again and passed. > He had probably had about 20 seconds to look at his hand before he asked > for the official score sheet. > > Okay, when NS appeal to you, (call you) what do you decide? > East estimated that it took him about 30-35 seconds before he passed > over 4 hearts. > For the moment let us disregard the unfortunate 5he bid and the equally > unfortunate (or tactical?) redouble. They were subsequent to the > incident, not consequent. Do you as TD allow the 4sp. bid? You may > well decide to give NS the table result (5hexx -2) but what about EW? The 4S bid isn't the problem; it's West's double, if anything, that should be disallowed, because of East's hesitation (and copying the scores could even have been a way to gain more time and hide it). I would disallow the double. 5H by South doesn't look unfortunate, as -300 is a good save. North's redouble is self-inflicted damage; when West is strong enough to double and East makes the double for penalties, it is unreasonable for North to redouble. I would award -620 for E/W, and +620 minus the difference between -300 and -600 for N-S. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Aug 16 02:38:22 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:38:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001901c8ff20$cf552800$6dff7800$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <001901c8ff20$cf552800$6dff7800$@no> Message-ID: (minor correction) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 5:10 PM Subject: [blml] something new > Ahoy blmlers! Have been directing for far too many years but, at a > recent large tournament encountered something new. I'd welcome your > opinion(s). > > Bidding: S W N E > Ps Ps 4he Ps* > Ps x Ps 4sp > 5H Ps Ps x > Ps Ps xx all pass > > The hands (EW vul) > > J9 > KQ7532 > AK63 > 10 > K1065 AQ743 > 10 A94 > 972 J84 > AQJ96 K3 > 82 > J86 > Q105 > 87542 > > The players: West and North were very strong players, East was a member > of the national team of a major bridge nation. South was unknown but > probably weaker than the others. > > Now to what occurred. It was a team match (10 bds. per session) and > after North bid 4 hearts East asked if it were the last bd. of the > session. It was. He then said he hadn't noted the scores and asked for > the official score sheet (scored by North). It was given to him and he > proceeded to copy all of the scores. This took (estimate of NS) between > 1-1/2 and 2 minutes. He then glanced at his hand again and passed. > He had probably had about 20 seconds to look at his hand before he asked > for the official score sheet. > > Okay, when NS appeal to you, (call you) what do you decide? > East estimated that it took him about 30-35 seconds before he passed > over 4 hearts. > For the moment let us disregard the unfortunate 5he bid and the equally > unfortunate (or tactical?) redouble. They were subsequent to the > incident, not consequent. Do you as TD allow the 4sp. bid? You may > well decide to give NS the table result (5hexx -2) but what about EW? The 4S bid isn't the problem; it's West's double, if anything, that should be disallowed, because of East's hesitation (and copying the scores could even have been a way to gain more time and hide it). I would disallow the double. 5H by South doesn't look unfortunate, as -300 is a good save. North's redouble is self-inflicted damage; when West is strong enough to double and East makes the double for penalties, it is unreasonable for North to redouble. However, it doesn't fully break the connection because -300 is already worse than the -50 they would have had without the infraction, so I adjust only for the self-inflicted damage. I would award +50 for E/W, and -50 minus the difference between -300 and -600 for N-S. From Gampas at aol.com Sat Aug 16 03:04:32 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:04:32 EDT Subject: [blml] something new Message-ID: In a message dated 16/08/2008 01:39:02 GMT Standard Time, grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu writes: The 4S bid isn't the problem; it's West's double, if anything, that should be disallowed, because of East's hesitation (and copying the scores could even have been a way to gain more time and hide it). I would disallow the double. [paul lamford] I agree that double is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation, but I polled a few strong players at the EBU Summer Congress (without giving the UI) and double was chosen in each case, so that it would seem that Pass is not an LA. I agree that the redouble of 5H is a wild and gambling action (the benchmark in the UK) and would deny redress on that basis, but with a PP on East for his machinations. So 5Hxx-2 for each side, and a PP for East. From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Aug 16 20:12:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:12:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> Message-ID: <48A71880.6030805@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Ahoy blmlers! Have been directing for far too many years but, at a > recent large tournament encountered something new. I'd welcome your > opinion(s). > > Bidding: S W N E > Ps Ps 4he Ps* > Ps x Ps 4sp > 5H Ps Ps x > Ps Ps xx all pass > > The hands (EW vul) > > J9 > KQ7532 > AK63 > 10 > K1065 AQ743 > 10 A94 > 972 J84 > AQJ96 K3 > 82 > J86 > Q105 > 87542 > > The players: West and North were very strong players, East was a member > of the national team of a major bridge nation. South was unknown but > probably weaker than the others. > > Now to what occurred. It was a team match (10 bds. per session) and > after North bid 4 hearts East asked if it were the last bd. of the > session. It was. He then said he hadn't noted the scores and asked for > the official score sheet (scored by North). It was given to him and he > proceeded to copy all of the scores. This took (estimate of NS) between > 1-1/2 and 2 minutes. He then glanced at his hand again and passed. > He had probably had about 20 seconds to look at his hand before he asked > for the official score sheet. > It'd rule hesitation and UI. And award a severe reprimand (but no actual penalty as I can't prove intent) to this player, reprimand to be transferred to the NBO. As to the ruling on the UI, I think that is not the point of the question. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 17 11:17:34 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:17:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> Message-ID: <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 10:10 PM Subject: [blml] something new > Ahoy blmlers! Have been directing for far too many years but, at a > recent large tournament encountered something new. I'd welcome your > opinion(s). > > Bidding: S W N E > Ps Ps 4he Ps* > Ps x Ps 4sp > 5H Ps Ps x > Ps Ps xx all pass > > The hands (EW vul) > > J9 > KQ7532 > AK63 > 10 > K1065 AQ743 > 10 A94 > 972 J84 > AQJ96 K3 > 82 > J86 > Q105 > 87542 > > The players: West and North were very strong players, East was a member > of the national team of a major bridge nation. South was unknown but > probably weaker than the others. > > Now to what occurred. It was a team match (10 bds. per session) and > after North bid 4 hearts East asked if it were the last bd. of the > session. It was. He then said he hadn't noted the scores and asked for > the official score sheet (scored by North). It was given to him and he > proceeded to copy all of the scores. This took (estimate of NS) between > 1-1/2 and 2 minutes. He then glanced at his hand again and passed. > He had probably had about 20 seconds to look at his hand before he asked > for the official score sheet. > > Okay, when NS appeal to you, (call you) what do you decide? > East estimated that it took him about 30-35 seconds before he passed > over 4 hearts. > > Before scrolling down consider your decision as TD. > +=+ 1. There is a breach of Law 74A3. 2. The Director will recognize that the player may have used the ploy to give himself time to think. His partner could well recognize that such was the case. The Director should rule there is UI. 3. Looking at the West hand I judge it 100% to double. So I allow the double and the 4S bid. 4. For East's improper attitude I apply a substantial procedural penalty, considering the case aggravated. No less than 25% of a top. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 17 13:24:30 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:24:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48A58BA1.5010301@t-online.de> <000301c8fef7$1fc68420$5f538c60$@com> Message-ID: <001401c9005c$38450b50$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [DALB] > > I might not particularly want to play bridge when some revokes cost two > tricks, others one, and others none at all. But that is what the law says > I > have to do, so I do it. Similarly, if the law says that I may withdraw a > card, but must then play it anyway because it is a penalty card, then that > is what I must do. By itself, Law 62C2 certainly does not preclude such an > interpretation. > > But Law 47D says: > > After an opponent's change of play a played card may be withdrawn and > returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be > substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.) > > This suggests the following sequence: the offending side's player is asked > whether he wishes to withdraw his card and substitute another card. If so, > the replacement card is the card played to the current trick. Now Law 62C2 > is consulted, where it is determined that the replaced card is a penalty > card, so it becomes one, to be played at the earliest opportunity > following > the completion of the current trick. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ This is the way I understand the application of these two laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 17 13:39:35 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:39:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Sun Aug 17 16:09:15 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:09:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: I agree with Grattan. I would let the result achieved at the table stand, and I would apply the procedural penalty to the session event. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A truth's prosperity is like a jest's, > it lies in the ear of him that hears it." > ~ Samuel Butler. > [A falsehood's prosperity is like a truth's, > it also lies in the ear of him that hears it. > :-) G. ] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > "No less than 25% of a top" > > Or 6 imps. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 17 18:54:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:54:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > I agree with Grattan. I would let the result achieved at the table stand, > and I would apply the procedural penalty to the session event. > > Kojak > It is of course a matter of making a decision, but do you not need to establish intent in order to award a procedural penalty? There is a distinction here between the transmission of UI and the wilful transmission of such. The first can be done inadvertently. By asking for the scores after looking at one's hand, one gives the UI that the bid is not straightforward, and that is UI. But there is a difference if we believe the UI is being given deliberately, and being hidden. For that to be liable for a penalty, we must assume that it is indeed a deliberate attempt to transmit, and to hide. The player might simply choose an inopportune moment for looking at the scores - or he might want to know the scores (something to which he is entitled, IMO) in order to know what to bid. Of course, that is UI, but it is not deliberate sending of UI. I am not so certain that a PP is in order. As to registering the action, of course! And if he does it again, throw him out. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 17 19:59:53 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:59:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >> I agree with Grattan. I would let the result achieved at the table >> stand, >> and I would apply the procedural penalty to the session event. >> >> Kojak >> > > It is of course a matter of making a decision, but do you not need to > establish intent in order to award a procedural penalty? > > There is a distinction here between the transmission of UI and the > wilful transmission of such. The first can be done inadvertently. By > asking for the scores after looking at one's hand, one gives the UI > that the bid is not straightforward, and that is UI. > > But there is a difference if we believe the UI is being given > deliberately, and being hidden. For that to be liable for a penalty, > we must assume that it is indeed a deliberate attempt to transmit, and > to hide. > > The player might simply choose an inopportune moment for looking at > the scores - or he might want to know the scores (something to which > he is entitled, IMO) in order to know what to bid. > Of course, that is UI, but it is not deliberate sending of UI. > > I am not so certain that a PP is in order. > As to registering the action, of course! And if he does it again, > throw him out. > +=+ I am not penalizing the transmission of UI. It is the violation of correct procedure that I am penalizing. No finding of intent is necessary, only a finding of fact. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Aug 17 22:24:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:24:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A truth's prosperity is like a jest's, > it lies in the ear of him that hears it." > ~ Samuel Butler. > [A falsehood's prosperity is like a truth's, > it also lies in the ear of him that hears it. > :-) G. ] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:54 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > >> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: >>> I agree with Grattan. I would let the result achieved at the table >>> stand, >>> and I would apply the procedural penalty to the session event. >>> >>> Kojak >>> >> It is of course a matter of making a decision, but do you not need to >> establish intent in order to award a procedural penalty? >> >> There is a distinction here between the transmission of UI and the >> wilful transmission of such. The first can be done inadvertently. By >> asking for the scores after looking at one's hand, one gives the UI >> that the bid is not straightforward, and that is UI. >> >> But there is a difference if we believe the UI is being given >> deliberately, and being hidden. For that to be liable for a penalty, >> we must assume that it is indeed a deliberate attempt to transmit, and >> to hide. >> >> The player might simply choose an inopportune moment for looking at >> the scores - or he might want to know the scores (something to which >> he is entitled, IMO) in order to know what to bid. >> Of course, that is UI, but it is not deliberate sending of UI. >> >> I am not so certain that a PP is in order. >> As to registering the action, of course! And if he does it again, >> throw him out. >> > +=+ I am not penalizing the transmission of UI. It is the violation > of correct procedure that I am penalizing. No finding of intent > is necessary, only a finding of fact. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I beg to differ. There is nothing in the laws or procedures that ban a player from asking to copy his scores. That cannot be punishable. Nor is it punishable to ask to copy the scores while an auction is under way - not even when he is on play. So I do not see how you can give this PP without looking at the intent. An intent which I grant you is quite possible, and in that case quite grave, hence my suggestion of a severe reprimand with registration. But not proven. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From schoderb at msn.com Sun Aug 17 23:36:41 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:36:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> Message-ID: Typical DeWael thinking. Do nothing, but if he does it again, cut off his b--ls. And please tell me what law he is using for that? Says there is nothing wrong with what was done, but a second time of the same and he takes drastic action? Talks about UI on one side of his mouth, and refutes himself on the other? I'm just glad that I don't play bridge anywhere he is a director, and feel sorry for those who have to abide his aberrant conclusions. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > Grattan wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott > also > ************************************** > > "A truth's prosperity is like a jest's, > > it lies in the ear of him that hears it." > > ~ Samuel Butler. > > [A falsehood's prosperity is like a truth's, > > it also lies in the ear of him that hears it. > > :-) G. ] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:54 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > > > > >> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > >>> I agree with Grattan. I would let the result achieved at the table > >>> stand, > >>> and I would apply the procedural penalty to the session event. > >>> > >>> Kojak > >>> > >> It is of course a matter of making a decision, but do you not need to > >> establish intent in order to award a procedural penalty? > >> > >> There is a distinction here between the transmission of UI and the > >> wilful transmission of such. The first can be done inadvertently. By > >> asking for the scores after looking at one's hand, one gives the UI > >> that the bid is not straightforward, and that is UI. > >> > >> But there is a difference if we believe the UI is being given > >> deliberately, and being hidden. For that to be liable for a penalty, > >> we must assume that it is indeed a deliberate attempt to transmit, and > >> to hide. > >> > >> The player might simply choose an inopportune moment for looking at > >> the scores - or he might want to know the scores (something to which > >> he is entitled, IMO) in order to know what to bid. > >> Of course, that is UI, but it is not deliberate sending of UI. > >> > >> I am not so certain that a PP is in order. > >> As to registering the action, of course! And if he does it again, > >> throw him out. > >> > > +=+ I am not penalizing the transmission of UI. It is the violation > > of correct procedure that I am penalizing. No finding of intent > > is necessary, only a finding of fact. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > I beg to differ. > There is nothing in the laws or procedures that ban a player from > asking to copy his scores. That cannot be punishable. > Nor is it punishable to ask to copy the scores while an auction is > under way - not even when he is on play. > > So I do not see how you can give this PP without looking at the intent. > > An intent which I grant you is quite possible, and in that case quite > grave, hence my suggestion of a severe reprimand with registration. > But not proven. > > -- > 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 17 23:55:04 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:55:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new >>> >> +=+ I am not penalizing the transmission of UI. It is the violation >> of correct procedure that I am penalizing. No finding of intent >> is necessary, only a finding of fact. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> (Herman DE WAEL) I beg to differ. There is nothing in the laws or procedures that ban a player from asking to copy his scores. That cannot be punishable. Nor is it punishable to ask to copy the scores while an auction is under way - not even when he is on play. > So I do not see how you can give this PP without looking at the intent. An intent which I grant you is quite possible, and in that case quite grave, hence my suggestion of a severe reprimand with registration. But not proven. > +=+ The violation of correct procedure that I am penalizing (see Law 74A3) is the interruption of the proper procedure and tempo of the auction with the (perhaps quite lengthy) extraneous activity of writing out his scorecard. No finding of intent is necessary, only a finding of fact; and it is merely incidental that one may think it apparent that the offender does indeed intend to interrupt the prescribed process of the auction by indulging in this lateral diversion. Nor is it beyond credibility that the offender may be adjudged in breach of Law 74A2 or indeed Law 74B4. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 18 00:09:49 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:09:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] There is nothing in the laws or procedures that ban a player from asking to copy his scores. That cannot be punishable. [Nigel] Does this break any of the following rules? - Apart from blatant UI implications there are ... - Lack of consideration for other players. - Tempo and disruption rules. - Aide-memoire prohibitions for the player himself -- and his partner. This was the last board and optimal tactics would depend on what happened on previous boards. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Aug 18 00:23:20 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:23:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> Grattan wrote: > > +=+ The violation of correct procedure that I am penalizing > (see Law 74A3) is the interruption of the proper procedure > and tempo of the auction with the (perhaps quite lengthy) > extraneous activity of writing out his scorecard. No finding > of intent is necessary, only a finding of fact; and it is merely > incidental that one may think it apparent that the offender > does indeed intend to interrupt the prescribed process of > the auction by indulging in this lateral diversion. > Nor is it beyond credibility that the offender may be > adjudged in breach of Law 74A2 or indeed Law 74B4. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Let's not forget 74B1. Writing previous scores after the auction commences appears to be paying insufficient attention to the game to me. Also, 74B5 prohibits addressing the TD in a manner discourteous to him or the other contestants. Despite the UI, I believe that there is no LA to a reopening double, so I agree completely that the score should stand. However, the E-W windfall from the N-S auction will be severely tempered by the PP. Hirsch From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 00:39:27 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:39:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > Typical DeWael thinking. Do nothing, but if he does it again, cut off his > b--ls. And please tell me what law he is using for that? Says there is > nothing wrong with what was done, but a second time of the same and he > takes drastic action? Talks about UI on one side of his mouth, and refutes > himself on the other? I'm just glad that I don't play bridge anywhere he > is a director, and feel sorry for those who have to abide his aberrant > conclusions. > > Kojak > +=+ I think Herman has forgotten the WBFLC pronouncement that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is extraneous. An action not expressly stated in the laws or regulations to be authorized does not enjoy that status. The relevant statement is in the minutes of 24th August 1998, and see the Introduction to the 2007 Laws. ~ Grattan ~ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 18 00:44:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:44:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] something new [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jack Rhind: >IMO, pass is a logical alternative for West given the vulnerability but >NS have severed the link here with the RDBL. I would give NS the table >result and adjust EW to 4H down one. > >I would give a PP for East's the behaviour exhibited at the table. > >Jack 2007 Law 12C1(b): "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such ***part*** of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." Richard Hills: So North-South do not get the full -600 score. Rather, North-South get -350 (the -50 they deserved, plus the extra -300 caused by the wild or gambling redouble). Grattan Endicott: >3. Looking at the West hand I judge it 100% to double. So I allow the >double and the 4S bid. Richard Hills: Only 97% to double, since Jack Rhind, David Grabiner and myself think that Pass by West is a logical alternative. How can a hand which is not strong enough to open at the one-level be 100% strong enough to unilaterally act at the four-level? I must admit that (in my style) the West hand is a 100% one-level opening bid. But having chosen to pass initially, one should act consistently later. Despite the reward for consistency being missing a vulnerable game. The point being, of course, that only when pard hesitates is a vulnerable game likely to be available. Other times a reopening double could offer pard a choice between -800 and -880. 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 Aug 18 00:50:04 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:50:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48A8AB1C.9070509@NTLworld.com> [Hirsch Davis] Despite the UI, I believe that there is no LA to a reopening double, so I agree completely that the score should stand. However, the E-W windfall from the N-S auction will be severely tempered by the PP. [Nigel] TEAMS VUL v NOT, You West deal S:KTxx H:T D:972 C:AQJ94 P (4H) P (P) ?? Grattan Endicott, Paul Lamford, and other BLMLers are unanimous that there is no LA to West's reopening double. Not all players have the bidding judgement of these distinguished BLMLers and I reckon that for lesser experts, pass is an LA. In an expert field with duplicated boards, I would expect some NS pairs to win the auction in 4H. From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 18 01:02:32 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:02:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ......... > I beg to differ. > There is nothing in the laws or procedures that ban a player from > asking to copy his scores. That cannot be punishable. > Nor is it punishable to ask to copy the scores while an auction is > under way - not even when he is on play. Oh please, come on! There is a time and a place for everything. Have your read, and do you understand Law 74B2? If East really wanted to have his own copy of the official scores he should either maintain his own score records at the same time they are recorded on the official record or wait until the round is ended. Interrupting the auction like we have been told happened here shows such contempt of the game that I am lacking words. I fully agree with Grattan that his intent is completely irrelevant. Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Aug 18 01:27:48 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <1465.76.195.94.230.1219015668.squirrel@email.powweb.com> I believe Herman has said that it is not illegal to copy scores during the hand. I have to say that it is VERY common at our club for players to keep a record of their hands, and they do their copying during the hand. I would be surprised to find out that was illegal. But I am open to hear why that is illegal. > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A truth's prosperity is like a jest's, > it lies in the ear of him that hears it." > ~ Samuel Butler. > [A falsehood's prosperity is like a truth's, > it also lies in the ear of him that hears it. > :-) G. ] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:36 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > >> Typical DeWael thinking. Do nothing, but if he does it again, cut off >> his >> b--ls. And please tell me what law he is using for that? Says there is >> nothing wrong with what was done, but a second time of the same and he >> takes drastic action? Talks about UI on one side of his mouth, and >> refutes >> himself on the other? I'm just glad that I don't play bridge anywhere >> he >> is a director, and feel sorry for those who have to abide his aberrant >> conclusions. >> >> Kojak >> > +=+ I think Herman has forgotten the WBFLC pronouncement > that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified > in the laws is extraneous. An action not expressly stated in the > laws or regulations to be authorized does not enjoy that status. > The relevant statement is in the minutes of 24th August 1998, > and see the Introduction to the 2007 Laws. > ~ Grattan ~ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 18 03:52:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:52:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] something a bit more... shiny [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Southwest Pacific Teams Dlr: South Vul: North-South You, South, hold: A42 AK74 AKJ3 43 Scenario A The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D 3C (1) Pass(2) Pass X Pass 3D Pass ? (1) Preemptive (2) Break in tempo What does this break in tempo demonstrably suggest? What call do you make? Scenario B The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D 3C (1) Pass Pass X Pass 3D (2) Pass ? (1) Preemptive (2) Break in tempo What does that break in tempo demonstrably suggest? What call 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 18 04:10:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:10:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Obvious fact (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Is it an obvious fact that East has infracted Law 16? >> >>What call do you make? Is your call, "Director"? Paul Lamford: >No, it is not obvious, without seeing East's hand, but reserving >the right to call the director later would be appropriate. I do >not yet have "substantial reason" to believe that Law 16 has >been infracted. [snip] Matchpoint pairs Q7432 Dlr: West 98432 Vul: None A9 7 KT6 8 Q5 AKT6 J763 KQ5 JT64 A8532 AJ95 76 T842 KQ9 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- Pass Pass 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2D(2) Pass 2S Pass(3) Pass 3C(4) Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) 15-17 balanced, East mis-sorted her hand, with the deuce of clubs thought to be a spade (2) Alerted and explained as both majors (3) Break in tempo, causing East to re-examine her hand, and consequently re-sort the deuce of clubs into its proper place (4) South called the Director Result: 3C doubled made three, +470 for East-West. Director's Ruling: Since the hesitation had been established and since there was a potential exchange of unauthorized information, pass by East could have been a logical alternative. The Director ruled in favour of the non-offending side, cancelled South's double, and returned the contract to 2S, +110 for North-South. Richard Hills: The appeals committee illegally split the score to give East-West +470 and North-South +110. In effect the appeals committee was saying that East passing 2S was simultaneously a logical alternative and also not a logical alternative. 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 Aug 18 07:23:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:23:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twelfth Man [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: [snip] >>Now, I agree that what should happen is that it becomes a penalty card >>after the current trick. But, please, don't try to pretend that is >>what the Law means. Alexander Pope (1688-1744): "The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read, With loads of learned lumber in his head" :-) Richard Hills: It seems that both Paul and myself have been bookful blockheads, in that we have both been parsing Law 62C2 only. David Burn: [snip] >Similarly, if the law says that I may withdraw a card, but must then play >it anyway because it is a penalty card, then that is what I must do. By >itself, Law 62C2 certainly does not preclude such an interpretation. [snip] Richard Hills: But David Burn then pointed out that reading Law 47D in conjunction with Law 62C2 creates another possible interpretation. If there is only one possible interpretation, it has to be adopted (no matter what the original intent of the Lawbook's drafters). But with two possible interpretations, the original intent of the Lawbook's drafters can be used as a tie-breaker. And in this case Sven Pran's historical research has divined that intent. But, unfortunately, not all TDs share Sven's database. Paul Lamford: [snip] >>And all TDs to whom I spoke here at the EBU Congress agree that the >>correct ruling is two tricks when they admit the infraction and only one >>trick when they remain silent. 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 Mon Aug 18 09:07:13 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:07:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] something a bit more... shiny [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 18/08/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Southwest Pacific Teams > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > You, South, hold: > > A42 > AK74 > AKJ3 > 43 > > Scenario A > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D > 3C (1) Pass(2) Pass X > Pass 3D Pass ? > > (1) Preemptive > (2) Break in tempo > > What does this break in tempo demonstrably suggest? The BIT here suggest some values in partners hand, that he was close to making a positive call over 3C. > What call do you make? Obvious pass for me, see my first posting in this thread. Moreover, I'm constrained by UI suggesting to bid on, and won't be allowed to go on past 3D. > > Scenario B > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D > 3C (1) Pass Pass X > Pass 3D (2) Pass ? > > (1) Preemptive > (2) Break in tempo > > What does that break in tempo demonstrably suggest? This BIT suggest that partner considered another call than 3D at his turn. This could either be a penalty pass or bidding a major suit instead of 3D. > What call do you make? Pass is still the obvious call for me. This time I don't think I'm constrained by any UI, since I can't know what partner was thinking about. If he was contemplating a penalty pass, this suggest that I pass now. If a major suit bid was his alternative, this suggest me bidding on, since we will most probably have a better contract than 3D available. These two point in opposite directions, thus no constraints. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 11:09:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:09:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48A93C2E.3040802@skynet.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Typical DeWael thinking. Typical Kojak personal attack. Why should I not have a different opinion from yours? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 11:12:12 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:12:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > +=+ The violation of correct procedure that I am penalizing > (see Law 74A3) is the interruption of the proper procedure > and tempo of the auction with the (perhaps quite lengthy) > extraneous activity of writing out his scorecard. No finding > of intent is necessary, only a finding of fact; and it is merely > incidental that one may think it apparent that the offender > does indeed intend to interrupt the prescribed process of > the auction by indulging in this lateral diversion. > Nor is it beyond credibility that the offender may be > adjudged in breach of Law 74A2 or indeed Law 74B4. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Next time Grattan is directing your game, guys, please don't go for a cup of coffee. This is an extraneous action which Grattan shall penalize with a severe PP. I shall add a :), but I don't mean it really - I fail to see the reason for the PP that Grattan is so willing to give. If Grattan is wishing to give this PP for the suspected intentional infraction, but he hides behind "correct procedure", then Grattan has to be prepared to be giving PP's for drinking coffee as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 11:14:13 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:14:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48A93D65.7090301@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Grattan wrote: >> +=+ The violation of correct procedure that I am penalizing >> (see Law 74A3) is the interruption of the proper procedure >> and tempo of the auction with the (perhaps quite lengthy) >> extraneous activity of writing out his scorecard. No finding >> of intent is necessary, only a finding of fact; and it is merely >> incidental that one may think it apparent that the offender >> does indeed intend to interrupt the prescribed process of >> the auction by indulging in this lateral diversion. >> Nor is it beyond credibility that the offender may be >> adjudged in breach of Law 74A2 or indeed Law 74B4. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > Let's not forget 74B1. Writing previous scores after the auction > commences appears to be paying insufficient attention to the game to me. > Also, 74B5 prohibits addressing the TD in a manner discourteous to him > or the other contestants. > How can writing down your scores be "paying insufficient attention to the game"? Rather, and I guess this might be the player's defence to that indictment, he was seeing if they needed a big swing or not. That might well influence your bidding over a pre-empt. > Despite the UI, I believe that there is no LA to a reopening double, so > I agree completely that the score should stand. However, the E-W > windfall from the N-S auction will be severely tempered by the PP. > That part of the ruling seems to be quite unanimous. > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 11:28:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:28:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > There is nothing in the laws or procedures that ban a player from > asking to copy his scores. That cannot be punishable. > > [Nigel] > Does this break any of the following rules? > - Apart from blatant UI implications there are ... > - Lack of consideration for other players. > - Tempo and disruption rules. A player can take as much time as he needs to make his decision. This should not come into play. But: > - Aide-memoire prohibitions for the player himself -- and his partner. > This was the last board and optimal tactics would depend on what > happened on previous boards. > Exactly - and then we come to the question - is your scorecard a piece of memory aid or not. Surely your current score is AI. New L16A2 makes this explicit. L40C3a deals with memory aids. "a player is not entitled during the auction .. period(..) to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." This certainly prohibits: - pieces of paper on which the 52 cards are marked and barred when played; - written records of the bidding; - writing down the lead; - IMP tables; - tabels of probabilities; - handbooks on squeezing; But it does not prohibit any of the things that one could have memorized, but that a player is entitled to ask or consult during the play, such as: - the cards remaining in his hand (one could have these memorised, but no-one forbids looking in your hand - this is an aid to memory!); - the contract (entitled by L41C - I believe it is legal to look at your scorecard to find what the contract is - but not the lead!); - opponent's system card (entitled by L40B2ciii); So it is not completely obvious that all aids to memory are prohibited. Those aids that tell a player something he is entitled to know, must be allowed. As such, I believe L16A2 not only makes the previous scores AI, but also permits a player to look at them. And thus, to copy them from an opponent. Even when he is about to make a call. Of course whilst giving UI to partner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 11:30:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:30:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> Message-ID: <48A9414F.7080604@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ......... >> I beg to differ. >> There is nothing in the laws or procedures that ban a player from >> asking to copy his scores. That cannot be punishable. >> Nor is it punishable to ask to copy the scores while an auction is >> under way - not even when he is on play. > > Oh please, come on! > > There is a time and a place for everything. > > Have your read, and do you understand Law 74B2? > > If East really wanted to have his own copy of the official scores he should > either maintain his own score records at the same time they are recorded on > the official record or wait until the round is ended. Interrupting the > auction like we have been told happened here shows such contempt of the game > that I am lacking words. I fully agree with Grattan that his intent is > completely irrelevant. > Yeah Sven, but now you are punishing something entirely different! Before Grattan came up with his defence for giving a PP, we were talking about deliberate transmission of UI to partner. Something which merits the kinds of PP that people were talking about. If you want to give a PP for unduly keeping up the tempo of play, you should have said so. But that does not merit the amount of PP that was mentioned! > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 18 11:40:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:40:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c90116$6970d3c0$3c527b40$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > > +=+ The violation of correct procedure that I am penalizing > > (see Law 74A3) is the interruption of the proper procedure > > and tempo of the auction with the (perhaps quite lengthy) > > extraneous activity of writing out his scorecard. No finding > > of intent is necessary, only a finding of fact; and it is merely > > incidental that one may think it apparent that the offender > > does indeed intend to interrupt the prescribed process of > > the auction by indulging in this lateral diversion. > > Nor is it beyond credibility that the offender may be > > adjudged in breach of Law 74A2 or indeed Law 74B4. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Next time Grattan is directing your game, guys, please don't go for a > cup of coffee. This is an extraneous action which Grattan shall > penalize with a severe PP. > > I shall add a :), but I don't mean it really - I fail to see the > reason for the PP that Grattan is so willing to give. > > If Grattan is wishing to give this PP for the suspected intentional > infraction, but he hides behind "correct procedure", then Grattan has > to be prepared to be giving PP's for drinking coffee as well. If you at your turn to call, without any consent from the other three players at your table, instead of calling suddenly leave the table for minutes for no better reason than that you want a cup of tea then you shall be heavily penalized by me as well! Please stop being ridiculous! Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 18 11:59:18 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:59:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48A947F6.3070700@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] Next time Grattan is directing your game, guys, please don't go for a cup of coffee. This is an extraneous action which Grattan shall penalize with a severe PP. I shall add a :) , but I don't mean it really - I fail to see the reason for the PP that Grattan is so willing to give. If Grattan is wishing to give this PP for the suspected intentional infraction, but he hides behind "correct procedure", then Grattan has to be prepared to be giving PP's for drinking coffee as well. [Nigel] It is the middle of the auction on the last hand of the match. It is your turn to bid but you decide to interrupt the game. A weak bladder might be an acceptable excuse; the desperate need for a cup of coffee is not! From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 12:32:29 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:32:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002c01c9011d$baa3dbf0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ The violation of correct procedure that I am penalizing >> (see Law 74A3) is the interruption of the proper procedure >> and tempo of the auction with the (perhaps quite lengthy) >> extraneous activity of writing out his scorecard. No finding >> of intent is necessary, only a finding of fact; and it is merely >> incidental that one may think it apparent that the offender >> does indeed intend to interrupt the prescribed process of >> the auction by indulging in this lateral diversion. >> Nor is it beyond credibility that the offender may be >> adjudged in breach of Law 74A2 or indeed Law 74B4. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Next time Grattan is directing your game, guys, please don't go for a > cup of coffee. This is an extraneous action which Grattan shall > penalize with a severe PP. > > I shall add a :), but I don't mean it really - I fail to see the > reason for the PP that Grattan is so willing to give. > > If Grattan is wishing to give this PP for the suspected intentional > infraction, but he hides behind "correct procedure", then Grattan has > to be prepared to be giving PP's for drinking coffee as well. > +=+ If a player goes for a coffee in the middle of the auction the least he can expect is a PP, more likely a Law 91 penalty. The infraction is not 'suspected' and 'intentional' does not enter into it. The infraction is factual and as such may be penalized. It lies in the disruption of the tempo of the auction created by the player's diversion to an extraneous activity, and in the inconvenience caused to other players at the table. Herman, you ask Kojak "Why should I not have a different opinion from yours?" You may; it is just a question of weight, opinions are to be weighed, not counted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 18 12:33:23 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:33:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A94FF3.5080507@NTLworld.com> [richard.hills] Jack Rhind, David Grabiner and myself think that Pass by West is a logical alternative. How can a hand which is not strong enough to open at the one-level be 100% strong enough to unilaterally act at the four-level? I must admit that (in my style) the West hand is a 100% one-level opening bid. But having chosen to pass initially, one should act consistently later. Despite the reward for consistency being missing a vulnerable game. The point being, of course, that only when pard hesitates is a vulnerable game likely to be available. Other times a reopening double could offer pard a choice between -800 and -880. [Nigel] I agree with all Richard's points except the last. East probably has values and most experts would pass in tempo with East's actual hand, so double by West is a definite logical alternative. Unfortunately, however, East *did* hesitate and the hesitation demonstrably suggests doubling rather than passing :(. I've posted this hand on a BBO forum to see how popular the protective double is. Annnoyingly, so far, only one expert has passed. which lends some credence to the contention of Hirsch, Paul, Grattan, and Kojak, that pass is not a logical alternative :( From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 18 12:57:32 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:57:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A9414F.7080604@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> <48A9414F.7080604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c90121$3712fe70$a538fb50$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > Yeah Sven, but now you are punishing something entirely different! > Before Grattan came up with his defence for giving a PP, we were > talking about deliberate transmission of UI to partner. Something > which merits the kinds of PP that people were talking about. > > If you want to give a PP for unduly keeping up the tempo of play, you > should have said so. But that does not merit the amount of PP that was > mentioned! In my first comment on this thread I wrote: Begin quote: Of course I allow the 4S bid. If there is any player at the table that has UI it must be West who has seen his partner entering into a time consuming process that was inappropriate at this time, possibly using this process as a disguise for giving himself extra time to consider his call. But East deserves a heavy PP for his behavior; he is deliberately delaying the game and causing annoyance to the other players by his extraneous activities. Regards Sven End quote. I said so at that time, and it is still what I am saying. And behaving like East is said to have done is simply showing contempt of the game. I have no reluctance against hitting him with a ton of bricks if that is what takes to make him understand is. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 13:15:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:15:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000801c90116$6970d3c0$3c527b40$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> <000801c90116$6970d3c0$3c527b40$@no> Message-ID: <48A959DA.3010809@skynet.be> You said it, Sven: Sven Pran wrote: > > Please stop being ridiculous! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 18 13:16:28 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:16:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> Message-ID: <000001c90123$dccdae80$96690b80$@com> [HD] Despite the UI, I believe that there is no LA to a reopening double, so I agree completely that the score should stand. However, the E-W windfall from the N-S auction will be severely tempered by the PP. [DALB] Double seems routine, pass seems illogical, so would allow the table result. Moreover, would not be influenced in assessing a PP by the fact that East-West seem to have got away with creating UI and garnered an undeserved bonus due to absurd action by North-South. It is not per se an offence to create UI, nor to play against idiots, and if East had merely thought over 4H as opposed to this business with the score card, there would be no penalty at all. As to the business with the score card, it is not unknown for a player to have missed a few scores and want to copy them down prior to the end of the round. Obviously you should not hold up the auction while doing so, nor pick a tempo-sensitive moment at which to do so, but unless the view is taken that East was actually attempting illegal communication, I see no reason why the TD should issue more than a stern reprimand. David Burn London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 13:19:05 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:19:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A947F6.3070700@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> <48A947F6.3070700@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48A95AA9.5010901@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > Next time Grattan is directing your game, guys, please don't go for a > cup of coffee. This is an extraneous action which Grattan shall > penalize with a severe PP. > > I shall add a :) , but I don't mean it really - I fail to see the > reason for the PP that Grattan is so willing to give. > > If Grattan is wishing to give this PP for the suspected intentional > infraction, but he hides behind "correct procedure", then Grattan has > to be prepared to be giving PP's for drinking coffee as well. > > [Nigel] > It is the middle of the auction on the last hand of the match. It is > your turn to bid but you decide to interrupt the game. A weak bladder > might be an acceptable excuse; the desperate need for a cup of coffee is > not! > OK Nigel, I admit that. But that is far from being at the same level of PP needed than the things we started on in this thread: the infraction of intentionally giving UI to partner, whihle attempting to hide that same fact. Please admit that going for a cup of coffee in the middle of a hand (or writing down scores) merits a very small PP, if any. And certainly this was not what my discussion with Kojak was about. Please Kojak, help me out here - was the infraction you intended to punish - and to which I objected - of the level of getting to get a cup of coffee? If it was, then please take away my objection and replace it with a funny ha-ha - do you really give penalties so easily? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 13:21:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:21:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <002c01c9011d$baa3dbf0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> <002c01c9011d$baa3dbf0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48A95B49.9070303@skynet.be> Allow me to repeat what prompted my reaction: [Grattan - several posts ago] 4. For East's improper attitude I apply a substantial procedural penalty, considering the case aggravated. No less than 25% of a top. Grattan wrote: > > Herman, you ask Kojak "Why should I not have a different > opinion from yours?" You may; it is just a question of weight, > opinions are to be weighed, not counted. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > This is not a question of weight. Please note that you intended to give a PP of 25%. Is that what you normally give a player who leaves in the middle of the board to get a cup of coffee? Be honest. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 12:50:04 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:50:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred><003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <1465.76.195.94.230.1219015668.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <006101c90125$ee1c7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 12:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new I believe Herman has said that it is not illegal to copy scores during the hand. I have to say that it is VERY common at our club for players to keep a record of their hands, and they do their copying during the hand. I would be surprised to find out that was illegal. But I am open to hear why that is illegal. > +=+ It is an extraneous activity. It becomes an infraction of law, for example, if it disrupts the correct procedure of the auction, inconveniences or causes annoyance to other players, prolongs play unnecessarily, disconcerts an opponent, involves disregard of a Director's instruction, or breaches a regulation. If it is a common practice tolerated in your club, so be it, so long as players do not object. When they do you may have a problem and need to consider regulations that apply in case they authorize it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 13:44:00 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:44:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000901c90121$3712fe70$a538fb50$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> <48A9414F.7080604@skynet.be> <000901c90121$3712fe70$a538fb50$@no> Message-ID: <48A96080.4040607@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > In my first comment on this thread I wrote: > > Begin quote: > Of course I allow the 4S bid. If there is any player at the table that has > UI it must be West who has seen his partner entering into a time consuming > process that was inappropriate at this time, possibly using this process as > a disguise for giving himself extra time to consider his call. > > But East deserves a heavy PP for his behavior; he is deliberately delaying > the game and causing annoyance to the other players by his extraneous > activities. > OK Sven, you did indeed intend the PP for holding up the game. I just copied in Grattan's original, which was the one I objected to (not to yours) - do you think Grattan intended his PP in the same manner? Would you give 25% of a top as your PP? > Regards Sven > End quote. > > I said so at that time, and it is still what I am saying. > > And behaving like East is said to have done is simply showing contempt of > the game. I have no reluctance against hitting him with a ton of bricks if > that is what takes to make him understand is. > > Sven > In that case, there are a lot of players who show contempt for the game. I hop you have enough bricks for all of them. I doubt it. This kind of thing (as DALB has commented) happens all the time. You want to do this before the last hand is finished, your opponent could run away a bit later. If this deserves a PP in Norway, then the Norwegians are far more mannered than anyone I know. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 18 14:41:19 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:41:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A96080.4040607@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> <48A9414F.7080604@skynet.be> <000901c90121$3712fe70$a538fb50$@no> <48A96080.4040607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c9012f$b6d36dd0$247a4970$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > In my first comment on this thread I wrote: > > > > Begin quote: > > Of course I allow the 4S bid. If there is any player at the table that has > > UI it must be West who has seen his partner entering into a time consuming > > process that was inappropriate at this time, possibly using this process as > > a disguise for giving himself extra time to consider his call. > > > > But East deserves a heavy PP for his behavior; he is deliberately delaying > > the game and causing annoyance to the other players by his extraneous > > activities. > > > > OK Sven, you did indeed intend the PP for holding up the game. > I just copied in Grattan's original, which was the one I objected to > (not to yours) - do you think Grattan intended his PP in the same manner? Yes, that was absolutely clear to me. > Would you give 25% of a top as your PP? Depending on circumstances, yes (see further down) > > > Regards Sven > > End quote. > > > > I said so at that time, and it is still what I am saying. > > > > And behaving like East is said to have done is simply showing contempt of > > the game. I have no reluctance against hitting him with a ton of bricks if > > that is what takes to make him understand is. > > > > Sven > > > > In that case, there are a lot of players who show contempt for the > game. I hop you have enough bricks for all of them. I doubt it. This > kind of thing (as DALB has commented) happens all the time. You want > to do this before the last hand is finished, your opponent could run > away a bit later. If this deserves a PP in Norway, then the Norwegians > are far more mannered than anyone I know. Most players are open for reason in which case I need neither bricks nor PP (other than the implied warning) But in a recent case of a stubborn player that refused listening to instructions from TD (me) I did indeed hand out a 25% PP. (Actually I announced 50% but in the heat I forgot that our scoring is relative to average, so when I thought I halved a top score it was actually half of 50%, not half of 100%) Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Aug 18 14:46:33 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:46:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A93D65.7090301@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> <48A93D65.7090301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48A96F29.5000300@verizon.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > > How can writing down your scores be "paying insufficient attention to > the game"? Rather, and I guess this might be the player's defence to > that indictment, he was seeing if they needed a big swing or not. That > might well influence your bidding over a pre-empt. > > If you are writing down scores at your turn to call, you are not doing what you are supposed to be doing at your turn to call, which is considering and making your call. If "state-of-the-match" might help determine a call, then perhaps a player should have kept a running score, or copied the scores between hands, so that he was aware of "state-of-the-match" prior to the start of the auction, and need not disrupt the hand by performing an extraneous activity at his turn to call. Writing down scores can be done at a time that does not disrupt play. It can also be done at a time that does not pointedly draw partner's attention to the "state-of-the-match". Hirsch From schoderb at msn.com Mon Aug 18 14:58:15 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:58:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be><48A947F6.3070700@NTLworld.com> <48A95AA9.5010901@skynet.be> Message-ID: For the record I have met Herman and find him a neat, pleasant, and interesting person. My "attacks" are on the sometimes eloquently silly "opinions" he espouses, and only in that sense personal. He segues nicely from the facts of this case that it was THE TIME OF THE PLAYER TO CALL during a live auction to some kind of garbage about coffee, etc. It is called 'broadening' of the thread to cover silly kneejerk reactions to actual facts. I can find a number of 'departures from correct procedure' during the auction which are rude, against the laws and which would merit a warning or slight PP. As Jeff Easterson says, Herman's point that he would let it pass this time but give a heavy PP should it happen again puts things in clear but irrational perspective. To equate the given facts with going for coffee, copying scores, bathroom pressure, etc., are slippery ways of getting out of a silly reaction to the facts. For some reason Herman now poses that what was given as the problem was the giving of UI -- which led to preaching about giving UI not being an infraction in itself. etc., etc., etc. As to the law provision which I would use for a PP try 90A, 82AB, 81, all of 74, 73F in particular, 72, etc. just for starters. It just ain't done in polite society. Kojak > > [Herman De Wael] > > Next time Grattan is directing your game, guys, please don't go for a > > cup of coffee. This is an extraneous action which Grattan shall > > penalize with a severe PP. > > > > I shall add a :) , but I don't mean it really - I fail to see the > > reason for the PP that Grattan is so willing to give. > > > > If Grattan is wishing to give this PP for the suspected intentional > > infraction, but he hides behind "correct procedure", then Grattan has > > to be prepared to be giving PP's for drinking coffee as well. > > > > [Nigel] > > It is the middle of the auction on the last hand of the match. It is > > your turn to bid but you decide to interrupt the game. A weak bladder > > might be an acceptable excuse; the desperate need for a cup of coffee is > > not! > > > > OK Nigel, I admit that. > But that is far from being at the same level of PP needed than the > things we started on in this thread: the infraction of intentionally > giving UI to partner, whihle attempting to hide that same fact. > > Please admit that going for a cup of coffee in the middle of a hand > (or writing down scores) merits a very small PP, if any. > > And certainly this was not what my discussion with Kojak was about. > > Please Kojak, help me out here - was the infraction you intended to > punish - and to which I objected - of the level of getting to get a > cup of coffee? If it was, then please take away my objection and > replace it with a funny ha-ha - do you really give penalties so easily? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 18 15:38:43 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:38:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Aug 18, 2008, at 5:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ The violation of correct procedure that I am penalizing >> (see Law 74A3) is the interruption of the proper procedure >> and tempo of the auction with the (perhaps quite lengthy) >> extraneous activity of writing out his scorecard. No finding >> of intent is necessary, only a finding of fact; and it is merely >> incidental that one may think it apparent that the offender >> does indeed intend to interrupt the prescribed process of >> the auction by indulging in this lateral diversion. >> Nor is it beyond credibility that the offender may be >> adjudged in breach of Law 74A2 or indeed Law 74B4. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Next time Grattan is directing your game, guys, please don't go for a > cup of coffee. This is an extraneous action which Grattan shall > penalize with a severe PP. > > I shall add a :), but I don't mean it really - I fail to see the > reason for the PP that Grattan is so willing to give. > > If Grattan is wishing to give this PP for the suspected intentional > infraction, but he hides behind "correct procedure", then Grattan has > to be prepared to be giving PP's for drinking coffee as well. I'm sure he is, if the circumstances are analogous. That would mean that a player, in the midst of a contested auction, at his turn to call, took some 20-30 seconds to think about it, and then, without having made a call, announced that he was going for a cup of coffee and left the table. That sounds to me like it might well justify a PP. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 15:59:23 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:59:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> <000001c90123$dccdae80$96690b80$@com> Message-ID: <002d01c9013a$b3224bb0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new unless the view is taken that East was actually attempting illegal communication, I see no reason why the TD should issue more than a stern reprimand. > +=+ I did say at the beginning that I consider the offence aggravated. Apart from my judgement that the player is 'trying something on', I am particularly put out by his behaviour when the 'Directors' (sic) put questions to him. Without the aggravation I still view his basic violation of law as an unacceptable abuse of opponents and would still award a standard PP. Jeff Easterson did give flattering weight to my views, and those of Kojak, in stating "I'd be particularly interested in the opinions of Kojak and Grattan." Well, for what they are worth he has them! ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 16:20:32 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:20:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be><48A947F6.3070700@NTLworld.com><48A95AA9.5010901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004401c9013d$cd6019f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new For the record I have met Herman and find him a neat, pleasant, and interesting person. My "attacks" are on the sometimes eloquently silly "opinions" he espouses > +=+ These are opinions that I share. His common excursions into unconventional and, yes, bizarre opinions on the laws of bridge do undermine such esteem as otherwise his opinions in these debates might command. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 18 16:25:08 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:25:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48A98644.8000709@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ I am not penalizing the transmission of UI. It is the violation > of correct procedure that I am penalizing. No finding of intent > is necessary, only a finding of fact. > AG : agree. L74 it is. BTA this isn't such a severe violation ; it doesn't affect the game to such a large extent (please discard any claim that it caused the unsound redouble). East didn't walk away from the table, he wasn't rude; he did nothing that's disallowedat the bridge table. He just chose a very bad moment to act. Hence I don't approve the use of the word 'aggravated'. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 18 16:28:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:28:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48A98726.5060003@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Herman De Wael] > There is nothing in the laws or procedures that ban a player from > asking to copy his scores. That cannot be punishable. > > [Nigel] > Does this break any of the following rules? > - Apart from blatant UI implications there are ... > - Lack of consideration for other players. > - Tempo and disruption rules. > - Aide-memoire prohibitions for the player himself -- and his partner. > This was the last board and optimal tactics would depend on what > happened on previous boards. > AG : IBTD on the last item. Keeping track of the score is legal, or life at the bridge table could be difficult. But 74A2, A3 and B2 should be enough to impose a PP. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 18 16:31:17 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:31:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48A987B5.8050903@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > WBFLC pronouncement that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified > in the laws is extraneous. An action not expressly stated in the > laws or regulations to be authorized does not enjoy that status. > The relevant statement is in the minutes of 24th August 1998, > and see the Introduction to the 2007 Laws. > Right, but not a good idea. Applying this to the letter would allow us to penalize a player forblowing one's nose. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 17:12:15 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:12:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A987B5.8050903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002101c90144$e8ed9ce0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new Grattan a ?crit : WBFLC pronouncement that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is extraneous. An action not expressly stated in the laws or regulations to be authorized does not enjoy that status. The relevant statement is in the minutes of 24th August 1998, and see the Introduction to the 2007 Laws. > Right, but not a good idea. Applying this to the letter would allow us to penalize a player for blowing one's nose. +=+ And possibly for not blowing it. The Director is given extensive powers and is expected to exercise them with appropriate discretion. He must consider whether, and in what way, a player's extraneous action has impinged upon the game. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 17:17:42 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:17:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A98644.8000709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002e01c90146$1dbc7bc0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new East ..................... wasn't rude; he did nothing that's disallowed at the bridge table. < I think you should look again at Jeff's full account of the incident. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Mon Aug 18 17:20:31 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:20:31 EDT Subject: [blml] Obvious fact (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 18/08/2008 03:11:00 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: The appeals committee illegally split the score to give East-West +470 and North-South +110. In effect the appeals committee was saying that East passing 2S was simultaneously a logical alternative and also not a logical alternative. [paul lamford] This type of weighted score has become known as a Reveley ruling in England, after the Merseyside expert who gave such a decision as chair of an AC. Despite it being known to be wrong for a couple of years, we had a Reveley ruling against us at a recent EBU congress. I cannot give full details as it is the subject of an appeal to the National Authority. In the example you quote, 3C should be disallowed, and 100% of +110 given to N/S. I am a little perturbed that any AC in the world should not regard Pass as an LA on the East hand when receiving UI. I would be imposing a PP rather than considering any weighting, and would hope that the members of the AC would be informed of their error by the SO. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 17:36:01 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:36:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A98726.5060003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003d01c90148$2123b0b0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > AG : IBTD on the last item. Keeping track of the score is legal, or life at the bridge table could be difficult. But 74A2, A3 and B2 should be enough to impose a PP. < +=+ See Law 16A2. But this is not licence to violate Law 74. The player should have entered his score as he went along, but not attempt the protracted interruption of the auction and play of a board as he did here. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 17:39:23 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:39:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <006101c90125$ee1c7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred><003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <1465.76.195.94.230.1219015668.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <006101c90125$ee1c7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48A997AB.4000903@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > their copying during the hand. I would be surprised to find out > that was illegal. > > But I am open to hear why that is illegal. > +=+ It is an extraneous activity. Like getting coffee. > It becomes an infraction of law, > for example, if it disrupts the correct procedure of the auction, Did it do that? The player was about to bid, and he did (after some time). > inconveniences or causes annoyance to other players, I did not hear complaints about that in Jeff's report. Surely the opponents need to complain before you can rule this way. > prolongs > play unnecessarily, The player needed to copy the scores at some point - I don't see that this prolonged the duration of the match. > disconcerts an opponent, Again, I hear no complaints from those opponents in Jeff's report. Neither did you, so although you may believe that this is the case, surely no reason to be so adamant that a PP is in order. > involves disregard > of a Director's instruction, I did not hear of any instruction by Jeff. > or breaches a regulation. Nor of any regulation that were breached. All in all, I fear that Grattan is clutching at straws here. I ask him why he would give the severe 25% penalty that he suggested, and he responds that he would have the right to do this if some conditions were met. I have never suggested that the right was not there, but I don't see any of the conditions and I am still wondering why the PP of 25% be appropriate. Rather than this lunacy about breach of procedure, I would like to go back to the original case. Surely there is something to be said for an investigation into the reaons for this strange action. And if it is to hide the fact that the player needs time to think, that merits a severe PP. However, I don't think that this is the case. I believe that the player genuinely wanted to copy the scores, and chose a very bad moment to do so. There are a few very interesting points about this case, but Grattan's insistence on his right to award such a PP draws us away from those. > If it is a common practice tolerated in your club, so be it, > so long as players do not object. When they do you may have > a problem and need to consider regulations that apply in case > they authorize it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 17:41:43 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:41:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A96F29.5000300@verizon.net> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> <48A93D65.7090301@skynet.be> <48A96F29.5000300@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48A99837.2080009@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: >> How can writing down your scores be "paying insufficient attention to >> the game"? Rather, and I guess this might be the player's defence to >> that indictment, he was seeing if they needed a big swing or not. That >> might well influence your bidding over a pre-empt. >> >> > If you are writing down scores at your turn to call, you are not doing > what you are supposed to be doing at your turn to call, which is > considering and making your call. If "state-of-the-match" might help > determine a call, then perhaps a player should have kept a running > score, or copied the scores between hands, so that he was aware of > "state-of-the-match" prior to the start of the auction, and need not > disrupt the hand by performing an extraneous activity at his turn to > call. Writing down scores can be done at a time that does not disrupt > play. It can also be done at a time that does not pointedly draw > partner's attention to the "state-of-the-match". > Hirsh does not answer my remark "How can writing down your scores be "paying insufficient attention to the game"". Hirsh talks about disrupting play. I hear no complaints from the opponents about this. As to the UI, that has been dealt with and we are unanimous about it. > Hirsch > Again an example of people not following a thread but jumping in with some Herman-bashing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 17:42:40 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:42:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <002d01c9013a$b3224bb0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> <000001c90123$dccdae80$96690b80$@com> <002d01c9013a$b3224bb0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48A99870.5040402@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > +=+ I did say at the beginning that I consider the offence > aggravated. Apart from my judgement that the player is > 'trying something on', I am particularly put out by his > behaviour when the 'Directors' (sic) put questions to him. > Without the aggravation I still view his basic violation > of law as an unacceptable abuse of opponents and would > still award a standard PP. Please not that Grattan has come down from his earlier 25%. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 17:46:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:46:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48A99950.6070408@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 18, 2008, at 5:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> +=+ The violation of correct procedure that I am penalizing >>> (see Law 74A3) is the interruption of the proper procedure >>> and tempo of the auction with the (perhaps quite lengthy) >>> extraneous activity of writing out his scorecard. No finding >>> of intent is necessary, only a finding of fact; and it is merely >>> incidental that one may think it apparent that the offender >>> does indeed intend to interrupt the prescribed process of >>> the auction by indulging in this lateral diversion. >>> Nor is it beyond credibility that the offender may be >>> adjudged in breach of Law 74A2 or indeed Law 74B4. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> Next time Grattan is directing your game, guys, please don't go for a >> cup of coffee. This is an extraneous action which Grattan shall >> penalize with a severe PP. >> >> I shall add a :), but I don't mean it really - I fail to see the >> reason for the PP that Grattan is so willing to give. >> >> If Grattan is wishing to give this PP for the suspected intentional >> infraction, but he hides behind "correct procedure", then Grattan has >> to be prepared to be giving PP's for drinking coffee as well. > > I'm sure he is, if the circumstances are analogous. That would mean > that a player, in the midst of a contested auction, at his turn to > call, took some 20-30 seconds to think about it, and then, without > having made a call, announced that he was going for a cup of coffee > and left the table. That sounds to me like it might well justify a PP. > Yes, maybe it does - a 10% one at most. If the opponents complain. But Grattan was talking about a 25% penalty. Which is a low one for the infraction of "trying to give UI and hiding it". If you want to penalize people for getting coffee, by all means do - but don't give that as an answer to my question "don't you need to establish intent more thoroughly if you are going to give the PP for hiding giving UI? > > 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 Aug 18 17:52:41 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:52:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be><48A947F6.3070700@NTLworld.com> <48A95AA9.5010901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48A99AC9.4040402@skynet.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > For the record I have met Herman and find him a neat, pleasant, and > interesting person. I am grateful for the compliments. > My "attacks" are on the sometimes eloquently silly > "opinions" he espouses, and only in that sense personal. He segues nicely > from the facts of this case that it was THE TIME OF THE PLAYER TO CALL > during a live auction to some kind of garbage about coffee, etc. It is > called 'broadening' of the thread to cover silly kneejerk reactions to > actual facts. I can find a number of 'departures from correct procedure' > during the auction which are rude, against the laws and which would merit a > warning or slight PP. As Jeff Easterson says, Herman's point that he would > let it pass this time but give a heavy PP should it happen again puts things > in clear but irrational perspective. To equate the given facts with going > for coffee, copying scores, bathroom pressure, etc., are slippery ways of > getting out of a silly reaction to the facts. For some reason Herman now > poses that what was given as the problem was the giving of UI -- which led > to preaching about giving UI not being an infraction in itself. etc., etc., > etc. As to the law provision which I would use for a PP try 90A, 82AB, 81, > all of 74, 73F in particular, 72, etc. just for starters. It just ain't done > in polite society. > My equation with getting coffee seems like a correct one. Grattan explained that he was giving the penalty because the player was doing something "extraneous" in the sense that it was not written in the laws. Well, neither is getting coffee. I don't think there is any discussion that the TD has the right to award a PP for the particular actions of this player. But I would expect such a PP only after the following sequence of events: - player asks for scorecard - opponent asks why - player says to copy scores - opponent asks if this cannot wait - players asks again and takes scorecard and starts copying - opponents ask to please make a call - opponents call TD - TD asks to stop copying and make a call - player continues to copy - TD asks again - TD awards PP of 10% Note that none of these facts were reported and probably did not happen. The way Jeff tells it, the opponents did not complain until after the next calls - the double in particular. Note also that the penalty that Grattan suggested was of 25%. This seems extremely harsh for facts without aggravation, and can only be explained when Grattan issues the penalty for the much stronger infraction of hiding giving UI. To that: I repeat my question - do we not need more evidence of intent? > Kojak > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 17:54:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:54:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000a01c9012f$b6d36dd0$247a4970$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> <48A9414F.7080604@skynet.be> <000901c90121$3712fe70$a538fb50$@no> <48A96080.4040607@skynet.be> <000a01c9012f$b6d36dd0$247a4970$@no> Message-ID: <48A99B38.6050801@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > But in a recent case of a stubborn player that refused listening to > instructions from TD (me) I did indeed hand out a 25% PP. (Actually I > announced 50% but in the heat I forgot that our scoring is relative to > average, so when I thought I halved a top score it was actually half of 50%, > not half of 100%) > on a totally side issue, the way I understand the scoring, you award between +50% and -50%, which is the same difference of 100% as between 0 and 100. So the penalty should not be halved. > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Mon Aug 18 17:55:30 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:55:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000a01c9012f$b6d36dd0$247a4970$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> <48A9414F.7080604@skynet.be> <000901c90121$3712fe70$a538fb50$@no> <48A96080.4040607@skynet.be> <000a01c9012f$b6d36dd0$247a4970$@no> Message-ID: <48A99B72.6030409@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > But in a recent case of a stubborn player that refused listening to > instructions from TD (me) I did indeed hand out a 25% PP. (Actually I > announced 50% but in the heat I forgot that our scoring is relative to > average, so when I thought I halved a top score it was actually half of 50%, > not half of 100%) > None of these thinngs were evident in Jeff's case, so I understand your answer to my question to be: "no, I would not give a PP of 25% in Jeff's case". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Aug 18 18:00:33 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:00:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A99870.5040402@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> <000001c90123$dccdae80$96690b80$@com> <002d01c9013a$b3224bb0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A99870.5040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:42:40 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grattan wrote: >> >> +=+ I did say at the beginning that I consider the offence >> aggravated. Apart from my judgement that the player is >> 'trying something on', I am particularly put out by his >> behaviour when the 'Directors' (sic) put questions to him. >> Without the aggravation I still view his basic violation >> of law as an unacceptable abuse of opponents and would >> still award a standard PP. > >Please not that Grattan has come down from his earlier 25%. Oh come on, Herman, your English is better than that. Grattan said that he would award a standard PP WITHOUT the aggravating factors. He also said he considers it an aggravated offence. This is clear enough to (almost?) everyone reading this thread. Grattan hasn't budged one inch from the 25%. Brian. From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Aug 18 18:17:13 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:17:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> <000001c90123$dccdae80$96690b80$@com> <002d01c9013a$b3224bb0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A99870.5040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <928ja496s3dnphhgk9r4jqa60ovepddosm@4ax.com> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:00:33 -0400, I wrote: >Grattan hasn't budged one inch from the 25%. > I should have written Grattan hasn't PUBLICLY budged one inch from the 25%. Brian. From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 18 18:30:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:30:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A99B38.6050801@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> <48A9414F.7080604@skynet.be> <000901c90121$3712fe70$a538fb50$@no> <48A96080.4040607@skynet.be> <000a01c9012f$b6d36dd0$247a4970$@no> <48A99B38.6050801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c9014f$c4195b10$4c4c1130$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > But in a recent case of a stubborn player that refused listening to > > instructions from TD (me) I did indeed hand out a 25% PP. (Actually I > > announced 50% but in the heat I forgot that our scoring is relative to > > average, so when I thought I halved a top score it was actually half of 50%, > > not half of 100%) > > > > on a totally side issue, the way I understand the scoring, you award > between +50% and -50%, which is the same difference of 100% as between > 0 and 100. So the penalty should not be halved. I better pick up my teaspoon and explain: In the actual event the top score on a board was +13MP and bottom score was -13MP. But instead of imposing a penalty of 13MP I imposed just 7. See? Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Aug 18 18:55:59 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:55:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A99B72.6030409@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> <48A9414F.7080604@skynet.be> <000901c90121$3712fe70$a538fb50$@no> <48A96080.4040607@skynet.be> <000a01c9012f$b6d36dd0$247a4970$@no> <48A99B72.6030409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c90153$4a94aa20$dfbdfe60$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > None of these things were evident in Jeff's case, so I understand > your answer to my question to be: "no, I would not give a PP of 25% in > Jeff's case". Are you completely unable to read written statements? In my first comment on this thread I had written: "But East deserves a heavy PP for his behavior" On your last question I wrote: "Yes" And still you understand my answer as "no"? I had expected it to be obvious that I found very little excuse for East's behavior and certainly found him eligible for a substantial PP. To show that my position was not purely hypothetic I qualified my last answer with the presentation of another case where I ruled a player's behavior absolutely unacceptable and indeed did impose a PP of this order. And you claim that because my other case was not in every detail equivalent to the current case my answer was that I would NOT give a PP in this case?????? You are unbelievable. Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 18 19:01:08 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:01:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A95AA9.5010901@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> <48A947F6.3070700@NTLworld.com> <48A95AA9.5010901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48A9AAD4.5050205@NTLworld.com> [Herman de Wael] But that is far from being at the same level of PP needed than the things we started on in this thread: the infraction of intentionally giving UI to partner, while attempting to hide that same fact. Please admit that going for a cup of coffee in the middle of a hand (or writing down scores) merits a very small PP, if any. [Nigel] As a player, I find it especially irritating when a player "with the conch" (i.e. it is his turn to bid or play) delays the game for several minutes, with no good reason. Also, as you are aware, I reckon that a single instance may be enough to rule, on the balance of probability, that there was a likely covert attempt to transmit unauthorised information. Nevertheless, I'm happy to accept David Burn's and your judgement on this matter. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Aug 18 19:08:01 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:08:01 EDT Subject: [blml] something new Message-ID: In a message dated 15/08/2008 22:10:56 GMT Standard Time, JffEstrsn at aol.com writes: He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer. [paul lamford] The above merits a PP in itself, according to 74A1. The comparison with getting a coffee and being late back is inappropriate. But 10% of a top is the standard penalty, so I think those arguing for more are being unduly harsh. I recall 25% of a top being given for foul and abusive language in an EBU event, and the facts as presented seem to fall short of that. From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Mon Aug 18 19:48:53 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:48:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2F91@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> From: Gampas at aol.com > > In a message dated 15/08/2008 22:10:56 GMT Standard Time, JffEstrsn at aol.com > writes: > > He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer. > > [paul lamford] The above merits a PP in itself, according to 74A1. The > comparison with getting a coffee and being late back is inappropriate. > But 10% of a top is the standard penalty, so I think those arguing for > more are being unduly harsh. I recall 25% of a top being given for foul > and abusive language in an EBU event, and the facts as presented seem > to fall short of that. (I'm not sure who wrote which of the above.) In the EBU, the standard/minimum disciplinary penalty is twice the standard procedural penalty; this has been the case for two years, under our "best behaviour" policy. So 20% of a top is the minimum for a disciplinary offence. Robin _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 21:14:18 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:14:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> <000001c90123$dccdae80$96690b80$@com><002d01c9013a$b3224bb0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A99870.5040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007601c9016b$83cc1bd0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > Grattan wrote: >> >> +=+ I did say at the beginning that I consider the offence >> aggravated. Apart from my judgement that the player is >> 'trying something on', I am particularly put out by his >> behaviour when the 'Directors' (sic) put questions to him. >> Without the aggravation I still view his basic violation >> of law as an unacceptable abuse of opponents and would >> still award a standard PP. > > Please not that Grattan has come down from his earlier 25%. > +=+ You misread/misrepresent me. In the circumstances as reported 25% is still my view. If there had not been the aggravation I would award a standard PP. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 21:37:04 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:37:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred><003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <1465.76.195.94.230.1219015668.squirrel@email.powweb.com><006101c90125$ee1c7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A997AB.4000903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007801c9016b$842b79e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> inconveniences or causes annoyance to other players, > (HDW) > I did not hear complaints about that in Jeff's report. Surely the > opponents need to complain before you can rule this way. > +=+ Herman is absolutely wrong in suggesting the need for a complaint. If the Director judges it to be the case he may rule accordingly. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 21:34:50 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:34:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> <48A99950.6070408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007701c9016b$83fbb750$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > Yes, maybe it does - a 10% one at most. If the opponents complain. But Grattan was talking about a 25% penalty. Which is a low one for the infraction of "trying to give UI and hiding it". < +=+ Herman continues to adopt the tactic of quoting a position I did not adopt and attacking it. For comment on the nature of the 'aggravation' see my response to David Burn, which included the following: "Apart from my judgement that the player is 'trying something on', I am particularly put out by his behaviour when the 'Directors' (sic) put questions to him." ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 18 21:45:08 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:45:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2F91@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <007901c9016b$845b1560$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > > From: Gampas at aol.com >> >> In a message dated 15/08/2008 22:10:56 GMT Standard Time, >> JffEstrsn at aol.com >> writes: >> >> He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer. >> >> [paul lamford] The above merits a PP in itself, according to 74A1. The >> comparison with getting a coffee and being late back is inappropriate. >> But 10% of a top is the standard penalty, so I think those arguing for >> more are being unduly harsh. I recall 25% of a top being given for foul >> and abusive language in an EBU event, and the facts as presented seem >> to fall short of that. > > (I'm not sure who wrote which of the above.) > > In the EBU, the standard/minimum disciplinary penalty is twice the > standard > procedural penalty; this has been the case for two years, under our "best > behaviour" policy. So 20% of a top is the minimum for a disciplinary > offence. > > Robin > +=+ The last time I met such a case in an EBL championship the penalty was 25%. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Aug 18 22:16:11 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:16:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A99950.6070408@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A93CEC.9020302@skynet.be> <48A99950.6070408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <46594085-C8BB-477E-A32C-3C8807C34FAD@starpower.net> On Aug 18, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes, maybe it does - a 10% one at most. If the opponents complain. > But Grattan was talking about a 25% penalty. Which is a low one for > the infraction of "trying to give UI and hiding it". > If you want to penalize people for getting coffee, by all means do - > but don't give that as an answer to my question "don't you need to > establish intent more thoroughly if you are going to give the PP for > hiding giving UI? FWIW, where I direct, 25% (3 matchpoints on a 12 top) is the standard minor penalty, and the smallest ever given. The standard major penalty (given, for example, for comparing scores during a session) is a full board. If a player was thought to be deliberately giving UI and hiding it, he'd get hit with the full-board variety. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Aug 19 00:40:52 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:40:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A99837.2080009@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> <48A93D65.7090301@skynet.be> <48A96F29.5000300@verizon.net> <48A99837.2080009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48A9FA74.6060902@verizon.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> How can writing down your scores be "paying insufficient attention to >>> the game"? Rather, and I guess this might be the player's defence to >>> that indictment, he was seeing if they needed a big swing or not. That >>> might well influence your bidding over a pre-empt. >>> >>> >>> >> If you are writing down scores at your turn to call, you are not doing >> what you are supposed to be doing at your turn to call, which is >> considering and making your call. If "state-of-the-match" might help >> determine a call, then perhaps a player should have kept a running >> score, or copied the scores between hands, so that he was aware of >> "state-of-the-match" prior to the start of the auction, and need not >> disrupt the hand by performing an extraneous activity at his turn to >> call. Writing down scores can be done at a time that does not disrupt >> play. It can also be done at a time that does not pointedly draw >> partner's attention to the "state-of-the-match". >> >> > > Hirsh does not answer my remark "How can writing down your scores be > "paying insufficient attention to the game"". > Hirsh talks about disrupting play. I hear no complaints from the > opponents about this. As to the UI, that has been dealt with and we > are unanimous about it. > > >> Hirsch >> >> > > Again an example of people not following a thread but jumping in with > some Herman-bashing. > > Herman, Just because I have not been posting does not mean that I have not been following the thread. Since you have no idea what I have and have not been following, I can only interpret your comment that I have not been following the thread as "Hirsch-bashing". That is, a conclusion about me personally, rather than an answer to my argument. You have no idea what I have and have not read. If you read my post in its entirety, you will not see any mention of you at all, simply my response to your question. If you consider disagreement with your views to be "Herman-bashing", I can assure you that it was not. If I choose to engage in "Herman-bashing", that is, a direct ad hominem attack on you as opposed to an exchange of thoughts in a civil discussion, I can assure you that my intent will be uninterpretable in any other way. As far as N-S not objecting to the E player's behavior, why did the opponents summon the TD? To bring the players coffee? There have been a couple of divergent posts about the UI, so complete unanimity is not present. This actually raises an interesting point, since there is an assumption that the UI would suggest values in the E hand, suggesting a reopening double, and therefore making pass mandatory if it were an LA. However, the UI has to be taken in its totality. The E player has been writing down the match scores at a time highly inappropriate to that activity. He has thus brought attention to those scores, and potentially alerted the W player to the need for a big swing, should such a need have existed. Since the large majority of players reopen, the swing bid by W would be pass, and such a bid might be suggested by the UI. According, if the match score suggested the need for a swing, had W chosen not to reopen and N-S been damaged by the pass, I'd have to give considerable thought to adjusting the score. The actions of the E player may well have changed the information conveyed by the UI from the normal interpretation of a break in tempo in that position. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 19 02:26:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:26:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] something a bit more... shiny [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Southwest Pacific Teams >>Dlr: South >>Vul: North-South >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>A42 >>AK74 >>AKJ3 >>43 [snip] >>Scenario B >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- --- 1D >>3C (1) Pass Pass X >>Pass 3D (2) Pass ? >> >>(1) Preemptive >>(2) Break in tempo >> >>What does that break in tempo demonstrably suggest? Harald Skj?ran >This BIT suggest that partner considered another call than 3D at his >turn. This could either be a penalty pass or bidding a major suit >instead of 3D. >>What call do you make? Harald Skj?ran >Pass is still the obvious call for me. This time I don't think I'm >constrained by any UI, since I can't know what partner was thinking >about. If he was contemplating a penalty pass, this suggest that I >pass now. If a major suit bid was his alternative, this suggest me >bidding on, since we will most probably have a better contract than >3D available. These two point in opposite directions, thus no >constraints. Scenario B was the scenario which happened at the table. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1D 3C (1) Pass Pass X Pass 3D (2) Pass 3H Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass (1) Preemptive (2) Break in tempo North, with a 3-4-3-3 shape, had been hesitating between the calls of 3D and 3H. 4H was cold for +620 to North-South. But East-West summoned the TD, who adjusted the score to 3D, +130. North-South initially thought about appealing the TD's decision, but decided that that would be unwise when their expert colleagues suggested that they might lose their 3 vp deposit for launching a meritless appeal. 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 Aug 19 03:31:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:31:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Houston 1976 (was something new) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101c90144$e8ed9ce0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>Right, but not a good idea. Applying this to the letter would allow >>us to penalize a player for blowing one's nose. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ And possibly for not blowing it. The Director is given extensive >powers and is expected to exercise them with appropriate discretion. >He must consider whether, and in what way, a player's extraneous >action has impinged upon the game. > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: It was alleged (but never proven) that a pair in the ACBL Trials in Houston illegally communicated by sniffing, an extraneous action contrary to Law 73B2. But it was later alleged that one player of that pair had instead committed a different illegality, snorting cocaine. As to whether the ACBL acted with appropriate discretion in 1976, opinions 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 19 03:54:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:54:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A2 vs 40C3(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003d01c90148$2123b0b0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ See Law 16A2. But this is not licence to violate Law 74. The player should have entered his score as he went along, but not attempt the protracted interruption of the auction and play of a board as he did here. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 16A2: "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." Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Richard Hills: How do we resolve the apparent inconsistency between these two Laws? For what it is worth, I think a key word is Law 16A2's "estimate". So, during the auction and play period, a player may "estimate" that five off doubled and non-vulnerable is -1100, but that player may not look at the back of a red bidding box card to confirm her estimate. 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 Aug 19 04:11:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:11:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >In the auction 1X - (1Y) - 1S, most pairs play that 1S is >*unlimited* and forcing, so the rabbit was unaware of this, >or she would surely have bid. Rubber bridge Dlr: South Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1S Double 2S 3H Pass 4D (1) Pass ? (1) *Unlimited* and forcing You, South, hold: AQ62 J742 6 T853 What call do you surely make? What other calls do you consider surely 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 Tue Aug 19 04:37:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:37:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Something old, something new [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A93C2E.3040802@skynet.be> Message-ID: Kojak: Typical DeWael thinking. Herman De Wael: Typical Kojak personal attack. Why should I not have a different opinion from yours? Grattan Endicott: Herman, you ask Kojak "Why should I not have a different opinion from yours?" You may; it is just a question of weight, opinions are to be weighed, not counted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Kojak: For the record I have met Herman and find him a neat, pleasant, and interesting person. My "attacks" are on the sometimes eloquently silly "opinions" he espouses Grattan Endicott: +=+ These are opinions that I share. His common excursions into unconventional and, yes, bizarre opinions on the laws of bridge do undermine such esteem as otherwise his opinions in these debates might command. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman De Wael: Again an example of people not following a thread but jumping in with some Herman-bashing. Hirsch Davis: If you consider disagreement with your views to be "Herman- bashing", I can assure you that it was not. If I choose to engage in "Herman-bashing", that is, a direct ad hominem attack on you as opposed to an exchange of thoughts in a civil discussion, I can assure you that my intent will be uninterpretable in any other way. David Stevenson (old blml posting): I am always willing to learn. Are you suggesting I am in a minority? Herman De Wael (old blml reply): Very few of us are apparently willing to change our first opinions about law issues. I am not even saying I am among those few. I do think we both have a stubborn streak that is not very compatible with the statement "willing to learn". Isaac Asimov (1920-1992): "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates." 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 john at asimere.com Tue Aug 19 04:57:54 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:57:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > Guthrie wrote: >> [Herman De Wael] >> There is nothing in the laws or procedures that ban a player from >> asking to copy his scores. That cannot be punishable. >> >> [Nigel] >> Does this break any of the following rules? >> - Apart from blatant UI implications there are ... >> - Lack of consideration for other players. >> - Tempo and disruption rules. > > A player can take as much time as he needs to make his decision. This > should not come into play. > But: > >> - Aide-memoire prohibitions for the player himself -- and his partner. >> This was the last board and optimal tactics would depend on what >> happened on previous boards. >> > > Exactly - and then we come to the question - is your scorecard a piece > of memory aid or not. Surely your current score is AI. New L16A2 makes > this explicit. > > L40C3a deals with memory aids. > > "a player is not entitled during the auction .. period(..) to any aids > to his memory, calculation or technique." > > This certainly prohibits: > - pieces of paper on which the 52 cards are marked and barred when played; > - written records of the bidding; > - writing down the lead; > - IMP tables; NO! The Imp tables are part of law and are AI. If i ask you as TD to read them to me you will HAVE to comply. John > - tabels of probabilities; > - handbooks on squeezing; > > But it does not prohibit any of the things that one could have > memorized, but that a player is entitled to ask or consult during the > play, such as: > - the cards remaining in his hand (one could have these memorised, but > no-one forbids looking in your hand - this is an aid to memory!); > - the contract (entitled by L41C - I believe it is legal to look at > your scorecard to find what the contract is - but not the lead!); > - opponent's system card (entitled by L40B2ciii); > > So it is not completely obvious that all aids to memory are > prohibited. Those aids that tell a player something he is entitled to > know, must be allowed. > > As such, I believe L16A2 not only makes the previous scores AI, but > also permits a player to look at them. > > And thus, to copy them from an opponent. > Even when he is about to make a call. > Of course whilst giving UI to partner. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 19 07:04:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:04:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A2 vs 40C3(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >NO! The Imp tables are part of law and are AI. If I ask you as TD >to read them to me you will HAVE to comply. John Richard Hills: NO! If MadDog was a player asking me as TD such a question during the auction or play, I would cite Law 40C3(a) in refusing to answer. To be sure Laws 16A1(c) and 16A2 say that the Law 78B imp tables are authorised information that MadDog _may_ use in an imped teams event. But... Does that consequently imply that as TD I will HAVE to comply with a request to _remind_ MadDog about the imp tables during the auction or play? Not in my opinion. Anyway, since MadDog has memorised the imp tables, why is he asking? :-) Do I smell an infraction of Law 20G1? :-) 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 07:23:22 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:23:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:57 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > NO! The Imp tables are part of law and are AI. If i ask you as TD to read > them to me you will HAVE to comply. John > No, I don't think you are right here, John. For one thing, it gives way too much UI. In many cases, it makes it too clear what your options are, and what you think they can make. The imp tables are AI only if you remember them, just as the number of trumps that are outstanding is AI only if you remember it. There is no provision in the laws requiring the TD to give you either piece of information, even if you ask nicely. Jerry Fusselman From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Aug 19 08:57:22 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:57:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] my posting (yesterday) Message-ID: <48AA6ED2.5020105@aol.com> Ahoy Henk! I sent a longish posting to you yesterday, a clarification of some points that have come up in the "something new" thread. It hasn't appeared yet. Did it arrive or is there some problem. The fault may be mine; I may have sent it to the address. (I am never sure which address is correct for sent material. In case this is the problem I'll try to send it again under the address I've used for this email. Ciao, JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 19 09:05:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:05:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] something new [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48A9FA74.6060902@verizon.net> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: [snip] The E player has been writing down the match scores at a time highly inappropriate to that activity. He has thus brought attention to those scores, and potentially alerted the W player to the need for a big swing, should such a need have existed. Since the large majority of players reopen, the swing bid by W would be pass, and such a bid might be suggested by the UI. According, if the match score suggested the need for a swing, had W chosen not to reopen and N-S been damaged by the pass, I'd have to give considerable thought to adjusting the score. The actions of the E player may well have changed the information conveyed by the UI from the normal interpretation of a break in tempo in that position. Richard Hills: Indeed an interesting point. In a 1950s ACBL knockout final, imps were not used, as the ACBL then had a not-invented-here policy of using total point scoring instead. Both teams reached 7NT depending on a two-way finesse for a queen. The declarer in the red-hot favourites, the Roth team, cashed the other three suits, got a complete count of the hand, then took the two-way finesse in the percentage direction. The declarer in the underdog team played the same way up to the critical point, then deliberately took the anti-percentage line. The underdogs were lucky on that board, and the huge total point swing was enough to be more than their eventual narrow victory in the match. 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 Tue Aug 19 09:07:50 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:07:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?=5BFwd=3A_something_new=B2=5D?= Message-ID: <48AA7146.7010202@aol.com> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: something new? Datum: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:21:14 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson An: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org Ahoy blmlers! My original posting has generated a great deal of comment, most of it pertinent. (And the returns from outlying districts are not yet in.) I'd like to clear up a few points which might be puzzling before commenting more explicitly on the case. I have referred to TD/TDs (I also used the term "director"). The case was mine but I conferred with colleagues. As has been pointed out the "getting coffee" diversion is inaccurate. (I remind you that we are dealng with a first rate player, member of the national squad of a major bridge nation, not a patzer.) As Hirsch (and a few others) have pointed out: if the parallel is to be accurate it would be: a player, after having seen his hand for about 30 seconds, at his turn to call, in a tempo-sensitive moment (after the 4 he. opening) goes for a cup of coffee (1-2 minutes) before calling. I doubt that any of you would do this and certainly it is ample justification for Grattan's reaction. (Apropo, in a late posting from Herman I am impressed by his mind reading acuity. He says Grattan hasn't PUBLICLY retracted/reduced his 25% penalty. (It would seem he is capable of knowing what Grattan thinks even when it hasn't been publicly expressed. (But please excuse this, not why I am writing.) Recording scores: I think a similar argument applies. Surely a player is entitled to copy previous scores but any sensible player would do it after the hand or after his bid (as I/we and the committee pointed out). It wasn't simply a matter of copying scores (and not holding up normal procedure); it was copying them before calling when on bid. Kojak mentions something I said in a private posting to him. It referred to Herman's position (I am oversimplifying here) that he would first penalise when the offence was repeated.(This is how I understood him.) As can be seen from the title of the original posting I had never encountered this before (what happened at the table). Neither had any of my colleagues there. I assume that Kojak, Herman and the rest of you have not encountered this situation before. That probably comes to about 500 years of collective TD experience. (And I'm not even mentioning that the repetition would have to be by the same player.) (In the posting to Kojak I was more conservative.) Thus, I noted that Herman must anticipate a very high life expectancy (and TD expectancy) if he seriously believes that the action will be repeated. I referred to Grattan and Kojak in the original posting because I consider them to be absolute authorities on the laws and the interpretation thereof. Opponent's complaints, action at table after request for scores: I wasn't at the table so can't judge this but guess that there was no immediate objection. There was, apparently, not a friendly atmosphere at the table as far as I/we could judge and this became more pronounced at the appeals committee. The player who opened 4he is a very strong player but this does not mean that he has much knowledge of the laws; many strong players don't seem to. He came to me/us after the hand (It was the last one of the session.) and related what had happened and asked if it were legal/proper. He did seem somewhat disturbed. Evidence of intent: fine and good, we also thought about this and would have desired to have it. How do you suggest getting it? We were unable to. It is obvious that the player in question will deny intent and no one else can know. When we asked the player who had interrupted the flow of the game to copy the scores, being careful to tell him first that we were making no insinuations of any sort or accusing him of anything, he refused to answer, was angry, showed contempt, etc. As I mentioned in the original posting he only responded after the question was put repeatedly (perhaps 4-5 times) and then made it clear (from his mimicry) that he not only disliked being asked but that he felt the question to be ridiculous and impertinent and that he was simply giving a answer under duress and it had little relation to the actual time taken. (Approximately -- not a direct quote -- if you insist in asking such an absurd question I'll give you the sort of answer it deserves.) It is not unreasonable to suggest that this reaction implied that the question "struck a nerve". When rereading the above I can see that it might, in parts, be interpreted as "Herman bashing". Allow me to say that it is not so intended. I consider Herman a friend and, have worked with him at tournaments and respect him as a colleague. I suppressed or didn't emphasise a few of the facts now presented because I considered them to be at least partly subjective, my interpretation. When I received the written statement of the player who copied the scores I was surprised because at least two of his statements seemed in crass contradiction to what had been discussed and fairly unlikely as well. An example: He stated that he and the North player had recorded the scores TOGETHER. This seemed unlikely to me and at the committee the opponents hotly denied this, said it was untrue. The hesitater, although he did not openly withdraw the statement, did no longer present it as evidence and when North directly accused him of lying he didn't reply. Also: (as mentioned above) his angry reaction at my attempt to establish the length of the hesitation seemed to me to be possibly of some psychological significance. But this was not presented (this supposition) at the committee meeting or in the original posting. His partner remained passive through the whole procedure. Said he had been concentrating on his hand, did not notice anything. He neither supported nor denied most of the statements of his partner. It seemed to me that I had the following problems: PP and/or DP due to the actions at the table and the aggressive and unfriendly, dismissive attitude when we attempted to establish the facts. Then: If the hesitation (elapsed time) could be considered as a hesitation (possibly?) transmitting UI. If so, then the question arises if pass would have been a logical alternative for his partner. To logical alternatives: my understanding of this concept is not that it is an action made by a majority of other players of similar playing strength, or even a significant minority but is an action that would be considered by at least a significant minority of such players. At a tournament time is fairly limited (as well as the selection of players of similar strength). I was able to ask 5 such players. 3 doubled, one passed, one was uncertain. But all five considered passing. This seemed to me to make it a logical alternative if my interpretation of the term is correct. Ciao, JE From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 19 09:47:47 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:47:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <003d01c90148$2123b0b0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A98726.5060003@ulb.ac.be> <003d01c90148$2123b0b0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48AA7AA3.1060804@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A good garden may have some weeds." > - Thomas Fuller > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:28 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > AG : IBTD on the last item. Keeping track of the score is legal, or life > at the bridge table could be difficult. But 74A2, A3 and B2 should be > enough to impose a PP. > < > +=+ See Law 16A2. But this is not licence to violate Law 74. Did I ever pretend the contrary ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 19 09:52:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:52:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A997AB.4000903@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred><003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <1465.76.195.94.230.1219015668.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <006101c90125$ee1c7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A997AB.4000903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48AA7BB9.5010209@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> inconveniences or causes annoyance to other players, >> > > I did not hear complaints about that in Jeff's report. Surely the > opponents need to complain before you can rule this way. > > AG : IBTD. Why should this case be an exception to L81B6 ? >> prolongs >> play unnecessarily, >> > > The player needed to copy the scores at some point - I don't see that > this prolonged the duration of the match. > > AG : once again, I don't agree. It indeed prolonged the duration of the play, if not of the match. If scores are checked between one member of each pair after the last deal is completed, the other two players aren't required to stay at the table ; checking during the deal prolonges the duration of their compelled presence. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 19 10:10:02 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:10:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48AA7FDA.5080400@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 15/08/2008 22:10:56 GMT Standard Time, JffEstrsn at aol.com > writes: > > He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer. > > [paul lamford] The above merits a PP in itself, according to 74A1. The > comparison with getting a coffee and being late back is inappropriate. But 10% of > a top is the standard penalty, so I think those arguing for more are being > unduly harsh. I recall 25% of a top being given for foul and abusive language in > an EBU event, and the facts as presented seem to fall short of that. > AG : such penalties should indeed be used only for very heavy offences ; up to now, Grattan and his followers failed to persuade (or even merely convince) me that the offence was of such magnitude. From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 19 10:51:28 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:51:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AA7FDA.5080400@ulb.ac.be> References: <48AA7FDA.5080400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c901d8$c4e9cc30$4ebd6490$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > In a message dated 15/08/2008 22:10:56 GMT Standard Time, > JffEstrsn at aol.com > > writes: > > > > He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer. > > > > [paul lamford] The above merits a PP in itself, according to 74A1. The > > comparison with getting a coffee and being late back is inappropriate. But 10% > of > > a top is the standard penalty, so I think those arguing for more are being > > unduly harsh. I recall 25% of a top being given for foul and abusive language in > > an EBU event, and the facts as presented seem to fall short of that. > > > AG : such penalties should indeed be used only for very heavy offences ; > up to now, Grattan and his followers failed to persuade (or even merely > convince) me that the offence was of such magnitude. Was it four or five times the Director had to repeat his question and demand an answer? This behavior comes pretty close to being an offence of such magnitude if you ask me. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 19 10:57:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:57:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] something a bit more... shiny [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48AA8AF9.1000905@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> Southwest Pacific Teams >>> Dlr: South >>> Vul: North-South >>> >>> You, South, hold: >>> >>> A42 >>> AK74 >>> AKJ3 >>> 43 >>> > > [snip] > > >>> Scenario B >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- --- 1D >>> 3C (1) Pass Pass X >>> Pass 3D (2) Pass ? >>> >>> (1) Preemptive >>> (2) Break in tempo >>> >>> What does that break in tempo demonstrably suggest? >>> > > > AG : I guess I missed the deginning of this thread ? Either partner thought about a penalty double, or he has some extraz values and little shape, or less probably he has some 4-card major along with his diamond support. With some values and some shape, he would have bid 3D before. >> What call do you make? >> AG :without the BIT, I pass, reluctantly. Since all interpretations above argue in favor of making another effort (probably bidding 3H and ending in a good 3NT), the LA of bidding 3H is sugested by the tempo, so I'm compelled to pass now. > Scenario B was the scenario which happened at the table. > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1D > 3C (1) Pass Pass X > Pass 3D (2) Pass 3H > Pass 4H Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Preemptive > (2) Break in tempo > > North, with a 3-4-3-3 shape, had been hesitating between the calls of > 3D and 3H. 4H was cold for +620 to North-South. But East-West > summoned the TD, who adjusted the score to 3D, +130. North-South > initially thought about appealing the TD's decision, but decided that > that would be unwise when their expert colleagues suggested that they > might lose their 3 vp deposit for launching a meritless appeal. > > 3VP deposit ? Is that legal ? Anyway, I'm enphatically on the TD's side. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 19 11:15:37 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:15:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] When to rethink. Message-ID: <003201c901dc$29e97b50$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <48AA7FDA.5080400@ulb.ac.be> <000601c901d8$c4e9cc30$4ebd6490$@no> Message-ID: <48AA9010.9030406@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >>> In a message dated 15/08/2008 22:10:56 GMT Standard Time, >>> >> JffEstrsn at aol.com >> >>> writes: >>> >>> He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer. >>> >>> [paul lamford] The above merits a PP in itself, according to 74A1. The >>> comparison with getting a coffee and being late back is inappropriate. >>> > But 10% > >> of >> >>> a top is the standard penalty, so I think those arguing for more are >>> > being > >>> unduly harsh. I recall 25% of a top being given for foul and abusive >>> > language in > >>> an EBU event, and the facts as presented seem to fall short of that. >>> >>> >> AG : such penalties should indeed be used only for very heavy offences ; >> up to now, Grattan and his followers failed to persuade (or even merely >> convince) me that the offence was of such magnitude. >> > > Was it four or five times the Director had to repeat his question and demand > an answer? > This behavior comes pretty close to being an offence of such magnitude if > you ask me. > Hmm. Apparzently, the original message didn't reach me. I was away for a little while. Could you please forward it to me, so that I can form an opinion on a more solid basis ? Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 19 11:37:02 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:37:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48AA7FDA.5080400@ulb.ac.be> <000601c901d8$c4e9cc30$4ebd6490$@no> Message-ID: <004701c901df$29847090$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > Was it four or five times the Director had to repeat his question and demand an answer? This behavior comes pretty close to being an offence of such magnitude if you ask me. > +=+ To that in forming my opinion I add the wholly inappropriate timing of his lengthy interruption of the auction . The player acted with serious discourtesy to opponents and Directors and was flagrantly in violation of the law. Jeff reports "I was able to ask 5 such players. 3 doubled, one passed, one was uncertain. But all five considered passing." As Director one would be obliged to give this due weight; the difficulty is that in such situations the players consulted know they are being asked whether Pass is a logical alternative. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 19 11:38:24 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:38:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] When to rethink. In-Reply-To: <003201c901dc$29e97b50$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <003201c901dc$29e97b50$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002901c901df$5453e990$fcfbbcb0$@com> [GE] Robin Barker quoted 20% as the EBU norm for aggravated offences; my 25% is taken from experience of international situations. [DALB] Oh, the director at the time should award whatever penalty seems appropriate if discourtesy is displayed, or a player refuses to comply with instructions (20% or 25% seem appropriate for blatant offences). Moreover, as I remarked before, if the view is taken that a player was attempting illegal communication, any penalty other than disqualification might be viewed as too lenient - we are, after all, dealing with "the gravest possible offence". However, if the only offence the player committed was to hold up the game by copying down a few scores when it was his turn to do something, he should in my view simply be told not to do that again. My concern was only that a director should not impose a more severe penalty simply because he felt that the partnership might have "got away with it" - i.e. that West was lucky not to have a logical alternative when in receipt of UI from East. Conflating procedural penalties with redress through score adjustment is a not infrequent error, but it is an error nonetheless. David Burn London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 19 11:44:21 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:44:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?=5BFwd=3A_something_new=B2=5D?= In-Reply-To: <48AA7146.7010202@aol.com> References: <48AA7146.7010202@aol.com> Message-ID: <48AA95F5.6080208@NTLworld.com> [Jeff Easterson] At a tournament time is fairly limited (as well as the selection of players of similar strength). I was able to ask 5 such players. 3 doubled, one passed, one was uncertain. But all five considered passing. This seemed to me to make it a logical alternative if my interpretation of the term is correct. [Nige1] I presented the bare facts on BBO. I did not mention East's alleged score copying shenanigans, rudeness, and prevarication because I was just trying to establish whether pass was a logical alternative to double for West. The BBO poll agrees with Jeff's findings (6 Pass, 16 Double, and 8 Would have opened the bidding). Of course, it's unlikely that all the polled players are of same calibre as those in the teams competition. FWIW, most of the top experts, for whom I have a lot of respect (like Frances Hinden, Justin Lall, and Phil Clayton) think that there is no logical alternative to pass. What did you rule Jeff? - Score stands for NS (although the "wild & gambling" rule is unfair)? - Contract wound back to 4H EW? - Additional disciplinary penalty for E? And was there an appeal? From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 19 12:32:34 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:32:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AA9010.9030406@ulb.ac.be> References: <48AA7FDA.5080400@ulb.ac.be> <000601c901d8$c4e9cc30$4ebd6490$@no> <48AA9010.9030406@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701c901e6$e4fef5f0$aefce1d0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : ................. > > Was it four or five times the Director had to repeat his question and demand > > an answer? > > This behavior comes pretty close to being an offence of such magnitude if > > you ask me. > > > Hmm. Apparzently, the original message didn't reach me. I was away for a > little while. Could you please forward it to me, so that I can form an > opinion on a more solid basis ? Look up the postings by Jeff and you will see for yourself. (If nowhere else you will find his entries in the BLML archives available to everybody) Copied from his (long) summary post this morning: "When we asked the player who had interrupted the flow of the game to copy the scores, being careful to tell him first that we were making no insinuations of any sort or accusing him of anything, he refused to answer, was angry, showed contempt, etc. As I mentioned in the original posting he only responded after the question was put repeatedly (perhaps 4-5 times) and then made it clear (from his mimicry) that he not only disliked being asked but that he felt the question to be ridiculous and impertinent and that he was simply giving a answer under duress and it had little relation to the actual time taken." Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 19 13:43:35 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:43:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000701c901e6$e4fef5f0$aefce1d0$@no> References: <48AA7FDA.5080400@ulb.ac.be> <000601c901d8$c4e9cc30$4ebd6490$@no> <48AA9010.9030406@ulb.ac.be> <000701c901e6$e4fef5f0$aefce1d0$@no> Message-ID: <48AAB1E7.8060005@NTLworld.com> Is *pass* a logical alternative to *double*? Presented with this dilemma, it seems that most experts would double. But some like Richard Hills, Jack Rhind, and David Grabiner would pass. Weighing up the expert reasoning on both sides, it seems that double is probably best. *Games theory*, however, provides an additional strong argument for considering pass to be a logical alternative. Vulnerable against not, opposite a passing partner, if you *always* leap in at the four level on a shapely 10 count, cunning opponents who are aware of your habits, should sometimes forgo slam investigation on marginal hands, licking their lips in anticipation of better things. Hence, in theory at least, your optimal strategy may be *mixed random*: - to double (say 2/3 of the time) and - to pass (the remaining 1/3) Opponents should adopt similar complementary strategies. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 19 13:47:26 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:47:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BFwd=3A_something_new=B2=5D?= In-Reply-To: <48AA95F5.6080208@NTLworld.com> References: <48AA7146.7010202@aol.com> <48AA95F5.6080208@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48AAB2CE.4040305@NTLworld.com> *CORRECTION* FWIW, most of the top experts [polled]...think that there is no logical alternative to *DOUBLE* (not PASS as I originally wrote) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 19 16:05:23 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:05:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? References: <000001c8fd0a$52fbc0b0$f8f34210$@com> Message-ID: <011b01c90204$9fd486c0$86c19851@stefanie> > [DALB] > Did I have a "demonstrable bridge reason" for acting as I did at trick > two? > > Callaghan and I played that if declarer led from the wrong hand, whichever > defender was to the left of the lead >would always pause, whatever his > holding, in order to give partner time to object. Should this have been on > our >convention card? > I don't have an agreement with any partners to do this, but I invariably do it. Deciding whether partner wants to object, or, in more complicated cases, deciding whether one wants to object oneself, is unquestionably a "demonstrable bridge reason". I think that the OS have a bloody nerve complaining. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 19:08:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:08:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <007801c9016b$842b79e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred><003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <1465.76.195.94.230.1219015668.squirrel@email.powweb.com><006101c90125$ee1c7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A997AB.4000903@skynet.be> <007801c9016b$842b79e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48AAFE29.2080407@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A good garden may have some weeds." > - Thomas Fuller > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> inconveniences or causes annoyance to other players, > (HDW) >> I did not hear complaints about that in Jeff's report. Surely the >> opponents need to complain before you can rule this way. >> > +=+ Herman is absolutely wrong in suggesting the need for a > complaint. If the Director judges it to be the case he may rule > accordingly. > ~ G ~ +=+ > If the opponents do not complain, how can the Director judge that they were annoyed? Surely it is not a good idea to go around throwing PP's just for activities that do not annoy the opponents. Remark that you said "cause annoyance". Does that not mean that annoyance needs to be there? The action cannot be penalised if there is no annoyance. And before you say it, yes, the Director can notice annoyance even without the need of the players to express it verbally. But none of those notices were mentioned in Jeff's report. Grattan, plese return to earth. Do not go criticising me - yes, you have the right to give all the PP's you want. But read Jeff's report again and tell me if there is anything there that merits a PP. So far, you've continually defended your suggestion of a PP of 25% by stating that you have the right to give it. I acknowledge that you have that right. But do you really believe that copying scores, when opponents do not complain, merits a PP of 25%? And answer that question on its own - do not drag in the possibility of giving the PP for "hidden sending of UI". From all your posts since the original one, you have let it know that you did not intend the 25% PP to be for that infraction - only for breaking procedure. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 19 19:11:19 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:11:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? References: <000001c8fd0a$52fbc0b0$f8f34210$@com> <011b01c90204$9fd486c0$86c19851@stefanie> Message-ID: <002601c9021e$b8861840$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who Cares Wins? > > [DALB] Did I have a "demonstrable bridge reason" for acting as I did at trick two? Callaghan and I played that if declarer led from the wrong hand, whichever defender was to the left of the lead would always pause, whatever his holding, in order to give partner time to object. Should this have been on our convention card? > [Stefanie Rohan] I don't have an agreement with any partners to do this, but I invariably do it. Deciding whether partner wants to object, or, in more complicated cases, deciding whether one wants to object oneself, is unquestionably a "demonstrable bridge reason". > I think that the OS have a bloody nerve complaining. > +=+ Ah well, Stefanie, now that you have stated as much publicly the understanding exists even if it did not do so before, implicitly. Opponents are entitled to know about it so that they are not misled by it in the play. It requires disclosure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 19:11:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:11:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AA7BB9.5010209@ulb.ac.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred><003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <1465.76.195.94.230.1219015668.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <006101c90125$ee1c7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A997AB.4000903@skynet.be> <48AA7BB9.5010209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48AAFEC4.4090605@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> inconveniences or causes annoyance to other players, >>> >> I did not hear complaints about that in Jeff's report. Surely the >> opponents need to complain before you can rule this way. >> >> > AG : IBTD. Why should this case be an exception to L81B6 ? > Because Grattan would be giving the penalty for "causing annoyance". Surely that must mean opponents need to be annoyed. How can you judge that they are annoyed (by that particular infraction) if they don't complain about it? >>> prolongs >>> play unnecessarily, >>> >> The player needed to copy the scores at some point - I don't see that >> this prolonged the duration of the match. >> >> > AG : once again, I don't agree. It indeed prolonged the duration of the > play, if not of the match. If scores are checked between one member of > each pair after the last deal is completed, the other two players aren't > required to stay at the table ; checking during the deal prolonges the > duration of their compelled presence. > Yes, but the player did not mind his scores being copied - or at least Jeff does not report that he did. This means that the player would not have minded doing it at the end either - except that doing it at the end risks the player leaving before you can ask him. > > Best regards > > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 19:13:47 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:13:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A9FA74.6060902@verizon.net> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> <48A93D65.7090301@skynet.be> <48A96F29.5000300@verizon.net> <48A99837.2080009@skynet.be> <48A9FA74.6060902@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48AAFF4B.4080709@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> >> > Herman, > > Just because I have not been posting does not mean that I have not been > following the thread. Since you have no idea what I have and have not > been following, I can only interpret your comment that I have not been > following the thread as "Hirsch-bashing". That is, a conclusion about > me personally, rather than an answer to my argument. You have no idea > what I have and have not read. > I have no way of knowing what you have and have not read. But if you comment on the last post without taking into regard the penultimate one, I can only conclude that you want to disagree with me for the sake of it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 19:20:20 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:20:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48A9FA74.6060902@verizon.net> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <001c01c900b4$16b0ab40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A8A4D8.80502@verizon.net> <48A93D65.7090301@skynet.be> <48A96F29.5000300@verizon.net> <48A99837.2080009@skynet.be> <48A9FA74.6060902@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48AB00D4.2090902@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > As far as N-S not objecting to the E player's behavior, why did the > opponents summon the TD? To bring the players coffee? > Good question - when was the TD called? If I read Jeff's post correctly, and interpret it after some days not having read it again, then I believe that they called the TD after the double and the 4S bid, because of allegations of using UI. The did _NOT_ call the TD when the player, in the middle of selecting a bid, took his opponents score-card and started copying the scores. Now my disagreement started when Grattan suggested awarding a 25% procedural penalty. I asked the question if this could be done without some evidence of intent. Maybe I was not clear, but I meant "intent to hide the trasmission of UI". Grattan then defended his PP by stating that he was giving it for the improper procedure of copying scores in the middle of an auction. I retorted that this is not in itself improper enough to warrant a PP. To which Grattan responded that anything which causes annoyance warrants a PP. To which I ask - where does it say that annoyance was caused? Annoyance, that is, resulting from the improper procedure. Not from the UI - that is being dealt with. But the 25% PP seems incorrect to me - unless you assume malicious intent. [quite interesting comments about the UI snipped] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 19:23:37 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:23:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> This certainly prohibits: >> - IMP tables; > > NO! The Imp tables are part of law and are AI. If i ask you as TD to read > them to me you will HAVE to comply. John > I stand corrected. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 19:24:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:24:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:57 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> NO! The Imp tables are part of law and are AI. If i ask you as TD to read >> them to me you will HAVE to comply. John >> > > No, I don't think you are right here, John. For one thing, it gives > way too much UI. In many cases, it makes it too clear what your > options are, and what you think they can make. The imp tables are AI > only if you remember them, just as the number of trumps that are > outstanding is AI only if you remember it. There is no provision in > the laws requiring the TD to give you either piece of information, > even if you ask nicely. > I beg to differ. > Jerry Fusselman > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 19:27:31 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:27:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A2 vs 40C3(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48AB0283.6020508@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > +=+ See Law 16A2. But this is not licence to violate Law 74. The > player should have entered his score as he went along, but not > attempt the protracted interruption of the auction and play of a > board as he did here. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Law 16A2: > > "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." > > Law 40C3(a): > > "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not > entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his > memory, calculation or technique." > > Richard Hills: > > How do we resolve the apparent inconsistency between these two > Laws? For what it is worth, I think a key word is Law 16A2's > "estimate". I don't believe so - I think the word estimate is there because he does not know his real scores, since he may not be aware of what happened at other tables. > > So, during the auction and play period, a player may "estimate" > that five off doubled and non-vulnerable is -1100, but that > player may not look at the back of a red bidding box card to > confirm her estimate. > I agree, but I do believe the player is entitled to read L77. He is not entitled to use a calculator to add 100+200+200+300+300. > > 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 Aug 19 19:30:41 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:30:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000a01c9014f$c4195b10$4c4c1130$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <000c01c900bd$54a5f0f0$fdf1d2d0$@no> <48A9414F.7080604@skynet.be> <000901c90121$3712fe70$a538fb50$@no> <48A96080.4040607@skynet.be> <000a01c9012f$b6d36dd0$247a4970$@no> <48A99B38.6050801@skynet.be> <000a01c9014f$c4195b10$4c4c1130$@no> Message-ID: <48AB0341.7060905@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> But in a recent case of a stubborn player that refused listening to >>> instructions from TD (me) I did indeed hand out a 25% PP. (Actually I >>> announced 50% but in the heat I forgot that our scoring is relative to >>> average, so when I thought I halved a top score it was actually half of > 50%, >>> not half of 100%) >>> >> on a totally side issue, the way I understand the scoring, you award >> between +50% and -50%, which is the same difference of 100% as between >> 0 and 100. So the penalty should not be halved. > > I better pick up my teaspoon and explain: > > In the actual event the top score on a board was +13MP and bottom score was > -13MP. > > But instead of imposing a penalty of 13MP I imposed just 7. > > See? > Ah, I see you did the reverse. You awarded 25% but announced 50% to make it clear to the players. You were right. I understood that you thought you were awarding 50% when you gave the 7MP fine. I understood wrongly. My apologies. > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 19:34:13 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:34:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000601c901d8$c4e9cc30$4ebd6490$@no> References: <48AA7FDA.5080400@ulb.ac.be> <000601c901d8$c4e9cc30$4ebd6490$@no> Message-ID: <48AB0415.3060606@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >>> In a message dated 15/08/2008 22:10:56 GMT Standard Time, >> JffEstrsn at aol.com >>> writes: >>> >>> He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer. >>> >>> [paul lamford] The above merits a PP in itself, according to 74A1. The >>> comparison with getting a coffee and being late back is inappropriate. > But 10% >> of >>> a top is the standard penalty, so I think those arguing for more are > being >>> unduly harsh. I recall 25% of a top being given for foul and abusive > language in >>> an EBU event, and the facts as presented seem to fall short of that. >>> >> AG : such penalties should indeed be used only for very heavy offences ; >> up to now, Grattan and his followers failed to persuade (or even merely >> convince) me that the offence was of such magnitude. > > Was it four or five times the Director had to repeat his question and demand > an answer? > This behavior comes pretty close to being an offence of such magnitude if > you ask me. > Again Sven, you are defending the penalty on other grounds than the one for which it was given. Grattan stated, after some time, that he gave the penalty for incorrect procedure. If the penalty is instead given for refusing to answer the director's questions promptly, it may be OK. But why are we discussing this? We should be answering my first question - do you believe it is OK to give a PP for "hiding the transmission of UI" in this case? So far, all I've heard is that it's permitted to give penalties for fetching coffee. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 19:42:34 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:42:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] When to rethink. In-Reply-To: <002901c901df$5453e990$fcfbbcb0$@com> References: <003201c901dc$29e97b50$0202a8c0@Mildred> <002901c901df$5453e990$fcfbbcb0$@com> Message-ID: <48AB060A.8020807@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [GE] > > Robin Barker quoted 20% as the EBU norm for aggravated offences; my 25% is > taken from experience of international situations. > > [DALB] > > Oh, the director at the time should award whatever penalty seems appropriate > if discourtesy is displayed, or a player refuses to comply with instructions > (20% or 25% seem appropriate for blatant offences). Moreover, as I remarked > before, if the view is taken that a player was attempting illegal > communication, any penalty other than disqualification might be viewed as > too lenient - we are, after all, dealing with "the gravest possible > offence". > > However, if the only offence the player committed was to hold up the game by > copying down a few scores when it was his turn to do something, he should in > my view simply be told not to do that again. My concern was only that a > director should not impose a more severe penalty simply because he felt that > the partnership might have "got away with it" - i.e. that West was lucky not > to have a logical alternative when in receipt of UI from East. Conflating > procedural penalties with redress through score adjustment is a not > infrequent error, but it is an error nonetheless. > This was exactly the point I was trying to get accross. In order to give a PP in this case, it is not sufficient to point to "incorrect procedure". You need more than that. Having now re-read the original, and Jeff's comments, it strikes me as normal to give a PP for the other infractions, such as the discussions with the TD. I stand by my point about recording the actions though - the infraction of "hiding the transmission of UI" is present, IMO, although I could not make that stand up in court. The only way of dealing with that one is wide distribution of the case. Which has happened now. > David Burn > London, England > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 20:07:19 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:07:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? In-Reply-To: <002601c9021e$b8861840$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000001c8fd0a$52fbc0b0$f8f34210$@com> <011b01c90204$9fd486c0$86c19851@stefanie> <002601c9021e$b8861840$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0808191107i74545fa1t6382647fb02b4780@mail.gmail.com> [DALB] Callaghan and I played that if declarer led from the wrong hand, whichever defender was to the left of the lead would always pause, whatever his holding, in order to give partner time to object. Should this have been on our convention card? [Stefanie Rohan] I don't have an agreement with any partners to do this, but I invariably do it. Deciding whether partner wants to object, or, in more complicated cases, deciding whether one wants to object oneself, is unquestionably a "demonstrable bridge reason". I think that the OS have a bloody nerve complaining. [Grattan] Ah well, Stefanie, now that you have stated as much publicly the understanding exists even if it did not do so before, implicitly. Opponents are entitled to know about it so that they are not misled by it in the play. It requires disclosure. [Jerry] Funny, I thought every intelligent player waited to give partner a chance. I consider it stupid not to. (Anyone willing to admit they would never do it?) I could argue that the laws require you to do it to really do your best---I am sure Richard can remember the law number for this argument. Also, I think Grattan is going too far inventing a need for a bridge reason for how long it takes NOS to figure out what to do after the opponents' irregularity. Do the opponents really get protection from information they think they get from how long it takes the NOS to choose their option in direct response to an irregularity? I don't think we should reward irregularities in this way. If it is in the laws, it should be cut out. Another example for Grattan: Sometimes my irregularity (such as leading from the wrong hand) gets a director call, and sometimes not. Do you want to give me redress if the information I think I have due their calling or not calling the director causes my misguess? I would say that I have a bloody nerve complaining. I am interested in reading what mechanism Grattan has in mind for disclosure of this and related common-sense understandings concerning pace: The convention card? It might require a lot of space to list everything that is obviously a good idea anyway. Would it include, for example, an agreement to try to avoid calling director and to play quickly when you wish a bathroom break? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 20:25:07 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:25:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0808191125o5f71bab2ra3d2141cae16bdac@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:57 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> NO! The Imp tables are part of law and are AI. If i ask you as TD to read >>> them to me you will HAVE to comply. John >>> >> >> No, I don't think you are right here, John. For one thing, it gives >> way too much UI. In many cases, it makes it too clear what your >> options are, and what you think they can make. The imp tables are AI >> only if you remember them, just as the number of trumps that are >> outstanding is AI only if you remember it. There is no provision in >> the laws requiring the TD to give you either piece of information, >> even if you ask nicely. >> > > I beg to differ. > Which part are you differing with? Here is a case for your consideration: 1H - 3S - 4H - Now the advancer asks the director for the imp tables, and after he hears the answer, he bids 4S. It is clear that he was considering at least one other option---likely either pass or double. The fits are probably smaller than if he had just be 4S directly. The overcaller is cautioned not to bid again by the question. Do Herman and John think it is okay to give so much information? Anyway, I see no law requiring the director to give any scoring information while a hand is underway. I thought that no director would tell a contestant during a hand what the score would be for 4S doubled, down two. Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 19 20:30:10 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:30:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new (but an old technique) References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred><003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <1465.76.195.94.230.1219015668.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <006101c90125$ee1c7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A997AB.4000903@skynet.be><48AA7BB9.5010209@ulb.ac.be> <48AAFEC4.4090605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009801c90229$9fc348e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new Because Grattan would be giving the penalty for "causing annoyance". +=+ I can only assume Herman has not read all my posts. It went a long way beyond 'causing annoyance' to opponents - although the Director is wholly within his powers to determine the player has caused annoyance without any complaint from an opponent. Otherwise, Herman's technique of setting up what he chooses to suggest states my position and then attacking it merits no response. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 19 20:36:37 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:36:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> An example on how I understand Law 40C3(a): A player needs to know how many undertricks he can suffer and still gain on a sacrifice bid against opponents' contract. If he remembers that 6 hearts just made red is 1430 while 6 undertricks doubled white is "only" 1400 then fine, but it is illegal for him during auction and play to consult for instance the rear side of most bid cards where this information can be found. Strictly speaking I think that it is illegal for him even to look up his own notes (e.g. score sheet) on how they have been doing so far during the round, for instance in order to decide whether their position suggests safe play or gambling on the last boards. Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 20:42:16 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:42:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A2 vs 40C3(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48AB0283.6020508@skynet.be> References: <48AB0283.6020508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0808191142r4f6e86fav424dc8f9ee273f61@mail.gmail.com> Herman De Wael wrote: > > I agree, but I do believe the player is entitled to read L77. He is > not entitled to use a calculator to add 100+200+200+300+300. > Really? Where you direct, the players can open the law book at any time during the auction or play to read stuff? And you don't consider that an illegal aid to memory? Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 19 20:53:25 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:53:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AB0415.3060606@skynet.be> References: <48AA7FDA.5080400@ulb.ac.be> <000601c901d8$c4e9cc30$4ebd6490$@no> <48AB0415.3060606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c9022c$dc913450$95b39cf0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > > This behavior comes pretty close to being an offence of such magnitude if > > you ask me. > > > > Again Sven, you are defending the penalty on other grounds than the > one for which it was given. > Grattan stated, after some time, that he gave the penalty for > incorrect procedure. > If the penalty is instead given for refusing to answer the director's > questions promptly, it may be OK. Looks the same to me. Correct procedure includes also paying due respect to instructions from the Director. > But why are we discussing this? We should be answering my first > question - do you believe it is OK to give a PP for "hiding the > transmission of UI" in this case? As far as I can remember I have never made any statement related to UI in this case. I have been concerned about the grossly improper behavior by East. > So far, all I've heard is that it's permitted to give penalties for > fetching coffee. If that action (fetching coffee) fits one of the Law 74 descriptions of actions or manners to be avoided - sure. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Aug 19 21:04:30 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:04:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: ............. > > NO! The Imp tables are part of law and are AI. If i ask you as TD to read > > them to me you will HAVE to comply. John > > > > I stand corrected. I don't think you should (unconditionally)! If a player (for whatever reason) wants to know particulars from the IMP tables during auction or play then he is NOT allowed to look it up or ask for instance the Director to give him that information. That would be using an "aid to his memory". (When they shall calculate the IMP scores after the play is completed is of course an entirely different situation.) Regards Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Aug 19 21:06:14 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:06:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] my posting at 20:37 Message-ID: <48AB19A6.4000906@aol.com> Ahoy Henk! I sent a posting to you at 20:37 but it has not yet appeared. Three postings sent later than 20:37 have appeared. Am I doing something wrong? Ciao, JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Aug 19 21:13:08 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:13:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: clarification: something new, Herman's posting] Message-ID: <48AB1B44.70809@aol.com> Hola Henk! Just in case this got lost (it hasn't yet appeared) I am sending it again. Ahoy,JE -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: clarification: something new, Herman's posting Datum: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:37:34 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson An: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org Actually NS did not call the TD at all. The incident occurred during the last hand and NS came to the TDs after the hand was completely (ergo immediately after the round) and asked about the propriety of East's action. Although a very strong player North had little knowledge of the laws (as he said). He felt that East's action was definitely not Kosher but did not know if there was anything in the laws to cover this case and wanted to know from us. He (North) was definitely not happy when he approached us. I don't know if he said anything at the table. As I mentioned before there was not a friendly atmosphere between North and East. North seemed to suspect that East could have been transmitting UI but didn't know if this was covered in the laws. He did seem annoyed and I suppose his action, coming to us, could be interpreted as a complaint. Ciao, JE From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 19 21:38:32 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:38:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be> <000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no> Message-ID: <000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> [SP] If a player (for whatever reason) wants to know particulars from the IMP tables during auction or play then he is NOT allowed to look it up or ask for instance the Director to give him that information. That would be using an "aid to his memory". [DALB] Suppose a player asks the Director whether 1S is a sufficient bid over 1H. Is the Director obliged: to answer, because Law 1 is AI to the player; or to refuse to answer, because the player may not have his memory aided during the auction period? David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 19 22:19:39 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:19:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808191125o5f71bab2ra3d2141cae16bdac@mail.gmail.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0808191125o5f71bab2ra3d2141cae16bdac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Aug 19, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Herman De Wael > wrote: >> Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:57 PM, John (MadDog) Probst >>> wrote: >>>> NO! The Imp tables are part of law and are AI. If i ask you as >>>> TD to read >>>> them to me you will HAVE to comply. John >>> >>> No, I don't think you are right here, John. For one thing, it gives >>> way too much UI. In many cases, it makes it too clear what your >>> options are, and what you think they can make. The imp tables >>> are AI >>> only if you remember them, just as the number of trumps that are >>> outstanding is AI only if you remember it. There is no provision in >>> the laws requiring the TD to give you either piece of information, >>> even if you ask nicely. >> >> I beg to differ. > > Which part are you differing with? > > Here is a case for your consideration: > > 1H - 3S - 4H - > > Now the advancer asks the director for the imp tables, and after he > hears the answer, he bids 4S. It is clear that he was considering at > least one other option---likely either pass or double. The fits are > probably smaller than if he had just be 4S directly. The overcaller > is cautioned not to bid again by the question. Do Herman and John > think it is okay to give so much information? Anyway, I see no law > requiring the director to give any scoring information while a hand is > underway. > > I thought that no director would tell a contestant during a hand what > the score would be for 4S doubled, down two. I don't see the relevance of this example. If it is true that a player is entitled to consult the IMP table (I lean toward thinking he is, but I'm listening to the discussion), then he is entitled to consult it at will. But that surely does not preclude the possibility that the timing or manner of his request for the entitled information can create extraneous information which might constrain his partner's future bidding. Players are entitled to know the auction, or the meaning of their opponent's bids, or lots of other stuff, all of which can result in UI if the information is asked for at an inopportune or inappropriate time. Being entitled to particular information doesn't carry immunity from being held liable for whatever UI might be transmitted during the process of obtaining it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 19 22:23:18 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:23:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred><003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <1465.76.195.94.230.1219015668.squirrel@email.powweb.com><006101c90125$ee1c7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A997AB.4000903@skynet.be><007801c9016b$842b79e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48AAFE29.2080407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00ef01c90239$7475abf0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > Grattan wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************** >> "A good garden may have some weeds." >> - Thomas Fuller >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > Remark that you said "cause annoyance". Does that not mean that > annoyance needs to be there? The action cannot be penalised if there > is no annoyance. > +=+ The law says "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that *might* cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player" and that the Director may assess procedural penalties for any offence that "inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure.....". Your suggestion does not match to the text of the law. +=+ ============================================ > > Grattan, please return to earth. Do not go criticising me - yes, you > have the right to give all the PP's you want. But read Jeff's report > again and tell me if there is anything there that merits a PP. > > So far, you've continually defended your suggestion of a PP of 25% by > stating that you have the right to give it. I acknowledge that you > have that right. But do you really believe that copying scores, when > opponents do not complain, merits a PP of 25%? > > And answer that question on its own - do not drag in the possibility > of giving the PP for "hidden sending of UI". From all your posts since > the original one, you have let it know that you did not intend the 25% > PP to be for that infraction - only for breaking procedure. > +=+ Herman may have missed something in this correspondence. This, for example: "He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer." << And again this: "When we asked the player who had interrupted the flow of the game to copy the scores, being careful to tell him first that we were making no insinuations of any sort or accusing him of anything, he refused to answer, was angry, showed contempt, etc. As I mentioned in the original posting he only responded after the question was put repeatedly (perhaps 4-5 times) and then made it clear (from his mimicry) that he not only disliked being asked but that he felt the question to be ridiculous and impertinent and that he was simply giving a answer under duress and it had little relation to the actual time taken." << Commenting on the incident I wrote (and Herman may have missed): "The infraction is not 'suspected' and 'intentional' does not enter into it. The infraction is factual and as such may be penalized. It lies in the disruption of the tempo of the auction created by the player's diversion to an extraneous activity, and in the inconvenience caused to other players at the table." <<< +=+ And apparently he missed it when I wrote: "I am particularly put out by his behaviour when the 'Directors' (sic) put questions to him. Without the aggravation I still view his basic violation of law as an unacceptable abuse of opponents and would still award a standard PP." ============================================= So perhaps if Herman notes that I took account of the player's interruption of the auction at his turn for an extended diversion into listing scores, and that associated with this inconvenience and annoyance for others at the table there was his rudeness and improper conduct towards the Directors, Herman will understand that when he asks "do you really believe that copying scores, when opponents do not complain, merits a PP of 25%?" he is a ridiculously long way adrift of the discussion and is totally misrepresenting the case. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Aug 19 22:32:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:32:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be> <000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no> <000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> Message-ID: <8B9DD691-F7BC-4CC7-8D75-DF03C223D267@starpower.net> On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:38 PM, David Burn wrote: > [SP] > > If a player (for whatever reason) wants to know particulars from > the IMP > tables during auction or play then he is NOT allowed to look it up > or ask > for instance the Director to give him that information. That would > be using > an "aid to his memory". > > [DALB] > > Suppose a player asks the Director whether 1S is a sufficient bid > over 1H. > Is the Director obliged: > > to answer, because Law 1 is AI to the player; or > > to refuse to answer, because the player may not have his memory > aided during > the auction period? David asks an appropriate question. I don't claim to know the answer. But I do know that either a player is entitled to knowledge of the laws, in which case he may ask a Director for the information and expect to be given it, or he isn't, in which case he may not. It can't matter which law we pick as our example for discussion. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 22:41:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:41:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new (but an old technique) In-Reply-To: <009801c90229$9fc348e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred><003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be><001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><002f01c900ba$1cfa90f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <1465.76.195.94.230.1219015668.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <006101c90125$ee1c7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A997AB.4000903@skynet.be><48AA7BB9.5010209@ulb.ac.be> <48AAFEC4.4090605@skynet.be> <009801c90229$9fc348e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48AB2FF7.5090501@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A good garden may have some weeds." > - Thomas Fuller > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:11 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > Because Grattan would be giving the penalty for "causing annoyance". > > +=+ I can only assume Herman has not read all my posts. It went > a long way beyond 'causing annoyance' to opponents - although the > Director is wholly within his powers to determine the player has > caused annoyance without any complaint from an opponent. > Otherwise, Herman's technique of setting up what he chooses > to suggest states my position and then attacking it merits no response. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, it is very hard to understand your position sometimes. Let me try to give a few citations. I apologise if my selection is not complete or accurate, I am trying to show you how I may have gotten the wrong impression as to your point of view: [Grattan 17/8, 11:17] 4. For East's improper attitude I apply a substantial procedural penalty, considering the case aggravated. No less than 25% of a top. [Herman 17/8, 18:54] but do you not need to establish intent in order to award a procedural penalty? [Grattan 17/8, 19:59] I am not penalizing the transmission of UI. It is the violation of correct procedure that I am penalizing. No finding of intent is necessary, only a finding of fact. [Herman 17/8, 22:24] I beg to differ. There is nothing in the laws or procedures that ban a player from asking to copy his scores. That cannot be punishable. [RFrick 18/8, 01:27] I believe Herman has said that it is not illegal to copy scores during the hand. I have to say that it is VERY common at our club for players to keep a record of their hands, and they do their copying during the hand. I would be surprised to find out that was illegal. But I am open to hear why that is illegal. [Grattan 18/8, 12:50] It is an extraneous activity. It becomes an infraction of law, for example, if it disrupts the correct procedure of the auction, inconveniences or causes annoyance to other players, prolongs play unnecessarily, disconcerts an opponent, involves disregard of a Director's instruction, or breaches a regulation. [Herman 18/8, 17:39] (several reactions to Grattan's words above, including:) I did not hear complaints about that in Jeff's report. Surely the opponents need to complain before you can rule this way. [Grattan 18/8, 21:37] Herman is absolutely wrong in suggesting the need for a complaint. If the Director judges it to be the case he may rule accordingly. [Herman 19/8, 19:08] If the opponents do not complain, how can the Director judge that they were annoyed? [Grattan 19/8, 22:23] The law says "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that *might* cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player" and that the Director may assess procedural penalties for any offence that "inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure.....". Your suggestion does not match to the text of the law Again, Grattan confuses two issues: I have no problem whatsoever with his insistence that the Director would be authorized to give whatever penalty he chooses. The issue I am dealing with is whether the facts as presented merit a severe PP such as Grattan insists. I believe that I have shown above that Grattan has steered our dialogue into the realm of "correct procedure". It is that road to a PP that I have often questioned. If Grattan now suggests that I have misinterpreted his original intentions, then I submit that he has not, in his subsequent posts, made those original intentions well-known. Rather, by going deeper into the discussion on correct procedure, Grattan has led me to believe, erroneously it now seems, that the 25% were merely a penalty for copying the scores. If I have misinterpreted Grattan's intentions in that manner, I apologise and offer the above excerpts as mitigating evidence for my misimpressions. OK now? Permit me to state then finally, that I am not normally one to issue PP's. If someone suggests to me a PP of 25%, I imagine it is for something far more serious than not answering a director's questions immediately. I still maintain that there is something fishy about the whole matter, going far beyond the procedural things discussed here. I cannot prove however, that those fishy things are really there, so I do not wish to hand out PP's over those. I do wish to make it absolutely clear however, that such matters are not to be tolerated - which is why I report the matter. As to Kojak's idea that the typical Herman's way of doing nothing now, I have this to say - I would agree to a PP of some size (rather 10% than 25%) for the conduct opposite the Director, but that would be set apart from the "fishy" things. Grattan and Kojak prefer not to address those fishy things, I prefer to tackle them by a reprimand and a recording. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 22:44:28 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:44:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808191125o5f71bab2ra3d2141cae16bdac@mail.gmail.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0808191125o5f71bab2ra3d2141cae16bdac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AB30AC.1080006@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> outstanding is AI only if you remember it. There is no provision in >>> the laws requiring the TD to give you either piece of information, >>> even if you ask nicely. >>> >> I beg to differ. >> > > Which part are you differing with? > Surely not what you are suggesting below: > Here is a case for your consideration: > > 1H - 3S - 4H - > > Now the advancer asks the director for the imp tables, and after he > hears the answer, he bids 4S. It is clear that he was considering at > least one other option---likely either pass or double. The fits are > probably smaller than if he had just be 4S directly. The overcaller > is cautioned not to bid again by the question. Do Herman and John > think it is okay to give so much information? Anyway, I see no law > requiring the director to give any scoring information while a hand is > underway. > Of course asking for the IMP tables constitutes grave UI to partner. But that does not mean one is not allowed to ask for them, surely? > I thought that no director would tell a contestant during a hand what > the score would be for 4S doubled, down two. > My thought is that everything in the laws is AI. As such, the lawbook itself is not an "aid to memory" or an "aid to calculation", it is the source itself, and should be consultable. Mind you, only the text of L77, not the tables on the back of the bidding cards, which might be seen as an aid to calculation. > Jerry Fusselman > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 22:48:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:48:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> Message-ID: <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > An example on how I understand Law 40C3(a): > > A player needs to know how many undertricks he can suffer and still gain on > a sacrifice bid against opponents' contract. > > If he remembers that 6 hearts just made red is 1430 while 6 undertricks > doubled white is "only" 1400 then fine, but it is illegal for him during > auction and play to consult for instance the rear side of most bid cards > where this information can be found. > > Strictly speaking I think that it is illegal for him even to look up his own > notes (e.g. score sheet) on how they have been doing so far during the > round, for instance in order to decide whether their position suggests safe > play or gambling on the last boards. > > Regards Sven > Well Sven, I think you are wrong. If the knowledge of something is entitled, then the player is also entitled to ask to consult whatever source he has for that fact. As said before, that includes the text of L77, but not the calculated scores on the bidding cards. And I think it also includes the personal score sheet, in as far as they contain nothing but the contract and the previous scores. Not the lead, for example, or the exclamation and question marks next to the good/bad boards - those are not facts but aids to memory. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 22:51:05 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:51:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be> <000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no> <000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> Message-ID: <48AB3239.6020009@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [SP] > > If a player (for whatever reason) wants to know particulars from the IMP > tables during auction or play then he is NOT allowed to look it up or ask > for instance the Director to give him that information. That would be using > an "aid to his memory". > > [DALB] > > Suppose a player asks the Director whether 1S is a sufficient bid over 1H. > Is the Director obliged: > > to answer, because Law 1 is AI to the player; or > > to refuse to answer, because the player may not have his memory aided during > the auction period? > Very good analogy David! The IMP tables are a part of the laws, and should be consultable. There is no need to memorize them. The cards that have been played are not among things that a player is entitled to know (after the trick is quitted) and you need to memorize them if you want to play a good game. There can be no "aids to memory" for things that you are entitled to know and need not memorize, such as the contract. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Aug 19 22:51:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:51:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A2 vs 40C3(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808191142r4f6e86fav424dc8f9ee273f61@mail.gmail.com> References: <48AB0283.6020508@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0808191142r4f6e86fav424dc8f9ee273f61@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AB3262.30503@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> I agree, but I do believe the player is entitled to read L77. He is >> not entitled to use a calculator to add 100+200+200+300+300. >> > > Really? Where you direct, the players can open the law book at any > time during the auction or play to read stuff? And you don't consider > that an illegal aid to memory? > No, since there is no requirement to know the lawbook by heart! (not even of directors!) > Jerry Fusselman > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 19 23:31:54 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:31:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <8B9DD691-F7BC-4CC7-8D75-DF03C223D267@starpower.net> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be> <000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no> <000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> <8B9DD691-F7BC-4CC7-8D75-DF03C223D267@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101c90243$02638230$072a8690$@com> [EL] David asks an appropriate question. I don't claim to know the answer. [DALB] Well, Law 16 says: A player may use information in the auction or play if [...] it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws. Now, the rank of the suits and the IMP table are in my submission "information [...] arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws". It may be argued that the official match score is also information arising from the legal procedures authorised in the Laws, so that a player is entitled to consult the official score at any time. Of course, he is not allowed to use it as an aid to calculation, so although he can look at it, he cannot draw any conclusions as to the state of the match from it. David Burn London, England From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Aug 19 23:56:59 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:56:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new Message-ID: <48AB41AB.6030202@nhcc.net> I get the impression that people are talking past (or at) each other rather than dealing with the issues. It might be helpful if posters say _why_ they suggest the rulings they do. Here's my attempt to summarize: As David Burn pointed out, we need to separate the question of score adjustment from any consideration of penalty. Starting with score adjustment, on the _creation_ of UI, I think we are unanimous that the break in tempo should be reckoned from the time the player should have made his call (10 s after the opening preempt?) until the time he actually did call. The fact that he was copying scores in the meantime is no mitigation. The duration was disputed, but it appears to have been in the range 30 to 120 s. Within that range, I don't see that the exact duration affects the ruling. On the possible _use_ of UI, I think we are unanimous that the break in tempo suggests double over pass and that no other call is a logical alternative. Score adjustment therefore hinges on whether pass is a LA or not. My personal view is that I cannot imagine passing, but polling finds players who do indeed pass or at least consider it. Thus the LA issue seems very close and would have to be made by people on site, familiar with the standard of play in the event and with the exact definition of LA in the relevant jurisdiction. _If_ pass is deemed a LA, the EW score gets adjusted to the result of the preempt passed out. NS get some adjustment but not a full one because of their IWoG redouble. (All of us agree that the redouble was IWoG.) The Laws specify the NOS don't get compensation for "such part of the damage as was self-inflicted." The exact details depend on the regulations in effect, which I don't know. David Grabiner suggested one way it could be done, but there are others. Moving to the penalty side now, there are two actions that might deserve penalty. Here's where most of the apparent disagreement is found. I think it would be helpful if penalty advocates would make clear which action they are penalizing. That could be: 1. The player stopped to copy scores at his turn in a live auction. This has two parts that might deserve penalty: 1a) delaying the game, and 1b) obtaining information he was not entitled to at that moment (illegal aid to memory). 2. During the TD investigation, the player was uncooperative and rude: > He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer. As for 1a, this is a very mild offense, and if the player was simultaneously considering his call, the "copying scorecard" is a red herring. Herman's analogy "going for coffee" seems about right. Suppose the player had said to the table, "Sorry, this is a difficult decision; I'm going to get some coffee while I think about it." That creates UI, of course, but if considering one's call for two minutes is considered proper for this event (and it is for some events but not others), I don't think most players would object. But if this is an event where a two-minute tank would be considered rude in itself, then it's just as rude regardless of what the player does during the tank. If you think the delay merits a PP, I don't see why a standard one would be wrong. As for 1b, there is disagreement about whether consulting the scorecard during play is legal or not. I'd have thought not ("aid to memory"), but I'm waiting to see the arguments on each side. If it's illegal, it could deserve a PP, probably a standard one. There might also be a case for score adjustment if you think the outcome of the deal would have been different absent the illegal use of a memory aid, but I doubt that applies in the current case. As for 2, the behavior described is unacceptable. I would give a DP, not PP, of _at least_ 25%. Depending on the exact nature of the behavior, a larger penalty, up to and possibly including disqualification, might be appropriate. Referral to the C&E committee might also be in order. Of course I wasn't present so can only judge from the written account, but that's how it reads to me. Obviously those on the spot have to judge the actual conduct and how it compares to what is expected of players. Regardless of whether one agrees with my personal opinions -- which I hope are clearly labelled in the above -- I think it would be helpful for those recommending penalties to make clear whether they are penalizing 1a, 1b, 2, or something else. This applies both to BLML discussion and also to the TD's interaction with the player. The goal of a penalty is to deter future infractions, and that won't be effective unless the player understands exactly what he did wrong. From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 20 00:06:44 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:06:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be> <000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no> <000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> Message-ID: <000601c90247$ddf3dd50$99db97f0$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn > [SP] > > If a player (for whatever reason) wants to know particulars from the IMP > tables during auction or play then he is NOT allowed to look it up or ask > for instance the Director to give him that information. That would be using > an "aid to his memory". > > [DALB] > > Suppose a player asks the Director whether 1S is a sufficient bid over 1H. > Is the Director obliged: > > to answer, because Law 1 is AI to the player; or > > to refuse to answer, because the player may not have his memory aided during > the auction period? If you change the question to "can I now legally bid 1S" I think the question is acceptable, but asking the Director to refresh your memory on the laws as such comes technically very close to being an infraction of Law 40C3(a). And I don't think that a player technically is allowed to consult his own law book if he happens to have one. All the laws (as well as the partnership own agreements) are of course AI to the players, but that does not mean that the players are entitled to have their memory of the laws (or their own agreements) refreshed during auction and play. I don't think that a player for instance may consult the laws (except by calling the director) any more than he may consult his own system declaration. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 20 00:11:08 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:11:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Laws 16A2 vs 40C3(a) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48AB3262.30503@skynet.be> References: <48AB0283.6020508@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0808191142r4f6e86fav424dc8f9ee273f61@mail.gmail.com> <48AB3262.30503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c90248$7b315020$7193f060$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Really? Where you direct, the players can open the law book at any > > time during the auction or play to read stuff? And you don't consider > > that an illegal aid to memory? > > > > No, since there is no requirement to know the lawbook by heart! > (not even of directors!) There is no requirement for the players to know ANYTHING by heart. But there is a requirement that they may not use any aid to memory on whatever information they do not know by heart. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 20 00:47:58 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:47:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > An example on how I understand Law 40C3(a): > > > > A player needs to know how many undertricks he can suffer and still gain on > > a sacrifice bid against opponents' contract. > > > > If he remembers that 6 hearts just made red is 1430 while 6 undertricks > > doubled white is "only" 1400 then fine, but it is illegal for him during > > auction and play to consult for instance the rear side of most bid cards > > where this information can be found. > > > > Strictly speaking I think that it is illegal for him even to look up his own > > notes (e.g. score sheet) on how they have been doing so far during the > > round, for instance in order to decide whether their position suggests safe > > play or gambling on the last boards. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > Well Sven, I think you are wrong. If the knowledge of something is > entitled, then the player is also entitled to ask to consult whatever > source he has for that fact. > As said before, that includes the text of L77, but not the calculated > scores on the bidding cards. > > And I think it also includes the personal score sheet, in as far as > they contain nothing but the contract and the previous scores. Not the > lead, for example, or the exclamation and question marks next to the > good/bad boards - those are not facts but aids to memory. Are the system agreements I have with my partner AI or UI to me and my partner? If they are UI neither I nor my partner is allowed to base our calls and plays on these agreements so obviously our agreements are AI to both of us But when they are AI then according to your logic above we are both allowed to consult our written system notes during auction and play. Even more, as all published literature on bridge obviously is AI to all players (being more or less "general bridge knowledge") we should be allowed at any time to look up any such literature. Yes I am fully aware of L40B2(b), but technically this law applies specifically only to our system card, not to our own system notes and definitely not to bridge literature in general. L40C3(a) is the law on aids to memory. And as should be obvious from the above, this law applies all the same whether the information concerned is AI or UI, whether it is contained in my system notes, in the law book or in generally known bridge publications. Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 20 01:28:45 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:28:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred><48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com><48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN><2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0808191125o5f71bab2ra3d2141cae16bdac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003301c90253$534c9a00$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Herman De Wael > wrote: >> Jerry Fusselman wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:57 PM, John (MadDog) Probst >>> wrote: >>>> NO! The Imp tables are part of law and are AI. If i ask you as TD to >>>> read >>>> them to me you will HAVE to comply. John >>>> >>> >>> No, I don't think you are right here, John. For one thing, it gives >>> way too much UI. In many cases, it makes it too clear what your >>> options are, and what you think they can make. The imp tables are AI >>> only if you remember them, just as the number of trumps that are >>> outstanding is AI only if you remember it. There is no provision in >>> the laws requiring the TD to give you either piece of information, >>> even if you ask nicely. >>> >> >> I beg to differ. >> > > Which part are you differing with? > > Here is a case for your consideration: > > 1H - 3S - 4H - > > Now the advancer asks the director for the imp tables, and after he > hears the answer, he bids 4S. It is clear that he was considering at > least one other option---likely either pass or double. The fits are > probably smaller than if he had just be 4S directly. The overcaller > is cautioned not to bid again by the question. Do Herman and John > think it is okay to give so much information? Anyway, I see no law > requiring the director to give any scoring information while a hand is > underway. > > I thought that no director would tell a contestant during a hand what > the score would be for 4S doubled, down two. Not at all, he needs to know how many imps 1360 is, just for example. of course i can't ask for the score for 2 down X and vul, but I can ask for the score for the first and 2nd undertrick and then mentally add them. john > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 20 01:32:10 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:32:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> Message-ID: <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > An example on how I understand Law 40C3(a): > > A player needs to know how many undertricks he can suffer and still gain > on > a sacrifice bid against opponents' contract. > > If he remembers that 6 hearts just made red is 1430 while 6 undertricks > doubled white is "only" 1400 then fine, but it is illegal for him during > auction and play to consult for instance the rear side of most bid cards > where this information can be found. Agreed, but he IS entitled to the base data to allow him to compute it as long as he does this mentally. > > Strictly speaking I think that it is illegal for him even to look up his > own > notes (e.g. score sheet) on how they have been doing so far during the > round, for instance in order to decide whether their position suggests > safe > play or gambling on the last boards. > I think "state of the match" is authorised 16A2 John > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 20 01:33:44 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:33:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN><48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be> <000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no> Message-ID: <004301c90254$0562f6d0$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > ............. >> > NO! The Imp tables are part of law and are AI. If i ask you as TD to > read >> > them to me you will HAVE to comply. John >> > >> >> I stand corrected. > > I don't think you should (unconditionally)! > > If a player (for whatever reason) wants to know particulars from the IMP > tables during auction or play then he is NOT allowed to look it up or ask > for instance the Director to give him that information. That would be > using > an "aid to his memory". try 16A1c john > > (When they shall calculate the IMP scores after the play is completed is > of > course an entirely different situation.) > > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 20 01:35:38 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:35:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be><000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no> <000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> Message-ID: <004c01c90254$49455a00$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > [SP] > > If a player (for whatever reason) wants to know particulars from the IMP > tables during auction or play then he is NOT allowed to look it up or ask > for instance the Director to give him that information. That would be > using > an "aid to his memory". > > [DALB] > > Suppose a player asks the Director whether 1S is a sufficient bid over 1H. > Is the Director obliged: > > to answer, because Law 1 is AI to the player; or > > to refuse to answer, because the player may not have his memory aided > during > the auction period? the laws are AI. he can ask if spades outrank hearts for certain. John > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 20 10:47:42 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:47:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst ............. > > A player needs to know how many undertricks he can suffer and still > > gain on a sacrifice bid against opponents' contract. > > > > If he remembers that 6 hearts just made red is 1430 while 6 undertricks > > doubled white is "only" 1400 then fine, but it is illegal for him during > > auction and play to consult for instance the rear side of most bid cards > > where this information can be found. > > Agreed, but he IS entitled to the base data to allow him to compute it as > long as he does this mentally. What makes "base data" different from any other information (AI or UI) when it comes to "aid to memory"? And BTW. What is "base data"? > > Strictly speaking I think that it is illegal for him even to look up his own > > notes (e.g. score sheet) on how they have been doing so far during the > > round, for instance in order to decide whether their position suggests > > safe play or gambling on the last boards. > > > I think "state of the match" is authorised 16A2 But 16A2 does not authorize the use of any "aids to his memory". It is perfectly OK for a player to base his tactics on what he remembers from the already played boards but not to look up his written notes from those boards. L40C3(a) says that a player may freely use any AI that he remembers in his brain, but he may not use any "aids to his memory" (e.g. written or printed notes, publications of any kind, verbal reminders, calculating devices etc.) Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 20 10:54:20 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:54:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: something new Message-ID: <002201c902a2$57589370$0202a8c0@Mildred> Repeated as it seems not to have appeared. Steve Willner asks people to state the basis of their decisions - which I believe I have done consistently from the start. This is to close my file on the topic. ------------------------------------------------------- > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A good garden may have some weeds." > - Thomas Fuller > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:08 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] something new > >> Remark that you said "cause annoyance". Does that not mean that >> annoyance needs to be there? The action cannot be penalised if there >> is no annoyance. >> > +=+ The law says "A player should carefully avoid any remark or > action that *might* cause annoyance or embarrassment to another > player" and that the Director may assess procedural penalties for > any offence that "inconveniences other contestants, violates correct > procedure.....". Your suggestion does not match to the text of the > law. +=+ > ============================================ >> >> Grattan, please return to earth. Do not go criticising me - yes, you >> have the right to give all the PP's you want. But read Jeff's report >> again and tell me if there is anything there that merits a PP. >> >> So far, you've continually defended your suggestion of a PP of 25% by >> stating that you have the right to give it. I acknowledge that you >> have that right. But do you really believe that copying scores, when >> opponents do not complain, merits a PP of 25%? >> >> And answer that question on its own - do not drag in the possibility >> of giving the PP for "hidden sending of UI". From all your posts since >> the original one, you have let it know that you did not intend the 25% >> PP to be for that infraction - only for breaking procedure. >> > +=+ Herman may have missed something in this correspondence. > This, for example: > "He got very uptight (angry, unfriendly) and at first refused to answer." > << > And again this: > "When we asked the player who had interrupted the flow of the game to > copy the scores, being careful to tell him first that we were making no > insinuations of any sort or accusing him of anything, he refused to > answer, > was angry, showed contempt, etc. As I mentioned in the original posting > he only responded after the question was put repeatedly (perhaps 4-5 > times) and then made it clear (from his mimicry) that he not only disliked > being asked but that he felt the question to be ridiculous and impertinent > and that he was simply giving a answer under duress and it had little > relation to the actual time taken." > << > Commenting on the incident I wrote (and Herman may have missed): > "The infraction is not 'suspected' and 'intentional' does not enter into > it. The infraction is factual and as such may be penalized. It lies in the > disruption of the tempo of the auction created by the player's diversion > to an extraneous activity, and in the inconvenience caused to other > players at the table." > <<< > +=+ And apparently he missed it when I wrote: > "I am particularly put out by his behaviour when the 'Directors' (sic) > put questions to him. Without the aggravation I still view his basic > violation of law as an unacceptable abuse of opponents and would > still award a standard PP." > ============================================= > So perhaps if Herman notes that I took account of the player's > interruption of the auction at his turn for an extended diversion into > listing scores, and that associated with this inconvenience and > annoyance for others at the table there was his rudeness and > improper conduct towards the Directors, Herman will understand > that when he asks "do you really believe that copying scores, > when opponents do not complain, merits a PP of 25%?" he is > a ridiculously long way adrift of the discussion and is totally > misrepresenting the case. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 20 11:15:39 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:15:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48AB41AB.6030202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <005401c902a5$56f5f9b0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > > _If_ pass is deemed a LA, the EW score gets adjusted to the result of > the preempt passed out. NS get some adjustment but not a full one > because of their IWoG redouble. (All of us agree that the redouble was > IWoG.) <<< +=+ 'IWoG' is 1997 speak. It should now be 'USEWoG' - 'unrelated serious error, wild or gambling'. See 2007 Law 12C1(b). For brevity we could perhaps adopt 'UWoG'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 20 11:42:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:42:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> Message-ID: <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Are the system agreements I have with my partner AI or UI to me and my > partner? > AI > If they are UI neither I nor my partner is allowed to base our calls and > plays on these agreements so obviously our agreements are AI to both of us > indeed > But when they are AI then according to your logic above we are both allowed > to consult our written system notes during auction and play. Even more, as > all published literature on bridge obviously is AI to all players (being > more or less "general bridge knowledge") we should be allowed at any time to > look up any such literature. > NO. The "logic above" deals with information to which a player is "entitled". This is something else than information which is "authorized". Without wishing to start up another discussion here: you are entitled to the systemic agreements of your opponents, but you are only authorized to their extra information about doubts etc. John's and mine reasoning is that information to which someone is entitled need not be memorized, so "aids to memory" concerning those pieces of information are authorized. To make it clear: a player is at all times entitled to know the contract, so looking at ones score card to get that information must be allowed (as must be the habit some beginners have of putting the bidding card with the contract sideways in their bidding box. OTOH, the lead (and all cards played) may not be asked about after the first trick, one is not entitled to that information, althoug of course one is authorized to use it if one has remembered it. Therefore, looking at your scorecard in order to remember the lead is not allowed - that is an aid to memory. So Sven is wrong in his criticism. > Yes I am fully aware of L40B2(b), but technically this law applies > specifically only to our system card, not to our own system notes and > definitely not to bridge literature in general. > > L40C3(a) is the law on aids to memory. And as should be obvious from the > above, this law applies all the same whether the information concerned is AI > or UI, whether it is contained in my system notes, in the law book or in > generally known bridge publications. > > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 20 11:47:12 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:47:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AB41AB.6030202@nhcc.net> References: <48AB41AB.6030202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <48ABE820.7010403@skynet.be> Excellent post by Steve - I have nothing whatsoever to comment! Steve Willner wrote: [I'll snip it - read it for yourself if you haven't already] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 20 11:59:04 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:59:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be><000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no><000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> <8B9DD691-F7BC-4CC7-8D75-DF03C223D267@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002501c902ac$409cfb30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > But I do know that either a player is entitled to knowledge of the > laws, in which case he may ask a Director for the information and > expect to be given it, or he isn't, in which case he may not. It > can't matter which law we pick as our example for discussion. > +=+ A player is entitled to memorize (and thus know) the laws. He is not entitled to any aid to his memory during the auction and play periods. In my opinion Law 40C3(a) is comprehensively drawn and information fom the Director would be an aid to his memory. The key word is 'any' aid. (Technically that might be deemed to include looking at his score card to estimate his score, but I would wish to take advice on that common practice - Law 16A2 does not say anything to override 40C3(a), as far as I can see. Is it the principle, albeit difficuilt to manage, that players should not be looking up information anywhere?) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Aug 20 12:15:10 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:15:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> Message-ID: <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] L40C3(a) says that a player may freely use any AI that he remembers in his brain, but he may not use any "aids to his memory" (e.g. written or printed notes, publications of any kind, verbal reminders, calculating devices etc.) [Nige1] Common sense reinforces Sven's literal reading of the law. Examples: [A] You are legally entitled to any information that you can glean from opponent's mannerisms and tempo-breaks; but you will be lucky to get more than a wry smile if you ask for "a recap of the auction with all the original unauthorised information?" [B] In Jeff's case, North was obviously oblivious to the notoriously unfair "wild and gambling" law. Nevertheless, before committing himself to a redouble, he can't take his own five-minute "coffee break" to look up relevant law. Admittedly, he may call the director, if he suspects an infraction, but, IMO, that is different. [C] IMO Burn's example is a trifle unrealistic. Of course, if a person, who is struggling with a memory loss medical condition, or who is a rank beginner asks "do hearts rank above spades", players will rush to tell him. But if an experienced player does so, he should get short shrift from players and directors alike. From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 20 12:40:05 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:40:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Are the system agreements I have with my partner AI or UI to me and my > > partner? > > > > AI > > > If they are UI neither I nor my partner is allowed to base our calls and > > plays on these agreements so obviously our agreements are AI to both of us > > > > indeed > > > But when they are AI then according to your logic above we are both allowed > > to consult our written system notes during auction and play. Even more, as > > all published literature on bridge obviously is AI to all players (being > > more or less "general bridge knowledge") we should be allowed at any time to > > look up any such literature. > > > > NO. > > The "logic above" deals with information to which a player is > "entitled". This is something else than information which is "authorized". > Without wishing to start up another discussion here: you are entitled > to the systemic agreements of your opponents, but you are only > authorized to their extra information about doubts etc. > > John's and mine reasoning is that information to which someone is > entitled need not be memorized, so "aids to memory" concerning those > pieces of information are authorized. > > To make it clear: a player is at all times entitled to know the > contract, so looking at ones score card to get that information must > be allowed (as must be the habit some beginners have of putting the > bidding card with the contract sideways in their bidding box. > OTOH, the lead (and all cards played) may not be asked about after the > first trick, one is not entitled to that information, althoug of > course one is authorized to use it if one has remembered it. > Therefore, looking at your scorecard in order to remember the lead is > not allowed - that is an aid to memory. > > So Sven is wrong in his criticism. > > > Yes I am fully aware of L40B2(b), but technically this law applies > > specifically only to our system card, not to our own system notes and > > definitely not to bridge literature in general. > > > > L40C3(a) is the law on aids to memory. And as should be obvious from the > > above, this law applies all the same whether the information concerned is AI > > or UI, whether it is contained in my system notes, in the law book or in > > generally known bridge publications. > > > > Sven Just for fun I did a search in the 2007 laws for the word "entitled" and the result was interesting. It is clear from that search that a player is NOT generally "entitled" to information contained in the law book and NOT entitled to results from already completed boards other than what he remembers without inspecting the actual text or records. The laws specify precisely and in detail the information a player is entitled to receive during auction and play in such a way that L40C3(a) must be considered applicable to all information not included in these specifications. I don't expect any agreement from you, and frankly I consider this discussion highly hypothetical. But I can indeed imagine situations where the point becomes critical. And I have made my point. Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 20 15:47:40 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:47:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no><48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> Message-ID: <000f01c902cb$6c939e00$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > Just for fun I did a search in the 2007 laws for the word "entitled" and > the > result was interesting. > +=+ It does not sound a likely word to find. I would expect the 'may do' formula to be employed. ~ G ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Wed Aug 20 16:29:29 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:29:29 EDT Subject: [blml] something new Message-ID: In a message dated 20/08/2008 11:04:32 GMT Standard Time, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: A player is entitled to memorize (and thus know) the laws. He is not entitled to any aid to his memory during the auction and play periods. [paul lamford] So, if a player calls the director and states that there has been an insufficient bid of 1H - (1NT) he will be read the relevant section of the Law to show that he is mistaken. Is he now obliged to maintain his view that no-trumps ranks below hearts for the duration of the auction as he has received an aid to his memory? I think not. When I recently had an auction 1NT - (3C) - 2NT* (**** - I didn't mean to do that - Director please), I could not remember what the new Laws said about that, but the director told me, aiding my memory of the Law. While I agree that a player is entitled to memorize the laws and know them, it does not follow that he needs to do so and it does not follow that he will NOT be advised what they are when the need arises. But if you are saying that he cannot be proactive in obtaining this information, then I can find nothing in the Laws which supports this view. One of my novice level students, who attended my class every year for several years, liked the bidding boxes as they helped him remember the order of bids, with 1C clearly lower than 1D which is clearly lower than 1H etc. Are you suggesting that the bidding box should be arranged randomly, as its current arrangement provides an aid to the player's memory of the order of bids? I think not. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 20 19:02:07 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:02:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> Message-ID: <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Just for fun I did a search in the 2007 laws for the word "entitled" and the > result was interesting. > > It is clear from that search that a player is NOT generally "entitled" to > information contained in the law book and NOT entitled to results from > already completed boards other than what he remembers without inspecting the > actual text or records. > > The laws specify precisely and in detail the information a player is > entitled to receive during auction and play in such a way that L40C3(a) must > be considered applicable to all information not included in these > specifications. > > I don't expect any agreement from you, and frankly I consider this > discussion highly hypothetical. But I can indeed imagine situations where > the point becomes critical. > Indeed we disagree - but at least you have dropped the argument that aids of memory cannot be allowed for all authorized information. Now we can go on. > And I have made my point. > Well, you have merely stated that you do not believe that aids of mamory are allowed for entitled information. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 20 19:09:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:09:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Sven Pran] > L40C3(a) says that a player may freely use any AI that he remembers in > his brain, but he may not use any "aids to his memory" (e.g. written or > printed notes, publications of any kind, verbal reminders, calculating > devices etc.) > > [Nige1] > Common sense reinforces Sven's literal reading of the law. Examples: > A very strange argument - you add nothing and say that common sense tells us Sven is right. But OK, you do add some thing: > [A] You are legally entitled to any information that you can glean from > opponent's mannerisms and tempo-breaks; but you will be lucky to get > more than a wry smile if you ask for "a recap of the auction with all > the original unauthorised information?" > Let's not use the word entitled here. You are legally authorized to use the information. I started using the word entitled for information that a player should always receive, when he asks for it. What you are stating above can be summarized as "opponents' mannerisms are AI, but not EI". (Entitled Information, and I know that is a grammatically incorrect constuction, but you know what I mean, I hope). > [B] In Jeff's case, North was obviously oblivious to the notoriously > unfair "wild and gambling" law. Nevertheless, before committing himself > to a redouble, he can't take his own five-minute "coffee break" to look > up relevant law. Admittedly, he may call the director, if he suspects an > infraction, but, IMO, that is different. > How is that different? If one is entitled to have the director explain the laws, why should one not be allowed to look them up for oneself? > [C] IMO Burn's example is a trifle unrealistic. Of course, if a person, > who is struggling with a memory loss medical condition, or who is a rank > beginner asks "do hearts rank above spades", players will rush to tell > him. But if an experienced player does so, he should get short shrift > from players and directors alike. > Unrealistic examples are of course unrealistic. But if the beginner is entitled to have the law explained to him, why not the more experienced player? By drawing the analogy, David shows that the game cannot function if players are not allowed to look up the laws when there is something they don't remember. It is highly unlikely that a player may need to know a piece of law that he hasn't used so many times he cannot fail to remember it - but when it does happen, we should have settled this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 20 19:14:23 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:14:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <002501c902ac$409cfb30$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48AB0199.8070906@skynet.be><000501c9022e$68f026d0$3ad07470$@no><000001c90233$2aab0b10$80012130$@com> <8B9DD691-F7BC-4CC7-8D75-DF03C223D267@starpower.net> <002501c902ac$409cfb30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48AC50EF.2080500@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A good garden may have some weeds." > - Thomas Fuller > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:32 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] something new >> But I do know that either a player is entitled to knowledge of the >> laws, in which case he may ask a Director for the information and >> expect to be given it, or he isn't, in which case he may not. It >> can't matter which law we pick as our example for discussion. >> > +=+ A player is entitled to memorize (and thus know) the laws. He > is not entitled to any aid to his memory during the auction and play > periods. In my opinion Law 40C3(a) is comprehensively drawn and > information fom the Director would be an aid to his memory. The > key word is 'any' aid. (Technically that might be deemed to include > looking at his score card to estimate his score, but I would wish to > take advice on that common practice - Law 16A2 does not say > anything to override 40C3(a), as far as I can see. Is it the principle, > albeit difficuilt to manage, that players should not be looking up > information anywhere?) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Are we then not outlawing several aids of memory that are so common that we don't see them as such. Just to mention: - the indication of dealer and vulnerability on the board (these are mentioned in the laws, no need to put them on the board, the number should suffice) - opponents' SC (and if you say that this is explicitely mentioned in the laws, you merely strengthen my point on the others) - the previous bidding by the bidding cards (could be taken away or covered) - the cards in dummy - once shown you could memorize them - in fact, your own cards - let's start playing blind bridge I know these ideas are silly, but they show that Grattan's notion of "anything that is not mentioned is an aid of memory" is not correct. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Wed Aug 20 19:29:33 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:29:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no><003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> Message-ID: <003d01c902ea$4fcfefc0$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > ............. >> > A player needs to know how many undertricks he can suffer and still >> > gain on a sacrifice bid against opponents' contract. >> > >> > If he remembers that 6 hearts just made red is 1430 while 6 undertricks >> > doubled white is "only" 1400 then fine, but it is illegal for him >> > during >> > auction and play to consult for instance the rear side of most bid >> > cards >> > where this information can be found. >> >> Agreed, but he IS entitled to the base data to allow him to compute it as >> long as he does this mentally. > > What makes "base data" different from any other information (AI or UI) > when > it comes to "aid to memory"? > And BTW. What is "base data"? The base data is that which is contained within the laws. We agree that aids to calculation are not permitted. > >> > Strictly speaking I think that it is illegal for him even to look up >> > his > own >> > notes (e.g. score sheet) on how they have been doing so far during the >> > round, for instance in order to decide whether their position suggests >> > safe play or gambling on the last boards. >> > >> I think "state of the match" is authorised 16A2 > > But 16A2 does not authorize the use of any "aids to his memory". I might be able to agree that your estimates of scores from previous boards are not permittrd, though 16 seems to say they are part of "state of the match". John > > It is perfectly OK for a player to base his tactics on what he remembers > from the already played boards but not to look up his written notes from > those boards. > > L40C3(a) says that a player may freely use any AI that he remembers in his > brain, but he may not use any "aids to his memory" (e.g. written or > printed > notes, publications of any kind, verbal reminders, calculating devices > etc.) > > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Aug 20 20:13:47 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:13:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > Well, you have merely stated that you do not believe that aids of > mamory are allowed for entitled information. Every place I found a player "entitled" to some information it was information he is entitled to receive from opponents, not information he is supposed to be able to give. So associating being entitled to information with a right to use aids to memory is meaningless; the player who is entitled to some information is not supposed to provide himself with that information, he is entitled to receive it. And only in one single situation did I find that a player is allowed, or actually even suggested, to look up his own "aids to memory", namely when securing that he during the clarification period as presumed declarer or dummy can give correct information to opponents. In all other situations the player is allowed to use the information he remembers and the information he is explicitly entitled to receive (on request), but he is not allowed to look up or consult anything that has the effect of being an aid to his memory. So yes, I consider Law 40C3(a) to forbid players consulting the laws (they should in case call the Director for that purpose) or to consult any kind of notes or publications (and so on) except when such consultation is explicitly permitted in the laws. And by the way, I don't think the word "entitled" has any meaning as an adjective to the noun "information". Where the laws use the word "entitled" they dictate what a player is "entitled to do or have" or "not entitled to do or have". Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 20 21:42:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:42:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> Message-ID: <48AC7392.6040102@skynet.be> Hello Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. >> Well, you have merely stated that you do not believe that aids of >> mamory are allowed for entitled information. > > Every place I found a player "entitled" to some information it was > information he is entitled to receive from opponents, not information he is > supposed to be able to give. First of all, then you didn't look to good. There is at least one piece of information that a player is entitled to that he should normally be able to remember for himself - the contract. Of course he is usually asking this contract from his opponents, but his partner is also allowed to answer the question. > So associating being entitled to information > with a right to use aids to memory is meaningless; the player who is > entitled to some information is not supposed to provide himself with that > information, he is entitled to receive it. > Since you are merely stating that which we are trying to establish, this does not bring anything to the discussion - you are turning in circles, in other words. You say a player is only entitled to things he can ask opponents, so he needn't use aids of memory. We are not trying to establish whether he needs them, but whether he can use them. Is it legal, for example, to put the bidding card with the contract sideways in the bidding-box? After all, this is a memory aid, but a memory aid to a thing he is entitled to ask > And only in one single situation did I find that a player is allowed, or > actually even suggested, to look up his own "aids to memory", namely when > securing that he during the clarification period as presumed declarer or > dummy can give correct information to opponents. > The fact that in one place something is made legal does not make lesser things illegal in other places. Since this is actually a real memory-aid, made illegal somewhere else in the lawbook, there needs to be a special law covering this in order to authorize it. Since my contention is that memory aids for entitled informations are not banned by law in the first place, your argument does nothing to contradict this. > In all other situations the player is allowed to use the information he > remembers and the information he is explicitly entitled to receive (on > request), but he is not allowed to look up or consult anything that has the > effect of being an aid to his memory. > You are merely stating again what you are trying to prove - I have already stated I don't agree - so repeating it is no argument. > So yes, I consider Law 40C3(a) to forbid players consulting the laws (they > should in case call the Director for that purpose) or to consult any kind of > notes or publications (and so on) except when such consultation is > explicitly permitted in the laws. > Considering that you group in one sentence two differend kinds of actions, one of which I agree is forbidden, this sentence again brings nothing to the discussion. > And by the way, I don't think the word "entitled" has any meaning as an > adjective to the noun "information". Where the laws use the word "entitled" > they dictate what a player is "entitled to do or have" or "not entitled to > do or have". > I stated that the grammar of my use of EI is not correct. If you can give a short alternative in the English language, I will be glad to adopt it. Considering that we both know what is meant, I don't see the grammatical inaccuracy as a major obstacle. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Aug 20 21:50:40 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:50:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] A very strange argument - you add nothing and say that common sense tells us Sven is right. But OK, you do add some thing: [Nigel] Arguing with Herman is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling :) Sven cited legal chapter and verse. I gave some examples where I felt that common sense would forbid a player from consulting aides-memoire. Please will Herman or Maddog quote a law that over-rides the law cited by Sven? In the case of law-book information, if no player has committed a possible infraction to which attention has been drawn then - - how can you justify insisting that the director be at your beck and call? - let alone expect the director to comply with your command to explain laws that may be relevant to a particular context? I suppose that some directors would accede to such a request -- as a kindness to a player -- not because the player has any entitlement to that information. A director could try to defend his action as "trying to prevent an irregularity". Although that seems a weak argument because he would be aiding and abetting one irregularity to prevent another. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Aug 20 23:14:09 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:14:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no><48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> Message-ID: <001101c90309$b22ef2a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new <<< Every place I found a player "entitled" to some information it was information he is entitled to receive from opponents, not information he is supposed to be able to give. So associating being entitled to information with a right to use aids to memory is meaningless; the player who is entitled to some information is not supposed to provide himself with that information, he is entitled to receive it. > +=+ It may be worthy of mention that no 'memory, calculation or technique' is involved in the observation of what the players can see - information inscribed on the board, cards faced, bidding cards laid on the board. So the player does not need any aid to memory etc. in order to know these things. Law 40C3(a) has no relevance to such matters. (Playing cards faced and turned face down are not observable and the player is not permitted any aid to memory to recall what cards have been played.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Aug 20 23:14:43 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:14:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > A very strange argument - you add nothing and say that common sense > tells us Sven is right. But OK, you do add some thing: > > [Nigel] > Arguing with Herman is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling :) > Yes indeed - you try to do something that doesn't jel! :) > Sven cited legal chapter and verse. I gave some examples where I felt > that common sense would forbid a player from consulting aides-memoire. > How can you use common sense when two people have already stated completely opposite ponts of view? The question is: can a player consult the IMP table which is placed in L78? This is a very serious question, but it has never been asked - how then do you believe common sense will help? > Please will Herman or Maddog quote a law that over-rides the law cited > by Sven? > OK, which law was cited by Sven? L40C3? Why do we need a law that overrides it when we are saying that it need not apply? L40C3 deals with aids to memory. You can only need an "aid" to memory if something must be in memory for you to be able to use it. John and I argue that a player is entitled at all times to this knowledge, therefore it need not be in his memory, therefore a piece of paper that shows this knowledge is not an aid of memory. Take the example of the contract. A player is at all times entitled to ask for the contract, and to get the correct answer. That MUST (by common sense) mean that it cannot be an infraction to use some other method of finding out what the contract is. Including looking at your own (or someone else's) scorecard. OTOH, a player is not entitled to ask for the cards being played, including the lead. Therefore, the mention of the lead on that same scorecard constitutes an aid to memory. > In the case of law-book information, if no player has committed a > possible infraction to which attention has been drawn then - > - how can you justify insisting that the director be at your beck and call? Who says he need be? And who says he shouldn't be? If a player asks me to bring an order form to the bar, then I will comply - if I have nothing else to do. I am there to serve. And if a player wants me to explain something from the lawbook, then I'll certainly comply. How can you justify that something is not a player's right by stating that it would inconvenience the very person who is there to see that the player's rights are met? > - let alone expect the director to comply with your command to explain > laws that may be relevant to a particular context? > Of course he must do that? What strange notions of bridge directing you have! > I suppose that some directors would accede to such a request -- as a > kindness to a player -- not because the player has any entitlement to > that information. A director could try to defend his action as "trying > to prevent an irregularity". Although that seems a weak argument because > he would be aiding and abetting one irregularity to prevent another. > Circular reasoning again. Two paragraphs higher you state that a player has no right to this information because it would inconvenience the director. One paragraph higher you state that most directors would not do such a thing. From that you conclude that the player has no right to the information. If I start with the right to the information, and conclude that the director must tell it, and then deduce from that that the information must be the player's right, you'd rightly jump down my throat. No, no, this question is not settled. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 21 00:26:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:26:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AC7392.6040102@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> <48AC7392.6040102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c90313$d11dc1a0$735944e0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .............. > >> Well, you have merely stated that you do not believe that aids of > >> mamory are allowed for entitled information. > > > > Every place I found a player "entitled" to some information it was > > information he is entitled to receive from opponents, not information he is > > supposed to be able to give. > > First of all, then you didn't look to good. There is at least one > piece of information that a player is entitled to that he should > normally be able to remember for himself - the contract. The actual law text is: "... entitled to be informed ..." > Of course he is usually asking this contract from his opponents, but > his partner is also allowed to answer the question. True, I should have omitted the words "from opponents" like I did a little later in my post (I forgot it at this place), but this detail doesn't change the reality of my post at all. > > > So associating being entitled to information > > with a right to use aids to memory is meaningless; the player who is > > entitled to some information is not supposed to provide himself with that > > information, he is entitled to receive it. > > > > Since you are merely stating that which we are trying to establish, > this does not bring anything to the discussion - you are turning in > circles, in other words. > You say a player is only entitled to things he can ask opponents, so > he needn't use aids of memory. We are not trying to establish whether > he needs them, but whether he can use them. > Is it legal, for example, to put the bidding card with the contract > sideways in the bidding-box? After all, this is a memory aid, but a > memory aid to a thing he is entitled to ask Of course it is legal if the relevant regulation says so. The use of bid boxes is a matter of regulation, not of law, and when regulations specify that bid cards shall remain on the table in a particular fashion that is simply an implementation of Law 20B. Similarly if the regulation specify or allows) the bid card representing the contract be left in a particular state during the play that is an implementation of Law 41C. > > > And only in one single situation did I find that a player is allowed, or > > actually even suggested, to look up his own "aids to memory", namely when > > securing that he during the clarification period as presumed declarer or > > dummy can give correct information to opponents. > > > > The fact that in one place something is made legal does not make > lesser things illegal in other places. Since this is actually a real > memory-aid, made illegal somewhere else in the lawbook, there needs to > be a special law covering this in order to authorize it. Since my > contention is that memory aids for entitled informations are not > banned by law in the first place, your argument does nothing to > contradict this. Exactly what do you mean by the term "entitled information", preferably with reference to the applicable law? > > > In all other situations the player is allowed to use the information he > > remembers and the information he is explicitly entitled to receive (on > > request), but he is not allowed to look up or consult anything that has the > > effect of being an aid to his memory. > > > > You are merely stating again what you are trying to prove - I have > already stated I don't agree - so repeating it is no argument. > > > So yes, I consider Law 40C3(a) to forbid players consulting the laws (they > > should in case call the Director for that purpose) or to consult any kind of > > notes or publications (and so on) except when such consultation is > > explicitly permitted in the laws. > > > > Considering that you group in one sentence two differend kinds of > actions, one of which I agree is forbidden, this sentence again brings > nothing to the discussion. > > > And by the way, I don't think the word "entitled" has any meaning as an > > adjective to the noun "information". Where the laws use the word "entitled" > > they dictate what a player is "entitled to do or have" or "not entitled to > > do or have". > > > > I stated that the grammar of my use of EI is not correct. If you can > give a short alternative in the English language, I will be glad to > adopt it. Considering that we both know what is meant, I don't see the > grammatical inaccuracy as a major obstacle. No, I don't know what you mean by "entitled information". A player is entitled to receive certain information at various times during auction and play, but the information he is entitled to receive is not synonymous with, or corresponding to the information that is authorized for him. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 21 00:47:52 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:47:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > And if a player wants me to explain something from the lawbook, then > I'll certainly comply. > How can you justify that something is not a player's right by stating > that it would inconvenience the very person who is there to see that > the player's rights are met? > > > - let alone expect the director to comply with your command to explain > > laws that may be relevant to a particular context? > > > > Of course he must do that? What strange notions of bridge directing > you have! Let us assume that you have been called to a table in the middle of an auction or play, not because of some (possible) irregularity but simply because a player wants to ask you a question on something in the laws. You very kindly answer that question only to be informed by the opponents after the play has been completed that the question and your reply turned out to have a direct impact on the result obtained on the board, and that they feel damaged. Your information to the player reminded him of something he had forgotten and now could use to his own advantage. Consequently the opponents request you to make a ruling. How will you rule? Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 21 00:58:19 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:58:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] something a bit more... shiny [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48AA8AF9.1000905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >>North-South initially thought about appealing the TD's >>decision, but decided that that would be unwise when >>their expert colleagues suggested that they might lose >>their 3 vp deposit for launching a meritless appeal. Alain Gottcheiner asked: >3VP deposit ? Is that legal ? > >Anyway, I'm emphatically on the TD's side. Law 92A: ".....Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation." Law 93C1: ".....Any such further appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation." 