From henk at amsterdamned.org Mon Sep 1 01:01:00 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 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 Mon Sep 1 01:01:00 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 01:01:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for August 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 96 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 96 hermandw (at) skynet.be 69 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 59 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 47 svenpran (at) online.no 40 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 30 Gampas (at) aol.com 27 ehaa (at) starpower.net 22 john (at) asimere.com 16 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 13 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 12 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 10 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 9 swillner (at) nhcc.net 9 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 7 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 6 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 6 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 4 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 4 schoderb (at) msn.com 4 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 3 sater (at) xs4all.nl 3 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 2 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 2 emu (at) fwi.net.au 2 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 2 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 1 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 1 jrhind (at) therock.bm 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 hegelaci (at) cs.elte.hu 1 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 1 clubanddiamond (at) yahoo.co.uk 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 1 13:33:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:33:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: <000801c90b9b$a2c7f6a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000801c90b9b$a2c7f6a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48BBD310.2000404@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ There is also the question of whether there was a psyche. Suppose > upon investigation South says "What do you mean, 'psyche'? My 1NT > bid was a response to partner's opening bid. How can the Director talk > about an 'amber psyche' before he has established the facts?" > ~ Grattan ~ > +=+ > AG : or there can be MI (9-11 NT), which perhaps didn't affect the play. Or ... Which means the case depands on one important element : did the CoC (or some general rule) specify that you're compelled to stay available after the game for any appeals, and that if you don't, facts might be considered in your disfavour ? (which would be sensible) Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 1 13:49:25 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:49:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793)(Correction) References: <000801c90b9b$a2c7f6a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000c01c90c28$ca0f5f40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "You are everyone's equal and everyone > is your equal." > (Catherine 'Jean' Finnegan Biden, > advice to her son). > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > 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'? The 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 ~ > +=+ > ............................................................................................................ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 1 14:00:43 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:00:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: <000801c90b9b$a2c7f6a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000801c90b9b$a2c7f6a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001301c90c2a$5d73ce00$185b6a00$@com> [GE] 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?" He can't. But in the case of a 1NT opening by North, South would have announced this as 12-14 in accordance with EBU regulations. If East-West tell you that this happened, it might seem unlikely to you that they were telling an untruth that could easily be detected by speaking to North-South at some later stage. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 1 16:36:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:36:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: <001301c90c2a$5d73ce00$185b6a00$@com> References: <000801c90b9b$a2c7f6a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <001301c90c2a$5d73ce00$185b6a00$@com> Message-ID: <48BBFDF5.5080306@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [GE] > > 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?" > > He can't. But in the case of a 1NT opening by North, South would have > announced this as 12-14 in accordance with EBU regulations. > Not in France anymore. They have to pre-alert it but not announce it. Doesn't it strike you as uncompfortable that detecting a psyche, or making any ruling for that matter, may be made more or less difficult according to differing rules for disclosing conventions ? Could it even be that this consideration might help us select an efficient way to do so ? Or am I dreaming ? Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 1 17:16:00 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:16:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) References: <000801c90b9b$a2c7f6a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <001301c90c2a$5d73ce00$185b6a00$@com> Message-ID: <001001c90c45$a62d4070$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) > [GE] > > There is also the question of whether there was a psyche. Suppose upon > investigation South says "What do you mean, 'psyche'? My 1NT bid was a > response to partner's opening bid. How can the Director talk about an > 'amber > psyche' before he has established the facts?" > > He can't. But in the case of a 1NT opening by North, South would have > announced this as 12-14 in accordance with EBU regulations. If East-West > tell you that this happened, it might seem unlikely to you that they were > telling an untruth that could easily be detected by speaking to > North-South > at some later stage. > +=+ I would deprecate anyone making a ruling to the detriment of a side without first hearing them. A false memory of the auction is a common enough experience. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 1 17:22:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:22:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: <001001c90c45$a62d4070$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000801c90b9b$a2c7f6a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <001301c90c2a$5d73ce00$185b6a00$@com> <001001c90c45$a62d4070$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48BC0898.9030104@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ I would deprecate anyone making a ruling to the detriment of > a side without first hearing them. A false memory of the auction is a > common enough experience. > AG : sure ! But aren't you afraid of players engaged in a lost cause "engineering their own insolvency" by starting earlier and counting on you (us) to avoid ruling in their absence ? From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Sep 1 18:09:26 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:09:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] your opinion please Message-ID: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> Ahoy blmlers! The following hand was reported to me. I wasn't at the table (or, in fact, even the tournament) so cannot supply exact small cards or vulnerability, or the other three hands. But I don't think that is necessary. Dealer holds: QJxxxx AQ xxx Kx and opens 1 spade. LHO bids 2 diamonds (natural). Partner of opener says 2NT which, in their system, is a sort of mini-splinter, confirming spades and with a single (or void possibly) in an unknown suit. It is invitational, not game-forcing. RHO bids 4 clubs which is explained as a splinter in clubs, confirming diamonds. Aside from the fact that there is a whole lot of bidding going on and you might suspect the legitimacy of one or two of the bids let us continue. The question comes now. Dealer assumed (seems reasonable) that his partner had the splinter in diamonds and bid 4 spades. This was -1 for a very bad score. There are only 9 tricks in spades. Opponents can make no more than 9 tricks in a minor so -50 is one of the very few minus scores for the opener. He calls the TD and asks for an adjusted score. It seems that RHO did not have a splinter but had a 6-card club suit. (I think with AQ.) There were no system cards so it would seem to be MI. And surely the MI was material in the decision to bid 4 spades. BUT: is not 4 spades (bid immediately) a pretty bad bid? 4 clubs has been explained as a splinter so he will have another chance to bid. Is not pass or perhaps 4 hearts (for the lead on defence) a better action? Opener can always bid 4 spades when it comes around to him again unless the opponents reach 5 diamonds which is, possibly, unlikely, and he might want to double. The only justification I can see for the immediate 4 spades is if he is afraid of 5 diamonds but the 4 spade bid probably won't stop the opponents from bidding 5 diamonds in that case. As the hand actually was, had he passed, the opponents would have eventually discovered their misunderstanding but probably not before 6 clubs (clubs is their best suit) and he could double it (or double 5 diamonds) for a top. Okay, what do you decide as TD? Ciao, JE From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Sep 1 18:40:18 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:40:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] your opinion please In-Reply-To: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> References: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> Message-ID: <48BC1AF2.6000309@NTLworld.com> [Jeff Easterson] Ahoy blmlers! The following hand was reported to me. I wasn't at the table (or, in fact, even the tournament) so cannot supply exact small cards or vulnerability, or the other three hands. But I don't think that is necessary. Dealer holds: QJxxxx AQ xxx Kx and opens 1 spade. LHO bids 2 diamonds (natural). Partner of opener says 2NT which, in their system, is a sort of mini-splinter, confirming spades and with a single (or void possibly) in an unknown suit. It is invitational, not game-forcing. RHO bids 4 clubs which is explained as a splinter in clubs, confirming diamonds. Aside from the fact that there is a whole lot of bidding going on and you might suspect the legitimacy of one or two of the bids let us continue. The question comes now. Dealer assumed (seems reasonable) that his partner had the splinter in diamonds and bid 4 spades. This was -1 for a very bad score. There are only 9 tricks in spades. Opponents can make no more than 9 tricks in a minor so -50 is one of the very few minus scores for the opener. He calls the TD and asks for an adjusted score. It seems that RHO did not have a splinter but had a 6-card club suit. (I think with AQ.) There were no system cards so it would seem to be MI. And surely the MI was material in the decision to bid 4 spades. BUT: is not 4 spades (bid immediately) a pretty bad bid? 4 clubs has been explained as a splinter so he will have another chance to bid. Is not pass or perhaps 4 hearts (for the lead on defence) a better action? Opener can always bid 4 spades when it comes around to him again unless the opponents reach 5 diamonds which is, possibly, unlikely, and he might want to double. The only justification I can see for the immediate 4 spades is if he is afraid of 5 diamonds but the 4 spade bid probably won't stop the opponents from bidding 5 diamonds in that case. As the hand actually was, had he passed, the opponents would have eventually discovered their misunderstanding but probably not before 6 clubs (clubs is their best suit) and he could double it (or double 5 diamonds) for a top. Okay, what do you decide as TD? Ciao, JE [Nigel] IMO this is an easier one, Jeff. Declarer's 4S bid may have been slightly inferior to pass but it wasn't wild or gambling, so it should not affect the director's ruling. Assuming that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the director judges *Misinformation* then he sould rule for the dealer's side. If he thinks they would end up in 6CX then that should be the basis of the ruling. Applying "Equity" principles, the director will be encouraged to reduce the deterrent to the offenders and the redress to the victims with some kind of fudge. The exact nature of the fudge may depend on his assessment of the players. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Sep 1 20:40:23 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:40:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] your opinion please In-Reply-To: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> References: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> Message-ID: "Jeff Easterson" writes: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 12:09 PM Subject: [blml] your opinion please > Ahoy blmlers! The following hand was reported to me. I wasn't at the > table (or, in fact, even the tournament) so cannot supply exact small > cards or vulnerability, or the other three hands. But I don't think that > is necessary. > > Dealer holds: QJxxxx > AQ > xxx > Kx > > and opens 1 spade. LHO bids 2 diamonds (natural). Partner of opener > says 2NT which, in their system, is a sort of mini-splinter, confirming > spades and with a single (or void possibly) in an unknown suit. It is > invitational, not game-forcing. RHO bids 4 clubs which is explained as > a splinter in clubs, confirming diamonds. > > Aside from the fact that there is a whole lot of bidding going on and > you might suspect the legitimacy of one or two of the bids let us > continue. The question comes now. I can see everyone having his or her bid, because there is a lot of distribution out there; LHO can have 10 HCP with a stiff spade, partner 8 with a stiff diamond, and RHO 10 with a stiff club. > Dealer assumed (seems reasonable) that his partner had the splinter in > diamonds and bid 4 spades. On the opponents' bidding, he knows that partner has a diamond splinter, as the opponents have shown nine diamonds. Thus he was clearly damaged by MI. > This was -1 for a very bad score. There are > only 9 tricks in spades. Opponents can make no more than 9 tricks in a > minor so -50 is one of the very few minus scores for the opener. He > calls the TD and asks for an adjusted score. It seems that RHO did not > have a splinter but had a 6-card club suit. (I think with AQ.) There > were no system cards so it would seem to be MI. And surely the MI was > material in the decision to bid 4 spades. > > BUT: is not 4 spades (bid immediately) a pretty bad bid? 4 clubs has > been explained as a splinter so he will have another chance to bid. Is > not pass or perhaps 4 hearts (for the lead on defence) a better action? The standard for denying adjustment to the non-offenders is that the non-offenders were damaged by their own action rather than by the infraction. The standard varies from place to place, but it is usually worded as "irrational, wild, or gambling," or "no demonstrable bridge reason". This 4S bid may be inferior bridge, but you do not have to play perfect bridge to get your adjusted scores. 4H may be better than 4S, but that is irrelevant as it could not have caused the damage; if opener bids 4H and partner corrects to 4S, the result would be the same. (And I don't actually like 4H here; if LHO sacrifices in 5D, opener wants partner to know what he needs to make the decision, and 4H suggests a major two-suiter.) Along similar lines, 4S isn't a clear error, as there is a demonstrable bridge reason for bidding it. The 4S bid shows the playing strength, and partner can double 5D or go on to 5S depending on his hand. If opener passes, he will be fine if LHO bids 4D, but either he or partner will have to guess over 5D. Here's an example of a situation in which the TD correctly ruled that the damage was self-inflicted. S dealer, both vulnerable, IMPs S W N E 1S P 2S ..P P X 3S X AP North had a 3-4-3-3 6-count, and 3Sx went for -800; if North had passed, East would have bid 3D for -130. With a flat minimum, North had no demonstrable bridge reason to compete to 3S, so the bad score was directly caused by North, not by West's double. The TD ruled +200 for E-W (disallowing the double of 2S) and -800 for N-S. And that's about how bad the bid has to be to deny redress. If North had held Kxxx xxx xxx QJx, then while 3S is still a bad bid, the Law of Total Tricks would give him a demonstrable bridge reason for the bid and he would probably be entitled to an adjustment. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Sep 1 23:42:46 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:42:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] your opinion please In-Reply-To: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> References: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> Message-ID: <48BC61D6.1000101@verizon.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Ahoy blmlers! The following hand was reported to me. I wasn't at the > table (or, in fact, even the tournament) so cannot supply exact small > cards or vulnerability, or the other three hands. But I don't think that > is necessary. > > Dealer holds: QJxxxx > AQ > xxx > Kx > > and opens 1 spade. LHO bids 2 diamonds (natural). Partner of opener > says 2NT which, in their system, is a sort of mini-splinter, confirming > spades and with a single (or void possibly) in an unknown suit. It is > invitational, not game-forcing. RHO bids 4 clubs which is explained as > a splinter in clubs, confirming diamonds. > > Aside from the fact that there is a whole lot of bidding going on and > you might suspect the legitimacy of one or two of the bids let us > continue. The question comes now. > > Dealer assumed (seems reasonable) that his partner had the splinter in > diamonds and bid 4 spades. This was -1 for a very bad score. There are > only 9 tricks in spades. Opponents can make no more than 9 tricks in a > minor so -50 is one of the very few minus scores for the opener. He > calls the TD and asks for an adjusted score. It seems that RHO did not > have a splinter but had a 6-card club suit. (I think with AQ.) There > were no system cards so it would seem to be MI. And surely the MI was > material in the decision to bid 4 spades. > > BUT: is not 4 spades (bid immediately) a pretty bad bid? 4 clubs has > been explained as a splinter so he will have another chance to bid. Is > not pass or perhaps 4 hearts (for the lead on defence) a better action? > Opener can always bid 4 spades when it comes around to him again > unless the opponents reach 5 diamonds which is, possibly, unlikely, and > he might want to double. The only justification I can see for the > immediate 4 spades is if he is afraid of 5 diamonds but the 4 spade bid > probably won't stop the opponents from bidding 5 diamonds in that case. > > As the hand actually was, had he passed, the opponents would have > eventually discovered their misunderstanding but probably not before 6 > clubs (clubs is their best suit) and he could double it (or double 5 > diamonds) for a top. > > Okay, what do you decide as TD? Ciao, JE > > > Could be me, but I see no issue with the 4S call. The opponent's explanation has pinpointed the diamond shortness in partner's hand. Not his fault that it doesn't really exist. CK is looking useless. 5D is looking odds-on, and 6D is not out of the question. Why give opponents an extra level of bidding to investigate? Pass and bid only gives the opponents more calls to pinpoint their contract; not a good strategy in most cases. Others may feel differently, but if I'm going to bid 4S (and I am on this auction, given partner's diamond "splinter" ), I'm going to do it sooner rather than later. I think that pass (and await developments) is the inferior call, given the information. 4H is just going to confuse partner if he has to make a high level decision. In the absence of a system card, this is an MI case. Score is adjusted to whichever top the TD thinks the NOS would have achieved had they been correctly informed. Note that there is a UI situation also, but it is unlikely that the 4C bidder had anything else to say even after his partner's MI (which is also UI). Although, if he had concealed diamond support to show the clubs, 5D now becomes a LA... More or less irrelevant, as the NOS are only getting one top for the board. Hirsch From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Sep 2 08:22:51 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:22:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?your_opinion_please=B2?= Message-ID: <48BCDBBB.3020608@aol.com> Ahoy blmlers! Thanks for the input. The problem was not so much if the TD is to give an adj. score; I expected a large majority for this, but essentially was to decide which adj. score. +140 is hardly possible after the opponents bid 4 clubs. 60% seems hardly equitable since, after the misunderstanding of the opponents, a result of at least 80%-90% is certain if the side of the opener stays out of the bidding (except perhaps to eventually double). Thanks again, JE From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 2 11:48:45 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:48:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] your opinion please In-Reply-To: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> References: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> Message-ID: <48BD0BFD.7010804@ulb.ac.be> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > Ahoy blmlers! The following hand was reported to me. I wasn't at the > table (or, in fact, even the tournament) so cannot supply exact small > cards or vulnerability, or the other three hands. But I don't think that > is necessary. > > Dealer holds: QJxxxx > AQ > xxx > Kx > > and opens 1 spade. LHO bids 2 diamonds (natural). Partner of opener > says 2NT which, in their system, is a sort of mini-splinter, confirming > spades and with a single (or void possibly) in an unknown suit. It is > invitational, not game-forcing. RHO bids 4 clubs which is explained as > a splinter in clubs, confirming diamonds. > > Aside from the fact that there is a whole lot of bidding going on and > you might suspect the legitimacy of one or two of the bids AG : I don't see why. There is ample room for partner to hold a limit raise with an obvious singleton diamond or void, and for RHO to suggest going to 5D, which could even make, because LHO will have a singleton or perhaps even void in spades. > let us > continue. The question comes now. > > Dealer assumed (seems reasonable) that his partner had the splinter in > diamonds and bid 4 spades. I'd say this is automatical given the bidding. 4S can make facing as little as Kxxx-xxxxx-x-Axx. > This was -1 for a very bad score. There are > only 9 tricks in spades. Opponents can make no more than 9 tricks in a > minor so -50 is one of the very few minus scores for the opener. He > calls the TD and asks for an adjusted score. It seems that RHO did not > have a splinter but had a 6-card club suit. (I think with AQ.) There > were no system cards so it would seem to be MI. And surely the MI was > material in the decision to bid 4 spades. > AG : if they tell me 4C is fit-jump, I still bid 4S. YMMV but I'm not sure the score shall be adjusted. > BUT: is not 4 spades (bid immediately) a pretty bad bid? 4 clubs has > been explained as a splinter so he will have another chance to bid. Is > not pass or perhaps 4 hearts (for the lead on defence) a better action? > AG : not in my style. 4S directly suggests going higher if they reach 5D, and that's the right message. 4S delayed over 4D means you knew they wouldn't bid 5D (or were ready to double them should they bid it), so it shows more strength and less pattern. And 4H should be natural. > > Okay, what do you decide as TD? Ciao, JE > AG : deciding 4S is Wild/Gambling is absurd. It's the bid many will make, TNT says it's all right, and see above. So there remian two questions : a) was there indeed MI ? You seem pretty certain there was, so go to : b) did it affect the bidding ? Opener can give me arguments for bidding 4S over a splinter 4C, but not over a natural (or FJ) 4C. If he convinces me, I'll adjust. But it won't be easy. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 2 14:59:05 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:59:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] your opinion please In-Reply-To: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> References: <48BC13B6.2060200@aol.com> Message-ID: <9A53FFC0-D3C8-4301-87A2-5380A81D403B@starpower.net> On Sep 1, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Ahoy blmlers! The following hand was reported to me. I wasn't at the > table (or, in fact, even the tournament) so cannot supply exact small > cards or vulnerability, or the other three hands. But I don't think > that > is necessary. > > Dealer holds: QJxxxx > AQ > xxx > Kx > > and opens 1 spade. LHO bids 2 diamonds (natural). Partner of opener > says 2NT which, in their system, is a sort of mini-splinter, > confirming > spades and with a single (or void possibly) in an unknown suit. It is > invitational, not game-forcing. RHO bids 4 clubs which is > explained as > a splinter in clubs, confirming diamonds. > > Aside from the fact that there is a whole lot of bidding going on and > you might suspect the legitimacy of one or two of the bids let us > continue. The question comes now. > > Dealer assumed (seems reasonable) that his partner had the splinter in > diamonds and bid 4 spades. This was -1 for a very bad score. There > are > only 9 tricks in spades. Opponents can make no more than 9 tricks > in a > minor so -50 is one of the very few minus scores for the opener. He > calls the TD and asks for an adjusted score. It seems that RHO did > not > have a splinter but had a 6-card club suit. (I think with AQ.) There > were no system cards so it would seem to be MI. And surely the MI was > material in the decision to bid 4 spades. > > BUT: is not 4 spades (bid immediately) a pretty bad bid? 4 clubs has > been explained as a splinter so he will have another chance to > bid. Is > not pass or perhaps 4 hearts (for the lead on defence) a better > action? > Opener can always bid 4 spades when it comes around to him again > unless the opponents reach 5 diamonds which is, possibly, unlikely, > and > he might want to double. The only justification I can see for the > immediate 4 spades is if he is afraid of 5 diamonds but the 4 spade > bid > probably won't stop the opponents from bidding 5 diamonds in that > case. > > As the hand actually was, had he passed, the opponents would have > eventually discovered their misunderstanding but probably not before 6 > clubs (clubs is their best suit) and he could double it (or double 5 > diamonds) for a top. > > Okay, what do you decide as TD? I decide there was actionable misinformation. I may hold the personal opinion that "4 spades [was] a pretty bad bid", but it doesn't come close to meeting the standard of "egregious error" that would cause it to affect my MI ruling. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 3 10:42:35 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:42:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) References: <000801c90b9b$a2c7f6a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <001301c90c2a$5d73ce00$185b6a00$@com> Message-ID: <000d01c90da3$72a16560$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) > [GE] > > 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?" > > He can't. But in the case of a 1NT opening by North, South would have > announced this as 12-14 in accordance with EBU regulations. If East-West > tell you that this happened, it might seem unlikely to you that they were > telling an untruth that could easily be detected by speaking to > North-South > at some later stage. > +=+ I would hope that the Director would report this as a provisional assessment pending comment from the alleged psychic side. And would not the L&E look at the case in any event given the mention of 'amber'? (No-one seems to recall whether it did.) ~ G ~ +=+ From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Sep 3 11:38:05 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:38:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) In-Reply-To: <000d01c90da3$72a16560$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> > +=+ I would hope that the Director would report this as a > provisional assessment pending comment from the alleged > psychic side. And would not the L&E look at the case in > any event given the mention of 'amber'? (No-one seems > to recall whether it did.) I'm sure its all in the minutes: the L&E re-reclassified the psyche as green. I'm not sure the point the OP wanted to make in this thread. Is he saying the appeal should not be heard until both sides were present? This was the last event of the Year-End Congress: perhaps everyone would be present at the Easter Congress at the same venue (in three months time) or we should wait until the following year end. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at rtflb.org Wed Sep 3 16:41:04 2008 From: blml at rtflb.org (blml at rtflb.org) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:41:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear blml@rtflb.org 71% OFF. Message-ID: <20080903133909.3317.qmail@homa-48a3deeb98> Dear blml at rtflb.org, Best Price Only Today. http://ywr.othermuch.com?ome From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 5 13:05:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:05:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented Message-ID: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Hope this reaches you. I didn't get any blml message for three days. We played on tuesday evening against a pair of good level and the highest ethics, and this happened : N(AG) E S W 1NT * p p 2D ** p 2H 2NT*** p p p * 11-14 ** intended as Multi, but partener didn't think so about repoenings. West had strong spades. *** clubs but passable (partner held 2245) When East doesn't alert 2D, West knows what happens. The 2H response to 2D is so standard that he wouldn't have known without the UI from the non-alert. He didn't know anything about a HdW, but felt he shouldn't alert 2H, which would no doubt have been asked about, in order not to transmit any information to partner. In a way, he re-invented dWS at the table. He lost 3 IMPs (+50, against 170). It would have been 150 on a spade lead, but of course ... We could have made 3D, but only on rather bad defence, so we didn't bother about MI preventing us from playing in diamonds. Now I don't know what the TD would have decided if a mess ensued after compound UI, but it would usually have cost more than 3 IMPs. This is the typical case where using dWS minimizes inconvenience to opponents, TD and teammates. Yes, it's usually held that you aren't allowed to use this win-win-win solution. So what ? (nobody drew attention to the irregularity before the deal was completed, so L9B doesn't apply) Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Sep 7 18:35:58 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:35:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Now I don't know what the TD would have decided if a mess ensued after > compound UI, but it would usually have cost more than 3 IMPs. > > This is the typical case where using dWS minimizes inconvenience to > opponents, TD and teammates. > Yes, it's usually held that you aren't allowed to use this win-win-win > solution. So what ? It is not a "win" for the opponents, who were, as you yourself note, entitled to more than 3 IMPs. Stefanie Rohan London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 7 23:39:44 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:39:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] reopening the auction In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: I am directing tomorrow when new laws start in ACBL-land. So I am studying the new laws. 21B is pretty clear that the auction can be reopened: Until the end of the auction period.....a player may change a call...when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given the player by an opponent." I even got this ruling on the old laws. So I am guessing that the auction can be reopened. But, just to make sure.... Everything else makes it sound like once the auction is over, it is over. Law 22A2: "The auction ends when ... there are three consecutive passes in rotation. THE LAST BID BECOMES THE FINAL CONTRACT." Or, Law 20F5b, "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in this opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous, but only at his first legal opportunity, which is, for a defender, AFTER THE FINAL PASS OF THE AUCTION." How many final passes can an auction have? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 8 00:53:30 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:53:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25B Message-ID: <48C45B6A.6020805@t-online.de> Hi all, we had a discussion today... The old 25B has disappeared (cheers from the background, fireworks exploding...), but the new 25B is not 100% clear to me. Player makes a call, player wants to change that call. The original call was not unintentional ( the player says so himself, so no doubt about it), so it a clear case of 25B. Now the question: If the player summons the TD (as he did in the actual case), does the TD give the player a chance to substitute a call (which LHO may accept or reject, the TD of course explaining the consequences to the player), or does the TD rule that the original call has to stand? It seems to me that there are two aspects to consider: 1. the wording seems to suggest that no such procedure is allowed, 25B is for cases where the player attempts to or actually changes his call 2. if this is so, there may be cases where a player would do well to attempt a change of call without summoning the TD, hoping to get away with it. I know that there are UI considerations, but if both calls are forcing he may surmount the L16 obstacle. I cannot give an example yet, but devious minds.... My own reading is that the TD does not allow the try to change the call. 25B2 seems to call for the TD's OK for a 25A change, so any change not covered by 25A seems to be right out. Still, see 2 above. Looks like the Probst cheat is on to a good thing if he tries to change his call in a game-forcing sequence, especially in a slam try. If the first call was sufficiently bad he cannot lose... Comments, anyone? Best regards Matthias From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 8 02:16:48 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:16:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] reopening the auction References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <000f01c91148$3263f960$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 10:39 PM Subject: [blml] reopening the auction >I am directing tomorrow when new laws start in ACBL-land. So I am studying > the new laws. > > 21B is pretty clear that the auction can be reopened: Until the end of the > auction period.....a player may change a call...when the Director judges > that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by > misinformation given the player by an opponent." I even got this ruling on > the old laws. So I am guessing that the auction can be reopened. But, just > to make sure.... > > Everything else makes it sound like once the auction is over, it is over. > Law 22A2: "The auction ends when ... there are three consecutive passes in > rotation. THE LAST BID BECOMES THE FINAL CONTRACT." > > Or, Law 20F5b, *"The player must call the Director and inform his > opponents > that, in this opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous, but only > at his first legal opportunity, which is, for a defender, AFTER THE FINAL > PASS OF THE AUCTION." How many final passes can an auction have? > +=+ There are some matters to sort out here. For example note that the end of the auction and the end of the auction period are not one and the same. See Law 22 and particularly 22B1. Also, the above statement* misquotes Law 20F5. A whole lot of crucial words are omitted. Maybe, Robert, you should reread the whole of the laws you are quoting. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 8 03:25:11 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:25:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] reopening the auction In-Reply-To: <000f01c91148$3263f960$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> <000f01c91148$3263f960$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:16:48 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "You are everyone's equal and everyone > is your equal." > (Catherine 'Jean' Finnegan Biden, > advice to her son). > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 10:39 PM > Subject: [blml] reopening the auction > > >> I am directing tomorrow when new laws start in ACBL-land. So I am >> studying >> the new laws. >> >> 21B is pretty clear that the auction can be reopened: Until the end of >> the >> auction period.....a player may change a call...when the Director judges >> that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by >> misinformation given the player by an opponent." I even got this ruling >> on >> the old laws. So I am guessing that the auction can be reopened. But, >> just >> to make sure.... >> >> Everything else makes it sound like once the auction is over, it is >> over. >> Law 22A2: "The auction ends when ... there are three consecutive passes >> in >> rotation. THE LAST BID BECOMES THE FINAL CONTRACT." >> >> Or, Law 20F5b, *"The player must call the Director and inform his >> opponents >> that, in this opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous, but only >> at his first legal opportunity, which is, for a defender, AFTER THE >> FINAL >> PASS OF THE AUCTION." How many final passes can an auction have? >> > +=+ There are some matters to sort out here. For example note that the > end > of the auction and the end of the auction period are not one and the > same. > See > Law 22 and particularly 22B1. > Also, the above statement* misquotes Law 20F5. A whole lot of > crucial > words are omitted. Maybe, Robert, you should reread the whole of the laws > you are quoting. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sorry. Trying again with Law 20F5(b): "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous... but only at his first legal opportunity, which is ... (ii) for declarer or dummy, AFTER THE FINAL PASS OF THE AUCTION. I see now that the auction can be reopened for an inadvertent bid also. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 8 04:32:06 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:32:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards In-Reply-To: References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> <000f01c91148$3263f960$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Suppose I try to play the 9 of spades and the 2 of spades is also exposed. My understanding, which I am checking, is that I can choose which of the two cards I wish to play to the trick (Law 58B2). However, if I choose the inadvertantly played card, the intentionally led card is a major penalty card, whereas if I choose the intentionally led card, the inadvertently exposed card is a minor penalty card (assuming it is not an honor). From adam at tameware.com Mon Sep 8 05:04:10 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 23:04:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ cases posted Message-ID: <694eadd40809072004r2dc329bdp36b0af45719aae9@mail.gmail.com> The ACBL has posted initial versions of the NABC+ case write-ups from the Las Vegas NABC here: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/LasVegas2008.html No comments are there yet. I'll post my draft comments on BLML shortly. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Sep 8 09:20:39 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:20:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25B In-Reply-To: <48C45B6A.6020805@t-online.de> Message-ID: ton: The TD does not offer a player the possibility to change his intended call. If a player does change an intended call himself, LHO may accept that call, but why is this advantageous for the offending player. Accepting will only occur when the substituted call is even better for the opponents than the original one. And it creates UI with severe consequences and might create a lead penalty. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus Sent: maandag 8 september 2008 0:54 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] L25B Hi all, we had a discussion today... The old 25B has disappeared (cheers from the background, fireworks exploding...), but the new 25B is not 100% clear to me. Player makes a call, player wants to change that call. The original call was not unintentional ( the player says so himself, so no doubt about it), so it a clear case of 25B. Now the question: If the player summons the TD (as he did in the actual case), does the TD give the player a chance to substitute a call (which LHO may accept or reject, the TD of course explaining the consequences to the player), or does the TD rule that the original call has to stand? It seems to me that there are two aspects to consider: 1. the wording seems to suggest that no such procedure is allowed, 25B is for cases where the player attempts to or actually changes his call 2. if this is so, there may be cases where a player would do well to attempt a change of call without summoning the TD, hoping to get away with it. I know that there are UI considerations, but if both calls are forcing he may surmount the L16 obstacle. I cannot give an example yet, but devious minds.... My own reading is that the TD does not allow the try to change the call. 25B2 seems to call for the TD's OK for a 25A change, so any change not covered by 25A seems to be right out. Still, see 2 above. Looks like the Probst cheat is on to a good thing if he tries to change his call in a game-forcing sequence, especially in a slam try. If the first call was sufficiently bad he cannot lose... Comments, anyone? Best regards Matthias _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Sep 8 09:29:39 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:29:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ton: Very well interpreted. In theory a defender might want to play a card and instead of that card, two cards fall on the table. Then both cards become (major)penalty cards and declarer chooses the one to be played (if legal). So he better tells the TD that he wanted to play one of the shown cards trying to avoid the creation of a major penalty card. ton Robert Frick: Suppose I try to play the 9 of spades and the 2 of spades is also exposed. My understanding, which I am checking, is that I can choose which of the two cards I wish to play to the trick (Law 58B2). However, if I choose the inadvertantly played card, the intentionally led card is a major penalty card, whereas if I choose the intentionally led card, the inadvertently exposed card is a minor penalty card (assuming it is not an honor). _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 8 09:41:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 08:41:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local><000f01c91148$3263f960$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <00ae01c91186$4a475b10$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Suppose I try to play the 9 of spades and the 2 of spades is also exposed. > My understanding, which I am checking, is that I can choose which of the > two cards I wish to play to the trick (Law 58B2). However, if I choose the > inadvertantly played card, the intentionally led card is a major penalty > card, whereas if I choose the intentionally led card, the inadvertently > exposed card is a minor penalty card (assuming it is not an honor). No, the Law says you may choose. Anyway, if the two cards are in the same suit and are not honours, I think that a problem will rarely ensue. If you were following suit to a trick that your side is losing, the information that you have the other card will probably be more useful to your opponents than for your side, and even if the reverse is true the opponents will usually be protected by UI considerations. Now suppose the other card is of a different suit, and therefore illegal to designate. It is still a minor penalty card, but the opponents are protected from any UI that may arise. (L50E) Stefanie Rohan London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 8 13:22:42 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:22:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be> <010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Now I don't know what the TD would have decided if a mess ensued after >> compound UI, but it would usually have cost more than 3 IMPs. >> >> This is the typical case where using dWS minimizes inconvenience to >> opponents, TD and teammates. >> Yes, it's usually held that you aren't allowed to use this win-win-win >> solution. So what ? >> > > It is not a "win" for the opponents, who were, as you yourself note, > entitled to more than 3 IMPs. > > AG : perhaps that's where we differ. Remark that I spoke about inconvenience. Getting 3 IMPs from nowhere isn't inconvenient. Rules are there to restore equity. Substract all alerts and questions. Then opponents weren't good for more than 3 IMPs. The perverse effect of alerts, explanations and the current rules entitles opponents, most probably, to more than that. You know what ? I wouldn't be proud to be the random recipient of a swing that's created by the laws only. So, giving me only the IMPs I was entitled to as a consequence of their error will probably minimize inconvenience to me too. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 8 13:25:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:25:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] reopening the auction In-Reply-To: References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <48C50BB5.302@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I am directing tomorrow when new laws start in ACBL-land. So I am studying > the new laws. > > 21B is pretty clear that the auction can be reopened: Until the end of the > auction period.....a player may change a call...when the Director judges > that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by > misinformation given the player by an opponent." I even got this ruling on > the old laws. So I am guessing that the auction can be reopened. But, just > to make sure.... > > Everything else makes it sound like once the auction is over, it is over. > Law 22A2: "The auction ends when ... there are three consecutive passes in > rotation. THE LAST BID BECOMES THE FINAL CONTRACT." > > AG : I don't think there is any contradiction in this. In such MI problems, if the TD judges so, the last (and occasionally last two) calls are cancelled. So there ain't any final pass yet. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 8 13:50:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:50:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] reopening the auction In-Reply-To: References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> <000f01c91148$3263f960$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48C51198.9070702@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > > Sorry. Trying again with Law 20F5(b): "The player must call the Director > and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation > was erroneous... but only at his first legal opportunity, which is ... > (ii) for declarer or dummy, AFTER THE FINAL PASS OF THE AUCTION. > > AG : which could have the effect of making the final pass nonexistent. So, after correction, the number of final passes ill be : 1 - 1 + 1 = 1 which suits me fine. Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 8 13:58:13 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:58:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25B Message-ID: <48C51355.5030704@t-online.de> ton schrieb: > ton: > > The TD does not offer a player the possibility to change his intended call. This is how I read it, too. > If a player does change an intended call himself, LHO may accept that call, > but why is this advantageous for the offending player. Accepting will only > occur when the substituted call is even better for the opponents than the > original one. And it creates UI with severe consequences and might create a > lead penalty. There will not be many cases, but consider two scenarios: 1) The player is in an undisturbed, game-forcing auction. He notices that he made a mistake, so he changes his call. If it is rejected there will be no lead penalty (the opps will not get to play the hand), and UI may be insignificant in view of the mistake he already perpetrated. I realize that the frequency of such things happening will be very low, but it is there, nevertheless. I have no remedy to offer for this, I just noticed. 2) A player of some standing in the club declares that he is entitled to change the call, and opps do not dare to contradict that player. Such things are a common occurence in clubs without good TDs, and there still are quite a number of those around here. Again no remedy suggested except spreading the good word around, and every certified TD does so, but the neglect of decades is hard to combat. There are 5 clubs in the town where I play, and 4 of them have no certified TD. At least 2 of them want this state of things to continue... I do not want to criticize the way L25B is written, just some thoughts. Best regards Matthias > > ton > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Sep 8 15:07:28 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 15:07:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25B In-Reply-To: <48C51355.5030704@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias: 2) A player of some standing in the club declares that he is entitled to change the call, and opps do not dare to contradict that player. Such things are a common occurence in clubs without good TDs, and there still are quite a number of those around here. Again no remedy suggested except spreading the good word around, and every certified TD does so, but the neglect of decades is hard to combat. There are 5 clubs in the town where I play, and 4 of them have no certified TD. At least 2 of them want this state of things to continue... I do not want to criticize the way L25B is written, just some thoughts. Best regards Matthias ton: The problem you describe above has nothing to do with whatever law and the way it is written. If a player states that he is entitled to do what he does and others accept it, laws do not have any meaning anymore. ton From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 8 15:51:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:51:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards In-Reply-To: References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> <000f01c91148$3263f960$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <3609209B-C981-433C-8FB4-A79149CA5344@starpower.net> On Sep 7, 2008, at 10:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Suppose I try to play the 9 of spades and the 2 of spades is also > exposed. > My understanding, which I am checking, is that I can choose which > of the > two cards I wish to play to the trick (Law 58B2). However, if I > choose the > inadvertantly played card, the intentionally led card is a major > penalty > card, whereas if I choose the intentionally led card, the > inadvertently > exposed card is a minor penalty card (assuming it is not an honor). I don't read it that way. Given that there is one card that declarer "proposes to play" and one which he does not, one card to be treated as "intentionally played" and one to be treated as "inadvertantly played", surely they must correspond in that order, not the reverse. And L58B2 would appear to give the player the option of designating either card as the one he "proposes to play" without regard for whichever he might have originally intended. It makes more sense to me to, in effect, apply the notion of "intention" in L50B to his action taken when exercising his L58B2 rights than to his mental state at some previous indeterminate time. If the writers of TFLB expected the TD to make a determination independent of the player's L58B2 "designation" as to which card was "indended" and which was "inadvertant", there would be no L58B2; it would make far more sense to just make the intended card the played card and the inadvertantly exposed one the PC. The whole point of L58B2 is that the player, not the TD, makes that decision. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 8 15:56:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:56:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] L25B In-Reply-To: <200809080721.PWI13875@mr03.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <200809080721.PWI13875@mr03.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2008, at 3:20 AM, ton wrote: > The TD does not offer a player the possibility to change his > intended call. > If a player does change an intended call himself, LHO may accept > that call, > but why is this advantageous for the offending player. Accepting > will only > occur when the substituted call is even better for the opponents > than the > original one. And it creates UI with severe consequences and might > create a > lead penalty. Surely there is some possibility that the offending player and his LHO may have different opinions as to which call is "better" for whose side. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 8 16:07:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:07:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards In-Reply-To: <200809080729.ASL65457@mr10.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <200809080729.ASL65457@mr10.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: <504C68CE-5F1E-4FF2-8A20-7DF1C629C9B0@starpower.net> On Sep 8, 2008, at 3:29 AM, ton wrote: > Very well interpreted. In theory a defender might want to play a > card and > instead of that card, two cards fall on the table. Then both cards > become > (major)penalty cards and declarer chooses the one to be played (if > legal). > > So he better tells the TD that he wanted to play one of the shown > cards > trying to avoid the creation of a major penalty card. Isn't that exactly what L58B2 effectively requires him to do, regardless of his original intention? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Sep 8 16:12:41 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:12:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards Message-ID: <48C532D9.1080407@nhcc.net> > Robert Frick: > Suppose I try to play the 9 of spades and the 2 of spades is also exposed. > My understanding, which I am checking, is that I can choose which of the two > cards I wish to play to the trick (Law 58B2). However, if I choose the > inadvertantly played card, the intentionally led card is a major penalty > card, whereas if I choose the intentionally led card, the inadvertently > exposed card is a minor penalty card (assuming it is not an honor). This is one popular interpretation. The alternative is that the TD should not inquire which card the player originally intended because there is obviously no way to know for sure. Under either interpretation, the clumsy player gets to choose which card to play to the current trick, but the major/minor nature of the subsequent penalty card may differ. > From: "ton" > In theory a defender might want to play a card and > instead of that card, two cards fall on the table. Then both cards > become (major)penalty cards and declarer chooses the one to be played > (if legal). So [defender] better tells the TD that he wanted to play > one of the shown cards > trying to avoid the creation of a major penalty card. Indeed. Some of us think the game would be better if defenders who are quick-thinking and familiar with the Laws have no advantage over those who are not. (Laws or interpretations that require mind reading are invidious.) From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Sep 8 16:16:34 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:16:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] L25B Message-ID: <48C533C2.6000501@nhcc.net> > From: Matthias Berghaus > 1) The player is in an undisturbed, game-forcing auction. He notices > that he made a mistake, so he changes his call. If it is rejected there > will be no lead penalty (the opps will not get to play the hand), and UI > may be insignificant in view of the mistake he already perpetrated. I don't see how the UI will be insignificant. Without the UI, perhaps partner will make a lucky choice, but with it, the "lucky choice" will probably be illegal. I suppose there's a remote chance that opponents will accept the substitute call, but if they do that, the result is their own fault. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 8 16:29:09 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:29:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25B Message-ID: <48C536B5.1050408@t-online.de> ton schrieb: > > The problem you describe above has nothing to do with whatever law and the > way it is written. If a player states that he is entitled to do what he does > and others accept it, laws do not have any meaning anymore. > > ton > This is only too true. Much progress has been made, especially in the last 15 years or so, but much remains to be done. On the bright side: when a club or whatever group has been converted it stays that way (at least in my experience). Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 8 16:49:15 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:49:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25B In-Reply-To: <48C533C2.6000501@nhcc.net> References: <48C533C2.6000501@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <48C53B6B.80308@t-online.de> Steve Willner schrieb: >> From: Matthias Berghaus >> 1) The player is in an undisturbed, game-forcing auction. He notices >> that he made a mistake, so he changes his call. If it is rejected there >> will be no lead penalty (the opps will not get to play the hand), and UI >> may be insignificant in view of the mistake he already perpetrated. > > I don't see how the UI will be insignificant. Without the UI, perhaps > partner will make a lucky choice, but with it, the "lucky choice" will > probably be illegal. "Insignificant" probably was poor wording on my part. It has to be qualified by "in relation to the damage already done by the poor call originally made". Please consider an auction where partner has no choice to make, for example a relay auction. If the substituted call is accepted the "changer" comes up smelling of roses, while when it is not he is not any worse than before. Example: 1NT opening, gameforcing shape relays, now RKCB for diamonds ooops this is for hearts, miscounted my steps. From now on partner will pass any heart bid by me, but will not pass a diamond bid. Option 1: continue, hoping to luck out with one of partners responses, passing it to reach a playable contract Option 2: try to change my call. If this is not accepted, see option 1. Partner will not be restricted by UI, he is only answering questions. > I suppose there's a remote chance that opponents > will accept the substitute call, but if they do that, the result is > their own fault. "Fault" may be the wrong word, too, but if they know what they are dealing with and accept the call they have to live with the consequences, yes. My point is that there may well be situations where "offender" cannot lose, since the original call was an unmitigated disaster... Again, I do not want to criticize the current L25B. There has to be a law for this, most attempted corrections will actually work in favor of the non-offenders, so I can live with some rare occurrences. I know how to handle players who want to cash in on the inexperience of their opponents. Best regards Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Sep 8 19:16:22 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:16:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] L25B Message-ID: <48C55DE6.4040602@nhcc.net> From: Matthias Berghaus > My point is that there may well be situations where "offender" cannot > lose, since the original call was an unmitigated disaster... Some would take the view that L23 applies in such cases, especially in its new, broader form. Others might say that if opponents are foolish enough to accept the substitute call, they deserve what they get. Either way, I don't think this is a big worry. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 8 22:21:17 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:21:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] L25B In-Reply-To: <48C55DE6.4040602@nhcc.net> References: <48C55DE6.4040602@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <388B5FA0-00AA-46F2-AC3A-757EBEB20A2D@starpower.net> On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > From: Matthias Berghaus > >> My point is that there may well be situations where "offender" cannot >> lose, since the original call was an unmitigated disaster... > > Some would take the view that L23 applies in such cases, especially in > its new, broader form. Others might say that if opponents are foolish > enough to accept the substitute call, they deserve what they get. > Either way, I don't think this is a big worry. I don't think Matthias is particularly concerned with the practical application of L25B, but, rather, with a broad principle which would seem to have obvious intuitive appeal: A player who has done nothing illegal should never be placed at a potential disadvantage by bringing the director to his table. But that's what the new L25B (if read straightforwardly) does; if he names his desired substitute call before calling the director there is some chance of his LHO accepting it, but if he calls the director before doing so that can no longer occur. Such anomalies have been not uncommon in the past, but good work on the part of the lawmakers had found and removed them all by the time the 1997 laws were published, leaving the desired principle intact in implementation. Regrettably, it seems to have been breached in the 2008 laws, perhaps not only in this one instance. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Sep 8 23:19:37 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:19:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] L25B Message-ID: <48C596E9.4030700@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > A player who has done nothing > illegal should never be placed at a potential disadvantage by > bringing the director to his table. But that's what the new L25B (if > read straightforwardly) does; if he names his desired substitute call > before calling the director there is some chance of his LHO accepting > it, but if he calls the director before doing so that can no longer > occur. Doesn't L9B1c cover this? (Yes, I think the Director has to offer L25B if asked.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 9 00:22:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:22:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48C596E9.4030700@nhcc.net> 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. Asian Cup Qualifying, match number 17, China versus Australian Capital Territory Dlr: South Vul: East-West You, East, hold: T94 J54 AK72 AQ9 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Pass Pass 2NT(1) ? (1) You ask South about the meaning of North's 2NT. South replies, "Non-systemic". You examine the pair's carefully completed WBF System Card. Not only does it describe 2NT as non-systemic, but it helpfully adds that all replies to 2NT are also non-systemic. What call do you make? Is "Director!" your 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 9 03:09:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:09:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: Robin Barker: >I'm not sure the point the OP wanted to make in this thread. >Is he saying the appeal should not be heard until both sides >were present? Richard Hills (Original Poster): No, this Orotund Parvenu specifically quoted the EBU White Book clause 93.1 which specifically stated that holding an "appeal in circumstances likely to prevent their presence does not invalidate the appeal". Rather, this Otiose Pedant has been arguing that for a semi- disciplinary hearing the relevant side must be notified of the appeal, so that (if unable to attend the appeal hearing) they could at least present a written statement. Robin Barker: >This was the last event of the Year-End Congress: perhaps >everyone would be present at the Easter Congress at the same >venue (in three months time) or we should wait until the >following year end. Richard Hills (Ontological Pachyderm): Is not the telephone in common use in England? Have not many EBU appeals been resolved via a telephone trunk 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 9 05:32:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:32:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn hypothetical: >>>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? William Schoder (Kojak) sets a pons asinorum test: >>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. Runner-up Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I would deprecate anyone making a ruling to the detriment of >a side without first hearing them. A false memory of the auction is >a common enough experience. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Runner-up Harald Skj?ran: >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. And the winner, a diligent TD of the highest quality, John Probst: >Check for misboarding; the usual reason for this (and yes, I have >had to look at 80 copies of a Board 17). 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 Tue Sep 9 05:33:21 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 04:33:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FA6@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <001901c9122c$cf549e20$6dfdda60$@com> [RB] This was the last event of the Year-End Congress [DALB] I'm not sure quite what has happened here. The "incident" I gave where North appeared to have opened a weak no trump on a nine count and South appeared to have passed it on a twelve count was completely fictitious - I made it up. If, by saying "this was the last event of the Year-End Congress", Robin is trying to preserve the fiction I have perpetrated, that's fine. If on the other hand he is "recalling" an actual incident, then I should say that I know of none such. Something like it, as Kojak says, might well have happened before. Certainly I have dealt with appeals after the final session of a tournament where it was not possible to have all players present because some of them had gone home, and on more than one such occasion I have accepted the evidence from the traveller and the testimony from one partnership as incontrovertible proof of the actual events at the table. If Grattan and Richard say that I should not have done... well, that was the question I was asking in the first place. After all, if the occasions of which I am speaking had occurred in a position where it was possible to call for testimony from the players who had gone home (that is, not to put too fine a point upon it, if those players had cheated in any session other than the last), then the final result of the tournament would almost certainly have been different. My view, for what it's worth, is that in such cases the result should be adjusted in favour of the (apparently) non-offending side, and if the (apparently) offending side don't like it, they can appeal when they see the published final results. Now, I am aware that this view depends to a great extent upon my own judgement (or Robin's judgement, or the judgement of whoever is the officer commanding). Like Grattan and like Richard, I know that it can be a huge error to judge a man in absentia - it may be that he had some perfectly legitimate reason for his apparently nefarious action that I have overlooked. I know that I need an awful lot of evidence from objective sources, as well as from one side when the other is not present, to rule in favour of the side that is present. But unlike Grattan and unlike Richard, I say that it is the duty of the officers commanding to decree that if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that the absent man is guilty, the tournament should be scored as if he were, rather than as if he were not. You should not award a criminal the proceeds of his crime merely as a reward for good judgement in choosing his moment to flee the scene. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 9 06:01:47 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 05:01:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001a01c91230$c8148d10$583da730$@com> [RH] And the winner, a diligent TD of the highest quality, John Probst: Check for misboarding; the usual reason for this (and yes, I have >had to look at 80 copies of a Board 17). [DALB] Nobody misboarded. North really did open 1NT on his nine count, announced as 12-14 by South, who really did pass on his 12. When you phone North-South, as advocated, you hear from North that he knew 1NT was 12-14, but being in need of a top to win the tournament, he'd decided to open his nine-count. When you speak to South, he tells you that being in need of a top to win the tournament, he'd decided to pass 1NT on the grounds that his side needed to stay out of game (or even 2NT) and hope that 1NT was the limit of the hand - that way, he'd score a top. Should you now feel a bit stupid for ruling, in the absence of North-South, that their actions were clearly based upon a concealed partnership understanding? David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 9 06:07:48 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:07:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:22:08 -0400, wrote: > 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. > > Asian Cup Qualifying, match number 17, > China versus Australian Capital Territory > > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West > > You, East, hold: > > T94 > J54 > AK72 > AQ9 > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Pass Pass 2NT(1) ? > > (1) You ask South about the meaning of North's 2NT. South > replies, "Non-systemic". You examine the pair's carefully > completed WBF System Card. Not only does it describe 2NT as > non-systemic, but it helpfully adds that all replies to 2NT > are also non-systemic. > > What call do you make? > Is "Director!" your call? Yes. 1. Can't hurt, might help. 2. will look good in the appeal 3. If you don't call the director and then you get a bad result, you have going to have a hard time explaining it to your teammates. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Sep 9 07:56:50 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 07:56:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25B In-Reply-To: <48C596E9.4030700@nhcc.net> Message-ID: > From: Eric Landau A player who has done nothing > illegal should never be placed at a potential disadvantage by bringing > the director to his table. But that's what the new L25B (if read > straightforwardly) does; if he names his desired substitute call > before calling the director there is some chance of his LHO accepting > it, but if he calls the director before doing so that can no longer > occur. Steven: Doesn't L9B1c cover this? (Yes, I think the Director has to offer L25B if asked.) ton: Another case where someone loves to show that he is the most clever one of the group instead of trying to understand and listen. May I ask Steven to tell us which 'rights' he is thinking about not to be forfeited? ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Sep 9 07:56:50 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 07:56:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] L25B In-Reply-To: <48C596E9.4030700@nhcc.net> Message-ID: > From: Eric Landau A player who has done nothing > illegal should never be placed at a potential disadvantage by bringing > the director to his table. But that's what the new L25B (if read > straightforwardly) does; if he names his desired substitute call > before calling the director there is some chance of his LHO accepting > it, but if he calls the director before doing so that can no longer > occur. Steven: Doesn't L9B1c cover this? (Yes, I think the Director has to offer L25B if asked.) ton: Another case where someone loves to show that he is the most clever one of the group instead of trying to understand and listen. May I ask Steven to tell us which 'rights' he is thinking about not to be forfeited? ton From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 9 09:04:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:04:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c9122c$cf549e20$6dfdda60$@com> Message-ID: [Robin Barker] This was the last event of the Year-End Congress [David Burn] I'm not sure quite what has happened here. [Richard Hills] Before David Burn floated his hypothetical, this thread was debating a real-life psyche of 1NT occurring in a real-life EBU event. The TD ruled Green Psyche, the AC re-ruled Amber Psyche, and according to Robin Barker the EBU L&EC re-re-ruled Green Psyche. [David Burn] After all, if the occasions of which I am speaking had occurred in a position where it was possible to call for testimony from the players who had gone home (that is, not to put too fine a point upon it, if those players had cheated in any session other than the last), then the final result of the tournament would almost certainly have been different. [Richard Hills] In my opinion, David Burn is committing the fallacy of treating score adjustment decisions identically to disciplinary decisions. [EBU White Book, initial phrase of clause 133.2] Whatever procedures are adopted should accord with the principles of natural justice, ie the member complained of should have the opportunity to answer the allegations against him, and should be kept properly informed at every stage. [David Burn] But unlike Grattan and unlike Richard, I say that it is the duty of the officers commanding to decree that if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that the absent man is guilty, the tournament should be scored as if he were, rather than as if he were not. You should not award a criminal the proceeds of his crime merely as a reward for good judgement in choosing his moment to flee the scene. [Robert Sheckley, "The Status Civilisation"] "The law," he said, "is above the criminal and the judge, and rules them both. The law is inescapable, for an action is either lawful or unlawful. The law, indeed, may be said to have a life of its own, an existence quite apart from the finite lives of the beings who administer it. The law governs every aspect of human behavior; therefore, to the same extent that humans are lawful beings, the law is human. And being human, the law has its idiosyncrasies, just as a man has his. For a citizen who abides by the law, the law is distant and difficult to find. For those who reject and violate it, the law emerges from its musty sepulchers and goes in search of the transgressor." 