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 Thu Aug 21 02:07:30 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:07:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> [NG] Please will Herman or Maddog quote a law that over-rides the law cited by Sven? [DALB] I have already cited a candidate: A player may use information in the auction or play if ... it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations. The question appears to me to have come down to whether a player may use such information - for example, that six down doubled and non-vulnerable scores 1400 - only if he remembers it from previous experience or calculates it for himself; or whether he may request it and necessarily have his request answered. As Eric Landau has said, if a player may ask whether spades outrank hearts and have that request answered, he may also ask what six down doubled non-vulnerable scores and have that request answered (in which case, of course, he may as well look it up on the back of a card in the bidding box rather than troubling the Director). The timing of such a request may convey UI to partner, but we are not concerned with that. Nor was Giorgio Duboin when, in the Istanbul Olympiad, he consulted his personal score card (which was face up in front of him) for some while before deliberately taking an anti-percentage line of play because he considered (wrongly, as it happened) that he needed a swing. His opponents saw nothing untoward about this, and neither did anyone else. Do you? The issue is whether even behind screens, a player is allowed to look at his own score card (or the IMP table, or a copy of the Laws, or the arrangement of a bidding box, or the conditions of contest for the current event) in order to gather the information that the Laws say he may use. It is, as the Istanbul incident indicates, a question that may have some practical application. My own view is that a player should not be forced to commit the Laws and regulations to memory; he may at any time be granted any request for information about any matter contained within the Laws and regulations, or any information that may arise therefrom ("do we win the board in the Reisinger if we get 430 and they get 420?", for example). Moreover, if the official score card (or a player's personal score card) has been compiled in accordance with the procedures arising from the Laws, a player may at any time consult that document and use the information contained therein. To regulate otherwise would be absurd - imagine telling Duboin that "after you've written a score on your personal score card, you must turn that score card face down and not look at it until you have to turn it face up again to inscribe the next score". A propos, in my first international match I called the Director in order to enquire whether I was entitled to know which of the opposing team's players occupied my seat at the other table. How would you have ruled? David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 21 03:23:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:23:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Siege Perilous [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> Message-ID: David Burn asked: [snip] >A propos, in my first international match I called the Director >in order to enquire whether I was entitled to know which of the >opposing team's players occupied my seat at the other table. How >would you have ruled? Law 5A: "The Director assigns an initial position to each contestant (individual, pair or team) at the start of a session. Unless otherwise directed, the members of each pair or team may select seats among those assigned to them by mutual agreement. Having once selected a compass direction, a player may change it within a session only upon instruction or with permission of the Director." Richard Hills: In Australian national finals, there is an "unless otherwise directed" regulation, which requires non-playing captains to list the exact compass direction of each of their four players. If such a regulation existed in David's first international match, as TD I would explain that it is not my fault that David did not ask the pertinent question beforehand of his NPC. If, however, laxer regulations applied, then as TD I would check the seating at the other table. {Wander over to the closed room.....} Thus explain to David that Jeremy Flint was occupying his seat at the other table, and then thank David for him preventing the match from being fouled. :-) 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 Aug 21 03:31:08 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:31:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> Message-ID: <48ACC55C.20204@NTLworld.com> [David Burn] I have already cited a candidate: A player may use information in the auction or play if ... it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations. The question appears to me to have come down to whether a player may use such information - for example, that six down doubled and non-vulnerable scores 1400 - only if he remembers it from previous experience or calculates it for himself; or whether he may request it and necessarily have his request answered. As Eric Landau has said, if a player may ask whether spades outrank hearts and have that request answered, he may also ask what six down doubled non-vulnerable scores and have that request answered (in which case, of course, he may as well look it up on the back of a card in the bidding box rather than troubling the Director). [Nigel] I take your point that it might be inconvenient if, for example, you forgot whether the auction came before or after the play. I think the law-book is like your system-notes. You are entitled to use the information that you remember; and you may consult such documents to refresh your memory, except during the bidding or play. [David] The timing of such a request may convey UI to partner, but we are not concerned with that. Nor was Giorgio Duboin when, in the Istanbul Olympiad, he consulted his personal score card (which was face up in front of him) for some while before deliberately taking an anti-percentage line of play because he considered (wrongly, as it happened) that he needed a swing. His opponents saw nothing untoward about this, and neither did anyone else. Do you? [Nige1] If you are allowed to look at your score-card during the play then OK. but if it's against the law, then he should have been penalised. I don't know the laws well enough to defend them -- I disapprove of some of the smattering of laws that I do know - and I think most could be much simpler and clearer. But I quite like the idea of a law that limits what aides-memoire that you are allowed. I guess that there is nothing to stop you consulting your score-card, system-notes, law-book, or whatever *between boards*. [David] The issue is whether even behind screens, a player is allowed to look at his own score card (or the IMP table, or a copy of the Laws, or the arrangement of a bidding box, or the conditions of contest for the current event) in order to gather the information that the Laws say he may use. It is, as the Istanbul incident indicates, a question that may have some practical application. My own view is that a player should not be forced to commit the Laws and regulations to memory; he may at any time be granted any request for information about any matter contained within the Laws and regulations, or any information that may arise therefrom ("do we win the board in the Reisinger if we get 430 and they get 420?", for example). [Nige1] I'm never likely to play in the Reisinger but I guess that a difference of 10 is enough to win the board. [David] Moreover, if the official score card (or a player's personal score card) has been compiled in accordance with the procedures arising from the Laws, a player may at any time consult that document and use the information contained therein. To regulate otherwise would be absurd - imagine telling Duboin that "after you've written a score on your personal score card, you must turn that score card face down and not look at it until you have to turn it face up again to inscribe the next score". [Nigel] I think the law may imply that after you've entered a score, you should close your score-card and refrain from consulting it. [David] A propos, in my first international match I called the Director in order to enquire whether I was entitled to know which of the opposing team's players occupied my seat at the other table. How would you have ruled? [Nige1] I guess that you are entitled to this and other information, except during the bidding or play of a deal. Here is a question for you David: Suppose partner makes a conventional bid, for instance he opens 2D Multi, but I can't remember how we play it. I do recall, however, that we follow a basic example from the Orange book. Would you, as director, allow me to refresh my memory from the Orange book? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 21 04:10:01 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:10:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be><48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> Message-ID: <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new As Eric Landau has said, if a player may ask whether spades outrank hearts and have that request answered, he may also ask what six down doubled non-vulnerable scores and have that request answered (in which case, of course, he may as well look it up on the back of a card in the bidding box rather than troubling the Director). > The timing of such a request may convey UI to partner, but we are not concerned with that. Nor was Giorgio Duboin when, in the Istanbul Olympiad, he consulted his personal score card (which was face up in front of him) for some while before deliberately taking an anti-percentage line of play because he considered (wrongly, as it happened) that he needed a swing. His opponents saw nothing untoward about this, and neither did anyone else. Do you? > +=+ It is something no-one seems to have given thought to. However, I am persuaded that without some nihil obstat from on High the laws as written do forbid it. Probably the scorecard should be put to one side, and not consulted, from the beginning of the auction period until the end of the play. As for the Director giving information to a player, the laws define correct procedure and they tell the Director the circumstances in which he should do so - example Law 10C1. Without such specification it is not correct procedure and I would say indeed that the Director is involving himself improperly in the play. He is giving aid to memory, calculation or technique. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 21 04:31:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:31:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 74B1 (was Twelfth Man) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004f01c8fd12$26e85c60$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >>I'll ask again my question on L74B1, and for the third >>time on BLML, probably still with no takers. *Sufficient* >>*for* *what?* Sufficient by itself makes for an incomplete >>sentence. [snip] >>Are all irregularities double irregularities when L74B1 is >>considered? Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Fowler discusses butter and addresses the question "Is >there enough butter?". The judgement as to what is enough >is made in the mind of the person addressed. In bridge what >degree of attention is sufficient is determined under Law >81C2. > Responding to Richard Hills, in 1987 it was decided that >the statement of the law was enough* without an example of >its application attached. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >[* or, indeed, sufficient :-)] The 1975 Propriety corresponding to the 2007 Law 74B1: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: paying insufficient attention to the game (as when a player obviously takes no interest in his hand, or frequently requests a review of the auction)." Richard Hills: In my opinion the 1975 rule was targeted at players transmitting UI to the effect of, "Hey pard, I hold a yarborough!", not at players who unintentionally revoked. The point is moot in the 2007 Law 74B1. 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 21 04:32:48 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:32:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be><48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> Message-ID: <002301c90336$c5097b20$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > My own view is that a player should not be forced to commit the Laws and regulations to memory; he may at any time be granted any request for information about any matter contained within the Laws and regulations, or any information that may arise therefrom < +=+ I doubt whether that is accurate. I doubt it because I think the laws identify and restrict what the players are entitled to hear about the laws from the Director, specifically that the Director has a duty to "advise the players of their rights and responsibilities" under the laws. (Law 81C1). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 21 06:07:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:07:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who Cares Wins? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0808191107i74545fa1t6382647fb02b4780@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: David Burn: >>>Callaghan and I played that if declarer led from the wrong >>>hand, whichever defender was to the left of the lead would >>>always pause, whatever his holding, in order to give partner >>>time to object. Should this have been on our convention card? Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Ah well, Stefanie, now that you have stated as much >>publicly the understanding exists even if it did not do so >>before, implicitly. Opponents are entitled to know about >>it so that they are not misled by it in the play. It requires >>disclosure. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Jerry Fusselman: >Funny, I thought every intelligent player waited to give >partner a chance. I consider it stupid not to. (Anyone >willing to admit they would never do it?) Richard Hills: Me, because I am a psaphonic eisegetical fustilarian. (I was saving up this insult for Herman De Wael, but it is a much more apposite insult for myself instead.) Jerry Fusselman: >I could argue that the laws require you to do it to really do >your best---I am sure Richard can remember the law number for >this argument. Richard Hills: Yes, it is an "attempt to obtain a higher score" as per Law 72A. But 72A also requires "whilst complying with the lawful procedures". Law 10C2: "If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner." Richard Hills: In my opinion the Burn / Callaghan mutual understanding to automatically pause when Burn or Callaghan is LHO of a Law 55 illegal card is a "consulting" infraction ("Pard, what do you think?"), and therefore an illegal convention. So if the declaring side was damaged by the Burn / Callaghan illegal convention, as TD I would apply Law 40B5: "When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty." 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 Aug 21 06:49:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:49:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BFwd=3A_something_new=B2=5D____=5BSEC=3DU?= =?iso-8859-1?q?NOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <48AA7146.7010202@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson asserted: [big snip] >I referred to Grattan and Kojak in the original posting because >I consider them to be absolute authorities on the laws and the >interpretation thereof. [big snip] WBF Laws Committee minutes, 20th January 2000, item 4: "The Secretary undertook to seek publication of a disclaimer on the WBF web to the effect that no opinion, unless the recorded corporate decision of the committee, should be considered to have the authority of a committee decision. Directors seeking guidance should refer to their respective NCBOs. "It was agreed that when subjects arise the committee could have its own internal exchange of opinions via the internet." 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 Thu Aug 21 07:33:33 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:33:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> Grattan: >+=+ It is something no-one seems to have given thought to. However, >I am persuaded that without some nihil obstat from on High the laws >as written do forbid it. Probably the scorecard should be put to one >side, and not consulted, from the beginning of the auction period until >the end of the play. > As for the Director giving information to a player, the laws define >correct procedure and they tell the Director the circumstances in which >he should do so - example Law 10C1. Without such specification it is >not correct procedure and I would say indeed that the Director is >involving himself improperly in the play. He is giving aid to memory, >calculation or technique. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ "Director, I am considering making an insufficient bid because I have a subsequent bid which will allow me to define my hand with more precision. Would you mind verifying that you will allow the change of call under L27?" Thank you Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 21 08:12:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:12:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >In the auction 1X - (1Y) - 1S, most pairs play that 1S is >*unlimited* and forcing, so the rabbit was unaware of this, >or she would surely have bid. 14 out of 29 MSC panellists deliberately chose to Pass partner's *unlimited* and forcing call in the problem below. The Bridge World, Master Solvers' Club June 1994, Problem C: Rubber bridge Dlr: South Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1S Double 2S 3H Pass 4D (1) Pass ? (1) *Unlimited* and forcing You, South, hold: AQ62 J742 6 T853 June 1994 MSC panellist Zia Mahmood: >Pass. Rubber bridge has its own laws. The trick is handling >the table and the varying abilities - there are _never_ four >good players in the game, so I feel the conditions [of the MSC] >are wrong. Where I play, if my partner bid four diamonds (I >play that forcing), I would bid three notrump - nobody would >notice this is insufficient. June 1994 MSC panellist Bart Bramley: >Five clubs. Four notrump is Blackwood at rubber bridge. I'm >not sure what it is elsewhere, except as an experiment in >terror. No thanks! Five diamonds is possible, but I might as >well try five clubs on the way, in case partner has four. June 1994 MSC panellist Sami Kehela: >Four notrump. Natural, but if I could not manage it in tempo I >would pass. 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 Aug 21 08:59:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:59:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Namyats [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan: [snip] Suppose he opens four clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you hold S Axx H KQJxx D JTxxx C void. It is obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the agreement, so you intend to pass him right there. First though, your right-hand opponent asks about the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be "Strong four hearts opening with a very good heart suit". That is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your partnership agreement, not your partner's hand. That legal obligation remains the same when, behind screens, you must explain your own action. I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you. Sincerely, Edgar Kaplan. Oct. 8th 1989. 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 Thu Aug 21 09:46:24 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:46:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > Grattan: > > >+=+ It is something no-one seems to have given thought to. However, > >I am persuaded that without some nihil obstat from on High the laws > >as written do forbid it. Probably the scorecard should be put to one > >side, and not consulted, from the beginning of the auction period until > >the end of the play. > > As for the Director giving information to a player, the laws define > >correct procedure and they tell the Director the circumstances in which > >he should do so - example Law 10C1. Without such specification it is > >not correct procedure and I would say indeed that the Director is > >involving himself improperly in the play. He is giving aid to memory, > >calculation or technique. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > "Director, I am considering making an insufficient bid because I have a > subsequent bid which will allow me to define my hand with more precision. > Would you mind verifying that you will allow the change of call under > L27?" I shall first read him Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." And then tell him: "I may or may not allow the change of call under L27, but in either case I shall give you a PP equal to 50% of a top score on a board. If you still try this stunt I shall in addition give you what I consider an appropriate DP." Regards Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Aug 21 11:10:14 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:10:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> Message-ID: <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> [SP] > "Director, I am considering making an insufficient bid because I have a > subsequent bid which will allow me to define my hand with more precision. > Would you mind verifying that you will allow the change of call under > L27?" I shall first read him Law 72B1: [DALB] No, no. What you must do is tell him that he ought to have remembered Law 72B1. You see, a Director is not allowed actually to tell the players what is contained in the Laws, because that would constitute an aid to their memory, calculation, or technique. David Burn London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Aug 21 11:37:57 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:37:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> Message-ID: <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> [SP] "Director, I am considering making an insufficient bid because I have a subsequent bid which will allow me to define my hand with more precision. Would you mind verifying that you will allow the change of call under L27?" I shall first read him Law 72B1: [DALB] No, no. What you must do is tell him that he ought to have remembered Law 72B1. You see, a Director is not allowed actually to tell the players what is contained in the Laws, because that would constitute an aid to their memory, calculation, or technique. [Nigel] To what information is a player entitled? And when? And, importantly, whence are his legitimate information sources (memory, score card, law-book, director, system notes)? IMO it doesn't matter much where and how the line is drawn, provided the law on the matter is simple and clear. FWIW, my reading of the law is that, during the bidding and play until an irregularity occurs, your information sources are severely limited and don't include score-cards, directors, law-books, or system notes. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 21 12:07:40 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:07:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au><000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> Message-ID: <004301c90375$c31c7990$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > [SP] > >> "Director, I am considering making an insufficient bid because I have a >> subsequent bid which will allow me to define my hand with more precision. >> Would you mind verifying that you will allow the change of call under >> L27?" > > I shall first read him Law 72B1: > > [DALB] > > No, no. What you must do is tell him that he ought to have remembered Law > 72B1. You see, a Director is not allowed actually to tell the players what > is contained in the Laws, because that would constitute an aid to their > memory, calculation, or technique. > +=+ I disagree. The Director must explain to the player his rights and responsibilities under the law. The laws define correct procedure and in my opinion they identify and restrict what the players should expect to hear about the laws from the Director, specifically it is the Director's duty to "advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder". See Law 81C1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 21 12:14:05 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:14:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Rights and responsibilities. Message-ID: <004a01c90376$a6405cf0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> On Behalf Of Guthrie > Sent: 21. august 2008 11:38 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > [SP] > "Director, I am considering making an insufficient bid because I have a > subsequent bid which will allow me to define my hand with more > precision. Would you mind verifying that you will allow the change of > call under L27?" > > I shall first read him Law 72B1: > > [DALB] > No, no. What you must do is tell him that he ought to have remembered > Law 72B1. You see, a Director is not allowed actually to tell the > players what is contained in the Laws, because that would constitute an > aid to their memory, calculation, or technique. > > > [Nigel] > To what information is a player entitled? And when? And, importantly, > whence are his legitimate information sources (memory, score card, > law-book, director, system notes)? > > IMO it doesn't matter much where and how the line is drawn, provided the > law on the matter is simple and clear. > > FWIW, my reading of the law is that, during the bidding and play until > an irregularity occurs, your information sources are severely limited > and don't include score-cards, directors, law-books, or system notes. Exactly, and at the moment a player announces his possible intention of violating L72B1 (this is itself an irregularity!) it is the director's duty to warn him of the consequences. The relevant laws here (in addition to 72B1) are 81, 82 and 90 Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 21 12:29:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:29:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48AD4381.7060301@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > IMO it doesn't matter much where and how the line is drawn, provided the > law on the matter is simple and clear. > > FWIW, my reading of the law is that, during the bidding and play until > an irregularity occurs, your information sources are severely limited > and don't include score-cards, directors, law-books, or system notes. > AG : this seems difficult to implement. There are times when you don't know whether an irregularity has occurred (those laws change so often !), and who's the right person to answer your questions, if not the TD ? If South asks me whether East had any right to ask West about a possible revoke, what could I say to him ? If I say "I'm not allowed to answer you before an infraction has occurred", I've in fact told him what he wanted to know. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 21 12:33:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:33:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> Message-ID: <48AD447F.10106@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Guthrie > >> Sent: 21. august 2008 11:38 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] something new >> >> [SP] >> "Director, I am considering making an insufficient bid because I have a >> subsequent bid which will allow me to define my hand with more >> precision. Would you mind verifying that you will allow the change of >> call under L27?" >> >> I shall first read him Law 72B1: >> >> [DALB] >> No, no. What you must do is tell him that he ought to have remembered >> Law 72B1. You see, a Director is not allowed actually to tell the >> players what is contained in the Laws, because that would constitute an >> aid to their memory, calculation, or technique. >> >> >> [Nigel] >> To what information is a player entitled? And when? And, importantly, >> whence are his legitimate information sources (memory, score card, >> law-book, director, system notes)? >> >> IMO it doesn't matter much where and how the line is drawn, provided the >> law on the matter is simple and clear. >> >> FWIW, my reading of the law is that, during the bidding and play until >> an irregularity occurs, your information sources are severely limited >> and don't include score-cards, directors, law-books, or system notes. >> > > Exactly, and at the moment a player announces his possible intention of > violating L72B1 (this is itself an irregularity!) it is the director's duty > to warn him of the consequences. The relevant laws here (in addition to > 72B1) are 81, 82 and 90 > If a player asks you whether he may use a paper and pencil for his calculations, there are two possible answers : a) no, you may not b) try it and you'll see a) is using the TD as an information source before any irregularity has occurred (assume the player is declaring, so there is no UI) ; but I prefer a) nevertheless. I read L81C5 as allowing me to answer. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Aug 21 12:55:21 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:55:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> Message-ID: <48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] Exactly, and at the moment a player announces his possible intention of violating L72B1 (this is itself an irregularity!) it is the director's duty to warn him of the consequences. The relevant laws here (in addition to 72B1) are 81, 82 and 90 [Nigel] Is that right Sven? In Jeff's original case, suppose that you are North and about to make what you consider to be a normal and automatic redouble of 5H. But you have a vague memory of a law about calls that a director may judge to be "wild and gambling". Can you ask the director what is the relevant law? If you then thrust your hand under the director's nose and state your intention to redouble, is the director bound to advise you against that legally fatal course of action? From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 21 14:00:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:00:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> <48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48AD58C1.3050602@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Sven Pran] > Exactly, and at the moment a player announces his possible intention of > violating L72B1 (this is itself an irregularity!) it is the director's > duty to warn him of the consequences. The relevant laws here (in > addition to 72B1) are 81, 82 and 90 > > [Nigel] > Is that right Sven? In Jeff's original case, suppose that you are North > and about to make what you consider to be a normal and automatic > redouble of 5H. But you have a vague memory of a law about calls that a > director may judge to be "wild and gambling". Can you ask the director > what is the relevant law? If you then thrust your hand under the > director's nose and state your intention to redouble, is the director > bound to advise you against that legally fatal course of action? > > AG : /judicis est jus dicere, non facere/. You may not ask the TD about advice, you may not ask him whether this redouble risks being considered as WG, but this isn't the same as asking him about a point of rules, including local rules (e.g. allowed conventions). Take the famous problem of conflicting conventions, for example : A plays wild preempts provided B plays takeout doubles, and B plays takeout doubles provided A plays sound preempts. Now there is an answer to the question "who has to give up ?", possibly not the same in all countries, and they'd want to know what it is before they begin playing, because they have to know eachother's conventions before playing. So they call you and you answer "sorry, no TD advice without an irregularity". They remember you they can't begin playing. What do you do next ? Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 21 14:46:47 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:46:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com><48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> <48AD4381.7060301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c9038c$18232130$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new If South asks me whether East had any right to ask West about a possible revoke, what could I say to him ? If I say "I'm not allowed to answer you before an infraction has occurred", I've in fact told him what he wanted to know. +=+ I think blmlers are making too much of this. The player is asking for a statement of his rights. The Director should advise the players. I say again: "The laws define correct procedure and in my opinion they identify and restrict what the players should expect to hear about the laws from the Director, specifically it is the Director's duty to "advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder". My view is that a line needs to be drawn between the function of advising players of their rights and responsibilities and wider exposition of the laws. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 21 14:28:57 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:28:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com><000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> <48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000c01c9038c$17f35ea0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > [Sven Pran] > Exactly, and at the moment a player announces his possible intention of > violating L72B1 (this is itself an irregularity!) it is the director's > duty to warn him of the consequences. The relevant laws here (in > addition to 72B1) are 81, 82 and 90 > > [Nigel] > Is that right Sven? In Jeff's original case, suppose that you are North > and about to make what you consider to be a normal and automatic > redouble of 5H. But you have a vague memory of a law about calls that a > director may judge to be "wild and gambling". Can you ask the director > what is the relevant law? If you then thrust your hand under the > director's nose and state your intention to redouble, is the director > bound to advise you against that legally fatal course of action? > +=+ The Director might perhaps tell him "it is your right to make any legal call you choose, but it would be your responsibility if your selected call were deemed to be 'wild or gambling' and for that reason you did not receive any score adjustment you might otherwise obtain". ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 21 15:18:31 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:18:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no><48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> <48AD58C1.3050602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001201c90390$6ddd1870$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new << Take the famous problem of conflicting conventions, for example : A plays wild preempts provided B plays takeout doubles, and B plays takeout doubles provided A plays sound preempts. Now there is an answer to the question "who has to give up ?", possibly not the same in all countries, and they'd want to know what it is before they begin playing, because they have to know each other's conventions before playing. So they call you and you answer "sorry, no TD advice without an irregularity". They remember you they can't begin playing. What do you do next ? +=+ Alain, come on - you are not seeking election in Philadelphia. The Director should tell the players who has the right to make the later decision. ~ G ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Thu Aug 21 15:21:42 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:21:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no><48AC7392.6040102@skynet.be> <000b01c90313$d11dc1a0$735944e0$@no> Message-ID: <001f01c90390$da0e3d30$4001a8c0@JOHN> I ran the idea of the imp table past Max down at Brighton, and when he heitated, I asked him "are the laws AI?". His immediate reponse thereafter was "Of course he can, then". it's curious, but I set the same question in my annual quiz for the players at brighton (TDs are not allowed to win the prize) http://www.ebu.co.uk/results/2008August-December/Brighton2008/Bulletins/Bull5.pdf Page 3 "TD Questions" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> > .............. >> >> Well, you have merely stated that you do not believe that aids of >> >> mamory are allowed for entitled information. >> > >> > Every place I found a player "entitled" to some information it was >> > information he is entitled to receive from opponents, not information >> > he > is >> > supposed to be able to give. >> >> First of all, then you didn't look to good. There is at least one >> piece of information that a player is entitled to that he should >> normally be able to remember for himself - the contract. > > The actual law text is: "... entitled to be informed ..." > >> Of course he is usually asking this contract from his opponents, but >> his partner is also allowed to answer the question. > > True, I should have omitted the words "from opponents" like I did a little > later in my post (I forgot it at this place), but this detail doesn't > change > the reality of my post at all. > >> >> > So associating being entitled to information >> > with a right to use aids to memory is meaningless; the player who is >> > entitled to some information is not supposed to provide himself with > that >> > information, he is entitled to receive it. >> > >> >> Since you are merely stating that which we are trying to establish, >> this does not bring anything to the discussion - you are turning in >> circles, in other words. >> You say a player is only entitled to things he can ask opponents, so >> he needn't use aids of memory. We are not trying to establish whether >> he needs them, but whether he can use them. >> Is it legal, for example, to put the bidding card with the contract >> sideways in the bidding-box? After all, this is a memory aid, but a >> memory aid to a thing he is entitled to ask > > Of course it is legal if the relevant regulation says so. The use of bid > boxes is a matter of regulation, not of law, and when regulations specify > that bid cards shall remain on the table in a particular fashion that is > simply an implementation of Law 20B. Similarly if the regulation specify > or > allows) the bid card representing the contract be left in a particular > state > during the play that is an implementation of Law 41C. > >> >> > And only in one single situation did I find that a player is allowed, >> > or >> > actually even suggested, to look up his own "aids to memory", namely > when >> > securing that he during the clarification period as presumed declarer >> > or >> > dummy can give correct information to opponents. >> > >> >> The fact that in one place something is made legal does not make >> lesser things illegal in other places. Since this is actually a real >> memory-aid, made illegal somewhere else in the lawbook, there needs to >> be a special law covering this in order to authorize it. Since my >> contention is that memory aids for entitled informations are not >> banned by law in the first place, your argument does nothing to >> contradict this. > > Exactly what do you mean by the term "entitled information", preferably > with > reference to the applicable law? > >> >> > In all other situations the player is allowed to use the information he >> > remembers and the information he is explicitly entitled to receive (on >> > request), but he is not allowed to look up or consult anything that has > the >> > effect of being an aid to his memory. >> > >> >> You are merely stating again what you are trying to prove - I have >> already stated I don't agree - so repeating it is no argument. >> >> > So yes, I consider Law 40C3(a) to forbid players consulting the laws > (they >> > should in case call the Director for that purpose) or to consult any > kind of >> > notes or publications (and so on) except when such consultation is >> > explicitly permitted in the laws. >> > >> >> Considering that you group in one sentence two differend kinds of >> actions, one of which I agree is forbidden, this sentence again brings >> nothing to the discussion. >> >> > And by the way, I don't think the word "entitled" has any meaning as an >> > adjective to the noun "information". Where the laws use the word > "entitled" >> > they dictate what a player is "entitled to do or have" or "not entitled > to >> > do or have". >> > >> >> I stated that the grammar of my use of EI is not correct. If you can >> give a short alternative in the English language, I will be glad to >> adopt it. Considering that we both know what is meant, I don't see the >> grammatical inaccuracy as a major obstacle. > > No, I don't know what you mean by "entitled information". > > A player is entitled to receive certain information at various times > during > auction and play, but the information he is entitled to receive is not > synonymous with, or corresponding to the information that is authorized > for > him. > > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Aug 21 15:22:54 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:22:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com><48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> Message-ID: <002601c90391$051c45d0$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> And if a player wants me to explain something from the lawbook, then >> I'll certainly comply. >> How can you justify that something is not a player's right by stating >> that it would inconvenience the very person who is there to see that >> the player's rights are met? >> >> > - let alone expect the director to comply with your command to explain >> > laws that may be relevant to a particular context? >> > >> >> Of course he must do that? What strange notions of bridge directing >> you have! > > Let us assume that you have been called to a table in the middle of an > auction or play, not because of some (possible) irregularity but simply > because a player wants to ask you a question on something in the laws. > > You very kindly answer that question only to be informed by the opponents > after the play has been completed that the question and your reply turned > out to have a direct impact on the result obtained on the board, and that > they feel damaged. > > Your information to the player reminded him of something he had forgotten > and now could use to his own advantage. > > Consequently the opponents request you to make a ruling. > > How will you rule? There may be UI and there may be damage, but the creation of UI is not an infraction. John > > Sven > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Aug 21 15:24:57 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:24:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be><48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> Message-ID: <002d01c90391$4e7d5e30$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > [NG] > > Please will Herman or Maddog quote a law that over-rides the law cited by > Sven? > > [DALB] > > I have already cited a candidate: > > A player may use information in the auction or play if ... it is > information > specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise > specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and > in > regulations. > > The question appears to me to have come down to whether a player may use > such information - for example, that six down doubled and non-vulnerable > scores 1400 - only if he remembers it from previous experience or > calculates > it for himself; or whether he may request it and necessarily have his > request answered. As Eric Landau has said, if a player may ask whether > spades outrank hearts and have that request answered, he may also ask what > six down doubled non-vulnerable scores and have that request answered (in > which case, of course, he may as well look it up on the back of a card in > the bidding box rather than troubling the Director). He can't ask what 6 down doubled nv is; he can ask for the law govening the penalties for doubled undertricks and compute it himself mentally and without aids to computation. John > > The timing of such a request may convey UI to partner, but we are not > concerned with that. Nor was Giorgio Duboin when, in the Istanbul > Olympiad, > he consulted his personal score card (which was face up in front of him) > for > some while before deliberately taking an anti-percentage line of play > because he considered (wrongly, as it happened) that he needed a swing. > His > opponents saw nothing untoward about this, and neither did anyone else. Do > you? > > The issue is whether even behind screens, a player is allowed to look at > his > own score card (or the IMP table, or a copy of the Laws, or the > arrangement > of a bidding box, or the conditions of contest for the current event) in > order to gather the information that the Laws say he may use. It is, as > the > Istanbul incident indicates, a question that may have some practical > application. > > My own view is that a player should not be forced to commit the Laws and > regulations to memory; he may at any time be granted any request for > information about any matter contained within the Laws and regulations, or > any information that may arise therefrom ("do we win the board in the > Reisinger if we get 430 and they get 420?", for example). Moreover, if the > official score card (or a player's personal score card) has been compiled > in > accordance with the procedures arising from the Laws, a player may at any > time consult that document and use the information contained therein. To > regulate otherwise would be absurd - imagine telling Duboin that "after > you've written a score on your personal score card, you must turn that > score > card face down and not look at it until you have to turn it face up again > to > inscribe the next score". > > A propos, in my first international match I called the Director in order > to > enquire whether I was entitled to know which of the opposing team's > players > occupied my seat at the other table. How would you have ruled? > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Aug 21 15:30:49 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:30:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com><000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be><48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be><001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be><000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com><48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred><6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> Message-ID: <004601c90392$208586a0$4001a8c0@JOHN> >> >calculation or technique. >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> [Sven] >> "Director, I am considering making an insufficient bid because I have a >> subsequent bid which will allow me to define my hand with more precision. >> Would you mind verifying that you will allow the change of call under >> L27?" > > I shall first read him Law 72B1: > "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." > > And then tell him: > "I may or may not allow the change of call under L27, but in either case I > shall give you a PP equal to 50% of a top score on a board. If you still > try > this stunt I shall in addition give you what I consider an appropriate > DP." Seems about right. I might add "I don't allow cheating bastards in my games" John > > Regards Sven > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Aug 21 15:36:52 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:36:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001201c90390$6ddd1870$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no><48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> <48AD58C1.3050602@ulb.ac.be> <001201c90390$6ddd1870$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48AD6F74.3080307@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > The eccentricity of the city of Philadelphia > is apparent in its election of Mayor Nutter. > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:00 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > > << > Take the famous problem of conflicting conventions, for example : A > plays wild preempts provided B plays takeout doubles, and B plays > takeout doubles provided A plays sound preempts. > Now there is an answer to the question "who has to give up ?", possibly > not the same in all countries, and they'd want to know what it is before > they begin playing, because they have to know each other's conventions > before playing. > So they call you and you answer "sorry, no TD advice without an > irregularity". They remember you they can't begin playing. What do you > do next ? > > +=+ Alain, come on - you are not seeking election in Philadelphia. > The Director should tell the players who has the right to make > the later decision. ~ G ~ +=+ > AG : I do agree, of course. And this shows that the "no information before an infraction has occurred" position doesn't work. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 21 16:21:53 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:21:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2EB4A439-45B6-48A1-9312-1290710B1E48@starpower.net> On Aug 21, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [SP] > "Director, I am considering making an insufficient bid because I > have a > subsequent bid which will allow me to define my hand with more > precision. Would you mind verifying that you will allow the change of > call under L27?" > > I shall first read him Law 72B1: > > [DALB] > No, no. What you must do is tell him that he ought to have remembered > Law 72B1. You see, a Director is not allowed actually to tell the > players what is contained in the Laws, because that would > constitute an > aid to their memory, calculation, or technique. > > [Nigel] > To what information is a player entitled? And when? And, importantly, > whence are his legitimate information sources (memory, score card, > law-book, director, system notes)? > > IMO it doesn't matter much where and how the line is drawn, > provided the > law on the matter is simple and clear. > > FWIW, my reading of the law is that, during the bidding and play until > an irregularity occurs, your information sources are severely limited > and don't include score-cards, directors, law-books, or system notes. We only dig ourselves a deeper hole if we continue to conflate directors and lawbooks with score cards and system notes. Score cards and system notes are elements of the game as defined by its laws. They, and the information they contain, are controlled and governed by the laws in the context of the game. The laws themselves are not "governed by the laws in the context of the game"; they *are* "the context of the game". The information in the laws is "meta-information"; it exists not within the context of the game, but within the context of the universe within which the game is defined. As such, there is a qualitative distinction between "knowledge within the game" and knowledge of its laws. That doesn't solve the current debate, but we will never get there if we try to infer the extent to which a player is entitled to know the laws by making analogies to knowledge of the information available from score cards or system notes. They are not at all the same thing, nor even close. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 21 16:34:17 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:34:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <004301c90375$c31c7990$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au><000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <004301c90375$c31c7990$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <9E391F2B-78B4-4D4D-B639-44B35D07BF0D@starpower.net> On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Grattan wrote: >> [DALB] >> >> No, no. What you must do is tell him that he ought to have >> remembered Law >> 72B1. You see, a Director is not allowed actually to tell the >> players what >> is contained in the Laws, because that would constitute an aid to >> their >> memory, calculation, or technique. > > +=+ I disagree. The Director must explain to the player his rights and > responsibilities under the law. The laws define correct procedure and > in my opinion they identify and restrict what the players should > expect > to hear about the laws from the Director, specifically it is the > Director's > duty to "advise the players of their rights and responsibilities > thereunder". > See Law 81C1. To get back to Sven's assertion, then, one could argue that a player who goes down five in six spades against six hearts making at the other table, both vulnerable, has the "right", under the laws of the game, to win an IMP, and is therefore entitled to be advised by the director as to this "right thereunder". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 21 17:40:48 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:40:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au><000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no><000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com><004301c90375$c31c7990$0202a8c0@Mildred> <9E391F2B-78B4-4D4D-B639-44B35D07BF0D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001601c903a4$4bf4bce0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > To get back to Sven's assertion, then, one could argue that a player who goes down five in six spades against six hearts making at the other table, both vulnerable, has the "right", under the laws of the game, to win an IMP, and is therefore entitled to be advised by the director as to this "right thereunder". > +=+ To recall an earlier comment of mine, a line has to be drawn dividing "players' rights and responsibilities" from the wider parameters of the laws. One might expect the gods to throw bolts of lightning at the humble mortal who essayed without consent to bring enlightenment to the denizens of the middle earth. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 17:51:52 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:51:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0808210851n7c1ec187g4bfe6558e181c916@mail.gmail.com> [DALB] No, no. What you must do is tell him that he ought to have remembered Law 72B1. You see, a Director is not allowed actually to tell the players what is contained in the Laws, because that would constitute an aid to their memory, calculation, or technique. [Jerry] That's funny! But I would like to know if you assert that players have a right for either of the following: 1. to consult the law book during the auction and play of the hand; 2. to look up or ask the director about scoring issues, such as the imp tables or doubled under tricks. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 21 19:23:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:23:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001601c903a4$4bf4bce0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au><000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no><000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com><004301c90375$c31c7990$0202a8c0@Mildred> <9E391F2B-78B4-4D4D-B639-44B35D07BF0D@starpower.net> <001601c903a4$4bf4bce0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <7C48BBD5-190A-45F0-A1E3-8CE1A995720E@starpower.net> On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ To recall an earlier comment of mine, a line has > to be drawn dividing "players' rights and responsibilities" > from the wider parameters of the laws. One might expect > the gods to throw bolts of lightning at the humble mortal > who essayed without consent to bring enlightenment to > the denizens of the middle earth. I've been sitting on the fence on this topic, but Grattan has convinced me to vote, with Alain and others, that players are entitled to be informed of the laws at will. Prehaps Grattan sees a clear bright line between "players' rights and responsibilities" and "the wider parameters of the law", but it looks like a vast grey area to me. In Dungeons and Dragons, the Dungeon Master (AKA "Director") for a particular session sets the rules of play and scoring and keeps them to himself. It is considered a critical game skill, distinguishing stronger from weaker players, to be able to infer what those rules are from their at-the-table application and enforcement by the DM. I don't think that we want to play bridge that way, but that's where the "TFLB as a memory aid" argument seems to be heading us towards. Grattan argues that there is no general right to be informed of the laws, but then, on being challenged with obvious common-sense exceptions, allows that these must fall on the "other side of the 'players' rights and responsibilities' line", so that the Director will tell the player what he wants to know in these particular cases. But this is like pornography; Grattan cannot define the legal basis for those exceptions, only assure us that "he knows them when he sees them". I, and I suspect many of the rest of us, cannot see "the line" quite so clearly. Of course it must be clear that just because a player has the right to be informed as to anything in the laws at any time, he is not immune from any infractions that may arise from the particular timing or manner of his obtaining that information. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 21 19:24:13 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:24:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> <48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000301c903b2$bbb800b0$33280210$@no> On Behalf Of Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > Exactly, and at the moment a player announces his possible intention of > violating L72B1 (this is itself an irregularity!) it is the director's > duty to warn him of the consequences. The relevant laws here (in > addition to 72B1) are 81, 82 and 90 > > [Nigel] > Is that right Sven? In Jeff's original case, suppose that you are North > and about to make what you consider to be a normal and automatic > redouble of 5H. But you have a vague memory of a law about calls that a > director may judge to be "wild and gambling". Can you ask the director > what is the relevant law? If you then thrust your hand under the > director's nose and state your intention to redouble, is the director > bound to advise you against that legally fatal course of action? The question was about a player who announced his intention to deliberately make an insufficient bid and who wanted to know if a particular replacement call would be accepted by the director as satisfying the conditions in Law 27B1(b). Allegations of "wild and gambling" like allegations of using UI can never be ruled on immediately, they must always be evaluated after play is completed, a fact that is obvious to any experienced director. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 21 19:29:37 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:29:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48AD58C1.3050602@ulb.ac.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> <48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> <48AD58C1.30506! 02@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000401c903b3$7c511e10$74f35a30$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............. > Take the famous problem of conflicting conventions, for example : A > plays wild preempts provided B plays takeout doubles, and B plays > takeout doubles provided A plays sound preempts. > Now there is an answer to the question "who has to give up ?", possibly > not the same in all countries, and they'd want to know what it is before > they begin playing, because they have to know eachother's conventions > before playing. > So they call you and you answer "sorry, no TD advice without an > irregularity". They remember you they can't begin playing. What do you > do next ? Silly question on a riddle that has been resolved long ago: An agreement cannot be varied depending on opponents' defense, so A must first decide what kind of preempts they want to use and then accept the defense consequently chosen by B. Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 21 19:36:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:36:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <002601c90391$051c45d0$4001a8c0@JOHN> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com><48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> <002601c90391$051c45d0$4001a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <000501c903b4$787d8b60$6978a220$@no> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst .......... > > Let us assume that you have been called to a table in the middle of an > > auction or play, not because of some (possible) irregularity but simply > > because a player wants to ask you a question on something in the laws. > > > > You very kindly answer that question only to be informed by the opponents > > after the play has been completed that the question and your reply turned > > out to have a direct impact on the result obtained on the board, and that > > they feel damaged. > > > > Your information to the player reminded him of something he had forgotten > > and now could use to his own advantage. > > > > Consequently the opponents request you to make a ruling. > > > > How will you rule? > > There may be UI and there may be damage, but the creation of UI is not an > infraction. John This is not a question of creating UI; it is a question of a director interfering with and influencing the play. In my opinion the ruling should be Law 82C. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 21 20:11:36 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:11:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001101c90309$b22ef2a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no><48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> <001101c90309$b22ef2a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48ADAFD8.5000501@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "A good garden may have some weeds." > - Thomas Fuller > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:13 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] something new > <<< > Every place I found a player "entitled" to some information it > was information he is entitled to receive from opponents, not > information he is supposed to be able to give. So associating > being entitled to information with a right to use aids to memory > is meaningless; the player who is entitled to some information > is not supposed to provide himself with that information, he is > entitled to receive it. Completely wrong argument, Grattan: > +=+ It may be worthy of mention that no 'memory, calculation > or technique' is involved in the observation of what the players > can see - information inscribed on the board, cards faced, bidding > cards laid on the board. So the player does not need any aid to > memory etc. in order to know these things. Law 40C3(a) has no > relevance to such matters. (Playing cards faced and turned face > down are not observable and the player is not permitted any aid > to memory to recall what cards have been played.