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 Sep 9 09:16:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:16:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] L25B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080909063040.27CA4CFEE3F@mailgw2.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>>A player who has done nothing illegal should never be placed >>>at a potential disadvantage by bringing the director to his >>>table. But that's what the new L25B (if read >>>straightforwardly) does; if he names his desired substitute >>>call before calling the director there is some chance of his >>>LHO accepting it, but if he calls the director before doing >>>so that can no longer occur. Steve Willner: >>Doesn't L9B1c cover this? (Yes, I think the Director has to >>offer L25B if asked.) Ton Kooijman: >Another case where someone loves to show that he is the most >clever one of the group instead of trying to understand and >listen. > >May I ask Steven to tell us which 'rights' he is thinking about >not to be forfeited? > >ton Richard Hills: At the risk of attempting to show that I am the mostest cleverest :-) I believe that a Law 25B change of call is an infraction. As Law 72B1 prohibits intentional infractions, not only does the TD have a responsibility to prevent a player trying a Law 25B change of call, but the player herself also has that responsibility. Law 17C: "...each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation." 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 Sep 9 10:03:01 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:03:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000201c91257$66d24200$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott [David Burn] > > After all, if the occasions of which I am speaking had occurred > in a position where it was possible to call for testimony from > the players who had gone home (that is, not to put too fine a > point upon it, if those players had cheated in any session other > than the last), then the final result of the tournament would > almost certainly have been different. > > [Richard Hills] > > In my opinion, David Burn is committing the fallacy of treating > score adjustment decisions identically to disciplinary decisions. > > [EBU White Book, initial phrase of clause 133.2] > > Whatever procedures are adopted should accord with the principles > of natural justice, ie the member complained of should have the > opportunity to answer the allegations against him, and should be > kept properly informed at every stage. > > [David Burn] > > But unlike Grattan and unlike Richard, I say that it is the > duty of the officers commanding to decree that if the > overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that the absent man is > guilty, the tournament should be scored as if he were, rather > than as if he were not. You should not award a criminal the > proceeds of his crime merely as a reward for good judgement in > choosing his moment to flee the scene. > +=+ As I recall, " the overwhelming preponderance of evidence" was a single uncorroborated statement by one side at the table as to what the auction had been. "Off with her head" ('Alice in Wonderland', Ch. 8.) +=+ From geller at nifty.com Tue Sep 9 10:49:28 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:49:28 +0900 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c91257$66d24200$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000201c91257$66d24200$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200809090849.AA15479@geller204.nifty.com> I don't understand why this should problem. The tourney can surely be scored in normal fashion. The director can take statements from the claimants and record the hand (if not computer dealt), and the questionable board can be referred to the RA for possible adjudication. In the event a serious violation were to be found, the winners could be changed in the same way that doping violaters are stripped of Olympic medals and the lower placers move up. -Bob Grattan ????????: > > >Grattan Endicottalso ************************************** >"You are everyone's equal and everyone > is your equal." > (Catherine 'Jean' Finnegan Biden, > advice to her son). >''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''' > >> [David Burn] >> >> After all, if the occasions of which I am speaking had occurred >> in a position where it was possible to call for testimony from >> the players who had gone home (that is, not to put too fine a >> point upon it, if those players had cheated in any session other >> than the last), then the final result of the tournament would >> almost certainly have been different. >> >> [Richard Hills] >> >> In my opinion, David Burn is committing the fallacy of treating >> score adjustment decisions identically to disciplinary decisions. >> >> [EBU White Book, initial phrase of clause 133.2] >> >> Whatever procedures are adopted should accord with the principles >> of natural justice, ie the member complained of should have the >> opportunity to answer the allegations against him, and should be >> kept properly informed at every stage. >> >> [David Burn] >> >> But unlike Grattan and unlike Richard, I say that it is the >> duty of the officers commanding to decree that if the >> overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that the absent man is >> guilty, the tournament should be scored as if he were, rather >> than as if he were not. You should not award a criminal the >> proceeds of his crime merely as a reward for good judgement in >> choosing his moment to flee the scene. >> >+=+ As I recall, " the overwhelming preponderance of evidence" >was a single uncorroborated statement by one side at the table as >to what the auction had been. > "Off with her head" ('Alice in Wonderland', Ch. 8.) +=+ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 9 11:08:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:08:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200809090849.AA15479@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000201c91257$66d24200$0202a8c0@Mildred> <200809090849.AA15479@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <48C63D2B.2030000@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a e'crit : > I don't understand why this should problem. The tourney can surely > be scored in normal fashion. The director can take statements > from the claimants and record the hand (if not computer dealt), > and the questionable board can > be referred to the RA for possible adjudication. In the > event a serious violation were to be found, the winners > could be changed in the same way that doping violaters are > stripped of Olympic medals and the lower placers move up. > AG : indeed, but only as a makeshift solution. There have been several cases where disqualifying a contestant a posteriori doesn't restore equity. One such case was in the 1988 road cycling world championships, when Steve Bauer was disqualified for irregular sprinting, in favor of Maurizio Fondriest, who had finished second. This didn't do justive to Claudy Criquielion, who, without Bauer's irregularity, was bound to win. One such possible case at bridge would be if there was some infraction in a semi-final match. If team A won against team B but only through an irregularity, and the AC decides after the final to demote A from their title of vice-champion, it doesn't help team B, who perhaps would have beaten C in the final. Competitions which allow contestants in the round of 16 (or any number) to pick their opponents in round-robin classifying order can cause further problems. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 9 10:49:03 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:49:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards References: <48C532D9.1080407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002801c9125c$853f7730$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards >> (Robert Frick): >> Suppose I try to play the 9 of spades and the 2 of spades is also >> exposed. >> My understanding, which I am checking, is that I can choose which of the >> two >> cards I wish to play to the trick (Law 58B2). However, if I choose the >> inadvertently played card, the intentionally led card is a major penalty >> card, whereas if I choose the intentionally led card, the inadvertently >> exposed card is a minor penalty card (assuming it is not an honour). > (Steve) > This is one popular interpretation. The alternative is that the TD > should not inquire which card the player originally intended because > there is obviously no way to know for sure. Under either > interpretation, the clumsy player gets to choose which card to play to > the current trick, but the major/minor nature of the subsequent penalty > card may differ. > > > From: "ton" > > In theory a defender might want to play a card and > > instead of that card, two cards fall on the table. Then both cards > > become (major)penalty cards and declarer chooses the one to be played > > (if legal). So [defender] better tells the TD that he wanted to play > > one of the shown cards > > trying to avoid the creation of a major penalty card. > (Steve) > Indeed. Some of us think the game would be better if defenders who are > quick-thinking and familiar with the Laws have no advantage over those > who are not. (Laws or interpretations that require mind reading are > invidious.) > (Grattan): < . +=+ Let us muse upon the considerations a little. Except for dummy, each player "plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him" (Law 45A). It should be noted that Laws 58B1 through 4 are only applicable in circumstances where "a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously". So we are looking at a situation where a player has detached two or more cards from his hand simultaneously and faced them on the table. If only one of the cards is visible (and no other card is therefore 'faced') the visible card is played. The remainder of the cards are picked up. If more than one card is visible the player designates the card he proposes to play and, if he is a defender, any other visible card becomes a penalty card. Notwithstanding that each such card was led or played, Law 50B provides - as I read it - that it will become a minor penalty card if it is below honour rank and it was not the intention of the player to play more than one card to the trick. If in trying to detach a card from his hand and face it on the table a defender lets two cards fall accidentally face up onto the table they are subject to Law 49. If he detaches one card from his hand and faces it on the table immediately before him that card is played, and if in doing so he accidentally lets another card fall face-up onto the table this card is subject to Law 49. Law 45A makes it a mechanical matter whether or not a card is played. The player's actions, not his intentions, determine that it is 'played'. It is clear from the wording of Law 50B that a card may be 'played' unintentionally. ......................................................................................................... As a rider to the above, let me postulate that declarer plays two cards simultaneously, both visible. Suppose on being asked to designate the card he proposes to play he wishes to designate neither of the visible cards but a third card - either invisible or still in his hand. It seems to me that the phrase "each other card exposed" in Law 58B2 bears an inference that his choice is only among the visible cards and he should not be allowed to designate any other. If this is a valid inference it might be well served if it were to have the support of official interpretation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 9 11:13:13 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:13:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] L25B References: <48A123480D05E4D3@mail-9-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <002901c9125c$85953850$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" ; Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L25B > >> From: Eric Landau A player who has done nothing >> illegal should never be placed at a potential disadvantage by bringing >> the director to his table. But that's what the new L25B (if read >> straightforwardly) does; if he names his desired substitute call >> before calling the director there is some chance of his LHO accepting >> it, but if he calls the director before doing so that can no longer >> occur. > > Steven: > Doesn't L9B1c cover this? (Yes, I think the Director has to offer L25B if > asked.) > > ton: > Another case where someone loves to show that he is the most clever one of > the group instead of trying to understand and listen. > May I ask Steven to tell us which 'rights' he is thinking about not to be > forfeited? > +=+ Whatever preferences anyone may have, I suggest the law is wholly clear. Law 25B1 is concerned with a 'substituted' call. 'Substituted' means that the law is concerned only with a substitution that has occurred, not with a wish in the mind of a player. Where the conditions of 25B1 are not met 25B2 provides that the original call stands and the auction continues. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 9 11:40:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:40:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards In-Reply-To: <002801c9125c$853f7730$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48C532D9.1080407@nhcc.net> <002801c9125c$853f7730$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48C644A6.5070505@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > < . > +=+ Let us muse upon the considerations a little. > Except for dummy, each player "plays a card by detaching it from > his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him" (Law 45A). > It should be noted that Laws 58B1 through 4 are only applicable > in circumstances where "a player leads or plays two or more cards > simultaneously". So we are looking at a situation where a player has > detached two or more cards from his hand simultaneously and faced > them on the table. If only one of the cards is visible (and no other card > is therefore 'faced') the visible card is played. AG : not quite IMHO. It is quite possible that you detach a card, which isn't yet visible at the time when some other card falls from your hand, for example because it stuck with the card you intend to play. In this case, the visible card hasn't been played (or shouldn't have). The wording of L50B1 surely includes this case. > Law 45A makes it a mechanical matter whether or not a card is > played. The player's actions, not his intentions, determine that it is > 'played'. AG : BTA his intentions are usually obvious from his gestures. > It is clear from the wording of Law 50B that a card may be > 'played' unintentionally. > AG : I don't understand that. L45A says you play a card by detaching it and ... Whence, if some card is made visible for some reason, but you didn't detach it; it isn't played and the distinguo in L50B applies. Now, could it be that you unintentionally detach a card from your hand ? This would be an uncommon occurrence, altrhough not impossible. Best regards Alain From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Sep 9 12:31:16 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:31:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c9122c$cf549e20$6dfdda60$@com> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FAB@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> [RMB] This was the last event of the Year-End Congress [DALB] I'm not sure quite what has happened here. The "incident" I gave where North appeared to have opened a weak no trump on a nine count and South appeared to have passed it on a twelve count was completely fictitious - I made it up. If, by saying "this was the last event of the Year-End Congress", Robin is trying to preserve the fiction I have perpetrated, that's fine. If on the other hand he is "recalling" an actual incident, then I should say that I know of none such. [RMB] I was referring to the original hand in the thread, where an appeal (re a psyche) had been heard despite the absence of one of the pairs. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 9 12:45:15 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 06:45:15 EDT Subject: [blml] Normal Line Message-ID: S None H Kxx D AKTxx C None S None H Ax D QJx C Axx In this ending, South, in no-trumps, who won the last trick in his hand, claims, stating "I'll give you a heart at the end." While the opponents are inspecting the claim, after a few seconds he states: "No, sorry, I don't give you anything, I have the ace of clubs to discard a heart from dummy." How would you rule? From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Sep 9 10:00:41 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:00:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] smaller? Message-ID: <00bd01c91252$279a1f40$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> hello, an old trail comes back with a new case and a live discussion : in any contract, south declarer, west lead, east take first trick and switch in a suit with J3 in dummy, declarer has AKQ2 but must think to take lead in hand or dummy, after a huddle, he decides to take in hand, the pause is NOT to confuse opponents but to solve a play problem (unexpected before playing the first card from dummy ... cannot anticipate) (if not, we all agree what to do ...) does he need to take with the Q after the pause or can he play A or K? if you says the Q is mandatory, please give laws numbers if you says no, il you have, give laws numbers too ... Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080909/8c35f9f1/attachment.htm From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 9 13:41:59 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:41:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards References: <48C532D9.1080407@nhcc.net><002801c9125c$853f7730$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48C644A6.5070505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001601c91271$143ebc70$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards > Law 45A makes it a mechanical matter whether or not a card is > played. The player's actions, not his intentions, determine that it is > 'played'. AG : BTA his intentions are usually obvious from his gestures. +=+ G: I do not understand what AG is saying here.+=+ < > It is clear from the wording of Law 50B that a card may be > 'played' unintentionally. > AG : I don't understand that. L45A says you play a card by detaching it and ... Whence, if some card is made visible for some reason, but you didn't detach it; it isn't played and the distinguo in L50B applies. Now, could it be that you unintentionally detach a card from your hand ? This would be an uncommon occurrence, altrhough not impossible. < +=+ G: A card that falls accidentally is not 'faced' by the player so it is not a played card, whether he detached it intentionally or not. Whatever the player's intention if he detaches it and faces it he plays it. Law 45A is concerned with mechanical actions. Nowhere does it specify that intent is required. However, 50B recognizes that a play made in accordance with 45A may have been unintentional. Principally I see this occurring when two cards are detached and faced by the player but, as is normally the case, his object was to detach and face only one. +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 9 14:03:18 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:03:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c91257$66d24200$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000201c91257$66d24200$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002701c91274$0cf21db0$26d65910$@com> [GE] As I recall, "the overwhelming preponderance of evidence" was a single uncorroborated statement by one side at the table as to what the auction had been. [DALB] Not quite. There was a travelling score slip bearing the legend "1NT N 7 90". This means that North had played in 1NT and made seven tricks for a score of 90 to North-South. This travelling score slip belonged to a board on which North was the dealer. This appeared to lend considerable corroboration to the statement by East-West that North had opened 1NT and played there. David Burn London, England From bbickford at charter.net Tue Sep 9 14:19:02 2008 From: bbickford at charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:19:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000201c91257$66d24200$0202a8c0@Mildred> <002701c91274$0cf21db0$26d65910$@com> Message-ID: <009401c91276$3f1ac650$a2c5834b@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [GE] > > As I recall, "the overwhelming preponderance of evidence" was a single > uncorroborated statement by one side at the table as to what the auction > had > been. > > [DALB] > > Not quite. There was a travelling score slip bearing the legend "1NT N 7 > 90". This means that North had played in 1NT and made seven tricks for a > score of 90 to North-South. This travelling score slip belonged to a board > on which North was the dealer. This appeared to lend considerable > corroboration to the statement by East-West that North had opened 1NT and > played there. > > David Burn > London, England > > Could the auction have been P-P-1 any-P-1nt-all pass? Cheers......................./Bill > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 9 14:28:58 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:28:58 EDT Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 09/09/2008 13:04:16 GMT Standard Time, dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: There was a travelling score slip bearing the legend "1NT N 7 90". This means that North had played in 1NT and made seven tricks for a score of 90 to North-South. This travelling score slip belonged to a board on which North was the dealer. This appeared to lend considerable corroboration to the statement by East-West that North had opened 1NT and played there. [paul lamford] I disagree. It only appeared to lend considerable corroboration to the fact that the auction was one of the following (and we are only considering uncontested auctions here): Pass - 1C - 1D - 1H - 1NT - All Pass Pass - 1C - 1D - 1S - 1NT - All Pass Pass - 1C - 1H - 1S - 1NT - All Pass Pass - 1D - 1H - 1S - 1NT - All Pass Pass - 1C - 1NT - All Pass Pass - 1D - 1NT - All Pass Pass - 1H - 1NT - All Pass Pass - 1S - 1NT - All Pass 1NT - All Pass The statement by East-West that the last of these occurred was indeed uncorroborated. Indeed, if they chose to lie, they would be more likely to have selected an untruth which fitted the facts that could be established. They could hardly get away with stating that North opened 2NT on a nine-count and his partner passed on a 12-count, could they? From geller at nifty.com Tue Sep 9 14:40:45 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:40:45 +0900 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200809091240.AA15487@geller204.nifty.com> I'm very impressed to learn that there is a country where players never mistakenly write S for N or N for S when identifying the declarer on the traveler. This is really impressive. :-) -Bob Gampas at aol.com ????????: >In a message dated 09/09/2008 13:04:16 GMT Standard Time, >dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: > >There was a travelling score slip bearing the legend "1NT N 7 90". This >means that North had played in 1NT and made seven tricks for a score of 90 to >North-South. This travelling score slip belonged to a board on which North was >the dealer. This appeared to lend considerable corroboration to the statement >by East-West that North had opened 1NT and played there. > >[paul lamford] I disagree. It only appeared to lend considerable >corroboration to the fact that the auction was one of the following (and we are only >considering uncontested auctions here): > >Pass - 1C - 1D - 1H - 1NT - All Pass >Pass - 1C - 1D - 1S - 1NT - All Pass >Pass - 1C - 1H - 1S - 1NT - All Pass >Pass - 1D - 1H - 1S - 1NT - All Pass >Pass - 1C - 1NT - All Pass >Pass - 1D - 1NT - All Pass >Pass - 1H - 1NT - All Pass >Pass - 1S - 1NT - All Pass >1NT - All Pass > >The statement by East-West that the last of these occurred was indeed >uncorroborated. Indeed, if they chose to lie, they would be more likely to have >selected an untruth which fitted the facts that could be established. They could >hardly get away with stating that North opened 2NT on a nine-count and his >partner passed on a 12-count, could they? > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 9 15:22:46 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:22:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005401c9127f$2bf4a650$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > In a message dated 09/09/2008 13:04:16 GMT Standard Time, > dalburn at btopenworld.com writes: > > There was a travelling score slip bearing the legend "1NT N 7 90". This > means that North had played in 1NT and made seven tricks for a score of 90 > to > North-South. This travelling score slip belonged to a board on which North > was > the dealer. This appeared to lend considerable corroboration to the > statement > by East-West that North had opened 1NT and played there. > > [paul lamford] I disagree. It only appeared to lend considerable > corroboration to the fact that the auction was one of the following (and > we are only > considering uncontested auctions here): > > Pass - 1C - 1D - 1H - 1NT - All Pass > Pass - 1C - 1D - 1S - 1NT - All Pass > Pass - 1C - 1H - 1S - 1NT - All Pass > Pass - 1D - 1H - 1S - 1NT - All Pass > Pass - 1C - 1NT - All Pass > Pass - 1D - 1NT - All Pass > Pass - 1H - 1NT - All Pass > Pass - 1S - 1NT - All Pass > 1NT - All Pass > > The statement by East-West that the last of these occurred was indeed > uncorroborated. Indeed, if they chose to lie, they would be more likely to > have > selected an untruth which fitted the facts that could be established. They > could > hardly get away with stating that North opened 2NT on a nine-count and his > partner passed on a 12-count, could they? > +=+ "if they chose to lie" Totally honest players, including those of eminence in the game, sometimes fail to recall an auction accurately. I do not read the above as suggesting a deliberate lie is the only possible source of inaccuracy. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 9 15:18:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:18:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48C677B4.4000604@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > The statement by East-West that the last of these occurred was indeed > uncorroborated. Indeed, if they chose to lie, they would be more likely to have > selected an untruth which fitted the facts that could be established. They could > hardly get away with stating that North opened 2NT on a nine-count and his > partner passed on a 12-count, could they? > AG : agree with your list of possible auctions. However, it would be a strange idea to forge an inexistent auction in order to have their opponents penalized, without any own interest in the case. Above all those possibilities, the one that the board had been fouled or that somebody misread the dealer or the like is more plausible IMOBO. From schoderb at msn.com Tue Sep 9 16:57:55 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:57:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan has made a cogent point of what is needed when this occurs along with a possibility that often occurs in what is a real-life situation (despite David's claim of having made this up). Harald has expressed another possibility. John gives a beginning of the actions that the TD must take, and which often helps to establish the real facts. (for those who now will inform me that the score sheet is all that is needed for that since it shows what happened at the other tables in that section keep in mind that the North South hands could have been discussed and returned to the wrong pockets at the previous table - a not unknown happening particularly in club games). Having once determined that the CARDS played at this table were as stated, he then would naturally go on to further investigation. David goes out on a precarious limb by clinging to a questionable "preponderance of evidence" to take his action. Someone, who shall remain nameless, really surprised me with the ridiculous posting that since the correction time would quickly "expire" before the TD can rule, he therefore is not permitted to rule, neatly misreading Law 92B which deals with the time in which a REQUEST for a ruling may be made. And there are those whose favorite topic - psychic bidding and its bug-a-boos - rears its ugly head. For the most part the postings have avoided answering David's question of WHAT ACTION DO YOU TAKE?, and go to lengths ad nauseum about the pros and cons of each possibility. Following Grattan's implied guidance the TD must make a diligent attempt to obtain evidence from the other side, which usually and not surprisingly does work. Today's communications are a great help in that respect. The table result should provisionally remain, advising one-and-all that a pending ruling may change it. The TD then can make a ruling giving both sides the right to appeal. The Tournament Organizer or the RA can then hear such an appeal by whatever avenues are applicable in that locale. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lord Mansfield (1705-1793) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] David Burn hypothetical: >>>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? William Schoder (Kojak) sets a pons asinorum test: >>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. Runner-up Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I would deprecate anyone making a ruling to the detriment of >a side without first hearing them. A false memory of the auction is >a common enough experience. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Runner-up Harald Skj?ran: >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. And the winner, a diligent TD of the highest quality, John Probst: >Check for misboarding; the usual reason for this (and yes, I have >had to look at 80 copies of a Board 17). 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 9 16:33:58 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:33:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards References: <48C532D9.1080407@nhcc.net> <002801c9125c$853f7730$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <00f401c91289$18eb8ec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > (Grattan): > It should be noted that Laws 58B1 through 4 are only applicable > in circumstances where "a player leads or plays two or more cards > simultaneously". So we are looking at a situation where a player has > detached two or more cards from his hand simultaneously and faced > them on the table. If only one of the cards is visible (and no other card > is therefore 'faced') the visible card is played. The remainder of the > cards are picked up. If more than one card is visible the player > designates > the card he proposes to play and, if he is a defender, any other visible > card becomes a penalty card. Notwithstanding that each such card was > led or played, Law 50B provides - as I read it - that it will become a > minor penalty card if it is below honour rank and it was not the intention > of the player to play more than one card to the trick. This is correct up to a point, but... If three or more cards had been visible, leaving more than one after a card is selected to play to the trick, or if the defender in question had already had a penalty card and has just created another one, then all visible cards are major penalty cards. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 9 19:02:33 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:02:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be><010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" You know what ? I wouldn't be proud to be the random recipient of a swing that's created by the laws only. So, giving me only the IMPs I was entitled to as a consequence of their error will probably minimize inconvenience to me too. Stefanie Rohan: That is your opinion, but the problem is that the next time this gambit is attempted it will most likely be against some other pair, who may feel differently. If they would prefer to get a swing in their favour "created by the laws" (and by which other route do we get any scores at all?), then it is their right to have a chance to get it. UI created by your side can damage only your side. You are also not permitted to "notice" partner's alerts, failures to alert, or explanations. So there can be no question that to predicate one's actions on knowledge of such is nothing less than cheating. And the fact that it is done to avoid damaging your own side is particularly abhorrent. In any case, next time perhaps the OS's teammates will not be quite so chuffed by the DP they are hit with. Especially if it consists of banning from the event. Stefanie Rohan London, England From john at asimere.com Tue Sep 9 19:58:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:58:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards References: <48C532D9.1080407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <00d101c912a5$a6dd6200$4001a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] playing two simultaneous cards >> Robert Frick: >> Suppose I try to play the 9 of spades and the 2 of spades is also >> exposed. >> My understanding, which I am checking, is that I can choose which of the >> two >> cards I wish to play to the trick (Law 58B2). However, if I choose the >> inadvertantly played card, the intentionally led card is a major penalty >> card, whereas if I choose the intentionally led card, the inadvertently >> exposed card is a minor penalty card (assuming it is not an honor). > > This is one popular interpretation. The alternative is that the TD > should not inquire which card the player originally intended because > there is obviously no way to know for sure. Under either > interpretation, the clumsy player gets to choose which card to play to > the current trick, but the major/minor nature of the subsequent penalty > card may differ. > > > From: "ton" > > In theory a defender might want to play a card and > > instead of that card, two cards fall on the table. Then both cards > > become (major)penalty cards and declarer chooses the one to be played > > (if legal). So [defender] better tells the TD that he wanted to play > > one of the shown cards > > trying to avoid the creation of a major penalty card. > > Indeed. Some of us think the game would be better if defenders who are > quick-thinking and familiar with the Laws have no advantage over those > who are not. (Laws or interpretations that require mind reading are > invidious.) It is why I believe we should not enquire intent. Yet again the probst cheat prospers. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 10 00:43:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:43:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan, slight (but important) error in Law: >You are also not permitted to "notice" partner's alerts, >failures to alert, or explanations. So there can be no >question that to predicate one's actions on knowledge of >such is nothing less than cheating. Richard Hills, predicated non-cheat: No, you are _required_ to notice partner's alerts, failures to alert, and explanations. Then you are _required_ to avoid selecting a logical alternative that is demonstrably suggested by partner's UI. That is, you may not select the logical alternative that you would "always" choose in the absence of UI if it is now demonstrably suggested by pard's UI. In such circumstances you must instead select a non-suggested logical alternative that you would "never" normally choose. References: Law 73C, Law 16B1 Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 01:22:55 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:22:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809091622s5eeab688ke168de2bd151b29a@mail.gmail.com> Richard wrote: > Stefanie Rohan, slight (but important) error in Law: > >>You are also not permitted to "notice" partner's alerts, >>failures to alert, or explanations. So there can be no >>question that to predicate one's actions on knowledge of >>such is nothing less than cheating. > > Richard Hills, predicated non-cheat: > > No, you are _required_ to notice partner's alerts, failures > to alert, and explanations. Then you are _required_ to > avoid selecting a logical alternative that is demonstrably > suggested by partner's UI. > > That is, you may not select the logical alternative that > you would "always" choose in the absence of UI if it is now > demonstrably suggested by pard's UI. In such circumstances > you must instead select a non-suggested logical alternative > that you would "never" normally choose. > > References: Law 73C, Law 16B1 > Well explained! I see the law this way too, but some authorities see it differently. DALB, for one. I wonder what you would say to a player who prided himself on never hearing partner's explanations. I want to know what you as director would do in this case: After an auction with two or three "I'm-not-sure-but-I-think-it's" explanations on the declaring side, but before the opening lead, leader asks if all of the alerts and explanations were correct. "Who knows?" they say. Neither declarer nor dummy were listening to the explanations during the auction. They said that the law only requires them to correct explanations that they hear and are wrong, not the ones they don't hear, and so they just never listen. The defender calls you. What do you do? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 10 01:23:35 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:23:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Asian Cup Qualifying, match number 17, >>China versus Australian Capital Territory >> >>Dlr: South >>Vul: East-West >> >>You, East, hold: >> >>T94 >>J54 >>AK72 >>AQ9 >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >>Pass Pass 2NT(1) ? >> >>(1) You ask South about the meaning of North's 2NT. South >>replies, "Non-systemic". You examine the pair's carefully >>completed WBF System Card. Not only does it describe 2NT as >>non-systemic, but it helpfully adds that all replies to 2NT >>are also non-systemic. >> >>What call do you make? >>Is "Director!" your call? Robert Frick: >Yes. >1. Can't hurt, might help. Richard Hills: While respected blmler Sven Pran has for a long time advocated that it is permissible to summon the Director whenever one feels the urge, no such _automatic_ right to summon is spelt out in the Lawbook. However, if for the sake of argument the Director is summoned, what procedure would other blmlers now follow if they were the Director in charge? 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 Sep 10 02:04:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:04:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809091622s5eeab688ke168de2bd151b29a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: [snip] >They [the declaring side] said that the law only requires >them to correct explanations that they hear and are wrong, >not the ones they don't hear, and so they just never listen. >The defender calls you. What do you do? Richard Hills: I remind the declaring side (and also remind Herman De Wael) that players lack the power to interpret Law; this power is reserved for the Director. Law 81C2: "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 administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." Richard Hills: I also remind the declaring side that whether or not they choose to hear partner's explanations, Law 40B4 entitles the opponents to accurate explanations. It is in the declaring side's own interests to provide accurate explanations as soon as Law 20F5(b) permits, since otherwise procedural and/or disciplinary penalties may apply. Law 40C3(b): "Repeated violations of ***requirements to disclose*** partnership understandings may be penalized." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Sep 10 02:17:50 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:17:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Normal Line In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2EA1F0A728C14C7789A38BA38F33F772@erdos> Gampas at aol.com writes: >S None > H Kxx > D AKTxx > C None > > S None > H Ax > D QJx > C Axx > > In this ending, South, in no-trumps, who won the last trick in his hand, > claims, stating "I'll give you a heart at the end." While the opponents are > inspecting the claim, after a few seconds he states: "No, sorry, I don't give > you > anything, I have the ace of clubs to discard a heart from dummy." How would > you rule? I would rule that he miscounted his tricks, and it would be irrational to play in such a way that he is unable to take them all (e.g., AK of hearts and run the diamonds stranding the CA, or pitching a diamond on the CA). He thinks he has N-1 of the last N tricks, and he will take all the tops and find out that there are only N-1 tricks left or that he has N winners. Therefore, he gets the trick under L71; his correction was timely and he conceded a trick that he could not have lost on any normal play. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Sep 10 02:24:04 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:24:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] smaller? In-Reply-To: <00bd01c91252$279a1f40$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> References: <00bd01c91252$279a1f40$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> Message-ID: <37E2A5C6F7CB4AE58DC50ACC439FE0D1@erdos> Declarer has a demonstrable bridge reason to determine which hand to take the entry in, and this reason is independent of which card he plays. If declarer has decided to play either the K or the 2 from hand, and then needs time to choose between these two, he is entitled to that time. L73F only applies if there was no demonstrable bridge reason for the hesitation: If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Laws Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 4:00 AM Subject: [blml] smaller? hello, an old trail comes back with a new case and a live discussion : in any contract, south declarer, west lead, east take first trick and switch in a suit with J3 in dummy, declarer has AKQ2 but must think to take lead in hand or dummy, after a huddle, he decides to take in hand, the pause is NOT to confuse opponents but to solve a play problem (unexpected before playing the first card from dummy ... cannot anticipate) (if not, we all agree what to do ...) does he need to take with the Q after the pause or can he play A or K? if you says the Q is mandatory, please give laws numbers if you says no, il you have, give laws numbers too ... Thanks _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 03:18:18 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:18:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0809091622s5eeab688ke168de2bd151b29a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809091818w17bb86dbode8a8c1f2b0c60ad@mail.gmail.com> Thanks, Richard. So you have no problem with the some-might-think-leading question you snipped: "before the opening lead, leader asks if all of the alerts and explanations were correct." Secondly... > Richard Hills: > > I remind the declaring side (and also remind Herman De Wael) > that players lack the power to interpret Law; this power is > reserved for the Director. > > Law 81C2: > > "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 administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the > players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." > But I think you made one mistake, perhaps in your eagerness to annoy Herman. I suppose your interpretation of L81C2 might be absolutely correct had it been written to include something like "The Director ***(not the players)*** has the responsibility to interpret these Laws" But it does not say that, and it would be nonsense to say that. How can anyone follow a law without interpreting it? Without interpretation, a law is just meaningless words. They have to be understood and interpreted to be followed. The meaning of "partnership understanding," for example, would have to interpreted by a player for him to have any hope of following the laws. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 10 03:46:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:46:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Asian Cup Qualifying, match number 17, China versus Australian Capital Territory Dlr: South Vul: East-West You, East, hold: T94 J54 AK72 AQ9 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Pass Pass 2NT(1) Pass(2) Pass(3) Pass (1) You ask South about the meaning of North's 2NT. South replies, "Non-systemic". You examine the pair's carefully completed WBF System Card. Not only does it describe 2NT as non-systemic, but it helpfully adds that all replies to 2NT are also non-systemic. (2) You decide to defer any call for the TD. Since you do not have any partnership agreement on a defence to a non- systemic 2NT bid, you elect to Pass. (3) Non-systemic You elect to lead the king of diamonds to have a look at dummy. You see: Dummy AK2 QT8 9843 You J76 T94 J54 AK72 AQ9 On the king of diamonds partner plays a nondescript pip and declarer plays the queen. What suit do you lead at trick two? 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 Sep 10 10:16:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:16:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Lone wereWolff (was L25B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080908133257.2DD15CF9C85@mailgw2.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: >The problem you describe above has nothing to do with whatever >law and the way it is written. If a player states that he is >entitled to do what he does and others accept it, laws do not >have any meaning anymore. > >ton Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", page 182: "I have often argued with my friend and former ACBL Recorder, Richard Colker, whom I like and respect but who is blindly adherent to the laws. I also note that many bridge-playing attorneys tenaciously cling to that position, not allowing for the protection of the innocent as they feel nothing can supersede the law. Rich and I will discuss a case, and Rich will say, 'I agree with you, Bobby, but that's not how the law is written.' In my view, Rich has it backwards. When it's clear that an injustice is about to be perpetrated, he should be saying, 'This is not how the law is written, but this is how I'm ruling.'" Richard Hills: That concluding statement by Bobby Wolff is reminiscent of the apocryphal statement by an American platoon leader during the Vietnam War, "We had to burn down the village to save it". Or, as Robert Bolt more subtly put it in his award-winning play "A Man For All Seasons": ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", pages 146 to 149: [discussing the famous Law 79C ruling in the 1990 Rosenblum Cup] "There is normally only a short protest period to cover circumstances such as this one, but since the next match had not been started (after which it clearly would have been too late), I believe it was appropriate for the Canadians to have their say in trying to get credit for the victory they had actually achieved. Had the score been noted correctly, Canada would have lost 1 IMP instead of 8 on Board 40 and would have won the match 151-147." Richard Hills: True but irrelevant. Had the Trojans acted correctly in refusing the Greek gift of the Wooden Horse, Troy would not have fallen. Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", pages 146 to 149: "Schoder is American, and very talented in many fields (he is a concert pianist and linguist, as well as an airplane pilot) but he is wont to take sides, and in this case I don't doubt for a second that he supported the Germans. He has a long association with that country ..... "In my view, the interpretation of the laws put forth by Schoder, who does not profess to be a bridge expert, was a technicality for the committee to hide behind ..... "I would wager that had Germany been on the other side of the issue, had they been the ones who scored up 1100 instead of 1400, that particular panel would have found a way to allow the change." Richard Hills: Defaming a director who is the Greatest Of All Time is ridiculous. Bobby Wolff did have some bad experiences with venal low-level TDs in his salad days as a young Texas expert. But that is no excuse for Bobby Wolff failing to realise that top-class TDs and top-class ACs rule according to Law, not according to parochial whim. 