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If a scorecard is in view, it takes no memory to see the lead. And if a board is made without indication of the vulnerability, then one needs some other "aid of memory" to be able to know that NZ are vulnerable on board five. There is nothing in the laws that says that a scorecard with the lead on it may not be left in front of your eyes, nor is there any portion of the laws that states excatly what the board must mention. Rather, the rules that govern what the board will and will not mention are those of the laws, saying what the people ought to know about the board. "what the people can see" is derived from "what the people are allowed to see"; you cannot derive the second from the first any more! I am getting frustrated - people are trying to prove things they cannot, leaving me still with the question of what is allowed and what not. I keep shooting off arguments, but find no answer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 21 20:11:20 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:11:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000301c903b2$bbb800b0$33280210$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> <48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> <000301c903b2$bbb800b0$33280210$@no> Message-ID: <27F29C99-AB04-46CE-B4E5-6C797AAE6018@starpower.net> On Aug 21, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Guthrie > >> Is that right Sven? In Jeff's original case, suppose that you are >> North >> and about to make what you consider to be a normal and automatic >> redouble of 5H. But you have a vague memory of a law about calls >> that a >> director may judge to be "wild and gambling". Can you ask the >> director >> what is the relevant law? If you then thrust your hand under the >> director's nose and state your intention to redouble, is the director >> bound to advise you against that legally fatal course of action? > > Allegations of "wild and gambling" like allegations of using UI can > never be > ruled on immediately, they must always be evaluated after play is > completed, > a fact that is obvious to any experienced director. On Aug 21, 2008, at 1:29 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> Take the famous problem of conflicting conventions, for example : A >> plays wild preempts provided B plays takeout doubles, and B plays >> takeout doubles provided A plays sound preempts. >> Now there is an answer to the question "who has to give up ?", >> possibly >> not the same in all countries, and they'd want to know what it is >> before >> they begin playing, because they have to know eachother's conventions >> before playing. >> So they call you and you answer "sorry, no TD advice without an >> irregularity". They remember you they can't begin playing. What do >> you >> do next ? > > Silly question on a riddle that has been resolved long ago: > > An agreement cannot be varied depending on opponents' defense, so A > must > first decide what kind of preempts they want to use and then accept > the > defense consequently chosen by B. Sven is, of course, right about the rules in both cases, and explains them clearly enough. But his replies are not at all responsive to the issue at hand. The questions for Sven to answer are: If he is called to the table during a hand and asked either of the above, will he give the inquiring player the same answer he gives us, or will he refuse to say anything on the subject, citing L40C3(a)? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 21 20:13:35 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:13:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> Message-ID: <48ADB04F.5030805@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............... >> And if a player wants me to explain something from the lawbook, then >> I'll certainly comply. >> How can you justify that something is not a player's right by stating >> that it would inconvenience the very person who is there to see that >> the player's rights are met? >> >>> - let alone expect the director to comply with your command to explain >>> laws that may be relevant to a particular context? >>> >> Of course he must do that? What strange notions of bridge directing >> you have! > > Let us assume that you have been called to a table in the middle of an > auction or play, not because of some (possible) irregularity but simply > because a player wants to ask you a question on something in the laws. > > You very kindly answer that question only to be informed by the opponents > after the play has been completed that the question and your reply turned > out to have a direct impact on the result obtained on the board, and that > they feel damaged. > > Your information to the player reminded him of something he had forgotten > and now could use to his own advantage. > > Consequently the opponents request you to make a ruling. > > How will you rule? > If the thing he asked me was literally in the laws, I rule that such the player was entitled to such knowledge and therefore there is no reason to change anything. If of course, the player asked me how to perform a double squeeze, and I managed to explain that to him, then I would rule against myself certainly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 21 20:16:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:16:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48ACC55C.20204@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <48ACC55C.20204@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48ADB10E.8040908@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Nigel] > I take your point that it might be inconvenient if, for example, you > forgot whether the auction came before or after the play. > I think the law-book is like your system-notes. You are entitled to use > the information that you remember; and you may consult such documents to > refresh your memory, except during the bidding or play. > Nigel, WHY? You tell us what you think. We think something different. There is nothing to be gained from repeating what you think. Tell us why you think this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 21 20:19:26 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:19:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48ACC55C.20204@NTLworld.com> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <48ACC55C.20204@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48ADB1AE.9030101@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > I'm never likely to play in the Reisinger but I guess that a difference > of 10 is enough to win the board. > Do you? You've never played in France then. There, a difference of 10 points is considered a draw in the Patton. In Antwerp, a difference of 10 points wins the board, in Brussels, it doesn't. Surely the Brussels player who is at this very moment competing in the Patton in my club should be able to ask this? I have no idea what the rule is in the Reisinger, but I'll sure ask before I play my first board. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Gampas at aol.com Thu Aug 21 20:18:57 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:18:57 EDT Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 21/08/2008 07:13:45 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1S Double 2S 3H Pass 4D (1) Pass ? (1) *Unlimited* and forcing [paul lamford] There is a difference between the unlimited and forcing 1X - (Double) - 1Y, where many play that jumps are fit, and therefore there is no choice with a strong hand but to bid 1Y, and the auction above. Here South has already limited his hand to not be worth game, assuming that Lebensohl is not available opposite a minimum takeout double, either because it is rubber bridge, or because the pair has never heard of it. Most pairs would not regard 4D as unlimited in the above auction, just a hand too good to overcall 2D, and one unsuitable for 3NT, as the player did not try 3S. The comparison with the auction 1X - (Double) - 1Y is inappropriate, therefore. I would not think anything of it if someone passed 4D above, but if someone passed 1S in the other auction, I would try to establish what their agreements really were. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 21 20:22:14 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:22:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be><48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48ADB256.8040709@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > involving himself improperly in the play. He is giving aid to memory, > calculation or technique. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, get with the discussion - we are saying that for those things that a player is entitled to know, there can be no aids to memory. In fact, L40C3 should not apply to those facts. Like the contract that is being played, his opponents' system, and (In Our Modest Opinion) the laws of the game. To repeat that something is an aid to memory does not bring something to this discussion - tell us why aids to memory also apply to the things we are talking about, like the contract. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Aug 21 20:34:37 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:34:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000b01c90313$d11dc1a0$735944e0$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> <48AC7392.6040102@skynet.be> <000b01c90313$d11dc1a0$735944e0$@no> Message-ID: <48ADB53D.70105@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Exactly what do you mean by the term "entitled information", preferably with > reference to the applicable law? > All the pieces of information that the laws (various numbers) tell us the player can ask for at any time he so wishes (perhaps limited to the his turns to act). I believe this includes: - the dealer and vulnerability (as mentioned in L2) - the contract - the cards played to the current trick (even when they are turned around) - his own card of the just quitted trick - the cards in his hand - the cards in dummy - opponents' system - the laws (this is not unanimous) Some of these are so obvious that we don't think about it. But they could be important. Would you, for instance, allow a player to write down his hand and consult that piece of paper during the auction? I would. Would you allow it to him during play? I would not. He is entitled to see his own cards during the auction, so he cannot win anything from an "aid to memory" since he is not obliged to memorize his cards in the first place. But he is not entitled to re-read his original hand once his tricks are quitted. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 20:41:50 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:41:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <7C48BBD5-190A-45F0-A1E3-8CE1A995720E@starpower.net> References: <7C48BBD5-190A-45F0-A1E3-8CE1A995720E@starpower.net> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Landau" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:23 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [blml] something new > On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ To recall an earlier comment of mine, a line has >> to be drawn dividing "players' rights and responsibilities" >> from the wider parameters of the laws. One might expect >> the gods to throw bolts of lightning at the humble mortal >> who essayed without consent to bring enlightenment to >> the denizens of the middle earth. > > I've been sitting on the fence on this topic, but Grattan has > convinced me to vote, with Alain and others, that players are > entitled to be informed of the laws at will. Prehaps Grattan sees a > clear bright line between "players' rights and responsibilities" and > "the wider parameters of the law", but it looks like a vast grey area > to me. > > In Dungeons and Dragons, the Dungeon Master (AKA "Director") for a > particular session sets the rules of play and scoring and keeps them > to himself. It is considered a critical game skill, distinguishing > stronger from weaker players, to be able to infer what those rules > are from their at-the-table application and enforcement by the DM. I > don't think that we want to play bridge that way, but that's where > the "TFLB as a memory aid" argument seems to be heading us towards. > > Grattan argues that there is no general right to be informed of the > laws, but then, on being challenged with obvious common-sense > exceptions, allows that these must fall on the "other side of the > 'players' rights and responsibilities' line", so that the Director > will tell the player what he wants to know in these particular > cases. But this is like pornography; Grattan cannot define the legal > basis for those exceptions, only assure us that "he knows them when > he sees them". I, and I suspect many of the rest of us, cannot see > "the line" quite so clearly. > > Of course it must be clear that just because a player has the right > to be informed as to anything in the laws at any time, he is not > immune from any infractions that may arise from the particular timing > or manner of his obtaining that information. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net One might question the law's role as servant of the player where it grants that the player may do something thereby entrapping him to do something detrimental to his standing within the contest and the community. regards roger pewick From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 21 21:21:48 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:21:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <27F29C99-AB04-46CE-B4E5-6C797AAE6018@starpower.net> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <000c01c90333$09637c20$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080821153108.01dcd970@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000801c90362$0336ef60$09a4ce20$@no> <000d01c9036d$b9bc3e10$2d34ba30$@com> <48AD3775.4080403@NTLworld.com> <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> <48AD4999.2080200@NTLworld.com> <000301c903b2$b! bb800b0$33280210$@no> < 27F29C99-AB04-46CE-B4E5-6C797AAE6018@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c903c3$28c36590$7a4a30b0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............. > Sven is, of course, right about the rules in both cases, and explains > them clearly enough. But his replies are not at all responsive to > the issue at hand. > > The questions for Sven to answer are: If he is called to the table > during a hand and asked either of the above, will he give the > inquiring player the same answer he gives us, or will he refuse to > say anything on the subject, citing L40C3(a)? As for the question on agreements and defenses, sure I would give the same general answer that I gave here. This situation is not a matter of "aids to his memory, calculation or technique"; this is a matter of settling a dispute. I don't remember what "the other" question was about, but when called to a table I always try to inform players of their rights and duties under laws and regulations while to the best of my ability avoid saying anything that could have the effect of a suggestion to the player or being of aid to his memory, calculation or technique in conflict with L40C3(a). I have for instance instructed players with illegal agreements found on their system card to immediately cease using that system and given them a standard basic system card to be used until they have filled in a new system declaration and having had this approved (by me). For this purpose I have then also provided them with the relevant regulation. This is of course an "aid to their memory" (on regulations), but this is not relevant for their selection among alternative actions during auction or play and therefore not in conflict with L40C3(a). Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 21 21:54:33 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:54:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48ADB53D.70105@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> <48AC7392.6040102@skynet.be> <000b01c90313$d11dc1a0$735944e0$@no> <48ADB53D.70105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c903c7$bbb1d9a0$33158ce0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Exactly what do you mean by the term "entitled information", preferably with > > reference to the applicable law? > > > > All the pieces of information that the laws (various numbers) tell us > the player can ask for at any time he so wishes (perhaps limited to > the his turns to act). > > I believe this includes: > - the dealer and vulnerability (as mentioned in L2) - YES (L7A) > - the contract - YES (L41C) > - the cards played to the current trick (even when they are turned around) - Only as long as the player's own card to the trick is still faced (L66A) > - his own card of the just quitted trick - YES (L66B) > - the cards in his hand - YES, but only those not yet played (L7B3) > - the cards in dummy - YES but only those not yet played (L41D) > - opponents' system - YES (L20F) > - the laws (this is not unanimous) - Only with TD at the table (L81C) > Summary: Every item of information in this list is covered by a specific law that explicitly states or implies to what extent a player is entitled to receive that information. As such those laws represent exceptions from the general Law 40C3(a). The consequence must be that whenever the real consideration is about refreshing memory on some matter L40C3(a) prohibits all kinds of aids unless that matter is specifically covered by law. > Some of these are so obvious that we don't think about it. But they > could be important. Would you, for instance, allow a player to write > down his hand and consult that piece of paper during the auction? Write it down? Yes, provided he can do so without causing delay. (L74B4) > I would. Would you allow it to him during play? I would not. He is > entitled to see his own cards during the auction, so he cannot win > anything from an "aid to memory" since he is not obliged to memorize > his cards in the first place. But he is not entitled to re-read his > original hand once his tricks are quitted. Inspect his notes during the auction or play? Definitely NOT! (Whether or not he can gain anything is completely irrelevant!) Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 21 22:17:46 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:17:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48ADB04F.5030805@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> <48ADB04F.5030805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c903ca$fa3e6500$eebb2f00$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > > Let us assume that you have been called to a table in the middle of an > > auction or play, not because of some (possible) irregularity but simply > > because a player wants to ask you a question on something in the laws. > > > > You very kindly answer that question only to be informed by the opponents > > after the play has been completed that the question and your reply turned > > out to have a direct impact on the result obtained on the board, and that > > they feel damaged. > > > > Your information to the player reminded him of something he had forgotten > > and now could use to his own advantage. > > > > Consequently the opponents request you to make a ruling. > > > > How will you rule? > > > > If the thing he asked me was literally in the laws, I rule that such > the player was entitled to such knowledge and therefore there is no > reason to change anything. > > If of course, the player asked me how to perform a double squeeze, and > I managed to explain that to him, then I would rule against myself > certainly. This last situation is irrelevant as it is not a matter of explaining law. But let me give you one example: It turns out that the player had forgotten the new rates for undertricks effective from 1987 and still had his mind on the older rates. Your "information" caused him to avoid a sacrifice contract (doubled) that would have been OK before 1987 but which now would be disastrous. (Red: 7H= gives 2210. White: 7SX-11 gave 2100 before 1987 and gives 2900 now.) Don't you agree that under this assumption you as a director have "destroyed" the board? Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 21 22:56:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:56:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000701c903c7$bbb1d9a0$33158ce0$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> <48AC7392.6040102@skynet.be> <000b01c90313$d11dc1a0$735944e0$@no> <48ADB53D.70105@skynet.be> <000701c903c7$bbb1d9a0$33158ce0$@no> Message-ID: On Aug 21, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> Exactly what do you mean by the term "entitled information", >>> preferably > with >>> reference to the applicable law? >> >> All the pieces of information that the laws (various numbers) tell us >> the player can ask for at any time he so wishes (perhaps limited to >> the his turns to act). >> >> I believe this includes: >> - the dealer and vulnerability (as mentioned in L2) - YES (L7A) >> - the contract - YES (L41C) >> - the cards played to the current trick (even when they are turned >> around) > - Only as long as the player's own card to the trick is still faced > (L66A) >> - his own card of the just quitted trick - YES (L66B) >> - the cards in his hand - YES, but only those not yet played (L7B3) >> - the cards in dummy - YES but only those not yet played (L41D) >> - opponents' system - YES (L20F) >> - the laws (this is not unanimous) - Only with TD at the table (L81C) > > Summary: Every item of information in this list is covered by a > specific law > that explicitly states or implies to what extent a player is > entitled to > receive that information. As such those laws represent exceptions > from the > general Law 40C3(a). > > The consequence must be that whenever the real consideration is about > refreshing memory on some matter L40C3(a) prohibits all kinds of > aids unless > that matter is specifically covered by law. If we continue to fail to recognize that the law is meta-information, *not* analogous to other "entitled" information, we will simply continue around the mulberry bush, as Sven does here. All of those YES's Sven supplies above come from Sven's knowledge of the laws. He even tells us which particular laws, and I'd be willing to bet he used TFLB as a "memory aid" to help him come up with them. The law may "entitle" a player to, say, knoweldge of the opponents' system, but if the law does not entitle him to knowledge of the law, then it does not entitle him to the knowledge that he is entitled to knowledge of the opponents' system. It can't matter whether a player, at a given time and circumstance, asks the TD whether he is entitled to knowledge of the opponents' system or asks him how many IMPs a 30-point difference is. The TD must treat the answer as either information the player may be given or as an illegal "memory aid". There is no sane rationale by which it can matter whether, when the looks up the answer to the question in TFLB, he finds it in L20 or in L77. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Aug 21 23:03:09 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:03:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48ADB1AE.9030101@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <48ACC55C.20204@NTLworld.com> <48ADB1AE.9030101@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Guthrie wrote: >> [Nige1] >> I'm never likely to play in the Reisinger but I guess that a >> difference >> of 10 is enough to win the board. > > Do you? > You've never played in France then. > There, a difference of 10 points is considered a draw in the Patton. > In Antwerp, a difference of 10 points wins the board, in Brussels, it > doesn't. Surely the Brussels player who is at this very moment > competing in the Patton in my club should be able to ask this? > I have no idea what the rule is in the Reisinger, but I'll sure ask > before I play my first board. JFTR a 10-point difference is a full win (1-0) in the Reisinger. And if you had just come over from Belgium to play in the Reisinger, were in the tank trying to decide between 3NT and 4H, and called me over to ask me (as TD) whether a 10-point difference would be a full win, yes, I would answer your question. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Aug 21 23:54:58 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:54:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> <48AC7392.6040102@skynet.be> <000b01c90313$d11dc1a0$735944e0$@no> <48ADB53D.70105@skynet.be> <000701c903c7$bbb1d9a0$33158ce0$@no> Message-ID: <000901c903d8$8dbe7ba0$a93b72e0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau .................. > All of those YES's Sven supplies above come from Sven's knowledge of > the laws. He even tells us which particular laws, and I'd be willing > to bet he used TFLB as a "memory aid" to help him come up with them. Sure I did, I am not within an auction or play period as a player. Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 22 00:26:22 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:26:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <48ADB10E.8040908@skynet.be> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <48ACC55C.20204@NTLworld.com> <48ADB10E.8040908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48ADEB8E.3040104@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] You are entitled to use the information that you remember; and you may consult such documents to refresh your memory, except during the bidding or play. [Herman De Wael] Nigel, WHY? You tell us what you think. We think something different. There is nothing to be gained from repeating what you think. Tell us why you think this. [Nige2] I am afraid I was wrong again, Herman; and it seems that you are right again. I was echoing what I thought was Grattan Endicott's view, reinforced by Sven Pran's legal citation. I was pleased that the law was so clear and simple and seemed to mean what it appeared to say. I should have guessed that it was too good to be true :) Now we learn from Grattan, that the correct interpretation of the law accords the player the right to legal advice during the bidding and play. Other top legal experts tell us that the player is also entitled to consult imp-tables, the backs of bidding-box cards, and his own and other people's score-cards, during the auction and play. The constraints on the information to which a player is entitled are nebulous. They depend on the director's "Rorschach" interpretation of the law-book and his subjective assessment of the situation. So we are back to business as usual :) Incidentally, what is the legal position on the hypothetical case I posed to David Burn? Suppose my partner makes a conventional bid, for instance he opens 2D Multi, but I can't remember how we play it. I do recall, however, that our agreement follows a basic example from the EBU Orange Book. Would you, as director, refresh my memory from the Orange Book? From john at asimere.com Fri Aug 22 01:13:55 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:13:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com><48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no><002601c90391$051c45d0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000501c903b4$787d8b60$6978a220$@no> Message-ID: <003b01c903e3$95d6ed80$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > .......... >> > Let us assume that you have been called to a table in the middle of an >> > auction or play, not because of some (possible) irregularity but simply >> > because a player wants to ask you a question on something in the laws. >> > >> > You very kindly answer that question only to be informed by the > opponents >> > after the play has been completed that the question and your reply > turned >> > out to have a direct impact on the result obtained on the board, and > that >> > they feel damaged. >> > >> > Your information to the player reminded him of something he had > forgotten >> > and now could use to his own advantage. >> > >> > Consequently the opponents request you to make a ruling. >> > >> > How will you rule? >> >> There may be UI and there may be damage, but the creation of UI is not an >> infraction. John > > This is not a question of creating UI; it is a question of a director > interfering with and influencing the play. In my opinion the ruling should > be Law 82C. If you take the stance that the laws are not AI, then you would have to go that route. John > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Aug 22 01:22:44 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:22:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <000001c90321$e7aeb380$b70c1a80$@com> <48ACC55C.20204@NTLworld.com><48ADB10E.8040908@skynet.be> <48ADEB8E.3040104@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <005e01c903e4$d138fed0$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > [Nige1] > You are entitled to use the information that you remember; and you may > consult such documents to refresh your memory, except during the bidding > or play. > > [Herman De Wael] > Nigel, WHY? You tell us what you think. We think something different. > There is nothing to be gained from repeating what you think. Tell us why > you think this. > > [Nige2] > I am afraid I was wrong again, Herman; and it seems that you are right > again. I was echoing what I thought was Grattan Endicott's view, > reinforced by Sven Pran's legal citation. I was pleased that the law was > so clear and simple and seemed to mean what it appeared to say. I should > have guessed that it was too good to be true :) > > Now we learn from Grattan, that the correct interpretation of the law > accords the player the right to legal advice during the bidding and > play. Other top legal experts tell us that the player is also entitled > to consult imp-tables, yes they are part of the law the backs of bidding-box cards, nope, not these; they are aids to calculation and his own I'm not sure, although "state of the match" suggests it's ok; the lead to the current contract is not authorised though. and > other people's score-cards, doubt it, though their SC is available of course. during the auction and play. > > The constraints on the information to which a player is entitled are > nebulous. They depend on the director's "Rorschach" interpretation of > the law-book and his subjective assessment of the situation. So we are > back to business as usual :) > > Incidentally, what is the legal position on the hypothetical case I > posed to David Burn? > > Suppose my partner makes a conventional bid, for instance he opens 2D > Multi, but I can't remember how we play it. I do recall, however, that > our agreement follows a basic example from the EBU Orange Book. Would > you, as director, refresh my memory from the Orange Book? > This one is very tough. I think the answer is probably yes, but I don't like it. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 22 01:29:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:29:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Capital mistake (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 14 out of 29 MSC panellists deliberately chose to Pass partner's *unlimited* and forcing call in the problem below. The Bridge World, Master Solvers' Club June 1994, Problem C: Rubber bridge Dlr: South Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1S Double 2S 3H Pass 4D (1) Pass ? (1) *Unlimited* and forcing You, South, hold: AQ62 J742 6 T853 Paul Lamford: >..... >Most pairs would not regard 4D as unlimited in the above >auction, just a hand too good to overcall 2D, and one >unsuitable for 3NT, as the player did not try 3S. >..... >I would not think anything of it if someone passed 4D above, >..... Richard Hills: While this list is supposed to be about the Laws, not bidding theory, the above statement perhaps should be challenged. There is a distinction between "most pairs" and "most expert pairs". It is disadvantageous for North to suppress her diamond suit on the first round of the auction (with a too- strong-to-overcall double). But mandating a _second_ suppression of North's diamond suit by requiring a 3S cuebid due to 4D being non-forcing??? Anyway, the "most pairs" is a red herring. In Bridge World Standard the 4D bid was _defined_ as forcing. So the 14 MSC panellists who passed were knowingly indulging in back-seat driving. (Hence a deliberate choice to pass a forcing call might sometimes be deemed to be a logical alternative.) An interesting Lawful point from my previous posting on this thread, is that Sami Kehela would bid a (natural) 4NT if he could achieve the call in tempo, but Sami would ethically refuse to bid a sloooow (natural) 4NT, since the slowness would jog a snoozy partner's memory that this 4NT call was a special exception to the normal default of Blackwood. 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 Aug 22 03:18:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:18:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] sum thin gnu [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c90377$8d652f20$a82f8d60$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Exactly, and at the moment a player announces his possible intention >of violating L72B1 (this is itself an irregularity!) Definitions: "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." Richard Hills: It seems to me that _intending_ to deviate from correct procedure (but not yet doing so) is not an irregularity as defined above. Sven Pran: >it is the director's duty to warn him of the consequences. Richard Hills: If declarer is intending to revoke, is it the Director's duty to warn her? Or should dummy do it instead, as per Law 42B? Sven Pran: >The relevant laws here (in addition to 72B1) are 81, 82 and 90 Law 9A3: ".....However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity....." Richard Hills: Since the Director is not mentioned in the above Law, it seems to me that it is extraneous for the Director to _prevent_ an irregularity. Under Law 81C3 the Director is instead responsible for _rectifying_ an irregularity. Law 81C1: ".....ensure the orderly progress of the game." Richard Hills: I suppose that one could interpret the Director's power to ensure the orderly progress of the game as including prevention of revokes, warnings about Law 72B1 and reading the Law 78B imp table to a player. Indeed, the progress would be even more orderly if the Director told a declarer how to claim an obvious double squeeze, thus preventing a Law 90B2 slow play infraction if declarer instead laboriously played the hand out. 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 Aug 22 06:14:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:14:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] sum thin gnu [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005e01c903e4$d138fed0$4001a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>>You are entitled to use the information that you remember; >>>and you may consult such documents to refresh your memory, >>>except during the bidding or play. Richard Hills: Nigel's statement is correct as far as it goes, but a further exception is contained in Law 40C3(a): "**Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority** a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Nigel Guthrie: >>>Suppose my partner makes a conventional bid, for instance he >>>opens 2D Multi, but I can't remember how we play it. I do >>>recall, however, that our agreement follows a basic example >>>from the EBU Orange Book. Would you, as director, refresh my >>>memory from the Orange Book? John (MadDog) Probst: >>This one is very tough. I think the answer is probably yes, but >>I don't like it. Eric Landau: >JFTR a 10-point difference is a full win (1-0) in the Reisinger. > >And if you had just come over from Belgium to play in the >Reisinger, were in the tank trying to decide between 3NT and 4H, >and called me over to ask me (as TD) whether a 10-point >difference would be a full win, yes, I would answer your >question. Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman, A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder, page 165: Being too neat with business documents can even present a public menace. When the brakes on all twenty of Amtrak's high-speed Acela trains in the Northeast were found to contain cracks that could have led to a crash, forcing a three-month sidelining of the trains, the problem was eventually traced to an effort to declutter a maintenance manual. The original manual had pointed out the need to inspect the brakes for signs of impending cracks, but Amtrak wanted to put a more concise version in the hands of its maintenance people. Among the snippets cut for the neater, shorter version was the brake inspection warning. Probst/Landau Law 40C3(a), the neater, shorter version: "The Director is entitled during the auction and play periods to give any aid to a player's memory, calculation or technique." :-) 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 Aug 22 13:22:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:22:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] sum thin gnu [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48AEA159.3000800@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > Since the Director is not mentioned in the above Law, it seems to me > that it is extraneous for the Director to _prevent_ an irregularity. > Under Law 81C3 the Director is instead responsible for _rectifying_ an > irregularity. > > Law 81C1: > > ".....ensure the orderly progress of the game." > > Richard Hills: > > I suppose that one could interpret the Director's power to ensure the > orderly progress of the game as including prevention of revokes, > warnings about Law 72B1 and reading the Law 78B imp table to a player. > > Indeed, the progress would be even more orderly if the Director told a > declarer how to claim an obvious double squeeze, thus preventing a Law > 90B2 slow play infraction if declarer instead laboriously played the > hand out. > Perhaps we're cutting it too fine, here. Of course, a TD has every right (and duty) to warn a pair that they're about to sit at the wrong table, and that's before any infaction has occurred. Perhaps this should be limited to cases where the proverbial ounce of precaution would be useful to save the board and minimize the discomfort to other players. Which seems not to encompass Richard's latter case. Notice that slow play isn't an infraction ; only undue slow play is ; and that L74B4 says that playing out is an infraction only /when one knows /one has all the tricks Also, there are cases where the TD doesn't know whether an irregularity has occorred, as in the case when a player used only 12 cards and nobody noticed it. IMHO, L81C6 allows him to check for possible revokes. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 22 14:45:48 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:45:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Legal information rights Message-ID: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> [TNLB 40C3a] Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. [TNLB L10C1] When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available. [TNLB L81C2] [The Director?s duties and powers normally include] to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. Grattan Endicott drew our attention to the intended effect of L81C2. To begin with that seemed an unnecessary complication; my hasty assessment was mistaken; on reflection, as I now understand them, these laws seem more sensible... - A player is entitled to consult score-cards, the backs of bidding-box cards, imp tables, system notes and law-books, conditions of contest, and so on -- *except* during the bidding and play. - During the bidding and play he is entitled to use only such information as he remembers... *except* - The director should advise players of their rights and responsibilities.... *and* - When the director learns of an alleged irregularity, he should explain relevant law to the players For example, during the bidding and play, the director may - - Answer a question about suit-rank because a player has a duty to make a sufficient bid. - Remind the player about revoke law because a player has a duty to follow suit. - Inform a player about "wild and gambling" rules because he may lose a possible right to redress. What about more contentious cases? During the bidding and play, at the request of a player, should the director - - Tell the player, in a team-match, which opponent occupies his seat in the other room? - Allow a player to peruse past scores to see how the match is going? - Allow a player to peruse the official match record? - Tell a player the score for doubled undertricks? - Read out the imp-table or vp-table? - Tell a Reisinger player whether there is a board difference between a score of 420 and 430? - Read out the EBU orange book restrictions on MULTI? What is the legal position on these latter cases? I think the law should make it clear that - such information is available by right - but only *between* boards. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 22 15:32:47 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:32:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Legal information rights In-Reply-To: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> References: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48AEBFFF.1040004@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > What about more contentious cases? During the bidding and play, at the > request of a player, should the director - > - Tell the player, in a team-match, which opponent occupies his seat in > the other room? > AG : Or even non-direct-opponents. A player in my club is known always to hold the Queen of Spades and it would be useful to know which seat he occupies. (if you think it's a superstition, you're allowed to, but it helped me more than once) But I'm afraid the answer is negative. > - Allow a player to peruse past scores to see how the match is going? > AG : Since a player is allowed to write down the contract on his results sheet during the course of the deal, I don't see how we're going to avoid this. > - Tell a player the score for doubled undertricks? > AG : I'd say yes, on request of course. A player has the right to be given information about the rules, and this is nothing more. If one can only be told about the rules between boards, or after an incorrection, then your former examples (suit rank etc.) don't hold either, and I want them to hold. > - Read out the imp-table or vp-table? > AG : same answer. Notice that there might be some important item of information which is available from the TD's actions, is important, and can't be avoided, e.g. the assistent TD brings only 4 boards in exchange of your 6 : you may bet your life that some high contract was reached. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Aug 22 15:51:50 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:51:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Legal information rights In-Reply-To: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> References: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c9045e$3a839a70$af8acf50$@no> On Behalf Of Guthrie ..................... > - During the bidding and play he is entitled to use only such > information as he remembers... *except* > - The director should advise players of their rights and > responsibilities.... *and* > - When the director learns of an alleged irregularity, he should > explain relevant law to the players Precisely! > > For example, during the bidding and play, the director may - > - Answer a question about suit-rank because a player has a duty to make > a sufficient bid. > - Remind the player about revoke law because a player has a duty to > follow suit. > - Inform a player about "wild and gambling" rules because he may lose a > possible right to redress. And even these situations can be questioned (although I have no desire in that direction other than that the director in case must be very careful not to say or do anything that can directly influence the result on the board) > > What about more contentious cases? During the bidding and play, at the > request of a player, should the director - > - Tell the player, in a team-match, which opponent occupies his seat in > the other room? > - Allow a player to peruse past scores to see how the match is going? > - Allow a player to peruse the official match record? > - Tell a player the score for doubled undertricks? > - Read out the imp-table or vp-table? > - Tell a Reisinger player whether there is a board difference between a > score of 420 and 430? > - Read out the EBU orange book restrictions on MULTI? > > What is the legal position on these latter cases? I think the law should > make it clear that > - such information is available by right > - but only *between* boards. Isn't that already clear when you read the laws? Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Aug 22 15:56:52 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:56:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] sum thin gnu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 22, 2008, at 12:14 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > >>>> You are entitled to use the information that you remember; >>>> and you may consult such documents to refresh your memory, >>>> except during the bidding or play. > > Richard Hills: > > Nigel's statement is correct as far as it goes, but a further > exception is contained in Law 40C3(a): > > "**Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority** a player is > not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to > his memory, calculation or technique." > > Nigel Guthrie: > >>>> Suppose my partner makes a conventional bid, for instance he >>>> opens 2D Multi, but I can't remember how we play it. I do >>>> recall, however, that our agreement follows a basic example >>>> from the EBU Orange Book. Would you, as director, refresh my >>>> memory from the Orange Book? > > John (MadDog) Probst: > >>> This one is very tough. I think the answer is probably yes, but >>> I don't like it. > > Eric Landau: > >> JFTR a 10-point difference is a full win (1-0) in the Reisinger. >> >> And if you had just come over from Belgium to play in the >> Reisinger, were in the tank trying to decide between 3NT and 4H, >> and called me over to ask me (as TD) whether a 10-point >> difference would be a full win, yes, I would answer your >> question. > > Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman, A Perfect Mess: The Hidden > Benefits of Disorder, page 165: > > Being too neat with business documents can even present a public > menace. When the brakes on all twenty of Amtrak's high-speed > Acela trains in the Northeast were found to contain cracks that > could have led to a crash, forcing a three-month sidelining of > the trains, the problem was eventually traced to an effort to > declutter a maintenance manual. The original manual had pointed > out the need to inspect the brakes for signs of impending cracks, > but Amtrak wanted to put a more concise version in the hands of > its maintenance people. Among the snippets cut for the neater, > shorter version was the brake inspection warning. > > Probst/Landau Law 40C3(a), the neater, shorter version: > > "The Director is entitled during the auction and play periods to > give any aid to a player's memory, calculation or technique." We're talking about the rules here, Richard. You know, the rules, the stuff that's written in the lawbook, or the RA's regulations, or the conditions of contest. That is what some of us believe the player is entitled to. Not "any aid". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Fri Aug 22 19:03:43 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:03:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] sum thin gnu [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003501c90479$08bd08d0$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] sum thin gnu [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] snip > > Probst/Landau Law 40C3(a), the neater, shorter version: > > "The Director is entitled during the auction and play periods to > give any aid to a player's memory, calculation or technique." > > :-) > Nooh, i don't say this at all. i aver that the law is AI. Consider a small green man disembarked from a flying saucer sitting down on (well actually floating just above) a chair at the fall nationals. Picks up his hand, inpects it and says "TD, read me the laws, my IQ is quite high enough to deduce Meckwell precision from that". > > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 22 19:22:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:22:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000701c903c7$bbb1d9a0$33158ce0$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com> <48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <48AB3191.3040001@skynet.be> <000801c9024d$a0e920e0$e2bb62a0$@no> <48ABE70E.6080405@skynet.be> <000901c902b1$1c103160$54309420$@no> <48AC4E0F.8050804@skynet.be> <000601c902f0$7de7ce40$79b76ac0$@no> <48AC7392.6040102@skynet.be> <000b01c90313$d11dc1a0$735944e0$@no> <48ADB53D.70105@skynet.be> <000701c903c7$bbb1d9a0$33158ce0$@no> Message-ID: <48AEF5BB.1080000@skynet.be> Sven is agreeing with me on several points - so maybe aldo on the final conclusion? Let's see: Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> Exactly what do you mean by the term "entitled information", preferably > with >>> reference to the applicable law? >>> >> All the pieces of information that the laws (various numbers) tell us >> the player can ask for at any time he so wishes (perhaps limited to >> the his turns to act). >> >> I believe this includes: >> - the dealer and vulnerability (as mentioned in L2) - YES (L7A) >> - the contract - YES (L41C) >> - the cards played to the current trick (even when they are turned around) > - Only as long as the player's own card to the trick is still faced (L66A) >> - his own card of the just quitted trick - YES (L66B) >> - the cards in his hand - YES, but only those not yet played (L7B3) >> - the cards in dummy - YES but only those not yet played (L41D) >> - opponents' system - YES (L20F) >> - the laws (this is not unanimous) - Only with TD at the table (L81C) >> > > Summary: Every item of information in this list is covered by a specific law > that explicitly states or implies to what extent a player is entitled to > receive that information. As such those laws represent exceptions from the > general Law 40C3(a). > Well, every item bar one - the text of the laws. They are not covered in the laws, since they cannot be. But Sven does make the same conclusion that I do - things that are covered by special laws are exempt from L40C3. Sven says here that only things that are covered by special laws (such as the contract) are exempt from this law. > The consequence must be that whenever the real consideration is about > refreshing memory on some matter L40C3(a) prohibits all kinds of aids unless > that matter is specifically covered by law. > This is a logical phalacy. You state that all the things that are covered by a special law are exempt from L40C3 and you conclude that only those things are exempt. That does not follow. All the more so since you admit that there are others that also enjoy an exemption: >> Some of these are so obvious that we don't think about it. But they >> could be important. Would you, for instance, allow a player to write >> down his hand and consult that piece of paper during the auction? > > Write it down? Yes, provided he can do so without causing delay. (L74B4) > See? Certainly not covered by any special law - yet you agree that it could be allowed. My conclusion is that anything that helps to remind someone of something he can legally enquire about - and is legally entitled to receive a correct answer to - cannot be a breach of L40C3. >> I would. Would you allow it to him during play? I would not. He is >> entitled to see his own cards during the auction, so he cannot win >> anything from an "aid to memory" since he is not obliged to memorize >> his cards in the first place. But he is not entitled to re-read his >> original hand once his tricks are quitted. > > Inspect his notes during the auction or play? Definitely NOT! > (Whether or not he can gain anything is completely irrelevant!) > And this is the reverse - anything that helps remind someone of something that he cannot legally ask about (such as the cards that were played) is an "aid to memory" which is banned by L40C3. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 22 19:24:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:24:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <000801c903ca$fa3e6500$eebb2f00$@no> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> <48ADB04F.5030805@skynet.be> <000801c903ca$fa3e6500$eebb2f00$@no> Message-ID: <48AEF66B.80604@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................. >>> Let us assume that you have been called to a table in the middle of an >>> auction or play, not because of some (possible) irregularity but simply >>> because a player wants to ask you a question on something in the laws. >>> >>> You very kindly answer that question only to be informed by the > opponents >>> after the play has been completed that the question and your reply > turned >>> out to have a direct impact on the result obtained on the board, and > that >>> they feel damaged. >>> >>> Your information to the player reminded him of something he had > forgotten >>> and now could use to his own advantage. >>> >>> Consequently the opponents request you to make a ruling. >>> >>> How will you rule? >>> >> If the thing he asked me was literally in the laws, I rule that such >> the player was entitled to such knowledge and therefore there is no >> reason to change anything. >> >> If of course, the player asked me how to perform a double squeeze, and >> I managed to explain that to him, then I would rule against myself >> certainly. > > This last situation is irrelevant as it is not a matter of explaining law. > > But let me give you one example: It turns out that the player had forgotten > the new rates for undertricks effective from 1987 and still had his mind on > the older rates. Your "information" caused him to avoid a sacrifice contract > (doubled) that would have been OK before 1987 but which now would be > disastrous. (Red: 7H= gives 2210. White: 7SX-11 gave 2100 before 1987 and > gives 2900 now.) > > Don't you agree that under this assumption you as a director have > "destroyed" the board? > NO, because I consider the information in the laws as something the player is entitled to know. Your position seems to be that a player must memorize the laws or not be allowed to use them to his advantage. That position, as many a poster has suggested, is simply wrong. You cannot play the game if you are ignorant of the laws, and if you are not allowed to look up those laws when you feel you need to. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 22 19:28:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:28:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Legal information rights In-Reply-To: <000001c9045e$3a839a70$af8acf50$@no> References: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> <000001c9045e$3a839a70$af8acf50$@no> Message-ID: <48AEF75B.2070803@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Isn't that already clear when you read the laws? > Obviously not, or we would not have spent a week on this subject already. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 22 20:55:42 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:55:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> <48ADB04F.5030805@skynet.be><000801c903ca$fa3e6500$eebb2f00$@no> <48AEF66B.80604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003b01c90488$b409bc10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new >> I consider the information in the laws as something the player is entitled to know. Your position seems to be that a player must memorize the laws or not be allowed to use them to his advantage. That position, as many a poster has suggested, is simply wrong. You cannot play the game if you are ignorant of the laws, and if you are not allowed to look up those laws when you feel you need to. > +=+ Unaccompanied by law references the above expression of personal belief is not linked to the game. Since my position has been stated, and repetition does not change it, I have deleted the topic. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 22 21:34:08 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:34:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <003b01c90488$b409bc10$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> <48ADB04F.5030805@skynet.be><000801c903ca$fa3e6500$eebb2f00$@no> <48AEF66B.80604@skynet.be> <003b01c90488$b409bc10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48AF14B0.2040908@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > I consider the information in the laws as something the > player is entitled to know. Your position seems to be > that a player must memorize the laws or not be allowed > to use them to his advantage. That position, as many a > poster has suggested, is simply wrong. You cannot play > the game if you are ignorant of the laws, and if you are > not allowed to look up those laws when you feel you > need to. > +=+ Unaccompanied by law references the above > expression of personal belief is not linked to the game. > Since my position has been stated, and repetition does > not change it, I have deleted the topic. Since my position has been stated, and repetition does not change it, I will do the same. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Which does not solve the issue - maybe Grattan can put it in his notebook? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Fri Aug 22 21:42:09 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:42:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> <48ADB04F.5030805@skynet.be><000801c903ca$fa3e6500$eebb2f00$@no><48AEF66B.80604@skynet.be> <003b01c90488$b409bc10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001001c9048f$2c43e010$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "The intolerable wrestle with words and meanings." > [T.S. Eliot] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 6:24 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] something new > > >>> > I consider the information in the laws as something the > player is entitled to know. Your position seems to be > that a player must memorize the laws or not be allowed > to use them to his advantage. That position, as many a > poster has suggested, is simply wrong. You cannot play > the game if you are ignorant of the laws, and if you are > not allowed to look up those laws when you feel you > need to. >> > +=+ Unaccompanied by law references the above > expression of personal belief is not linked to the game. > Since my position has been stated, and repetition does > not change it, I have deleted the topic. 16A1c .. information specified in any Law ... 16A2 ... any requirement of the tourament regulations ... implying we can have these AS WELL AS the laws 40C3 is being perverted to say you can't ask about the Law; it's primary purpose is to stop you cheating by looking at your SC and other matters related to agreement (SC), memory(cards played, eg), calculation (the score for 2H just made; 60+50, though 30 per trick for H and 50 for a part score not being game are AI) or technique(eg Clyde Love; squeezes complete). It does NOT say you can't be told what the Law says. I agree with Grattan that we can't have aids to memory (such as my record of the opening lead, or the cards played to date; although the contract itself is authorised). I go further that state of the match is authorised 16A1d and 16A2, and thus I can inspect my scorecard for the purpose of estimating the current match score (but not look at the lead, of course). How can I play bridge if I don't know what the Law says? ... and if one word of it is authorised then so's the rest of it along with the CoC and regulations. If 78D says the regs are AI, how can the laws not be? John . > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 22 23:53:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:53:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] something new In-Reply-To: <001001c9048f$2c43e010$4001a8c0@JOHN> References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> <48ADB04F.5030805@skynet.be><000801c903ca$fa3e6500$eebb2f00$@no><48AEF66B.80604@skynet.be> <003b01c90488$b409bc10$0202a8c0@Mildred> <001001c9048f$2c43e010$4001a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <48AF354C.8070101@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > How can I play bridge if I don't know what the Law says? ... and if one word > of it is authorised then so's the rest of it along with the CoC and > regulations. If 78D says the regs are AI, how can the laws not be? John > . John, you need to make a distinction between AI and EI. There is no doubt that the laws are AI. If you know them, you can use that knowledge. The question is if they are EI: information every player is entitled to. Well, let's put it this way. If the players are not allowed to ask what the laws are, then surely you and I are at an advantage as against those other players, are we not? The why should we argue against Grattan. In fact, we should be insisting that the knowledge of the laws be considered as important as the knowledge of squeeze techniqe. We should therefore also stop teaching our friends about what the laws say - lest they beat us in next week's club duplicate. In fact, I should stop discussing the laws on blml, and attempt to beat Sven next month by my superior knowledge. All this of course with a huge :) Do we really want the laws to be a way we create an edge for players who have better knowledge of the laws? Grattan, please reconsider. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Aug 23 02:03:34 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:03:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Legal information rights In-Reply-To: <48AEF75B.2070803@skynet.be> References: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> <000001c9045e$3a839a70$af8acf50$@no> <48AEF75B.2070803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48AF53D6.1090400@NTLworld.com> [TNLB L16A1d] [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. [TNLB 16A2] 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. [TNLB L78D1] If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be adopted. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of Contest in advance of a tournament or contest. These should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. The Conditions must not conflict with law or regulation and shall incorporate any information specified by the Regulating Authority. They should be available to contestants. [John (MadDog) Probst] [snip] I agree with Grattan that we can't have aids to memory (such as my record of the opening lead, or the cards played to date; although the contract itself is authorised). I go further that state of the match is authorised 16A1d and 16A2, and thus I can inspect my scorecard for the purpose of estimating the current match score (but not look at the lead, of course). How can I play bridge if I don't know what the Law says? ... and if one word of it is authorised then so's the rest of it along with the CoC and regulations. If 78D says the regs are AI, how can the laws not be? [Nige1] John cites three laws, quoted above. - 16A1d allows you to use information "that you possessed before you took your hand form the board". I think that that must mean your *memory* of that information - not actual law-books and system-notes. - Similarly I think 16A2 means that you may take account of your *memory* of your score and the regulatory requirements. It don't think it means that you can consult anybody's score-card or book of regulations. - 78D1 says conditions of the contest must be published and available to contestants before it starts. I don't think it means players can consult them during the bidding and play. The law-book is authorised information just as your system-notes are authorised information but it does not follow that you can ask the director to read either to you. The director may advise you on your legal rights and duties; but no law mandates that he inform you of other relevant laws, regulations, and conditions of contest during the bidding and play unless attention is drawn to an irregularity. I agree with John that (like most Bridge Laws) these could be simpler and clearer. From svenpran at online.no Sat Aug 23 10:35:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:35:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Legal information rights In-Reply-To: <48AF53D6.1090400@NTLworld.com> References: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> <000001c9045e$3a839a70$af8acf50$@no> <48AEF75B.2070803@skynet.be> <48AF53D6.1090400@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c904fb$3d1f1780$b75d4680$@no> On Behalf Of Guthrie ............. > [Nige1] > John cites three laws, quoted above. > > - 16A1d allows you to use information "that you possessed before you > took your hand form the board". I think that that must mean your > *memory* of that information - not actual law-books and system-notes. > > - Similarly I think 16A2 means that you may take account of your > *memory* of your score and the regulatory requirements. It don't think > it means that you can consult anybody's score-card or book of regulations. > > - 78D1 says conditions of the contest must be published and available to > contestants before it starts. I don't think it means players can consult > them during the bidding and play. > > The law-book is authorised information just as your system-notes are > authorised information but it does not follow that you can ask the > director to read either to you. > > The director may advise you on your legal rights and duties; but no law > mandates that he inform you of other relevant laws, regulations, and > conditions of contest during the bidding and play unless attention is > drawn to an irregularity. At last some indications of a general understanding what is meant by "aids to ...." > > I agree with John that (like most Bridge Laws) these could be simpler > and clearer. Rather than just making statements like this why don't you try on your own to write an alternative law text that is "simpler and clearer" but still meets all the requirements to a law? Frankly I consider WBFLC having done a very good job. Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Aug 23 13:41:45 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:41:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Legal information rights In-Reply-To: <000001c904fb$3d1f1780$b75d4680$@no> References: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> <000001c9045e$3a839a70$af8acf50$@no> <48AEF75B.2070803@skynet.be> <48AF53D6.1090400@NTLworld.com> <000001c904fb$3d1f1780$b75d4680$@no> Message-ID: <48AFF779.1030303@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] Rather than just making statements like this why don't you try on your own to write an alternative law text that is "simpler and clearer" but still meets all the requirements to a law? Frankly I consider WBFLC having done a very good job. [Nigel] We are all grateful to the law committees for their good work. I have tried to suggest "improvements" and "simplifications" in this forum, so I do appreciate how hard it is to phrase laws clearly. Here are some conclusions: - The laws should be simple and clear enough for ordinary players to understand and learn them. - It would be hard enough to phrase laws that are simple and objective. It must be a Herculean task to write laws that are sophisticated and unnecessarily subjective. - Much of the law (e.g. the details of disclosure law) seems to be delegated to local legislatures and contest organisers. If the law-book were expanded to include default laws (that local legislatures could over-ride) then the law book would provide a more complete and coherent framework. - Other laws that seem to add zero value could be dropped altogether - for example the "wild and gambling" law. - Laws that give a player options are controversial. The law would be fairer and simpler with such options removed. - Laws about "using" unauthorised information are hard to apply. Instead, perhaps, we should reconsider the taboo against "shooting the giver of UI". We (or better he) should bite this bullet. - Laws about disclosure will continue to be almost impossible to enforce as long as the law allows the prevaricator to plead "no understanding" and "general knowledge". The latter is a another concept that would not be missed were it dropped from the law-book. - Claims cause frequent problems that simple law changes might ameliorate. Solutions to the above are likely to require a radical overhaul of the law. What about minor solecisms and ambiguities? ... - Robert Geller and other translators point out that if law-makers restricted themselves to a basic well defined vocabulary and simpler constructs, the laws might be less elegant but they would be clearer and easier to translate. - The law committee should consult earlier and more widely. It should publish each draft in an on-line forum like BLML for comment. Then the final version would probably include fewer anomalies. - After a major new edition, the law-committee should be less reluctant to issue interim minor editions - that don't alter the intention of the law - but just correct ambiguities. - (As promised) the law book should include example cases after difficult to interpret laws. If these examples addressed *borderline* rulings they could hone the directors' judgement. Anyway, there would then be less scope for confusion. - The complete laws (including local regulations, if any) should be published as hyper-linked XHTML web-pages that directors (and players) can quickly and easily access and cross-reference on a laptop, PDA or mobile device. From john at asimere.com Sat Aug 23 14:46:11 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:46:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Legal information rights References: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> <000001c9045e$3a839a70$af8acf50$@no> <48AEF75B.2070803@skynet.be><48AF53D6.1090400@NTLworld.com> <000001c904fb$3d1f1780$b75d4680$@no> Message-ID: <000a01c9051e$38ebb920$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Legal information rights > On Behalf Of Guthrie > ............. >> [Nige1] >> John cites three laws, quoted above. >> >> - 16A1d allows you to use information "that you possessed before you >> took your hand form the board". I think that that must mean your >> *memory* of that information - not actual law-books and system-notes. >> >> - Similarly I think 16A2 means that you may take account of your >> *memory* of your score and the regulatory requirements. It don't think >> it means that you can consult anybody's score-card or book of >> regulations. >> >> - 78D1 says conditions of the contest must be published and available to >> contestants before it starts. I don't think it means players can consult >> them during the bidding and play. >> >> The law-book is authorised information just as your system-notes are >> authorised information but it does not follow that you can ask the >> director to read either to you. Here I disagree. System notes are an aid to memory. That is clear enough; it's my work, not the work of the WBFLC or RO BUT ... To suggest that I should have an advantage over other players because I am paid to know the Laws better than they is invidious. The probst cheat prospers again! Once we demonstrate that point, once again I must ask "How do we play bridge?". IF we cannot allow the probst cheat to prosper how can we preclude a player from seeking guidance from the Law? ... and once we allow that then the imp table too is authorised. (I happen to know that too, as I also know - or can mentally compute - the VP tables, but most don't/can't) >> >> The director may advise you on your legal rights and duties; but no law >> mandates that he inform you of other relevant laws, regulations, and >> conditions of contest during the bidding and play unless attention is >> drawn to an irregularity. > > At last some indications of a general understanding what is meant by "aids > to ...." > >> >> I agree with John that (like most Bridge Laws) these could be simpler >> and clearer. I'm not saying that Nigel, I think they're pretty good as they are, agreeing with Sven on this point.. John > > Rather than just making statements like this why don't you try on your own > to write an alternative law text that is "simpler and clearer" but still > meets all the requirements to a law? Frankly I consider WBFLC having done > a > very good job. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Aug 23 15:39:00 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:39:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Legal information rights In-Reply-To: <000a01c9051e$38ebb920$4001a8c0@JOHN> References: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> <000001c9045e$3a839a70$af8acf50$@no> <48AEF75B.2070803@skynet.be><48AF53D6.1090400@NTLworld.com> <000001c904fb$3d1f1780$b75d4680$@no> <000a01c9051e$38ebb920$4001a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <48B012F4.5020600@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] I agree with John that (like most Bridge Laws) these could be simpler and clearer. [John (MadDog) Probst] I'm not saying that Nigel, I think they're pretty good as they are, agreeing with Sven on this point. [Nige2] John and Sven both think that the laws are simple and clear enough :) Unforunately they each interpret them to have conflicting meanings :( From john at asimere.com Sat Aug 23 17:04:34 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:04:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Legal information rights References: <48AEB4FC.9090801@NTLworld.com> <000001c9045e$3a839a70$af8acf50$@no> <48AEF75B.2070803@skynet.be><48AF53D6.1090400@NTLworld.com> <000001c904fb$3d1f1780$b75d4680$@no><000a01c9051e$38ebb920$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48B012F4.5020600@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001b01c90531$8dabc230$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Legal information rights > [Nige1] > I agree with John that (like most Bridge Laws) these could be simpler > and clearer. > > [John (MadDog) Probst] > I'm not saying that Nigel, I think they're pretty good as they are, > agreeing with Sven on this point. > > [Nige2] > John and Sven both think that the laws are simple and clear enough :) > Unforunately they each interpret them to have conflicting meanings :( > In practice at an event the CTD will rule (as Max did at brighton) and we can then have a discussion (as we are currently doing) . Out of chaos comes more chaos :) John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 25 00:54:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:54:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c904fb$3d1f1780$b75d4680$@no> Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) X Pass(3) Pass(4) ? (1) 15-17 hcp balanced (2) Stayman (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C You, South, hold: AJ85 QT952 T4 T4 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 01:04:37 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:04:37 +1200 Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game Message-ID: <2a1c3a560808241604y60d1ee7ey2c3b19244e2c884b@mail.gmail.com> Final of Island Teams Events (One level below national NZ Teams) Round Robin of six top qualifiers Dealer North NS Vul J643 4 986 J10953 - P 1D 1H P P 1S 4H All Pass What lead do you make? What other leads do you consider likely across a field of peers? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 25 01:38:20 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:38:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B1F0EC.5070605@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable You, South, hold: S:AJ85 H:QT952 D:T4 C:T4 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) X Pass(3) Pass(4) ? (1) 15-17 hcp balanced (2) Stayman (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nige1] IMO 2H = 10, _P = 5, XX = 3. My initial reaction was "Pass" but, on reflection, that is wrong. FWIW, our agreement in similar contexts is: - _P = 5 Clubs. - 2D = 5 Diamonds. - XX = No preference. - 2H = Longer hearts. - 2S = Longer spades. 2C is at *best* a 5-2 fit, whereas 2H is at *worst* a 5-2 fit. Also if opponents double 2H and we make it, it is game. Although admittedly that is more important at teams than pairs. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 25 01:45:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:45:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560808241604y60d1ee7ey2c3b19244e2c884b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: [Wayne Burrows]: Final of Island Teams Events (One level below national NZ Teams) Round Robin of six top qualifiers Dealer North NS Vul J643 4 986 JT953 - P 1D 1H P P 1S 4H All Pass What lead do you make? What other leads do you consider likely across a field of peers? [Richard Hills]: I lead a diamond. My second choice is a low spade. Zia could well lead the jack of spades, which might help partner avoid being endplayed if dummy holds K75 of spades and declarer holds T2 of spades. But Zia is not my peer. :-) 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 hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Mon Aug 25 03:13:44 2008 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:13:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B20748.5000804@cs.elte.hu> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) >X Pass(3) Pass(4) ? > >(1) 15-17 hcp balanced >(2) Stayman >(3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership >(4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C > >You, South, hold: > >AJ85 >QT952 >T4 >T4 > >What call do you make? > > 2H >What other calls do you consider making? > > I consider pass, rdbl, 2D. LHO opened, RHO penaltydoubled, so we are on the defensive line. After my artifical bid and opp's double, partner's pass shows club suit. It's absolutely clear. But I have two problems. 1, I've seen too many players, and I know, that totally clear things are never clear to most of the experienced player as well. So althought partner's pass should show clubs, I'm sure, he shows nothing, unless he is an expert bidder. 2, I'm sure he is not expert otherwise i would not bid 2C as Stayman. I cannot imagine I play 2C stayman in this situation unless my partner is a beginner or an idiot. cheers Laci From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Aug 25 01:52:21 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:52:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560808241604y60d1ee7ey2c3b19244e2c884b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560808241604y60d1ee7ey2c3b19244e2c884b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B1F435.7020301@NTLworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] Final of Island Teams Events (One level below national NZ Teams)Round Robin of six top qualifiers. Dealer North. NS Vul S:J643 H:4 D:986 C:J10953 - (_P) 1D (1H) P (_P) 1S (4H) All Pass What lead do you make? What other leads do you consider likely across a field of peers? [Nigel] A Biltcliffe gambit accepted! IMO H = 10, S = 9, D = 8, C = 7. Partner has at least nine cards in the pointed suits, so perhaps, you should bid 4S instead. If partner tanks before passing, he may be wondering whether to risk a Lightner double. So in that case, IMO, the director should not allow the strongly suggested club lead. From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 02:24:06 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:24:06 +1200 Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560808241604y60d1ee7ey2c3b19244e2c884b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560808241724w652c1360nb26be89258944c69@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/25 : > [Wayne Burrows]: > > Final of Island Teams Events (One level below national NZ Teams) > Round Robin of six top qualifiers > > Dealer North > NS Vul > > J643 > 4 > 986 > JT953 > > - P 1D 1H > P P 1S 4H > All Pass > > What lead do you make? > > What other leads do you consider likely across a field of peers? > > [Richard Hills]: > > I lead a diamond. My second choice is a low spade. > > Zia could well lead the jack of spades, which might help partner > avoid being endplayed if dummy holds K75 of spades and declarer > holds T2 of spades. But Zia is not my peer. :-) > > I meant the peers of the players in this sort of tournament. Zia wasn't playing. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 25 02:44:19 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:44:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560808241724w652c1360nb26be89258944c69@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >What other leads do you consider likely across a field of peers? >..... >I meant the peers of the players in this sort of tournament. >Zia wasn't playing. > >Wayne Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Richard Hills asks: Does "class of players" refer to an average player of the entire tournament? Or does "class of players" refer to clones of the specific South "in question"? 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 25 03:34:25 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:34:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48B1F0EC.5070605@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000801c90652$bb3530c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Laszlo Hegedus: [big snip] >I cannot imagine I play 2C Stayman in this situation unless my >partner is a beginner or an idiot. >cheers >Laci And now the auction with the new miracle ingredient of UI. Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) X Pass(3) Pass(4) ? (1) 15-17 hcp balanced (2) _Intended as_ Stayman (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ You, South, hold: AJ85 QT952 T4 T4 What _legal_ call do you make? After North's UI, is 2H a _legal_ call? 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 Mon Aug 25 04:14:36 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:14:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560808241604y60d1ee7ey2c3b19244e2c884b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Final of Island Teams Events (One level below national NZ Teams) > Round Robin of six top qualifiers > > Dealer North > NS Vul > > J643 > 4 > 986 > J10953 > > - P 1D 1H > P P 1S 4H > All Pass > > What lead do you make? I don't know. What was the rest of the auction after I bid 4S? If I didn't bid 4S, why would you care what lead I made, since I clearly don't play a whole lot of bridge? For what it's worth, I would lead a club. Partner might ruff it - LHO did not raise hearts, partner did not reopen with double, 4=3=6=0 is not at all an unlikely shape for partner, which goes to show how stupid my pass was - and it's not likely to do all that much harm if he doesn't. But any lead at all could be right, which again goes to show how stupid my pass was; if I don't know how to beat four hearts, why did I let them play in it? David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Aug 25 04:23:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:23:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c90652$bb3530c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Given the subject line I take it this has to do with >the intolerance of English Law for slavery? +=+ Richard Hills: Not exactly. Rather, a more general legal principle enunciated by Lord Chief Justice Mansfield in his ruling abolishing slavery in England: "...it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law..." The relevance of this Mansfieldian dictum will become apparent during a later iteration of this thread; I am exploring a number of other legal issues first. 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 Mon Aug 25 10:08:47 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:08:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 Message-ID: <48B2688F.9030005@t-online.de> Hi all, only yesterday I noticed that 67B1 has been changed. 1997 version: 1. Offender Has Too Many Cards When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the Director shall require him forthwith to face a card and to place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); if (a) Offender Has Card of Suit Led the offender has a card of the suit led to the defective trick, he must choose such a card to place among his played cards, and there is no penalty. (b) Offender Has No Card of Suit Led the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he chooses any card to place among his played cards, and (penalty) he is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick ---- he may be subject to the one-trick penalty of Law 64. In 2007 the one-trick penalty was put in (a), too. Now I wonder why this was done. I fail to understand the philosophy behind both versions. In the older version an automatic (more or less) penalty was applied when it should have been no trouble for the TD to find out whether the offending player had a card of the suit in question at the time of the defective trick. Any possible advantage gained could have been taken away by way of "could have known...". Now, at a time when the minds of the law-givers have been turned to the question "how can we let this board be scored normally" (see L64, L27 and others), an automatic penalty is introduced which practically guarantees a bad score in a pairs event, and which may well mean a disaster in teams now and then. I fail to see the reasoning behind this. Can someone (maybe Grattan?) shed some light on this? It seems to run against the intentions of the current laws. I could understand a change to "look whether some damage has occured and adjust accordingly", but why this automatic route when TDs on the club level have been burdenend with L27 and L12C1b, which are bound to overburden lots of them? Best regards Matthias From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 10:23:40 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:23:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000001c904fb$3d1f1780$b75d4680$@no> Message-ID: On 25/08/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) > X Pass(3) Pass(4) ? > > (1) 15-17 hcp balanced > (2) Stayman > (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership > (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C > > You, South, hold: > > AJ85 > QT952 > T4 > T4 > > What call do you make? Pass is obvious. Partner has a good 5-card (or 6) club suit. On reflection I'd be reluctant to pass, since playing Stayman here suggest that neither I or partner is any good at this game, and I should probably not trust partner's pass..... > What other calls do you consider making? Except for the second part above, I'd not consider any alternative to pass. Obviously I've got some UI here, making it clear to me that we're not on the same page regarding Stayman (how strange!!). Given that, I've got an auto-pass. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Aug 25 10:26:12 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:26:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_67B1?= In-Reply-To: <48B2688F.9030005@t-online.de> References: <48B2688F.9030005@t-online.de> Message-ID: <1KXXOu-1H0GBc0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> From: Matthias Berghaus > only yesterday I noticed that 67B1 has been changed. > > [snip] > > In 2007 the one-trick penalty was put in (a), too. Now I wonder why > this was done. I fail to understand the philosophy behind both > versions. In the older version an automatic (more or less) penalty was > applied when it should have been no trouble for the TD to find out > whether the offending player had a card of the suit in question at the > time of the defective trick. Any possible advantage gained could have > been taken away by way of "could have known...". > Now, at a time when the minds of the law-givers have been turned to > the question "how can we let this board be scored normally" (see L64, > L27 and others), an automatic penalty is introduced which practically > guarantees a bad score in a pairs event, and which may well mean a > disaster in teams now and then. I fail to see the reasoning behind > this. > Can someone (maybe Grattan?) shed some light on this? It seems to run > against the intentions of the current laws. I could understand a > change to "look whether some damage has occured and adjust > accordingly", but why this automatic route when TDs on the club level > have been burdenend with L27 and L12C1b, which are bound to overburden > lots of them? Maybe the reason was to be consistent with Law 61 A: "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." Not having played to the defective trick therefore meets the requirements of a revoke and is now treated as a revoke whether or not the offending player still has a card of that suit in his hand. Peter From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 25 10:39:33 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:39:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001201c9068e$673ec760$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > >>+=+ Given the subject line I take it this has to do with >>the intolerance of English Law for slavery? +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Not exactly. Rather, a more general legal principle > enunciated by Lord Chief Justice Mansfield in his ruling > abolishing slavery in England: > +=+ Actually his ruling did not 'abolish' slavery. His finding was that English Law did not recognize that such a condition as slavery existed. Therefore, in the case before him, the alleged slave could not be treated as such and returned to his 'masters' overseas. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Aug 25 10:51:24 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:51:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 In-Reply-To: <48B2688F.9030005@t-online.de> Message-ID: Hi, We tried to be more consistent here. In fact there is an established revoke in a) and none of us (nor anybody else I have talked with about this issue) did understand why the penalty for that revoke is not exercised in this case. More curious, in a( with an established revoke there was no penalty and in b) where there might not have been a(n) (established) revoke there is an automatic penalty (in previous versions of the laws). That is why. ton Hi all, only yesterday I noticed that 67B1 has been changed. 1997 version: 1. Offender Has Too Many Cards When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the Director shall require him forthwith to face a card and to place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); if (a) Offender Has Card of Suit Led the offender has a card of the suit led to the defective trick, he must choose such a card to place among his played cards, and there is no penalty. (b) Offender Has No Card of Suit Led the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he chooses any card to place among his played cards, and (penalty) he is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick ---- he may be subject to the one-trick penalty of Law 64. In 2007 the one-trick penalty was put in (a), too. Now I wonder why this was done. I fail to understand the philosophy behind both versions. In the older version an automatic (more or less) penalty was applied when it should have been no trouble for the TD to find out whether the offending player had a card of the suit in question at the time of the defective trick. Any possible advantage gained could have been taken away by way of "could have known...". Now, at a time when the minds of the law-givers have been turned to the question "how can we let this board be scored normally" (see L64, L27 and others), an automatic penalty is introduced which practically guarantees a bad score in a pairs event, and which may well mean a disaster in teams now and then. I fail to see the reasoning behind this. Can someone (maybe Grattan?) shed some light on this? It seems to run against the intentions of the current laws. I could understand a change to "look whether some damage has occured and adjust accordingly", but why this automatic route when TDs on the club level have been burdenend with L27 and L12C1b, which are bound to overburden lots of them? Best regards Matthias _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 25 11:18:52 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:18:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B278FC.1010808@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) > X Pass(3) Pass(4) ? > > (1) 15-17 hcp balanced > (2) Stayman > (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership > (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C > > You, South, hold: > > AJ85 > QT952 > T4 > T4 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > AG : the first call I'm thinking about is 2H. It certainly shows a side spade suit, given the 2C bid. I don't think a redouble would achieve anything that 2H wouldn't, but I consider it a LA. If you ask me what partner's pass means, I'd say that, since there are points overall, stopper considerations for 3NT are remote, so that he's suggesting to play in cluibs. Now, surely you're asking us whether fielding partner's psyche based on long clubs would be allowed. Given West's activity (he hasn't got a light opener based on strong diamonds and out) and the fact that East can't be psyching, I would allow it. Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Aug 25 11:41:34 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:41:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 In-Reply-To: <1KXXOu-1H0GBc0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Maybe the reason was to be consistent with Law 61 A: "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." Not having played to the defective trick therefore meets the requirements of a revoke and is now treated as a revoke whether or not the offending player still has a card of that suit in his hand. Peter ton: Well noticed From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 25 11:42:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:42:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48B20748.5000804@cs.elte.hu> References: <48B20748.5000804@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <48B27E9D.2020500@ulb.ac.be> Laszlo Hegedus a ?crit : > > LHO opened, RHO penaltydoubled, so we are on the defensive line. After > my artifical bid and opp's double, partner's pass shows club suit. It's > absolutely clear. But I have two problems. > 1, I've seen too many players, and I know, that totally clear things are > never clear to most of the experienced player as well. So althought > partner's pass should show clubs, I'm sure, he shows nothing, unless he > is an expert bidder. > 2, I'm sure he is not expert otherwise i would not bid 2C as Stayman. I > cannot imagine I play 2C stayman in this situation unless my partner is > a beginner or an idiot. > AG : I'm a bit worried by that. Since I play bridge for 30 yeatrs, I must be an idiot. Notice that the following agreement is fairly common in Brussels : pass = forcing to redouble (unless partner holds a 6-card minor), possibly prelude to an escape Rdbl = transfer to clubs, or D+H (you bid 2D over 2C) 2C = Staymanic, just in case there is a light opener, includes weak 44 majors 2DHS = to play Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Aug 25 11:46:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:46:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B27F6F.6010207@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > And now the auction with the new miracle ingredient of UI. > > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) > X Pass(3) Pass(4) ? > > (1) 15-17 hcp balanced > (2) _Intended as_ Stayman > (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership > (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then > North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ > > You, South, hold: > > AJ85 > QT952 > T4 > T4 > > What _legal_ call do you make? > After North's UI, is 2H a _legal_ call? > > Hmm... I guessed the problem wrongly. Yes, pass is a LA, and taking out is suggested by partner's comment, so ... Now there is the case where North holds long clubs and counts on us to "bend backwards" and pass in this good contract ... Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Aug 25 12:45:51 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:45:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 References: <48B2688F.9030005@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000a01c9069f$cba33f90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 9:08 AM Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 Hi all, only yesterday I noticed that 67B1 has been changed. ---- \x/ ---- I fail to see the reasoning behind this. Can someone (maybe Grattan?) shed some light on this? << +=+ The modification was done very early. Before Verona. Although highlighted in the comparison sheets in Verona and since, including those made available also for perusal by NBOs, it has attracted no comment until now. For a while to come I shall be prevented from examining the detail history - the material from discussions pre-Verona is in a disconnected PC awaiting transfer of some of its contents to a new machine - so I do not know currently how the thought originated. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Aug 25 13:31:02 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:31:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 Message-ID: <48B297F6.4000608@t-online.de> ton schrieb: > > Hi, > > We tried to be more consistent here. > > In fact there is an established revoke in a) and none of us (nor anybody > else I have talked with about this issue) did understand why the penalty for > that revoke is not exercised in this case. The act of not playing a card at all when one could have followed suit constitutes a revoke, as mentioned by Peter, yes. I can understand why this has been changed. What strikes me as odd is that in the other case, where one could argue that in a sizeable number of cases - meaning all cases where I could not follow suit at the time of the defective trick due to being out of that suit - there has not, in fact, been any revoke ( it being debatable whether this act meets the L61 definition of a revoke. ISTM that it does not.), and where it could be handled differently with the help of other laws if any damage arose (and in far shorter time than some L12 or L27 cases), no steps were taken to go the "equity" route instead of the transferring tricks. In retrospect I notice that I did not word my original mail in a way to make it clear that this is my main "concern". Don't get me wrong, I can live with the current law, no problem, I just wondered. Best regards Matthias > > More curious, in a( with an established revoke there was no penalty and in > b) where there might not have been a(n) (established) revoke there is an > automatic penalty (in previous versions of the laws). > > That is why. > > ton > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 25 14:59:50 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:59:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [HS] On reflection I'd be reluctant to pass, since playing Stayman here suggest that neither I or partner is any good at this game [DALB] Thank you. I'd better tell Callaghan (with whom I have been playing Stayman in this kind of sequence for about twenty years with beneficial effects) that neither he nor I are any good at this game. His pass would show 5+ clubs and deny a major. I would probably bid 2H with the intermediates that I hold in the suit, but it could be wrong to do this if he had six clubs, as he might. Would consider pass and 2H. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Mon Aug 25 20:06:28 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:06:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game References: <2a1c3a560808241604y60d1ee7ey2c3b19244e2c884b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000a01c906dd$4c479af0$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 12:04 AM Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game > Final of Island Teams Events (One level below national NZ Teams) > Round Robin of six top qualifiers > > Dealer North > NS Vul > > J643 > 4 > 986 > J10953 > > - P 1D 1H > P P 1S 4H > All Pass > > What lead do you make? small spade > > What other leads do you consider likely across a field of peers? > CJ/D8, all things are possible, including an immediate C ruff. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 26 00:34:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:34:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H 3NT Pass Pass ? (1) 15-17 hcp balanced (2) _Intended as_ Stayman (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ You, South, hold: AJ85 QT952 T4 T4 What call don't 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 john at asimere.com Tue Aug 26 02:35:01 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 01:35:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000c01c90713$93981340$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) > X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H > 3NT Pass Pass ? > > (1) 15-17 hcp balanced > (2) _Intended as_ Stayman > (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership > (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then > North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ > > You, South, hold: > > AJ85 > QT952 > T4 > T4 > > What call don't you make? I don't Pass; I smack this so hard the table disintegrates. I may have to lead a club though; Yuck! > > > 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Aug 26 02:44:28 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 01:44:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B351EC.1060804@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] --- --- --- Pass 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H 3NT Pass Pass ? (1) 15-17 hcp balanced (2) _Intended as_ Stayman (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ What call don't you make? [Nigel] _X = 10, P = 9. Ostensibly, partner has diamond stop(s), he and you have balanced hands, and you hold 22-24 HCP between you; Nevertheless, LHO has just contracted to make 3N. Somebody is at it and partner is a prime suspect. If partner has no reputation as a psycher and this really is a new partnership, then you may go with your instincts and pass. Otherwise, IMO you must hope that partner has his bid and that your double suggests a non-heart lead, preferably an Ace. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Aug 26 02:46:49 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:46:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c90713$93981340$4001a8c0@JOHN> References: <000c01c90713$93981340$4001a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <48B35279.4090708@t-online.de> John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:34 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- Pass >> 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) >> X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H >> 3NT Pass Pass ? >> >> (1) 15-17 hcp balanced >> (2) _Intended as_ Stayman >> (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership >> (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then >> North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> AJ85 >> QT952 >> T4 >> T4 >> >> What call don't you make? > > I don't Pass; I smack this so hard the table disintegrates. I may have to > lead a club though; Yuck! > Come again? West has an opening bid and can now jump to 3NT, vulnerable, North got 15-17, East got a penalty double, and we hold 7 HCP? Someone's fooling around, and it is not West. Double with a yarborough would be quite imaginative for East, with a potential redouble out there, and vulnerable, to boot, so I am inclined to doubt that 1NT call. I am not going to double. The call I am going to make is for some Scotch, I am about to need that while the TD sorts out what has happened. I lead a club. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 26 02:50:16 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 01:50:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 References: <48B297F6.4000608@t-online.de> Message-ID: <002c01c90716$a7ab34e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 67B1 What strikes me as odd is that in the other case, where one could argue that in a sizeable number of cases - meaning all cases where I could not follow suit at the time of the defective trick due to being out of that suit - there has not, in fact, been any revoke ( it being debatable whether this act meets the L61 definition of a revoke. ISTM that it does not.), <<< +=+Law 61: failure to play a card required by law constitutes a revoke. The law requires each player to contribute a card to each trick. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Aug 26 03:24:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:24:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- --- Pass >>1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) >>X Pass(3) Pass(4) ? >> >>(1) 15-17 hcp balanced >>(2) _Intended as_ Stayman >>(3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership >>(4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then >> North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ >> >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>AJ85 >>QT952 >>T4 >>T4 >> >>What call do you make? Harald Skj?ran: >Pass is obvious. Partner has a good 5-card (or 6) club suit. "When someone says something 'is obvious' that means that that proposition is highly debatable." Harald Skj?ran: >On reflection I'd be reluctant to pass, since playing Stayman here >suggest that neither I or partner is any good at this game, and I >should probably not trust partner's pass..... > >Except for the second part above, I'd not consider any alternative >to pass. Richard Hills: In my partnership we play the SW1NE convention after our 1NT is doubled. But in a similar auction which commences: 1NT - (Pass) - 2C - (Dble) we play that the 1NT opener's Redouble shows five clubs, 2D shows five diamonds, and a Pass denies both a 4-card major and also a 5- card minor. Perhaps my partner and I are not any good at this game, but this shows the dangers of assuming that it "is obvious" that an _undiscussed_ Pass by North in a new partnership guarantees "a good 5-card club suit". Harald Skj?ran: >Obviously I've got some UI here, making it clear to me that we're >not on the same page regarding Stayman (how strange!!). Given that, >I've got an auto-pass. Richard Hills: Yes, it "is obvious" that the UI demonstrably suggests a removal of 2Cx to 2H. So if Pass of 2Cx is a logical alternative for the South class of players _using the methods of the North-South partnership_, then indeed it is automatic. Merely because some blmlers play that the Pass by North shows 5+ clubs does not mean that the actual new partnership North-South have an explicit and/or implicit understanding that the Pass by North shows 5+ clubs. Therefore, if I was the EBU TD in question, I would be likely to decide that South passing 2Cx would not be found by 30% of South's peers using South's methods, thus ruling that a removal to 2H by South is legal in the EBU. 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 Aug 26 04:16:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:16:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48B35279.4090708@t-online.de> Message-ID: >>>What call don't you make? John (MadDog) Probst: >>I don't Pass; I smack this so hard the table disintegrates. I may have >>to lead a club though; Yuck! Matthias Berghaus: >Come again? West has an opening bid and can now jump to 3NT, vulnerable, >North got 15-17, East got a penalty double, and we hold 7 HCP? Someone's >fooling around, and it is not West. Double with a yarborough would be >quite imaginative for East, with a potential redouble out there, and >vulnerable, to boot, so I am inclined to doubt that 1NT call. I am not >going to double. The call I am going to make is for some Scotch, I am >about to need that while the TD sorts out what has happened. I lead a >club. Richard Hills: And in addition to the TD's other problems on the deal, the TD now has to resolve Matthias' opening lead out of turn. :-) The complete deal -> Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable Q942 --- J9732 Q875 T6 K73 AK6 J8743 AK85 Q6 A632 KJ9 AJ85 QT952 T4 T4 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 15-17 hcp balanced (2) _Intended as_ Stayman (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ Result at table: 3NT -1 by West = NS +100, lead Sx Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: The TD was called at end of play by E/W. E/W drew attention to psyche, which they believed South had fielded. On second round of spades West went up with SK playing North for SA on basis of 1NT overcall. E/W lodged appeal 10 minutes after play ceased. TD tried to locate both N/S but unable to do so for giving the ruling and ***notifying of the appeal***. Only E/W attended the hearing. Director's ruling: Table result stands Green psyche - no adjustment Appeal lodged by: East-West Basis of appeal: Believed South should pass 1NTx with 7 HCP Appeals Committee decision: Amber psyche - no adjustment Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: Committee were uncomfortable that the 2C bid was a normal action opposite a strong NT overcall. Committee reclassified the psyche as Amber. However N/S were ***not present*** to explain the logic of their actions. Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World November 1982: "Because of the possibility of unforeseen or emergency situations, a committee is the sole judge of when it may legally convene. however, it is highly unusual for a committee to consider score adjustment in the absence of notification to one side, and this is virtually never done. Furthermore, if the committee does meet with one pair not informed, and the situation requires a statement from the missing side (as your example clearly does), the committee will have little choice but to declare the appeal untimely." EBU White Book clause 93.1: "Players normally have the right to attend appeals of first instance, but the hearing of the appeal in circumstances likely to prevent their presence does not invalidate the appeal." Richard Hills: But this White Book clause applies to an appeal being held at an inconvenient time for one side (or both sides), not to one side being totally unaware of the appeal, thus not even able to provide a written submission. So, in my opinion, the odiously overhasty appeal hearing was illegal, due to violating Mansfieldian principles of justice under English common law. My opinion is arguable under the 1997 Lawbook applying at the time. But the relevance of English common law to an odious infraction of natural justice is explicitly stated in the 2007 Lawbook's final footnote: "* The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action." Chief Justice William Murray, Lord Mansfield (1705-1793), in his judgement (1772) ruling that the odious practice of slavery would only be legal in England if Parliament passed a positive law to that effect: ".....it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." In the same case, Lord Mansfield famously wrote: "Let Justice be done, though the Heavens may fall." 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 Aug 26 05:34:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:34:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48B351EC.1060804@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Somebody is at it and partner is a prime suspect. Richard Hills: I would say THE prime suspect, given North-South are not vul versus vul, plus North's overcall was in third seat. Nigel Guthrie: >If partner has no reputation as a psycher and this >really is a new partnership, then you may go with your >instincts and pass. Otherwise, IMO you must hope that >partner has his bid and that your double suggests a non- >heart lead, preferably an Ace. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Nigel's caveats imply that Nigel has misunderstood 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 which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty." Richard Hills: A concealed partnership understanding is always illegal because it is concealed. If North-South have a CPU about North's 1NT overcall, that CPU does not become legal due to South acting contrary to the CPU by electing to Double West's 3NT. And if North's 1NT overcall was not a CPU, then South is free to choose a Pass of West's 3NT no matter what other circumstances exist (unless South is constrained by the UI that South received earlier in the auction, which in my opinion is not relevant). 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 Aug 26 08:33:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:33:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas ACBL LC minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48B35279.4090708@t-online.de> Message-ID: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION HILTON HOTEL, LAS VEGAS, NV JULY 19, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chip Martel, Chairperson Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair Peter Boyd Chris Compton Allan Falk Ron Gerard Robb Gordon Georgia Heth Matt Smith John Solodar Peggy Sutherlin Howard Weinstein ALSO PRESENT: Rick Beye, ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary Blaiss, ACBL Executive Administrative Officer Olin Hubert, ACBL Tournament Director Dan Morse, ACBL President Matt Koltnow, ACBL Tournament Director Tadashi Yoshida, Japanese Contract Bridge League Executive Secretary The meeting was called to order at approximately 10:00 AM. The minutes of the Detroit meeting were approved. Laws 12B1 and 12C1(e) - Definition of "Infraction" and "Irregularity" in adjudicating unauthorized information (UI) cases: relevance of transmittal of extraneous information versus acting on that information contrary to Law 16B1(a) was discussed. There was no consensus as to whether the irregularity referred to in Law 12C1(e)(i) is the use of the UI or some combination of the creation of the UI and the use of the UI. The commission decided to send a request to the drafting committee for its interpretation of this point. Law 27 - parts B1(a) and (b) were discussed. On the point of use of Law 16D for application of part B1(b), there was a consensus that 16D may be applied as it is not stated that it is not to apply. However, a director should first apply 27D. There was also a consensus that if there was a possible rare holding included in the meaning of the sufficient bid, but not the insufficient bid, that a change under 27B1(b) should still be permitted. For example, 2NT - Pass - 2D, which is treated as a transfer to hearts but where 3D over 2N could (rarely) be the start of a slam try in a minor. The offender should be permitted to bid 3D over 2N without further rectification except for 27D and possibly 16D. Law 45D was discussed. It was unanimously judged that the law was clear that the director may not allow a later correction. "Pause for thought" was discussed. There was a consensus that current application is acceptable. Law 25B was discussed to question whether the director has an obligation to offer a person wanting to change an intentional call the option to substitute another call to give the offender's LHO the opportunity to accept the substitution, which the LHO would have if the offender had just substituted a call for the intended one at any time before the director ruled. The consensus was that the director is prohibited from offering that option. A similar situation exists in the claim laws. Law 68D is clear that play ceases once a claim is made. Law 70D3 states that the director may use play after a claim as evidence of the players' probable subsequent play. This law (along with 25B) creates a situation in which the players' options and the table actions differ depending upon whether the director is called or not. There was a consensus that this law is clear in that the director does not have the option to allow the players to continue play once a claim is made and the director arrives at the table. The result of the interpretation is that calling the director in these two instances (25B and 68D) may result in a different outcome than if the offending player or the players in the case of a claim take action before calling the director. The meeting was adjourned at noon. 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 Aug 26 09:02:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:02:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas ACBL LC minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL LC unanimously judged: "Law 45D was discussed. It was unanimously judged that the law was clear that the director may not allow a later correction." Law 45D, Card Misplayed by Dummy: "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick. (See Law 16D.)" Richard Hills: Suppose a professional player (e.g. Charlie the Chimp) who is dummy "accidentally" infracts Law 45D by "luckily" playing a card which breaks up a defensive squeeze. The sponsor who is declarer need not draw attention to dummy's irregularity, due to Law 72B2. Meanwhile, the defenders do not notice the Law 45D infraction by the Chimp until too late. Does Charlie the Chimp get away with it? Not if I was TD. Law 43A1(c), Limitations on Dummy: "Except as Law 42 allows: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer." Law 12A1, Power to Award an Adjusted Score: "On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or ***on his own initiative*** the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). This includes: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." 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 Aug 26 09:54:09 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:54:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 In-Reply-To: <002c01c90716$a7ab34e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48B297F6.4000608@t-online.de> <002c01c90716$a7ab34e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48B3B6A1.7080607@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: > > +=+Law 61: failure to play a card required by law constitutes > a revoke. The law requires each player to contribute a card to > each trick. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I thought so, too, but couldn't find where it says so. Somehow I missed L44B with my first search. Curious thing, the law is where one expects it to be....some sort of law blindness, so to speak. I am satisfied that it is a revoke, so both cases should be treated the same. Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Aug 26 09:59:17 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:59:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B3B7D5.8070101@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > > And in addition to the TD's other problems on the deal, the TD now has to > resolve Matthias' opening lead out of turn. :-) The complete deal -> > I told you that a good Scotch would be in order, didn't I :-) For our friends from America: a good Bourbon would do, too. To your health Matthias From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 26 10:45:05 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:45:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 References: <48B297F6.4000608@t-online.de><002c01c90716$a7ab34e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48B3B6A1.7080607@t-online.de> Message-ID: <003f01c9075a$30789630$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 67B1 > Grattan schrieb: > >> +=+Law 61: failure to play a card required by law constitutes >> a revoke. The law requires each player to contribute a card to >> each trick. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I thought so, too, but couldn't find where it says so. Somehow I missed > L44B with my first search. Curious thing, the law is where one expects > it to be....some sort of law blindness, so to speak. I am satisfied that > it is a revoke, so both cases should be treated the same. > +=+ It is one of those understated, softlee softlee catchee monkee, laws. Always watch for these! ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Aug 26 11:00:25 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:00:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas ACBL LC minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004001c9075a$30a858c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Las Vegas ACBL LC minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] < > Suppose a professional player (e.g. Charlie the Chimp) who is > dummy "accidentally" infracts Law 45D by "luckily" playing a > card which breaks up a defensive squeeze. The sponsor who is > declarer need not draw attention to dummy's irregularity, due > to Law 72B2. Meanwhile, the defenders do not notice the Law > 45D infraction by the Chimp until too late. > > Does Charlie the Chimp get away with it? Not if I was TD. > > Law 43A1(c), Limitations on Dummy: > > "Except as Law 42 allows: > Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate > anything about the play to declarer." > > Law 12A1, Power to Award an Adjusted Score: > > "On the application of a player within the period established > under Law 92B or ***on his own initiative*** the Director may > award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so > (in team play see Law 86). This includes: > The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that > these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending > contestant for the particular type of violation committed by > an opponent." > +=+ It may be arguable that the 'type of violation' is covered in Law 45D. However, the circumstances may be such as will allow the Director to adjudge that Law 23 applies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 26 11:15:47 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:15:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B3C9C3.50903@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) > X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H > 3NT Pass Pass ? > > (1) 15-17 hcp balanced > (2) _Intended as_ Stayman > (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership > (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then > North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ > > You, South, hold: > > AJ85 > QT952 > T4 > T4 > > What call don't you make? > AG : I don't think I have to do anything else than passing. Partner obviously psyched. At this point, I'm surely allowed to know this. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 26 11:21:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:21:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48B351EC.1060804@NTLworld.com> References: <48B351EC.1060804@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48B3CB35.1020705@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > --- --- --- Pass > 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) > X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H > 3NT Pass Pass ? > (1) 15-17 hcp balanced > (2) _Intended as_ Stayman > (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership > (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then > North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ > What call don't you make? > > [Nigel] > _X = 10, P = 9. > Ostensibly, partner has diamond stop(s), he and you have balanced hands, > and you hold 22-24 HCP between you; > > Nevertheless, LHO has just contracted to make 3N. > > Somebody is at it and partner is a prime suspect. If partner has no > reputation as a psycher and this really is a new partnership, then you > may go with your instincts and pass. AG : instincts aren't what counts here, non-explanation from partner or not. When vulnerable opponents contract for 3NT after an opponent bid 1NT, they don't believe him. I'll trust them. And it's pairs : if somethink stranger still happened (e.g. RHO pulled Dbl in lieu of Pass) and they're in a silly 3NT, going -400, we've already our top in hand. Basically, I never double 3NT for penalties (as to, e.g., for lead) at pairs, unless they had an obvious misunderstanding, and what would it be here ? (and please note that my partnerships never psyche) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 26 11:23:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:23:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48B35279.4090708@t-online.de> References: <000c01c90713$93981340$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48B35279.4090708@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48B3CB93.3010600@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:34 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >> >>> Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- --- Pass >>> 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) >>> X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H >>> 3NT Pass Pass ? >>> >>> (1) 15-17 hcp balanced >>> (2) _Intended as_ Stayman >>> (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership >>> (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then >>> North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ >>> >>> You, South, hold: >>> >>> AJ85 >>> QT952 >>> T4 >>> T4 >>> >>> What call don't you make? >>> >> I don't Pass; I smack this so hard the table disintegrates. I may have to >> lead a club though; Yuck! >> >> > > Come again? West has an opening bid and can now jump to 3NT, vulnerable, > North got 15-17, East got a penalty double, and we hold 7 HCP? Someone's > fooling around, and it is not West. Double with a yarborough would be > quite imaginative for East, with a potential redouble out there, and > vulnerable, to boot, so I am inclined to doubt that 1NT call. I am not > going to double. The call I am going to make is for some Scotch, I am > about to need that while the TD sorts out what has happened. I lead a club. > > Why compound the TD's problems in sorting thigs out ? Let partner lead ;-) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Aug 26 11:28:38 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:28:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B3CCC6.9020900@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable > > Q942 > --- > J9732 > Q875 > T6 K73 > AK6 J8743 > AK85 Q6 > A632 KJ9 > AJ85 > QT952 > T4 > T4 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) > X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H > 3NT Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 15-17 hcp balanced > (2) _Intended as_ Stayman > (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership > (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then > North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ > > AG : this looks like an accurate explanation of NS's methods - see previous threads. > Result at table: > 3NT -1 by West = NS +100, lead Sx > > Director first called: > At end of hand > > Director's statement of facts: > The TD was called at end of play by E/W. E/W drew attention to psyche, > which > they believed South had fielded. On second round of spades West went up > with > SK playing North for SA on basis of 1NT overcall. > > AG : that's ridiculous ! North's bid is known by everybody to be a psyche. Why would a psyche suggest 9 HCP rather than 5 ? > Director's ruling: > Table result stands > Green psyche - no adjustment > > AG : I'm going with the TD. Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Aug 26 11:37:43 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:37:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 In-Reply-To: <003f01c9075a$30789630$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48B297F6.4000608@t-online.de><002c01c90716$a7ab34e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48B3B6A1.7080607@t-online.de> <003f01c9075a$30789630$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48B3CEE7.6090904@t-online.de> Grattan schrieb: >> > +=+ It is one of those understated, softlee softlee catchee monkee, laws. > Always watch for these! ~ G ~ +=+ > For a moment the picture of Margaret Rutherford superimposed itself over my screen..... Murder ahoy, right? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Aug 26 11:58:06 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:58:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B3D3AE.9030600@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable > > Q942 > --- > J9732 > Q875 > T6 K73 > AK6 J8743 > AK85 Q6 > A632 KJ9 > AJ85 > QT952 > T4 > T4 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) > X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H > 3NT Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 15-17 hcp balanced > (2) _Intended as_ Stayman > (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership > (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then > North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ > > Result at table: > 3NT -1 by West = NS +100, lead Sx > > Director first called: > At end of hand > > Director's statement of facts: > The TD was called at end of play by E/W. E/W drew attention to psyche, > which they believed South had fielded. On second round of spades West went up > with SK playing North for SA on basis of 1NT overcall. This write-up is a mess. What second round of spades? I can't believe North got in again. If the TD meant to say that declarer played a spade to the king after ducking the first one to South he should have said so. And why was _that_ 1NT call, known to have been made with considerably less than 15 HCP, a fact to base a play on? Especially when it would be clear to have a look at the long suit first. Oooops, heart void in a 1NT overcall.... It looks like the players did not mention this, but it is difficult to reconstruct the actual happenings from short write-ups. > > E/W lodged appeal 10 minutes after play ceased. TD tried to locate both N/S > but unable to do so for giving the ruling and ***notifying of the > appeal***. > Only E/W attended the hearing. > > Director's ruling: > Table result stands > Green psyche - no adjustment > > Appeal lodged by: > East-West > > Basis of appeal: > Believed South should pass 1NTx with 7 HCP > > Appeals Committee decision: > Amber psyche - no adjustment > Deposit returned > > Appeals Committee's comments: > Committee were uncomfortable that the 2C bid was a normal action opposite a > strong NT overcall. I can understand that. The case is very close. It is, after all, a pairs tournament, so 1NT doubled (if West doesn't run, and if he does +200 should be available quite often) should score very well more often than not. West could have had an agressive opening bid, and East a very enterprising double. I have not looked at the regulations, but it is clear that an AC will have a long look at that 2C bid. Committee reclassified the psyche as Amber. However N/S > were ***not present*** to explain the logic of their actions. > From Gampas at aol.com Tue Aug 26 12:18:09 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:18:09 EDT Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 26/08/2008 03:17:54 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: So, in my opinion, the odiously overhasty appeal hearing was illegal, due to violating Mansfieldian principles of justice under English common law. [paul lamford] My only caveat at the above is that it is not put strongly enough. If 2C is Stayman, then it is a normal action, and the AC comment that they were uncomfortable with the bid is nonsensical. How can it be right to pass? Either the opener is telling porkies, probably with long diamonds, or partner is, again with a long minor. In BOTH cases it is correct to start with Stayman. If we pass and it goes 3D - Pass - Pass we are very poorly placed. If we bid Stayman, and partner passes, either over a double or over a pass, then we are better placed. As Richard suggests, provided there is no CPU, one can select the bid that one thinks is best. This was green, and the growth of incorrect amber classifications - there have been at least half a dozen - is because nobody understands what amber means. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Aug 26 12:37:49 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:37:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B3DCFD.10907@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>> What call don't you make? > > John (MadDog) Probst: > >>> I don't Pass; I smack this so hard the table disintegrates. I may have >>> to lead a club though; Yuck! > > Matthias Berghaus: > >> Come again? West has an opening bid and can now jump to 3NT, vulnerable, >> North got 15-17, East got a penalty double, and we hold 7 HCP? Someone's >> fooling around, and it is not West. Double with a yarborough would be >> quite imaginative for East, with a potential redouble out there, and >> vulnerable, to boot, so I am inclined to doubt that 1NT call. I am not >> going to double. The call I am going to make is for some Scotch, I am >> about to need that while the TD sorts out what has happened. I lead a >> club. > > Richard Hills: > > And in addition to the TD's other problems on the deal, the TD now has to > resolve Matthias' opening lead out of turn. :-) The complete deal -> > > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable > > Q942 > --- > J9732 > Q875 > T6 K73 > AK6 J8743 > AK85 Q6 > A632 KJ9 > AJ85 > QT952 > T4 > T4 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) > X Pass(3) Pass(4) 2H > 3NT Pass Pass Pass > > (1) 15-17 hcp balanced > (2) _Intended as_ Stayman > (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership > (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then > North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ > > Result at table: > 3NT -1 by West = NS +100, lead Sx > > Director first called: > At end of hand > > Director's statement of facts: > The TD was called at end of play by E/W. E/W drew attention to psyche, > which > they believed South had fielded. On second round of spades West went up > with > SK playing North for SA on basis of 1NT overcall. when a second round of spades? jpr > > E/W lodged appeal 10 minutes after play ceased. TD tried to locate both N/S > but unable to do so for giving the ruling and ***notifying of the > appeal***. > Only E/W attended the hearing. > > Director's ruling: > Table result stands > Green psyche - no adjustment > > Appeal lodged by: > East-West > > Basis of appeal: > Believed South should pass 1NTx with 7 HCP > > Appeals Committee decision: > Amber psyche - no adjustment > Deposit returned > > Appeals Committee's comments: > Committee were uncomfortable that the 2C bid was a normal action opposite a > strong NT overcall. Committee reclassified the psyche as Amber. However N/S > were ***not present*** to explain the logic of their actions. > > Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World November 1982: > > "Because of the possibility of unforeseen or emergency situations, a > committee is the sole judge of when it may legally convene. however, it is > highly unusual for a committee to consider score adjustment in the absence > of > notification to one side, and this is virtually never done. Furthermore, if > the committee does meet with one pair not informed, and the situation > requires a statement from the missing side (as your example clearly does), > the committee will have little choice but to declare the appeal untimely." > > EBU White Book clause 93.1: > > "Players normally have the right to attend appeals of first instance, but > the > hearing of the appeal in circumstances likely to prevent their presence > does > not invalidate the appeal." > > Richard Hills: > > But this White Book clause applies to an appeal being held at an > inconvenient > time for one side (or both sides), not to one side being totally unaware of > the appeal, thus not even able to provide a written submission. So, in my > opinion, the odiously overhasty appeal hearing was illegal, due to > violating > Mansfieldian principles of justice under English common law. > > My opinion is arguable under the 1997 Lawbook applying at the time. But > the > relevance of English common law to an odious infraction of natural justice > is > explicitly stated in the 2007 Lawbook's final footnote: > > "* The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national > law that may affect its action." > > Chief Justice William Murray, Lord Mansfield (1705-1793), in his judgement > (1772) ruling that the odious practice of slavery would only be legal in > England if Parliament passed a positive law to that effect: > > ".....it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it but > positive > law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I > cannot > say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore > the > black must be discharged." > > In the same case, Lord Mansfield famously wrote: > > "Let Justice be done, though the Heavens may fall." > > > 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 > > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Aug 27 01:36:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:36:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>So, in my opinion, the odiously overhasty appeal hearing was >>illegal, due to violating Mansfieldian principles of justice >>under English common law. Paul Lamford: >My only caveat at the above is that it is not put strongly >enough. > >If 2C is Stayman, then it is a normal action, Edgar Kaplan, November 1982: "If the committee is considering a _disciplinary_ matter, then it _may not_ meet without notification to the parties concerned. It could be argued in this case that an accusation of cheating (having unreported advance information, perhaps) was implicit in the complaint, since partner's action appears completely normal." Richard Hills: In addition to a score adjustment, the EBU requires a mandatory procedural penalty of at least 10% whenever a pair is found to have perpetrated a Red Psyche / CPU. Therefore, it seems to me that an EBU committee hearing investigating whether a CPU exists is at least a quasi-disciplinary hearing, so should not have convened before the pair in question were notified. Paul Lamford: >and the AC comment that they were uncomfortable with the bid >is nonsensical. How can it be right to pass? Either the opener >is telling porkies, probably with long diamonds, [snip] Richard Hills: If everyone has their bids, so North-South have a combined 22 hcp, then only Walter the Walrus would pass 1NTx, since now the contract is likely to fail. The probable justification for West opening light vulnerable would be long and strong diamonds with an outside entry. For example -> KQT9 J87 A32 KQJ 2 7643 K6 A43 KQJ987 65 9876 A532 AJ85 QT952 T4 T4 On this deal Walter the Walrus would be really pleased to play 1NTx, since North holds one more hcp than promised. Yet 1NTx is -300, while 2S after Stayman instead scores at least +110. 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 Aug 27 07:03:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:03:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas ACBL LC minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL Laws Commission, 2008: Law 27 - parts B1(a) and (b) were discussed. On the point of use of Law 16D for application of part B1(b), there was a consensus that 16D may be applied as it is not stated that it is not to apply. Morris Bishop, The Naughty Preposition, 1947: I lately lost a preposition; It hid, I thought, beneath my chair; And angrily I cried,"Perdition! Up from out of in under there!" Correctness is my vade mecum, And straggling phrases I abhor, And yet I wonder, "What should he come Up from out of in under for?" 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 Aug 27 08:04:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:04:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills (Canberra expert): Due to relaxed conditions of contest for the Pacific Asia Bridge Federation zonal championship (the Asian Cup), to be held next week, a number of mediocre Aussie experts (myself included) are making their international debut. As a consequence we are grappling with completing the WBF System Card for the first time. Blaine Howe (Melbourne expert): Below is a link to the site that has Microsoft Word and Excel templates for the WBF System Card. http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/wbfinfo/systemsinfo/ conventioncards.asp Also, I have attached copies I have downloaded from the site. The links on the site are immediately visible on the webpage. The only caveat I found with using the Microsoft Word template is because the template provided is actually Word Tables. If you put in more text than can fit on a line, then the table cell will expand making the table bigger. As the tables are already using up as much of the printable area as they can, this will cause the document to overflow into an extra page. It will be immediately obvious if this happens and I think most people can figure this out by themselves. In any case, anything is better than those applications. As a computer guy myself, I have always found it amusing that with all manner of computer projects being funded for bridge, that a little money somewhere cannot be found to get a couple of programmers with the correct skills to generate a decent application front end, especially given the large number of computer geeks that play bridge. Finally, there is a link to the Guide to Completion of the WBF Convention Card on the same webpage. This document runs to 76 pages and nobody in their right mind will read it except me and 6 other people. Richard Hills (Canberra expert): I am one of the 6 other people. Perhaps Eric O. Kokish was the wrong choice of author for this so-called Guide, since the O. of his middle name seems to me to stand for Otiose. Blaine Howe (Melbourne expert): However, there are 3 really useful pages in the document that I found indispensable when filling out the card. These are: Page 6 Approved Abbreviations Page 21 Common Lead/Signal Abbreviations Page 22 Syntax for Suit Combinations for Leads Regards, Blaine 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 Aug 27 08:38:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:38:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas ACBL LC minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ACBL LC consensus: >Law 25B was discussed to question whether the director has an >obligation to offer a person wanting to change an intentional >call the option to substitute another call to give the >offender's LHO the opportunity to accept the substitution, >which the LHO would have if the offender had just substituted a >call for the intended one at any time before the director >ruled. The consensus was that the director is prohibited from >offering that option. Richard Hills: I agree with this consensus. A deliberate change of an intended call to a new call is an infraction, contrary to Law 17C: ".....each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation." Likewise, the Director cannot offer a player the option of deliberately undercalling, in order to give the offender's LHO the option of accepting the undercall pursuant to Law 27A. Exception: WEST NORTH 1S 2C (1) (1) Director! The Director determines that Law 25A1 is the applicable Law, so North never intended to overcall 2C, but rather North's original intention was to undercall 1D. Law 25A1, final sentence: "The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law." 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 Fri Aug 1 11:35:43 2008 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:35:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <48918113.7020300@ulb.ac.be> References: <8CAB74A4C9D8374-E50-1B2C@webmail-nc19.sysops.aol.com> <001a01c8ed68$a7f349a0$f7d9dce0$@no> <34D9C323-FFB6-4F48-8166-A6325B5D1AA4@btinternet.com> <48918113.7020300@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: If you really have defined double in this way, Alain, then you would be able to use it to replace an insufficient 1H bid. But my point was that for most people there are holes, where they have hands that would not have bid 1H but might like make a negative double. You seem to have missed answering one of my questions, Alain: with J5432, KQxxxx, x, Qx, what would you respond to 1C? 1S? And with the same hand, would you not wish to make a negative double after 1C - (1S) - ? Gordon Rainsford On 31 Jul 2008, at 10:08, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080801/6a87254e/attachment.htm From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 25 13:33:37 2008 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:33:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <310766.83492.qm@web27907.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> With no agreement, South may be starting a 'wriggle' in the hope of playing in 2 Hearts doubled. Alan H --- On Sun, 24/8/08, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Date: Sunday, 24 August, 2008, 11:54 PM Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) X Pass(3) Pass(4) ? (1) 15-17 hcp balanced (2) Stayman (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C You, South, hold: AJ85 QT952 T4 T4 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 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080825/bbdfe195/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 27 15:11:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:11:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 24, 2008, at 8:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> What other leads do you consider likely across a field of peers? >> ..... >> I meant the peers of the players in this sort of tournament. >> Zia wasn't playing. >> >> Wayne > > Law 16B1(b): > > "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of > players in question and using the methods of the partnership, > would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion > of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." > > Richard Hills asks: > > Does "class of players" refer to an average player of the entire > tournament? Or does "class of players" refer to clones of the > specific South "in question"? As a practical matter it has to be the former. The latter is a much finer, and far more inherently subjective, judgment, and asks the impossible of TDs and ACs who may be strangers to "the specific South 'in question'". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Aug 27 15:42:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:42:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: <48B27F6F.6010207@ulb.ac.be> References: <48B27F6F.6010207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Aug 25, 2008, at 5:46 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> And now the auction with the new miracle ingredient of UI. >> >> Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, East-West vulnerable >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- Pass >> 1D 1NT (1) X 2C (2) >> X Pass(3) Pass(4) ? >> >> (1) 15-17 hcp balanced >> (2) _Intended as_ Stayman >> (3) No special agreement, North-South new partnership >> (4) Before passing East asked North about South's 2C, _and then >> North replied, "Not certain, we are a new partnership."_ >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> AJ85 >> QT952 >> T4 >> T4 >> >> What _legal_ call do you make? >> After North's UI, is 2H a _legal_ call? > > Hmm... I guessed the problem wrongly. > Yes, pass is a LA, and taking out is suggested by partner's > comment, so ... > > Now there is the case where North holds long clubs and counts on us to > "bend backwards" and pass in this good contract ... I may be a simple soul, but if North thought 2C was a good contract, wouldn't he redouble, regardless of whether he thought 2C was Stayman or undiscussed? If he thought 2C was Stayman, his undiscussed pass could mean (a) a willingness to play in 2CX *if* you hold reasonably good clubs, (b) no four-card major, or (c) no preference between the majors, regardless of length. Whichever it is presumed to be, I don't see pass as an LA. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Aug 27 16:30:45 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:30:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: References: <48B27F6F.6010207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48B56515.6070000@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] I may be a simple soul, but if North thought 2C was a good contract, wouldn't he redouble, regardless of whether he thought 2C was Stayman or undiscussed? If he thought 2C was Stayman, his undiscussed pass could mean (a) a willingness to play in 2CX *if* you hold reasonably good clubs, (b) no four-card major, or (c) no preference between the majors, regardless of length. Whichever it is presumed to be, I don't see pass as an LA. [Nige1] IMO, if respomder's 2C is Stayman then opener should *Pass* to show clubs; Because, even when clubs is the best strain, responder with a weak hand may not be able to stand 2CXX. Logically redouble (and 2D) should show no major preference (or diamonds) one way round (or the other). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 28 01:41:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:41:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48B56515.6070000@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>I may be a simple soul, but if North thought 2C was a good >>contract, wouldn't he redouble, regardless of whether he >>thought 2C was Stayman or undiscussed? [snip] Nigel Guthrie: >IMO, if responder's 2C is Stayman then opener should *Pass* >to show clubs; Because, even when clubs is the best strain, >responder with a weak hand may not be able to stand 2Cxx. [snip] Richard Hills: At teams scoring, if 2Cx for -300 is the least disastrous spot for North-South, then playing 2Cxx for -600 will cost imps. At pairs scoring -300 and -600 may be the same bottom, so a clubs-showing redouble makes more sense at matchpoints, as it may induce the opponents to make a mistake. Anyway, if 2C makes an overtrick, +280 in 2Cx will not necessarily be above average (if most other North-South pairs are scoring +500 defending a doubled East-West contract). But scoring an impressive +760 in 2Cxx beats those +500s, thus changing a below average score to an outright top. 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 Thu Aug 28 02:41:09 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:41:09 +1200 Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560808241604y60d1ee7ey2c3b19244e2c884b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560808241604y60d1ee7ey2c3b19244e2c884b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560808271741p39e549a5p32815ae501f3c232@mail.gmail.com> 2008/8/25 Wayne Burrows : > Final of Island Teams Events (One level below national NZ Teams) > Round Robin of six top qualifiers > > Dealer North > NS Vul > > J643 > 4 > 986 > J10953 > > - P 1D 1H > P P 1S 4H > All Pass > > What lead do you make? > > What other leads do you consider likely across a field of peers? > Here is the full hand ... Board 5 Dealer North NS Vul K52 109 42 Q87642 J643 AQ97 4 J86 986 KQ53 JT953 AK T8 AKQ7532 AJT7 --- The actual problem on the hand was that west made a significant hesitation after the 4H bid. Stop cards were in use and she thought for a long time after south bid 4H. East then doubled. West removed to 4S but 4H can make on some leads. Would you disallow east's double? And if so what adjustment would you make? In the event it was academic ... I was South. Our team mates brought back a great score on this board so that even 4H making was only going to yield us a couple of IMPs. Those IMPs would not have affected our VP score. There was no tie break procedure so that ties would remain as ties at the end of the event. So effectively the director did not even make a final ruling after the match. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Aug 28 03:33:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:33:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford, wholly holey point: >If you really have defined double in this way, Alain, then >you would be able to use it to replace an insufficient 1H >bid. But my point was that for most people there are holes, >where they have hands that would not have?bid 1H but might >like make a negative double. > >You seem to have missed answering one of my questions, Alain: > >with J5432, KQxxx, x, Qx, what would you respond to 1C? > >1S? > >And with the same hand, would you not wish to make a negative >double after 1C - (1S) - ? ACBL LC, wholly holey rebuttal: There was also a consensus that if there was a possible rare holding included in the meaning of the sufficient bid, but not the insufficient bid, that a change under 27B1(b) should still be permitted. For example, 2NT - Pass - 2D, which is treated as a transfer to hearts but where 3D over 2N could (rarely) be the start of a slam try in a minor. The offender should be permitted to bid 3D over 2N without further rectification except for 27D and possibly 16D. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the ACBL LC interpretation is merely notionally contrary to Law 27B1(b), not actually violating that Law. In my opinion the Law 27B1(b) phrase "in the Director's opinion" allows the TD to ignore rare possibilities such as Gordon's example of 5/5 in the majors, or the ACBL LC's example of a slam try in a minor. 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 Aug 28 07:53:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:53:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Partner put them into game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills asks: >>Does "class of players" refer to an average player of the entire >>tournament? Or does "class of players" refer to clones of the >>specific South "in question"? Eric Landau: >As a practical matter it has to be the former. The latter is a >much finer, and far more inherently subjective, judgment, and >asks the impossible of TDs and ACs who may be strangers to "the >specific South 'in question'". Footnote to the claim Laws: "* 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: Recently, against expert Canberra opponents, my RHO defender showed void early in two key suits, allowing me to claim my contract on a marked squeeze against my LHO defender. Of course they accepted my claim. "When someone says 'of course' that means that that proposition is highly debatable." So what would have happened if my expert opponents had disputed my claim on a marked squeeze, and also if Eric Landau was the TD? It seems to me that TD Landau would allow my claim if the event was next week's Asian Cup, but TD Landau would not allow my claim if the event was a South Canberra Club walk-in pairs (since it would be "normal" for most South Canberra players at other tables to mangle the squeeze). I am not convinced [my euphemism for "Balderdash!" :-) ] that Eric's idea is practical nor indeed legal. 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 Aug 28 08:46:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:46:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 20F5(a), first sentence: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made." Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: The current law is plainly stated; the words "in any manner" allow of no exceptions. Richard Hills: Oops, wrong Law. Grattan was then discussing what now is the renumbered (and slightly rewritten) Law 81C3: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: But note also the word "rectify". This covers returning the position to normality, restoration of equity, but it does not necessarily require that any penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director often has room for manoeuvre in this respect: time limits intervene, there are such provisions as those in Law 11B, and so on. ~ 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Aug 28 14:44:20 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:44:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000d01c9090b$fcdb23c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:46 AM Subject: [blml] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Law 20F5(a), first sentence: > > "A player whose partner has given a mistaken > explanation may not correct the error during the > auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a > mistake has been made." > > Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: > > The current law is plainly stated; the words "in any > manner" allow of no exceptions. > > Richard Hills: > > Oops, wrong Law. Grattan was then discussing what now > is the renumbered (and slightly rewritten) Law 81C3: > > "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility > for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. > The Director's duties and powers normally include also > the following: > to rectify an error or irregularity of which he > becomes aware in any manner, within the correction > period established in accordance with Law 79C." > > Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: > > But note also the word "rectify". This covers > returning the position to normality, restoration of > equity, but it does not necessarily require that any > penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director > often has room for manoeuvre in this respect: time > limits intervene, there are such provisions as those > in Law 11B, and so on. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills <<< +=+ It looks as though Richard keeps a diary of the Monologues of G. Endicott. +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Aug 27 14:49:46 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:49:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [RH] So, in my opinion, the odiously overhasty appeal hearing was illegal due to violating Mansfieldian principles of justice under English common law. [DALB] I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this thread. If it is intended to show that correct procedure is not always followed at EBU events, nobody is denying it. Correct procedure isn't always followed at Australian events either, nor American ones, Belgian ones or tournaments on the moon. But consider this: a pair comes to a TD at the end of the final session of an event and says "we've just looked at the hand records, and we think it's a bit fishy that North opened a 12-14 1NT on the last board with his nine count and South passed it with his balanced 12 count". You, the TD, can confirm from the traveller that the contract was indeed 1NT by North, who did indeed have a nine count. North-South have left the building and will not return, but East-West's request for a ruling is in time. What action do you take? David Burn London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Aug 28 19:39:51 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:39:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B6E2E7.8060207@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Anyway, if 2C makes an overtrick, +280 in 2Cx will not necessarily be above average (if most other North-South pairs are scoring +500 defending a doubled East-West contract). But scoring an impressive +760 in 2Cxx beats those +500s, thus changing a below average score to an outright top. [Nige1] There is no need for *North* to redouble :) With good clubs, North can just pass in the hope that *South* has enough strength to redouble :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Aug 29 00:07:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:07:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >But consider this: a pair comes to a TD at the end of the final session >of an event and says "we've just looked at the hand records, and we >think it's a bit fishy that North opened a 12-14 1NT on the last board >with his nine count and South passed it with his balanced 12 count". >You, the TD, can confirm from the traveller that the contract was >indeed 1NT by North, who did indeed have a nine count. North-South have >left the building and will not return, but East-West's request for a >ruling is in time. What action do you take? Richard Hills: As TD, I examine the North-South system cards, and note that while they play a 12-14 1NT opening in 2nd, 3rd and 4th seat, they play a 9-11 1NT in 1st seat. This variable 1NT is appropriately written up in the Pre- Alert section of their ABF system cards. Oops, North-South have left the building, so as TD I am unable to examine their system cards. Not to worry, I will apply a Law 91 disciplinary penalty to North-South for a CPU merely on the mistaken evidence of East-West. :-( 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 Aug 29 00:35:37 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:35:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c9090b$fcdb23c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Law 81C3: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: The current law is plainly stated; the words "in any manner" allow of no exceptions. But note also the word "rectify". This covers returning the position to normality, restoration of equity, but it does not necessarily require that any penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director often has room for manoeuvre in this respect: time limits intervene, there are such provisions as those in Law 11B, and so on. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: So if the Director notices an established revoke, but the non-offending side does not, the Director must not intervene when Law 64A applies, but must instead defer intervention until only Law 64C applies. By analogy, this helps solve an ethical dilemma that I have had with Law 72B2: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2)." Richard Hills: So if I notice that I have unintentionally committed an established revoke while defending against a grand slam, I need not draw attention to my established revoke immediately (which would allow the grand slam to make despite missing the ace of trumps). However, active ethics (and perhaps Law 79A2?) would require me to draw attention to my revoke at the time only Law 64C applies, thus causing the grand slam to fail by only one trick, rather than by two tricks. 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 john at asimere.com Fri Aug 29 00:45:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:45:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) References: Message-ID: <001501c9095f$c22445f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) > [RH] > > So, in my opinion, the odiously overhasty appeal hearing was illegal due > to > violating Mansfieldian principles of justice under English common law. > > [DALB] > > I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this thread. If it is intended to > show > that correct procedure is not always followed at EBU events, nobody is > denying it. Correct procedure isn't always followed at Australian events > either, nor American ones, Belgian ones or tournaments on the moon. > > But consider this: a pair comes to a TD at the end of the final session of > an event and says "we've just looked at the hand records, and we think > it's > a bit fishy that North opened a 12-14 1NT on the last board with his nine > count and South passed it with his balanced 12 count". You, the TD, can > confirm from the traveller that the contract was indeed 1NT by North, who > did indeed have a nine count. North-South have left the building and will > not return, but East-West's request for a ruling is in time. What action > do > you take? check for misboarding; the usual reason for this (and yes, i have had to look at 80 copies of a Board 17) > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Thu Aug 28 18:15:55 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:15:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) References: Message-ID: Boy, will I be enjoying the answers you get on this one! It'll give me a good idea of the quality of the TDs who are so sure of their abilities on BLML. You pose something that happens in real life with all too much frequency. [DALB] I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this thread. If it is intended to show that correct procedure is not always followed at EBU events, nobody is denying it. Correct procedure isn't always followed at Australian events either, nor American ones, Belgian ones or tournaments on the moon. But consider this: a pair comes to a TD at the end of the final session of an event and says "we've just looked at the hand records, and we think it's a bit fishy that North opened a 12-14 1NT on the last board with his nine count and South passed it with his balanced 12 count". You, the TD, can confirm from the traveller that the contract was indeed 1NT by North, who did indeed have a nine count. North-South have left the building and will not return, but East-West's request for a ruling is in time. What action do you take? David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ 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/20080828/10abd127/attachment.htm From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Aug 29 08:55:08 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:55:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] another L27 problem Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080829164302.0362f990@mail.optusnet.com.au> The bidding goes: West North East South 1S 2C 1NT (2S) East was told by South that 1NT was insufficient, so East changed to 2S before I was called. I allowed South to accept 1NT, otherwise East has to bid 2S. South accepted the 1NT, so I presume the attempted correction to 2S is cancelled but becomes UI for West, who is not excluded from further bidding? The bidding then continued: West North East South 1S 2C 1NT pass pass 2C 2S all pass so no problem. However, I would assume there is a lead penalty under L26 if the second 2C bid by North had been passed out? It doesn't seem to be fully nailed down in L27C (then back to L27A) Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 09:17:00 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:17:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27/08/2008, David Burn wrote: > [RH] > > So, in my opinion, the odiously overhasty appeal hearing was illegal due to > violating Mansfieldian principles of justice under English common law. > > [DALB] > > I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this thread. If it is intended to show > that correct procedure is not always followed at EBU events, nobody is > denying it. Correct procedure isn't always followed at Australian events > either, nor American ones, Belgian ones or tournaments on the moon. > > But consider this: a pair comes to a TD at the end of the final session of > an event and says "we've just looked at the hand records, and we think it's > a bit fishy that North opened a 12-14 1NT on the last board with his nine > count and South passed it with his balanced 12 count". You, the TD, can > confirm from the traveller that the contract was indeed 1NT by North, who > did indeed have a nine count. North-South have left the building and will > not return, but East-West's request for a ruling is in time. What action do > you take? Do you really think I'd believe this sort of thing? That they didn't see the 12-count hitting dummy and only 'conveniently' discovered this after NS had left the building? I'd need more than this to give a ruling. I'm not saying the story couldn't be true, but I'd not act on this alone. It's too fishy. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Aug 29 09:52:56 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:52:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B7AAD8.3070908@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: > > The current law is plainly stated; the words "in any > manner" allow of no exceptions. Except, of course, the exceptions that are allowed. But I'm not starting a dWS thread again ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 29 11:22:12 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:22:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <009701c909ba$748ffbd0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Inn any manor [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] So if I notice that I have unintentionally committed an established revoke while defending against a grand slam, I need not draw attention to my established revoke immediately (which would allow the grand slam to make despite missing the ace of trumps). > However, active ethics (and perhaps Law 79A2?) would require me to draw attention to my revoke at the time only Law 64C applies, thus causing the grand slam to fail by only one trick, rather than by two tricks. > +=+ A player may not be criticized if he acts as the law provides. No concept of 'active' ethics overrides this principle, but the Code of Practice (which note) does not preclude the possibility of a generous attitude to opponents. 'Concession' is defined in Law 68B and does not apply here, and all the tricks have been won as provided in Laws 44E and F. A player may properly remain silent if he chooses as to his side's established revoke. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Aug 29 12:51:47 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:51:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?another_L27_problem?= In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080829164302.0362f990@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080829164302.0362f990@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1KZ1Zz-17Acl60@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> From: Tony Musgrove > The bidding goes: > > ? ? ?West ? North ? East ? South > ? ? ? ?1S ? ? ?2C ? ? ?1NT (2S) > > East was told by South that 1NT was > insufficient, so East changed to 2S before > I was called. I allowed South to accept > 1NT, otherwise East has to bid 2S. > South accepted the 1NT, > so I presume the attempted correction to > 2S is cancelled but becomes UI for West, who > is not excluded from further bidding? > > The bidding then continued: > > ? ? ?West ? North ? East ? South > ? ? ? ?1S ? ? ?2C ? ? ?1NT ? ? pass > ? ? ? ? pass ?2C ? ? ? 2S ? ? all pass > > so no problem. ?However, I would assume > there is a lead penalty under > L26 if the second 2C bid by North had been > passed out? ?It doesn't seem to be fully > nailed down in L27C (then back to L27A) Law 26 needs not to be referenced by any other law in order to be applicable. Only if it expressly disabled (as in law 37 A) it does not apply. Peter From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Aug 29 12:56:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:56:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B7D5C3.6010108@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> But consider this: a pair comes to a TD at the end of the final session of >> an event and says "we've just looked at the hand records, and we think it's >> a bit fishy that North opened a 12-14 1NT on the last board with his nine >> count and South passed it with his balanced 12 count". You, the TD, can >> confirm from the traveller that the contract was indeed 1NT by North, who >> did indeed have a nine count. North-South have left the building and will >> not return, but East-West's request for a ruling is in time. What action do >> you take? >> > > Do you really think I'd believe this sort of thing? > That they didn't see the 12-count hitting dummy and only > 'conveniently' discovered this after NS had left the building? I'd > need more than this to give a ruling. I'm not saying the story > couldn't be true, but I'd not act on this alone. It's too fishy. > > AG : I'll be less categorical than you are on this one. First, there is no reason to call the TD when dummy faces a 12-count. Only when they discover partner had so little is there any suspicion, and that might be after quite a while, for example, during the debriefing with their teammates : - What did you play on this last board, with 12 facing an opening bid ? - Sorry, chaps, 12 were facing 9. Second, Taking EW responsible for NS's quick departure seems wrong. FWIW, the case doesn't mention whether EW knew NS were away, so that they might not even know it was "convenient". The first thing to do is to check wityh other pairs who playes in this section whether the board could have been fouled. This would indeed be the most plausible explanation. But discarding EW"s claim because "it's within the regular period for requesting a ruling, but late in this period" is in fact modifying this period, and that's beyond what we're allowed to do. In some situations, when only one side can offer evidence and the other side's actions made it impossible to check further, the latter's rights are voided (see e.g. the case when a player mixes his cards, making enquiry about a revoke imposssible - I don't remember the #). Why not here ? In some tournaments, players are compelled to stay available until the ruling period has ended. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Aug 29 14:01:59 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:01:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) References: <48B7D5C3.6010108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000401c909e8$a7049d90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) > Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >>> But consider this: a pair comes to a TD at the end of the final session >>> of >>> an event and says "we've just looked at the hand records, and we think >>> it's >>> a bit fishy that North opened a 12-14 1NT on the last board with his >>> nine >>> count and South passed it with his balanced 12 count". You, the TD, can >>> confirm from the traveller that the contract was indeed 1NT by North, >>> who >>> did indeed have a nine count. North-South have left the building and >>> will >>> not return, but East-West's request for a ruling is in time. What action >>> do >>> you take? >>> >> >> Do you really think I'd believe this sort of thing? >> That they didn't see the 12-count hitting dummy and only >> 'conveniently' discovered this after NS had left the building? I'd >> need more than this to give a ruling. I'm not saying the story >> couldn't be true, but I'd not act on this alone. It's too fishy. >> >> > AG : I'll be less categorical than you are on this one. > > First, there is no reason to call the TD when dummy faces a 12-count. > Only when they discover partner had so little is there any suspicion, > and that might be after quite a while, for example, during the > debriefing with their teammates : > - What did you play on this last board, with 12 facing an opening bid ? > - Sorry, chaps, 12 were facing 9. > > Second, Taking EW responsible for NS's quick departure seems wrong. > FWIW, the case doesn't mention whether EW knew NS were away, so that > they might not even know it was "convenient". > > The first thing to do is to check wityh other pairs who playes in this > section whether the board could have been fouled. This would indeed be > the most plausible explanation. > But discarding EW"s claim because "it's within the regular period for > requesting a ruling, but late in this period" is in fact modifying this > period, and that's beyond what we're allowed to do. > > In some situations, when only one side can offer evidence and the other > side's actions made it impossible to check further, the latter's rights > are voided (see e.g. the case when a player mixes his cards, making > enquiry about a revoke imposssible - I don't remember the #). Why not > here ? In some tournaments, players are compelled to stay available > until the ruling period has ended. > > Best regards > > Alain +++ +=+ As I read it the totality of the matter is as yet unknown and the alleged facts are still open to dispute by opponents. No action should follow on site. The Director should report the incident to the regulatory body which may invite the comments of the absent side and pursue the matter thereafter as it thinks fit. Incidentally, with regard to the case cited earlier no-one seems to have reported subsequent examination of it by the EBU L&E committee which one would imagine must have taken place, given what we are told about it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Aug 29 17:21:41 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:21:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: <000401c909e8$a7049d90$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48B7D5C3.6010108@ulb.ac.be> <000401c909e8$a7049d90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48B81405.20302@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] Incidentally, with regard to the case cited earlier no-one seems to have reported subsequent examination of it by the EBU L&E committee which one would imagine must have taken place, given what we are told about it. [Nige1] But what is official EBUL&EC policy? Perhaps the EBUL&EC adopts the same wise-monkey attitude that the WBFLC recommended to directors? To close their eyes and ears to 3rd-party reports and refuse to investigate an alleged irregularity unless *officially* reported? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Aug 30 16:11:54 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:11:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 67B1 Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:51:24 -0400, ton wrote: > Hi, > > We tried to be more consistent here. > > In fact there is an established revoke in a) and none of us (nor anybody > else I have talked with about this issue) did understand why the penalty > for > that revoke is not exercised in this case. When you don't play to a trick, the chance of being squeezed or pseudo-squeezed is much less. (Essentially, you can choose much later in the play which suit to discard.) So a rectification for not playing to a trick is deserved. EXCEPT, when the player still has a card in the suit in hand, then, if that card is not valuable, there was no squeeze or pseudo-squeeze. (And when that card is valuable, it is discarded away so the squeeze or pseudo-squeeze has worked.) So it made sense that there was no automatic rectification when the player still had a card in the suit that was not played originally. The only advantage I can think of for not playing, say to diamonds, and then still having a diamond in hand when the extra card is noticed, is that you can now choose which diamond to play, in the rare case when you might want to play a high diamond to unblock. That will be rare, and it can be immediately obvious to the director when it occurs that there might have been some advantage to waiting to discard in diamonds. So the director can look for an advantage. Hence it made sense that there was no automatic rectification in that situation. Bob From Gampas at aol.com Sun Aug 31 15:54:09 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:54:09 EDT Subject: [blml] accepting insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL Message-ID: [Richard Hills] In my opinion the Law 27B1(b) phrase "in the Director's opinion" allows the TD to ignore rare possibilities such as Gordon's example of 5/5 in the majors, or the ACBL LC's example of a slam try in a minor. [Paul Lamford] In my opinion the Law 27B1(b) phrase "in the Director's opinion" allows the TD to ignore rare possibilities such as an insufficient bid having the meaning it would have had if the person making it thought he was responding to a bid at a level lower. From Gampas at aol.com Sun Aug 31 15:54:58 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:54:58 EDT Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) Message-ID: In a message dated 28/08/2008 16:49:44 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: But consider this: a pair comes to a TD at the end of the final session of an event and says "we've just looked at the hand records, and we think it's a bit fishy that North opened a 12-14 1NT on the last board with his nine count and South passed it with his balanced 12 count". You, the TD, can confirm from the traveller that the contract was indeed 1NT by North, who did indeed have a nine count. North-South have left the building and will not return, but East-West's request for a ruling is in time. What action do you take? [paul lamford] If I have the opinion that an adjusted score is appropriate, and I am unable to contact the "alleged" offenders, the practical need to finalise the tournament standings means that I have, as Grattan states: "to rectify an error or irregularity of which [I become] aware in any manner, " The dangers highlighted by Richard Hills need to be borne in mind: "Oops, North-South have left the building, so as TD I am unable to examine their system cards. Not to worry, I will apply a Law 91 disciplinary penalty to North-South for a CPU merely on the mistaken evidence of East-West." But the law still permits, nay mandates, me to make a decison. In the example hand, I should have, of course, informed both sides to contact me before leaving the building, as there was a pending ruling. That will not always be possible, for example a revoke discovered only from the hand records where declarer, discovering trumps were 3-0, concedes one off in his grand slam - accepted by the opponents, only for declarer to discover later they were 2-1 after all. However, in the case in question, the only real question was whether the psyche classification was green or amber. Therefore the AC should have referred this question to the L&E for proposed correspondence with the alleged offenders. They should have indicated that they were unable to change the classification of the TD without their presence. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Aug 31 20:59:00 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:59:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) References: Message-ID: <000801c90b9b$a2c7f6a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) > In a message dated 28/08/2008 16:49:44 GMT Standard Time, > dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: > > But consider this: a pair comes to a TD at the end of the final session > of > an event and says "we've just looked at the hand records, and we think > it's > a bit fishy that North opened a 12-14 1NT on the last board with his nine > count and South passed it with his balanced 12 count". You, the TD, can > confirm from the traveller that the contract was indeed 1NT by North, who > did indeed have a nine count. North-South have left the building and will > not return, but East-West's request for a ruling is in time. What action > do > you take? > > [paul lamford] If I have the opinion that an adjusted score is > appropriate, > and I am unable to contact the "alleged" offenders, the practical need to > finalise the tournament standings means that I have, as Grattan states: > > "to rectify an error or irregularity of which [I become] aware in any > manner, " > > The dangers highlighted by Richard Hills need to be borne in mind: > > "Oops, North-South have left the building, so as TD I am unable to examine > their system cards. Not to worry, I will apply a Law 91 disciplinary > penalty > to North-South for a CPU merely on the mistaken evidence of East-West." > > But the law still permits, nay mandates, me to make a decison. In the > example hand, I should have, of course, informed both sides to contact me > before > leaving the building, as there was a pending ruling. That will not always > be > possible, for example a revoke discovered only from the hand records where > declarer, discovering trumps were 3-0, concedes one off in his grand > slam - > accepted by the opponents, only for declarer to discover later they were > 2-1 after > all. > > However, in the case in question, the only real question was whether the > psyche classification was green or amber. Therefore the AC should have > referred > this question to the L&E for proposed correspondence with the alleged > offenders. They should have indicated that they were unable to change the > classification of the TD without their presence. > +=+ There is also the question of whether there was a psyche. Suppose upon investigation South says "What do you mean, 'psyche'? My 1NT bid was a response to partner's opening bid. How can the Director talk about an 'amber psyche' before he has established the facts?" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ............................................................................................................