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 Wed Sep 10 11:28:39 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:28:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48C79347.4020904@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Asian Cup Qualifying, match number 17, > China versus Australian Capital Territory > > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West > > You, East, hold: > > T94 > J54 > AK72 > AQ9 > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Pass Pass 2NT(1) Pass(2) > Pass(3) Pass > > (1) You ask South about the meaning of North's 2NT. South > replies, "Non-systemic". You examine the pair's carefully > completed WBF System Card. Not only does it describe 2NT as > non-systemic, but it helpfully adds that all replies to 2NT > are also non-systemic. > > (2) You decide to defer any call for the TD. Since you do > not have any partnership agreement on a defence to a non- > systemic 2NT bid, you elect to Pass. > > (3) Non-systemic > > You elect to lead the king of diamonds to have a look at > dummy. You see: > Dummy > AK2 > QT8 > 9843 > You J76 > T94 > J54 > AK72 > AQ9 > > On the king of diamonds partner plays a nondescript pip and > declarer plays the queen. What suit do you lead at trick two? > > This is a trick question, right? How can any pip (only the 5 and 6 are missing, so pard played one of them) be "nondescript"? What signal do I expect from partner on a king lead? My partners would signal count here (ace = attitude, king = kount, easy to remember). So if he played the 6 declarer is fooling around for sure, if he played the 5 he may be trying to set me up, too. The much more interesting questions are: What would 2S and 3C have shown, maybe even 3N, in case declarer inadvertantly misbid and didn't notice (unlikely,as some questions have surely been asked, but even a nationa champion didn't know about 25A a couple of years ago, and neither did his opps), and what hole is in that system? What information can I get from that system card? Depending on what I find out I will probably lead a diamond next. The question is: which one? Best regards Matthias From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 10 11:28:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:28:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be><010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be> <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <48C7933E.8010701@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > You know what ? I wouldn't be proud to be the random recipient of a > swing that's created by the laws only. So, giving me only the IMPs I was > entitled to as a consequence of their error will probably minimize > inconvenience to me too. > > Stefanie Rohan: > > That is your opinion, but the problem is that the next time this gambit is > attempted it will most likely be against some other pair, who may feel > differently. If they would prefer to get a swing in their favour "created by > the laws" (and by which other route do we get any scores at all?), then it > is their right to have a chance to get it. > AG : and that's precisely where dWS intervenes. It will often avoid this. > UI created by your side can damage only your side. You are also not > permitted to "notice" partner's alerts, failures to alert, or explanations. > So there can be no question that to predicate one's actions on knowledge of > such is nothing less than cheating. And the fact that it is done to avoid > damaging your own side is particularly abhorrent. > > In any case, next time perhaps the OS's teammates will not be quite so > chuffed by the DP they are hit with. Especially if it consists of banning > from the event. > AG : I think you're out of the subjects. Banning somebody for having tried to extract himself from the mess created by the laws isn't my idea of TDing. What are you looking for ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 10 11:32:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:32:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809091622s5eeab688ke168de2bd151b29a@mail.gmail.com> References: <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0809091622s5eeab688ke168de2bd151b29a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48C79425.3010200@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > I wonder what you would say to a player who prided himself on never > hearing partner's explanations. I want to know what you as director > would do in this case: > > After an auction with two or three "I'm-not-sure-but-I-think-it's" > explanations on the declaring side, but before the opening lead, > leader asks if all of the alerts and explanations were correct. "Who > knows?" they say. Neither declarer nor dummy were listening to the > explanations during the auction. They said that the law only requires > them to correct explanations that they hear and are wrong, not the > ones they don't hear, and so they just never listen. The defender > calls you. What do you do? > AG : I would demand that they explain now, if necessary using the ssytem notes if still unsure. What's the problem ? Apart from that, I agree that you shall notice the explanations. If you're allowed not to notice them, then you'll make make your normal bid, even when there are LAs, and that's not allowed. Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Sep 10 12:18:38 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:18:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Lone wereWolff (was L25B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ton: Goodness, Well I like the philosophy behind this, having an allmighty who knows what is right and what is wrong and decides. We have had (and still have)some great examples of them in the world. Reading what seems to be in his newest book I am not sure that Bobby qualifies, which normally would be a compliment, but not in this case. I assume he would like to have Bush going for a third term. That would be absolutely right of course. I hope that Kojak is able to ignore what is written about him, let me tell him that I do. ton Ton Kooijman: >The problem you describe above has nothing to do with whatever law and >the way it is written. If a player states that he is entitled to do >what he does and others accept it, laws do not have any meaning >anymore. > >ton Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", page 182: "I have often argued with my friend and former ACBL Recorder, Richard Colker, whom I like and respect but who is blindly adherent to the laws. I also note that many bridge-playing attorneys tenaciously cling to that position, not allowing for the protection of the innocent as they feel nothing can supersede the law. Rich and I will discuss a case, and Rich will say, 'I agree with you, Bobby, but that's not how the law is written.' In my view, Rich has it backwards. When it's clear that an injustice is about to be perpetrated, he should be saying, 'This is not how the law is written, but this is how I'm ruling.'" Richard Hills: That concluding statement by Bobby Wolff is reminiscent of the apocryphal statement by an American platoon leader during the Vietnam War, "We had to burn down the village to save it". Or, as Robert Bolt more subtly put it in his award-winning play "A Man For All Seasons": ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", pages 146 to 149: [discussing the famous Law 79C ruling in the 1990 Rosenblum Cup] "There is normally only a short protest period to cover circumstances such as this one, but since the next match had not been started (after which it clearly would have been too late), I believe it was appropriate for the Canadians to have their say in trying to get credit for the victory they had actually achieved. Had the score been noted correctly, Canada would have lost 1 IMP instead of 8 on Board 40 and would have won the match 151-147." Richard Hills: True but irrelevant. Had the Trojans acted correctly in refusing the Greek gift of the Wooden Horse, Troy would not have fallen. Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", pages 146 to 149: "Schoder is American, and very talented in many fields (he is a concert pianist and linguist, as well as an airplane pilot) but he is wont to take sides, and in this case I don't doubt for a second that he supported the Germans. He has a long association with that country ..... "In my view, the interpretation of the laws put forth by Schoder, who does not profess to be a bridge expert, was a technicality for the committee to hide behind ..... "I would wager that had Germany been on the other side of the issue, had they been the ones who scored up 1100 instead of 1400, that particular panel would have found a way to allow the change." Richard Hills: Defaming a director who is the Greatest Of All Time is ridiculous. Bobby Wolff did have some bad experiences with venal low-level TDs in his salad days as a young Texas expert. But that is no excuse for Bobby Wolff failing to realise that top-class TDs and top-class ACs rule according to Law, not according to parochial whim. 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 10 13:16:17 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:16:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be><010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be><017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C7933E.8010701@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00b701c91336$a551c110$2e5f9951@stefanie> > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > You know what ? I wouldn't be proud to be the random recipient of a > swing that's created by the laws only. So, giving me only the IMPs I was > entitled to as a consequence of their error will probably minimize > inconvenience to me too. > > Stefanie Rohan: > > That is your opinion, but the problem is that the next time this gambit is > attempted it will most likely be against some other pair, who may feel > differently. If they would prefer to get a swing in their favour "created > by > the laws" (and by which other route do we get any scores at all?), then it > is their right to have a chance to get it. > AG : and that's precisely where dWS intervenes. It will often avoid this. SR: Yes. This is why dWS illegal. > UI created by your side can damage only your side. You are also not > permitted to "notice" partner's alerts, failures to alert, or > explanations. > So there can be no question that to predicate one's actions on knowledge > of > such is nothing less than cheating. And the fact that it is done to avoid > damaging your own side is particularly abhorrent. > > In any case, next time perhaps the OS's teammates will not be quite so > chuffed by the DP they are hit with. Especially if it consists of banning > from the event. > AG : I think you're out of the subjects. Banning somebody for having tried to extract himself from the mess created by the laws isn't my idea of TDing. What are you looking for ? SR: The only "mess" was that of the players' creation. The laws are clear on what to do when this happens. Many directors would impose a fine of, say, 6 IMPs or 2VPs, if used, for a first offence, assuming that the player in question did not know what his obligations were. But is ignorance of the law an excuse? The infraction was deliberate and blatant, so I feel that banning is more appropriate. I don't think that many directors would consider a warning to be enough. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 10 13:34:05 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:34:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00c101c91339$2219f580$2e5f9951@stefanie> > Richard Hills, predicated non-cheat: > > No, you are _required_ to notice partner's alerts, failures > to alert, and explanations. Then you are _required_ to > avoid selecting a logical alternative that is demonstrably > suggested by partner's UI. > > That is, you may not select the logical alternative that > you would "always" choose in the absence of UI if it is now > demonstrably suggested by pard's UI. In such circumstances > you must instead select a non-suggested logical alternative > that you would "never" normally choose. > > References: Law 73C, Law 16B1 Yes, of course, and you must make corrections when required. I was concentrating on the "other side", as in the case in question, when the UI was used to the OS's advantage. Stefanie Rohan London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 10 13:59:49 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:59:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48C79347.4020904@t-online.de> Message-ID: <003801c9133d$03b86a00$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: >> Asian Cup Qualifying, match number 17, >> China versus Australian Capital Territory >> >> Dlr: South >> Vul: East-West >> >> You, East, hold: >> >> T94 >> J54 >> AK72 >> AQ9 >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> Pass Pass 2NT(1) Pass(2) >> Pass(3) Pass >> >> (1) You ask South about the meaning of North's 2NT. South >> replies, "Non-systemic". You examine the pair's carefully >> completed WBF System Card. Not only does it describe 2NT as >> non-systemic, but it helpfully adds that all replies to 2NT >> are also non-systemic. >> >> (2) You decide to defer any call for the TD. Since you do >> not have any partnership agreement on a defence to a non- >> systemic 2NT bid, you elect to Pass. >> >> (3) Non-systemic >> >> You elect to lead the king of diamonds to have a look at >> dummy. You see: >> Dummy >> AK2 >> QT8 >> 9843 >> You J76 >> T94 >> J54 >> AK72 >> AQ9 >> >> On the king of diamonds partner plays a nondescript pip and >> declarer plays the queen. What suit do you lead at trick two? >> >> > > This is a trick question, right? How can any pip (only the 5 and 6 are > missing, so pard played one of them) be "nondescript"? What signal do I > expect from partner on a king lead? My partners would signal count here > (ace = attitude, king = kount, easy to remember). So if he played the 6 > declarer is fooling around for sure, if he played the 5 he may be trying > to set me up, too. > > The much more interesting questions are: > What would 2S and 3C have shown, maybe even 3N, in case declarer > inadvertantly misbid and didn't notice (unlikely,as some questions have > surely been asked, but even a nationa champion didn't know about 25A a > couple of years ago, and neither did his opps), and what hole is in that > system? What information can I get from that system card? > > Depending on what I find out I will probably lead a diamond next. The > question is: which one? > +=+ Curiouser and curiouser. Everyone seems to accept that 'non-systemic' is 'an explanation'. Why are we not pressing South for an *explanation* of the auction, that is to say what he understands to be the meaning of North's 2NT? The information required is explicit and factual, not inferential. Noting as we do that South has passed the 2NT with a ten count, it should also incorporate his accumulated partnership experience of past auctions. Clearly there is more to be learnt than we have learnt this far. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 10 14:07:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:07:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <00b701c91336$a551c110$2e5f9951@stefanie> References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be><010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be><017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C7933E.8010701@ulb.ac.be> <00b701c91336$a551c110$2e5f9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48C7B88F.9030809@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : >> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> >> You know what ? I wouldn't be proud to be the random recipient of a >> swing that's created by the laws only. So, giving me only the IMPs I was >> entitled to as a consequence of their error will probably minimize >> inconvenience to me too. >> >> Stefanie Rohan: >> >> That is your opinion, but the problem is that the next time this gambit is >> attempted it will most likely be against some other pair, who may feel >> differently. If they would prefer to get a swing in their favour "created >> by >> the laws" (and by which other route do we get any scores at all?), then it >> is their right to have a chance to get it. >> >> > AG : and that's precisely where dWS intervenes. It will often avoid this. > > SR: Yes. This is why dWS illegal. > Now we have the truth. dWS principles, which diminish disruption, TD calls, cheating accusations and inconvenience to players, has the highest level of illegality. The official rules, which demand that you create huge UI and make the deal a SNAFU, will be enforced because it's the law, not because it helps. This strikes me as wrong. FWIW, my view is that in this case, we proved the pudding and it was delicious. Now, there are two possible attitudes : a) ban a player for trying to make bridge a player-friendly game b) think about making the rules more player-friendly I've taken my pick and it's b). This was only a training match, so banning a player would have been a bit ridiculous. I don't claim JP was right. I just claim that a bridge player who's clever but who doesn't know about the rules, will find dWS prin,ciples much more helpful to the logics of the game, as he did. And we have to think about it. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 10 14:44:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:44:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003801c9133d$03b86a00$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48C79347.4020904@t-online.de> <003801c9133d$03b86a00$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48C7C14A.2010802@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ Curiouser and curiouser. Everyone seems to accept > that 'non-systemic' is 'an explanation'. Why are we not > pressing South for an *explanation* of the auction, that is > to say what he understands to be the meaning of North's > 2NT? > Because what we'll most probably hear is "It's an impossible bid. My guess is that he has pulled the wrong card. And I passed because I couldn't know what to do." He would have complied with all demands of the Law. His guess would have been either right or wrong. A fat lot of good it will do to us. > The information required is explicit and factual, not inferential. > Noting as we do that South has passed the 2NT with a ten > count, it should also incorporate his accumulated partnership > experience of past auctions. Not necessarily. First, some players follow the principle of "when I don't understand, I pass". Second, gulping and passing is the natural reaction to such a situation (I mean, if 2NT is really non-systemic). It's not as if he had guessed to make a brilliant bid. So, you can't infer anything from it. Remember the case I've told about, when the bidding went 1NT-2C-3NT, 3NT being non-systemic. Responder - a champion player- shrugged and passed. Among possible guesses, one was right : opener had miscounted his strength, and realized it before his second bid. Why on Earth should we suppose there was a meaning to be inferred from their past experience ? There wasn't. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Sep 10 17:20:13 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:20:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Lone wereWolff (was L25B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48C7E5AD.6080706@NTLworld.com> [Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", page 182] "I have often argued with my friend and former ACBL Recorder, Richard Colker, whom I like and respect but who is blindly adherent to the laws. I also note that many bridge-playing attorneys tenaciously cling to that position, not allowing for the protection of the innocent as they feel nothing can supersede the law. Rich and I will discuss a case, and Rich will say, 'I agree with you, Bobby, but that's not how the law is written.' In my view, Rich has it backwards. When it's clear that an injustice is about to be perpetrated, he should be saying, 'This is not how the law is written, but this is how I'm ruling.'" [Richard Hills] Bobby Wolff did have some bad experiences with venal low-level TDs in his salad days as a young Texas expert. But that is no excuse for Bobby Wolff failing to realise that top-class TDs and top-class ACs rule according to Law, not according to parochial whim. [Nige1] I'm reading Wolff's autobiography and noticed the ruses to which he admits, in his early days as a Bridge Player. Hamman's autobiography revealed similar "We play hardball" shenanigans. The WBFLC appears to have reached a compromise with the reformed Wolff. The WBFLC devolves power to local jurisdictions and directors. Many legal matters including the "equity" that is to be "restored", now depend on the director's judgement. The director has powerful and flexible tools (e.g. weighted scores) to achieve the result he deems appropriate. In real life, we have to put up with Vigilantes, Prime-ministers and Presidents who know better than the law. I wish the rules of our game didn't encourage their proliferation. From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 10 17:55:39 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:55:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Lone wereWolff (was L25B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <008101c9135d$ac6869a0$4001a8c0@JOHN> snip > > Defaming a director who is the Greatest Of All Time is ridiculous. concur. John > > Bobby Wolff did have some bad experiences with venal low-level TDs > in his salad days as a young Texas expert. But that is no excuse > for Bobby Wolff failing to realise that top-class TDs and top-class > ACs rule according to Law, not according to parochial whim. > > > 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 Wed Sep 10 20:24:19 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:24:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] L25B In-Reply-To: <002901c9125c$85953850$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48A123480D05E4D3@mail-9-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9.uk.tiscali.com) <002901c9125c$85953850$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48C810D3.8040009@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] A player who has done nothing illegal should never be placed at a potential disadvantage by bringing the director to his table. But that's what the new L25B (if read straightforwardly) does; if he names his desired substitute call before calling the director there is some chance of his LHO accepting it, but if he calls the director before doing so that can no longer occur. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Whatever preferences anyone may have, I suggest the law is wholly clear. Law 25B1 is concerned with a 'substituted' call. 'Substituted' means that the law is concerned only with a substitution that has occurred, not with a wish in the mind of a player. Where the conditions of 25B1 are not met 25B2 provides that the original call stands and the auction continues. [Nigel] I agree with Eric that you should not suffer a legal disadvantage by calling the director. But I go further. I wish that the law-committee would try to reduce unnecessary sophistication ... The basic laws define a challenging and enjoyable game. The they te3ll players what to do. They are fairly simple and most players understand them. Some BLMLers claim that remaining laws, especially those that deal with irregularities are the concern of directors rather than players. Unfortunately, however, these laws seem to confer an advantage on - secretary birds who know abstruse rules (e.g. "protect yourself", "wild and gambling") - legal-eagles who manipulate the rules to their advantage (e.g. devise conventions that depend on the option chosen after opponent's infraction; or claim their contract when they have completely lost the place). - and even law-breakers who carelessly commit certain infractions (e.g. revoking when it is the only chance to make a contract -- even if caught, the worst that they can expect is restoration of the status-quo). I feel the the WBFLC should try to simplify these laws. As a first step, it could cut out sophisticated laws that add no discernible value to the game. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 11 00:21:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:21:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003801c9133d$03b86a00$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Curiouser and curiouser. Everyone seems to accept >that 'non-systemic' is 'an explanation'. Why are we not >pressing South for an *explanation* of the auction, that is >to say what he understands to be the meaning of North's >2NT? Richard Hills: North-South have a long-standing partnership, which stretches back to the previous millennium. However... When North-South play in their local walk-in pairs against the Little Old Ladies of the South Canberra Bridge Club, they use the Brown Sticker convention of RCO Twos. But the international players in the Asian Cup are obviously less competent than South Canberra LOLs, so the Asian Cup CoC prohibited Brown Sticker conventions from use in its qualifying rounds. Ergo... North-South had to modify the normal meanings of their 2H, 2S and 2NT opening bids. Suitable modifications consistent with the rest of their Symmetric Relay methods (system notes emailed on request) were found for the 2H and 2S openings. But no sensible consistent-with-system new meaning was available for a 2NT opening, so the bid was designated non-systemic. Grattan Endicott: >The information required is explicit and factual, not >inferential. Noting as we do that South has passed the 2NT with >a ten count, it should also incorporate his accumulated >partnership experience of past auctions. Clearly there is more >to be learnt than we have learnt this far. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: This was the _very first_ time that either partner opened 2NT playing the current method in which 2NT was non-systemic. This 2NT was not a CPU but rather a CIU (Concealed Individual Understanding). I very carefully kept concealed from my partner my intent to violate system at some stage during the Asian Cup. 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 Hills: In order to obey "the chief object", my opening bid had to be third seat not vul versus vul, and the opponents had to be a much stronger team (so that randomising the result improved my team's expectation on the board). So, in my opinion, my action was compliant with Law 72A, since our China opponents eventually won the Grand Final of the entire event. But China did _not_ win their qualifying match against us, as a 5 imp gain to us on this board helped us achieve a 2 imp victory. 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 Sep 11 00:32:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:32:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48C7B88F.9030809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >Now, there are two possible attitudes : >a) ban a player for trying to make bridge a player-friendly game >b) think about making the rules more player-friendly >I've taken my pick and it's b). Richard Hills: A false dichotomy. Alain can campaign for changed misinformation rules. Stefanie can campaign for changed insufficient bid rules. But Stefanie admits that until the IB rules are changed, she must abide by them. If Alain does not abide by current MI rules, then Alain is just another wereWolff. 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 Thu Sep 11 01:02:28 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:02:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:32:58 -0400, wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > >> Now, there are two possible attitudes : >> a) ban a player for trying to make bridge a player-friendly game >> b) think about making the rules more player-friendly >> I've taken my pick and it's b). > > Richard Hills: > > A false dichotomy. Alain can campaign for changed misinformation > rules. Stefanie can campaign for changed insufficient bid rules. > > But Stefanie admits that until the IB rules are changed, she must > abide by them. If Alain does not abide by current MI rules, then > Alain is just another wereWolff. Could someone clarify which rule was broken? > > > 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 11 01:17:26 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:17:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Lone wereWolff (was L25B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:16:32 -0400, wrote: > Ton Kooijman: > >> The problem you describe above has nothing to do with whatever >> law and the way it is written. If a player states that he is >> entitled to do what he does and others accept it, laws do not >> have any meaning anymore. >> >> ton > > Bobby Wolff, "The Lone Wolff", page 182: > > "I have often argued with my friend and former ACBL Recorder, > Richard Colker, whom I like and respect but who is blindly > adherent to the laws. I also note that many bridge-playing > attorneys tenaciously cling to that position, not allowing for > the protection of the innocent as they feel nothing can > supersede the law. Rich and I will discuss a case, and Rich will > say, 'I agree with you, Bobby, but that's not how the law is > written.' In my view, Rich has it backwards. When it's clear > that an injustice is about to be perpetrated, he should be > saying, 'This is not how the law is written, but this is how I'm > ruling.'" > > Richard Hills: > > That concluding statement by Bobby Wolff is reminiscent of the > apocryphal statement by an American platoon leader during the > Vietnam War, "We had to burn down the village to save it". Or, > as Robert Bolt more subtly put it in his award-winning play "A > Man For All Seasons": I can't speak for Wolff, but I would be surprised if he is against "If the case is clearly covered by a law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he [the Director] determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented." The debate between following the rules and equity usually occurs for situations not clearly covered in the laws. Then the three camps seem to be (1) make an equitable ruling; (2) try to follow the laws and ignore whether the ruling is equitable; and (3) try to follow the laws and if the ruling isn't equitable, follow some different laws until you find an equitable ruling. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 11 03:48:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:48:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>If Alain does not abide by current MI rules, then >>Alain is just another wereWolff. Robert Frick asked: >Could someone clarify which rule was broken? Initial posting on this thread on blml archives at: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/ 2008-September/042329.html Richard Hills: My understanding of that initial posting is that East's 2H bid was alertable, and that West knew that East's 2H bid was alertable, but that West chose to deliberately avoid alerting East's 2H bid. In that case the rules which were broken by West are: Law 40B2(a): ".....The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods....." Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Richard Hills: Of course, like most wereWolffs, West had good intentions. West did not alert East's conventional 2H because West had UI that East had misunderstood the auction, and therefore East believed that 2H was a natural bid. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. West must act in accordance with what the Law is, not in accordance with what West would like the Law to be. 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 Sep 11 04:05:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:05:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48C79347.4020904@t-online.de> Message-ID: >>You elect to lead the king of diamonds to have a look at >>dummy. You see: >> Dummy >> AK2 >> QT8 >> 9843 >>You J76 >>T94 >>J54 >>AK72 >>AQ9 >> >>On the king of diamonds partner plays a nondescript pip and >>declarer plays the queen. What suit do you lead at trick two? Matthias Berghaus: >This is a trick question, right? How can any pip (only the 5 and >6 are missing, so pard played one of them) be "nondescript"? >What signal do I expect from partner on a king lead? My partners >would signal count here (ace = attitude, king = kount, easy to >remember). Richard Hills: Okay, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that partner's pip is consistent with an even number of diamonds (and, of course, partner's pip is also consistent with a singleton diamond). What suit do you lead at trick two? What other suits do you consider leading at trick two? What suit or suits, if any, would it be "wild or gambling" (Law 12C1(b)) to lead at trick two? 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 Thu Sep 11 05:39:46 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:39:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:48:09 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> If Alain does not abide by current MI rules, then >>> Alain is just another wereWolff. > > Robert Frick asked: > >> Could someone clarify which rule was broken? > > Initial posting on this thread on blml archives at: > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/ > 2008-September/042329.html > > Richard Hills: > > My understanding of that initial posting is that > East's 2H bid was alertable, East in fact has what the opps expect, so I am not sure why it is alertable. Hasn't West exactly described what East's bid meant to East? And what about "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, not may he indicate IN ANY MANNER that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations reguire.. (Law 20F5(a)). > and that West knew that > East's 2H bid was alertable, but that West chose to > deliberately avoid alerting East's 2H bid. > > In that case the rules which were broken by West are: > > Law 40B2(a): > > ".....The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting > procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a > partnership's methods....." > > Law 72B1: > > "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even > if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing > to accept." Wasn't West infringing a regulation? Or is that the same as a law? > > Richard Hills: > > Of course, like most wereWolffs, West had good > intentions. West did not alert East's conventional > 2H because West had UI that East had misunderstood > the auction, and therefore East believed that 2H was > a natural bid. > > The road to hell is paved with good intentions. West > must act in accordance with what the Law is, not in > accordance with what West would like the Law to be. Kohlberg's Stage 4 of morality. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 11 06:58:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:58:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>My understanding of that initial posting is that East's >>2H bid was alertable, Robert Frick: >East in fact has what the opps expect, so I am not sure >why it is alertable. Law 75B: "...East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement..." Law 75C: "...they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands..." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Robert Frick's version of Law 20F5(a): "...nor may he indicate IN ANY MANNER that a mistake has been made..." Grattan Endicott's version of Law 20F5(a): "...nor may he INDICATE in any manner that a mistake has been made..." Grattan Endicott, Thursday 10th January 2008: >>>+=+ Repeat after me: >>> >>>"... nor may he indicate ..... " >>> >>>'indicate' - to point to, draw attention to...... >>> >>>In complying with a requirement of the law the player >>>has pointed to nothing, has drawn attention to nothing. >>>All he has done is to supply information as required. >>> >>> ~ G ~ +=+ 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 Thu Sep 11 08:04:20 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:04:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does understanding = agreement? Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809102304t19bcf437n32de96d499ec6a48@mail.gmail.com> Law 75B: "...East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement..." As far as the law makers are concerned, is there any difference whatsoever in the intended meaning between understanding and agreement? If yes, what is the difference? If no, I wish "agreement" had been replaced with "understanding" everywhere in the new laws. Well, in frequency of occurrence, "partnership understanding" outnumbers "partnership agreement" 5 to 1 in the new laws, which is an improvement over the previous laws (where "partnership agreement" unfortunately predominated). Still, I wonder what the mistake in the new laws is: Is it failing to state the difference, or is it pointlessly using different terms for the same concept? Jerry Fusselman From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Sep 11 08:23:55 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:23:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Does_understanding_=3D_agreement=3F?= In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809102304t19bcf437n32de96d499ec6a48@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0809102304t19bcf437n32de96d499ec6a48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1Kdfat-28AkUK0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> I'm not a law maker, but ... Law 40 B1b: "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. [...]" I did find it the other way round, so it seems to be a one-sided implication. IMHO you may come to an understanding without having talked about. For an agreement you have to "agree" something; for an understanding you may be one the same wavelength without having agreed upon. In terms of set theory "Understandings" is the superset of "Agreements". Peter Eidt From: "Jerry Fusselman" > Law 75B: > > "...East-West are entitled to an accurate description of > the North-South agreement..." > > As far as the law makers are concerned, is there any difference > whatsoever in the intended meaning between understanding and > agreement? ?If yes, what is the difference? ?If no, I wish "agreement" > had been replaced with "understanding" everywhere in the new laws. > > Well, in frequency of occurrence, "partnership understanding" > outnumbers "partnership agreement" 5 to 1 in the new laws, which is an > improvement over the previous laws (where "partnership agreement" > unfortunately predominated). ?Still, I wonder what the mistake in the > new laws is: ?Is it failing to state the difference, or is it > pointlessly using different terms for the same concept? > > Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 11 08:28:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:28:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Does understanding = agreement? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809102304t19bcf437n32de96d499ec6a48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: [big snip] >is it pointlessly using different terms for the same concept? Richard Hills: Yes and no. Yes, a partnership "agreement" is a partnership "understanding". Law 40B1(b), first sentence: "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding." Richard Hills: But I disagree that using two terms is pointless. Since the more popular term is "agreement", it makes sense to use that popular term in the indicative examples which comprise Law 75. 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 torsten.astrand at telia.com Tue Sep 9 17:24:10 2008 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:24:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pairs tournament Message-ID: <000001c912c6$eb6a5a10$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> How to act as a player and how to act as a TD? E/ALL AKT542 Q987 J 54 3 J97 42 AJ63 KT975 AQ6 J9862 KQT Q86 KT5 8432 A73 E S W N 1NT* P 2S** P*** 3C**** P P P***** *15-17 **No alert *** Waiting some seconds for an alert before passing **** No alert ***** asking what?s going on before passing? Answer by East, maybe I should alert 2S but I was not sure. My courage sank. My partner (occasional) is a "bridgeplayer" and he might ask me to bid a minor. (correct according to agreement is 2NT) East asked South if he would like to summon a TD. South said that the facts are established and maybe we will ask for a TD later. It is probable that North could see that the 2S is asking for Easts minorholdings. But South could not. If North double and East is passing, what should South do? Bid 3D? North is not allowed to ask for his partner. And if he asks what will happen if South?s first play is a spade against a EW-contract and that gives NS a positive score? How should North act after 2S-? and after 3C-P-P-? What ruling is correct? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080909/a2c5b08c/attachment.htm From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 11 09:23:10 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:23:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48C8C75E.9080409@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: >>> You elect to lead the king of diamonds to have a look at >>> dummy. You see: >>> Dummy >>> AK2 >>> QT8 >>> 9843 >>> You J76 >>> T94 >>> J54 >>> AK72 >>> AQ9 >>> >>> On the king of diamonds partner plays a nondescript pip and >>> declarer plays the queen. What suit do you lead at trick two? > > Matthias Berghaus: > >> This is a trick question, right? How can any pip (only the 5 and >> 6 are missing, so pard played one of them) be "nondescript"? >> What signal do I expect from partner on a king lead? My partners >> would signal count here (ace = attitude, king = kount, easy to >> remember). > > Richard Hills: > > Okay, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that partner's pip > is consistent with an even number of diamonds (and, of course, > partner's pip is also consistent with a singleton diamond). > > What suit do you lead at trick two? Diamonds, specifically the ace. This will only cost if partner holds J10x (and declarer dropped the queen, which is not impossible with Qx) and not SQxx, HA or CK. If nothing exciting happens I have to choose between HJ and CA for trick 3. In case partner plays DJ at trick two I play my lowest diamond. Should declarer have managed to drop DQ from Q10x I will buy him a drink, he earned it. > What other suits do you consider leading at trick two? None,really, only for trick 3. > What suit or suits, if any, would it be "wild or gambling" (Law > 12C1(b)) to lead at trick two? Good question. None, probably. A case can be made for all suits. The case for a spade switch is pretty weak though. I suspect declarer of having a spade suit, and this could give him enough tricks for his contract. I do not think declarer has a heart suit headed by AK, but I have been wrong before... Best regards Matthias From gampas at aol.com Thu Sep 11 09:36:54 2008 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:36:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CAE1F84BF18F11-210-4F43@webmail-nf17.sim.aol.com> [Richard Hills] So, in my opinion, my action was compliant with Law 72A, since our China opponents eventually won the Grand Final of the entire event. [paul lamford] I agree that the agreement to play an opening bid of 2NT as non-systemic fully complies with all Laws, as far as I can find. The regulations for the event would have prevented you playing 2NT as "I am present at the table", I presume, much as they would have prevented a similar Dutch 2C opening bid in the past. Presumably your excellent system would have had a suitably descriptive opening bid for the hand which did open 2NT. The question then arises as to whether the 2NT bid is a psyche, in that there was a "correct" opening bid on the hand. The next question is whether all actions by the psycher's partner must be fielding, for example, passing on a 10-count when partner *might* have a hand that makes game. Now, I would expect a player using this germ warfare to only open 2NT on a hand that was under, say, 18 points, as partner, like Brother Anthony, is very likely to pass it, so the bid is not truly non-systemic. But if it is - say that you decide in advance that you will open it on the first hand that you are favourable, but not disclose that to your partner - then I agree that you have fully complied. The problem lies in the regulations of the event. If the organisers do not want to allow you to use this gadget, then they need to specify some or all opening bids and responses for which you are obliged to have systemic meanings, rather than just exclude meanings for them. A pair may not be allowed to play 1NT as 8-18 balanced, for example, so it should follow that they are not allowed to play it as non-systemic either. A loophole in the regulations, but no doubt not the last one. And a very interesting thread. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080911/46c73527/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Sep 11 10:40:47 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:40:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48C8D98F.5060000@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick's version of Law 20F5(a)] "...nor may he indicate IN ANY MANNER that a mistake has been made..." [Grattan Endicott, Thursday 10th January 2008] +=+ Repeat after me: "... nor may he INDICATE ..... " 'indicate' - to point to, draw attention to...... In complying with a requirement of the law the player has pointed to nothing, has drawn attention to nothing. All he has done is to supply information as required. [Nigel] Dictionaries meanings of "indicate" include "point out" "show" "make known" "state briefly" "be a symptom of". Hence Robert Frick's interpretation of the law seems sensible. This is one of many dangerously ambiguous laws, to which BLMLers repeatedly drew attention, as in need of clarification in the new law-book. A pity that the WBFLC and the NBO reviewers missed it. A belated fix is possible: Grattan cites meanings from his (unnamed) dictionary. The WBFLC should designate an edition of that dictionary as the official "Bridge Laws Dictionary". (cf "Scrabble Dictionary"). The meaning of any word in the law book would be the first meaning from the dictionary that could possibly be relevant in context -- unless that word was separately defined in the law book. Come to think of it -- that would help to clarify most laws in contexts other than Bridge. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 11 11:03:29 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:03:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does understanding = agreement? References: <2b1e598b0809102304t19bcf437n32de96d499ec6a48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002e01c913ed$54806f90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 7:04 AM Subject: [blml] Does understanding = agreement? As far as the law makers are concerned, is there any difference whatsoever in the intended meaning between understanding and agreement? If yes, what is the difference? If no, I wish "agreement" had been replaced with "understanding" everywhere in the new laws. > +=+ Law 40B1(b): "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning." There is a purpose in this law to bring any reference to these terms, particularly in regulations where it continues to be used, unarguably within the scope of the 2007 laws. (We had it in mind that some RAs might react very slowly, if at all, to changes in the terminology.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 11 11:56:24 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:56:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:58:54 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> My understanding of that initial posting is that East's >>> 2H bid was alertable, > > Robert Frick: > >> East in fact has what the opps expect, so I am not sure >> why it is alertable. > > Law 75B: > > "...East-West are entitled to an accurate description of > the North-South agreement..." Right. But which agreement? They have an agreement on the meaning of the 2H bid predicated on 2D being multi. That doesn't apply in this situation. They can also apparently work out an agreement for the meaning of the 2H bid when 2D is not taken as multi. I don't see the laws as clearly saying which agreement should be given to the opponents. So what you are asking West to say, in essence is "If my bid is taken as a multi, then partner's bid means.......That tells the opps nothing about East's hand -- essentially, the only information in that comment is that West meant his bid as a multi. It would save time if he just announced that and skipped the part about the theoretical meaning of East's hand. The opps want to know what 2H means if the 2D bid is not taken as multi. > > Law 75C: > > "...they have no claim to an accurate description of the > North-South hands..." > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Robert Frick's version of Law 20F5(a): > > "...nor may he indicate IN ANY MANNER that a mistake has > been made..." > > Grattan Endicott's version of Law 20F5(a): > > "...nor may he INDICATE in any manner that a mistake has > been made..." > > Grattan Endicott, Thursday 10th January 2008: > >>>> +=+ Repeat after me: >>>> >>>> "... nor may he indicate ..... " >>>> >>>> 'indicate' - to point to, draw attention to...... >>>> >>>> In complying with a requirement of the law the player >>>> has pointed to nothing, has drawn attention to nothing. >>>> All he has done is to supply information as required. >>>> >>>> ~ G ~ +=+ I am with Nigel on this. The first definition in my dictionary for indicate is "to be or give a sign of". Clearly, announcing the meaning of 2H from a multi perspective does this. Definition #2 is essentially "to point to, draw attention to." If that is the definition intended, then I am not sure a frown is illegal. The problem with a frown isn't that it draws attention to the mistake, the problem is that it signifies a mistake has occurred. So to me, the choice is between the #1 definition, which fits the obvious intention of the law, and the #2 definition which does not fit the intent of the law. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 11 12:04:55 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:04:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL References: <8CAE1F84BF18F11-210-4F43@webmail-nf17.sim.aol.com> Message-ID: <006f01c913f5$e4d83660$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <48C8F083.60401@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Richard Hills: > > My understanding of that initial posting is that > East's 2H bid was alertable, and that West knew that > East's 2H bid was alertable, but that West chose to > deliberately avoid alerting East's 2H bid. > > AG : since E/W hadn't agreed about what they played in 4th seat, but of course it was possible that they played the same as in 2nd (uncommon in Belgium), West couldn't be sure. > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 11 12:37:14 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:37:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48C8D98F.5060000@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <009101c913fd$53b90da0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan cites meanings from his (unnamed) dictionary. < +=+ I use, tending to refer to more than one, The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary The Chambers Dictionary Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (H.W. Fowler) Collins Italian Dictionary Ghiotti's Vocabolario Scolastico . Italiano - Francese Francese-Italiano plus various thesauri and dictionaries of synonyms. What would be a useful tool that I do not possess is The American Heritage Dictionary. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Sep 11 14:00:30 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:00:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009101c913fd$53b90da0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48C8D98F.5060000@NTLworld.com> <009101c913fd$53b90da0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48C9085E.1020907@NTLworld.com> I use, tending to refer to more than one, The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary The Chambers Dictionary Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (H.W. Fowler) Collins Italian Dictionary Ghiotti's Vocabolario Scolastico . Italiano - Francese Francese-Italiano plus various thesauri and dictionaries of synonyms. What would be a useful tool that I do not possess is The American Heritage Dictionary. [Nige1] To look up multiple dictionaries (including "American Heritage"), try http://www.onelook.com/ You can bookmark it or better integrate it directly into Firefox or Internet Explorer, as a Google-like option. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 11 14:13:07 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:13:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Right. But which agreement? They have an agreement on the meaning of the > 2H bid predicated on 2D being multi. That doesn't apply in this situation. > They can also apparently work out an agreement for the meaning of the 2H > bid when 2D is not taken as multi. I don't see the laws as clearly saying > which agreement should be given to the opponents. > > So what you are asking West to say, in essence is "If my bid is taken as a > multi, then partner's bid means.......That tells the opps nothing about > East's hand -- essentially, the only information in that comment is that > West meant his bid as a multi. It would save time if he just announced > that and skipped the part about the theoretical meaning of East's hand. > The opps want to know what 2H means if the 2D bid is not taken as multi. > +=+ This misrepresents the requirements of the law, in which regard the whole of Law 75 should be studied. What must be explained is the partnership understanding. So the first question is, what is the correct meaning of the 2D bid according to that understanding? Having established that, the correct meaning of 2H according to the partnership understanding will follow from it. If a partnership agreement exists any confusion between the partners as to what it is does not exonerate a player who fails to give a correct explanation in accord with that agreement. (Let it be added that a player who *knowingly* misrepresents the partnership understanding to his opponents violates Law 72B1.) In continuing the auction a player must not make use of any evidence from his partner that they are interpreting their understanding differently; he must continue to call on the basis that partner has responded to his bid as he intended it. Did East or West correct the explanation at the end of the play? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 11 14:38:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:38:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48C91151.5080306@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > In continuing the auction a player must not make use of any evidence > from his partner that they are interpreting their understanding differently; > he must continue to call on the basis that partner has responded to his bid > as he intended it. > Did East or West correct the explanation at the end of the play? > AG : yes, but it was unnecessary. When dummy was faced, I noticed that we held together 4 spades and 9 diamonds, so that I wasn't fooled in any way during the play. And it wasn't difficult to understand what went wrong : Multi-Landy is fairly popular where I play ... but not in reopening. Notice that 2NT is a bad contract, but only on a spade lead, which I didn't get. A spade lead would have been a hint that East suspected partner's 2D was artificial. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 11 18:32:59 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:13:07 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "He is very fond of making things which > he does not want, and then giving them > to people who have no use for them." > [Sir Anthony Hope Hawkins] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:56 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> Right. But which agreement? They have an agreement on the meaning of the >> 2H bid predicated on 2D being multi. That doesn't apply in this >> situation. >> They can also apparently work out an agreement for the meaning of the 2H >> bid when 2D is not taken as multi. I don't see the laws as clearly >> saying >> which agreement should be given to the opponents. >> >> So what you are asking West to say, in essence is "If my bid is taken >> as a >> multi, then partner's bid means.......That tells the opps nothing about >> East's hand -- essentially, the only information in that comment is that >> West meant his bid as a multi. It would save time if he just announced >> that and skipped the part about the theoretical meaning of East's hand. >> The opps want to know what 2H means if the 2D bid is not taken as multi. >> > +=+ This misrepresents the requirements of the law, in which regard > the whole of Law 75 should be studied. What must be explained is > the partnership understanding. So the first question is, what is the > correct meaning of the 2D bid according to that understanding? > Having established that, the correct meaning of 2H according to the > partnership understanding will follow from it. If a partnership agreement > exists any confusion between the partners as to what it is does not > exonerate a player who fails to give a correct explanation in accord > with that agreement. (Let it be added that a player who *knowingly* > misrepresents the partnership understanding to his opponents violates > Law 72B1.) Sorry, I just can't see it in the laws. The choices are between (1) explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner understood the auction, or (2) explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner should have understood the auction. I don't see ANYWHERE in the laws where it indicates which of these is to be done. > In continuing the auction a player must not make use of any > evidence > from his partner that they are interpreting their understanding > differently; > he must continue to call on the basis that partner has responded to his > bid > as he intended it. As I Stephanie has explained, this rule is interpretated as forcing a player to create UI. If the player does not create UI, the only damage to the opponents is depriving them of a possible reward for this extra UI. This would be horribly inconsistent with: "They [the Laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectifcation of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged." From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 11 19:47:46 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:47:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sep 11, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:13:07 -0400, Grattan > wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************** >> "He is very fond of making things which >> he does not want, and then giving them >> to people who have no use for them." >> [Sir Anthony Hope Hawkins] >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:56 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> Right. But which agreement? They have an agreement on the meaning >>> of the >>> 2H bid predicated on 2D being multi. That doesn't apply in this >>> situation. >>> They can also apparently work out an agreement for the meaning of >>> the 2H >>> bid when 2D is not taken as multi. I don't see the laws as clearly >>> saying >>> which agreement should be given to the opponents. >>> >>> So what you are asking West to say, in essence is "If my bid is >>> taken >>> as a >>> multi, then partner's bid means.......That tells the opps nothing >>> about >>> East's hand -- essentially, the only information in that comment >>> is that >>> West meant his bid as a multi. It would save time if he just >>> announced >>> that and skipped the part about the theoretical meaning of East's >>> hand. >>> The opps want to know what 2H means if the 2D bid is not taken as >>> multi. >> >> +=+ This misrepresents the requirements of the law, in which regard >> the whole of Law 75 should be studied. What must be explained is >> the partnership understanding. So the first question is, what is the >> correct meaning of the 2D bid according to that understanding? >> Having established that, the correct meaning of 2H according to the >> partnership understanding will follow from it. If a partnership >> agreement >> exists any confusion between the partners as to what it is does not >> exonerate a player who fails to give a correct explanation in accord >> with that agreement. (Let it be added that a player who *knowingly* >> misrepresents the partnership understanding to his opponents violates >> Law 72B1.) > > Sorry, I just can't see it in the laws. The choices are between (1) > explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner understood the > auction, > or (2) explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner should have > understood the auction. I don't see ANYWHERE in the laws where it > indicates which of these is to be done. We seem to be overlooking the fact that, in general, the alternative to Robert's #2 is not, in fact, his #1. Choice #1 in reality is explaining the meaning of partner's bid as *you think* partner understood the auction. The case for explaining what partner thinks instead of what your actual agreement is falls apart when you allow for the possibility that you might be getting it wrong. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 11 22:40:03 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:40:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:47:46 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 11, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:13:07 -0400, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************** >>> "He is very fond of making things which >>> he does not want, and then giving them >>> to people who have no use for them." >>> [Sir Anthony Hope Hawkins] >>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:56 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> >>>> Right. But which agreement? They have an agreement on the meaning >>>> of the >>>> 2H bid predicated on 2D being multi. That doesn't apply in this >>>> situation. >>>> They can also apparently work out an agreement for the meaning of >>>> the 2H >>>> bid when 2D is not taken as multi. I don't see the laws as clearly >>>> saying >>>> which agreement should be given to the opponents. >>>> >>>> So what you are asking West to say, in essence is "If my bid is >>>> taken >>>> as a >>>> multi, then partner's bid means.......That tells the opps nothing >>>> about >>>> East's hand -- essentially, the only information in that comment >>>> is that >>>> West meant his bid as a multi. It would save time if he just >>>> announced >>>> that and skipped the part about the theoretical meaning of East's >>>> hand. >>>> The opps want to know what 2H means if the 2D bid is not taken as >>>> multi. >>> >>> +=+ This misrepresents the requirements of the law, in which regard >>> the whole of Law 75 should be studied. What must be explained is >>> the partnership understanding. So the first question is, what is the >>> correct meaning of the 2D bid according to that understanding? >>> Having established that, the correct meaning of 2H according to the >>> partnership understanding will follow from it. If a partnership >>> agreement >>> exists any confusion between the partners as to what it is does not >>> exonerate a player who fails to give a correct explanation in accord >>> with that agreement. (Let it be added that a player who *knowingly* >>> misrepresents the partnership understanding to his opponents violates >>> Law 72B1.) >> >> Sorry, I just can't see it in the laws. The choices are between (1) >> explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner understood the >> auction, >> or (2) explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner should have >> understood the auction. I don't see ANYWHERE in the laws where it >> indicates which of these is to be done. > > We seem to be overlooking the fact that, in general, the alternative > to Robert's #2 is not, in fact, his #1. Choice #1 in reality is > explaining the meaning of partner's bid as *you think* partner > understood the auction. The case for explaining what partner thinks > instead of what your actual agreement is falls apart when you allow > for the possibility that you might be getting it wrong. You seem to be agreeing that this particular law is ambiguous. It seems to be up to a regulating authority to disamguate it. Probably of getting it right is a good factor to consider, but there are other factors. I don't think it is good to force a player to produce UI solely so he may be punished for creating that UI (Stephanie's argument). And no one has argued with Alain's claim that people would rather play bridge that way. BTW, choice #2 would then be explaining the meaning of partner's bid as *you think* the auction should be interpreted. BTW, is it correct that if that player had described the meaning of the 2H bid in a multi-auction, and then the opps had been damaged by that misleading information, the opps would not be protected? I think, should regulating authorities consider this, that a player should be allowed to choose how to explain partner's bid and then suffer the consequences for guessing wrong. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 12 00:02:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:02:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48C8C75E.9080409@t-online.de> Message-ID: >>What suit or suits, if any, would it be "wild or gambling" >>(Law 12C1(b)) to lead at trick two? Matthias Berghaus: >Good question. None, probably. A case can be made for all >suits. The case for a spade switch is pretty weak though. I >suspect declarer of having a spade suit, and this could give >him enough tricks for his contract. I do not think declarer >has a heart suit headed by AK, but I have been wrong before... > >Best regards >Matthias Although the China team won the Grand Final, they did make a complete nonsense of their defence on this deal. Richard Hills J753 AK9632 Q China 85 China Q86 T94 7 J54 JT65 AK72 KT432 Hashmat Ali AQ9 AK2 QT8 9843 J76 Suspecting that my queen of diamonds was a false-card from QJT, my LHO switched to a spade in order to help set up my RHO's hypothetical queen of spades. The operation was indeed successful - RHO did indeed hold the queen of spades - but the patient died, since now I had eight cashing tricks in the majors for +120. We won five imps on this deal (4H was -50 at the other table), thus won this match against the champions by two imps. 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 Sep 12 00:23:45 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:23:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006f01c913f5$e4d83660$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Aye, there's the rub. We should have begun by enquiring >what these 'relaxed conditions' contained, in particular as to >systems. Even a simple reference to the WBF Systems Policy would have >established the opener to be 'Brown Sticker'. > Oh but, now we are told that "the international players in the >Asian Cup are obviously less competent than South Canberra LOLs, >so the Asian Cup CoC prohibited Brown Sticker conventions from >use in its qualifying rounds". So we gather that Richard admits to a >breach of the CoC - ah well, back to the LOLs. :-) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Sure, a mutual partnership agreement to open a random 2NT would be a Brown Sticker or HUM convention. But the mutual partnership agreement was not that - it was a mutual partnership agreement not to open 2NT at all. So the _partnership_ was not in breach of the CoC. As North, I had a mutual partnership agreed system opening bid of 1H available. But my _individual_ choice of 2NT instead seems to me not a matter of a breach of the CoC, but rather a right under Law 40A3: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." Richard Hills: Eric Landau has repeatedly criticised the alleged ACBL policy of "one psyche in a lifetime". However, in this case - a system designed so that one naive partner could be caught totally unawares by the other devious partner psyching a non-systemic 2NT - it seems to me that one psychic non-systemic 2NT in a lifetime is appropriate. The point is moot, however. For the foreseeable future the Ali-Hills partnership will be playing in events where Brown Sticker RCO Twos of 2H, 2S and 2NT are legal, so for the foreseeable future the Ali-Hills 2NT opening bid will have a system meaning. 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 brian at meadows.pair.com Fri Sep 12 00:41:49 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:41:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <006f01c913f5$e4d83660$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <537jc4lkd7nhr08ss8nasq28seq7mke25v@4ax.com> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:23:45 +1000, you wrote: > >Richard Hills: > >Sure, a mutual partnership agreement to open a random 2NT would be a >Brown Sticker or HUM convention. But the mutual partnership >agreement was not that - it was a mutual partnership agreement not to >open 2NT at all. So the _partnership_ was not in breach of the CoC. > >As North, I had a mutual partnership agreed system opening bid of 1H >available. But my _individual_ choice of 2NT instead seems to me not >a matter of a breach of the CoC, but rather a right under Law 40A3: > >"A player may make any call or play without prior announcement >provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed >partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." > But we know that this is (or at least was) not always the case, Richard, and that the WBFLC has given at least tacit blessing to NCBOs restricting this "right" - e.g. those NCBOs who prevent you by regulation from psyching your GF opener, or any artificial opener, or a multi 2D, or upgrading a 9 HCP balanced hand to open a 10-12 1NT, or no doubt any of many other restrictions. And yes, you'll get ruled against if you violate one of these regulations even if it is the "one psyche per partnership lifetime". It seems that L40A is not worth the paper on which it was written, or has all that supposedly changed with the latest Laws? Brian. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Sep 12 00:59:05 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:59:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48C9A2B9.3010301@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Sure, a mutual partnership agreement to open a random 2NT would be a Brown Sticker or HUM convention. But the mutual partnership agreement was not that - it was a mutual partnership agreement not to open 2NT at all. So the _partnership_ was not in breach of the CoC. [Nige1] Richard's partnership defined 2N as meaningless and agreed not to use it. Richard was aware of this when he deliberately opened 2N. IMO that must contravene the Brown sticker prohibition of a 2N random bid. Otherwise any partnership could use the same ploy to define "random" calls. Paradoxically, in this case, "No agreement" is an agreement. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 12 01:02:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:02:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009101c913fd$53b90da0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: >+=+ I use, tending to refer to more than one, > [snip] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I use, tending to refer to more than one: Jeffrey Kacirk, "The Word Museum: The Most Remarkable English Words Ever Forgotten" Peter Bowler, "The Superior Person's Little Book of Words" Peter Novobatzky and Ammon Shea, "Depraved and Insulting English: Words to Offend and Amuse" Josefa Heifetz Byrne, "Mrs Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure and Preposterous Words" 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 Sep 12 02:03:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:03:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CAE1F84BF18F11-210-4F43@webmail-nf17.sim.aol.com> Message-ID: Paul Lamford asserted: [big snip] >A pair may not be allowed to play 1NT as 8-18 balanced, for >example, so it should follow that they are not allowed to >play it as non-systemic either. Richard Hills quibbles: I do not believe that that necessarily follows. The ACBL has a regulation requiring partnerships to have agreements in their "to be expected" auctions, but the ACBL does not require those partnerships to have an agreement to open 1NT some of the time. A typical ACBL agreement is to play 2C as strong and artificial, with 2D, 2H and 2S as natural weak two bids. But different ACBL players have different weak two bid styles. So when Jeff Rubens played with a pick-up partner in a New York walk-in pairs, Jeff and his partner avoided unforced errors by defining 2D, 2H and 2S as non-systemic. When Jeff or his partner held cards that Jeff or his partner judged as worth a weak two (but, of course, the other might have had a different judgement), they instead opened with a Pass, thus not pre-empting their new pard with an ambiguous two-level bid. (a) Did Jeff and his pard have an illegal agreement? (b) Did me and my partner have an illegal agreement? If the answer to (a) is No, and to (b) is Yes, please explain the paradoxical answers. Nigel Guthrie paradoctors: [snip] >>Paradoxically, in this case, "No agreement" is an agreement. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Sep 12 02:53:38 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:53:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Pairs tournament In-Reply-To: <000001c912c6$eb6a5a10$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> References: <000001c912c6$eb6a5a10$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <96D560F3FEB447CBB2480AF49C5100D7@erdos> Torsten ?strand writes: >How to act as a player and how to act as a TD? >E/ALL > AKT542 > Q987 > J > 54 >3 J97 >42 AJ63 >KT975 AQ6 >J9862 KQT > Q86 > KT5 > 8432 > A73 > >E S W N >1NT* P 2S** P*** >3C**** P P P***** > >*15-17 >**No alert >*** Waiting some seconds for an alert before passing >**** No alert >***** asking what?s going on before passing? >Answer by East, maybe I should alert 2S but I was not sure. >My courage sank. My partner (occasional) is a "bridgeplayer" and he might ask >me to bid a minor. (correct according to agreement is 2NT) >East asked South if he would like to summon a TD. South said that the facts are >established and maybe we will ask for a TD later. The TD must be summoned at this point, because attention has been drawn to an irregularity, and North has the right to withdraw his final pass, although that wouldn't help here. >It is probable that North could see that the 2S is asking for Easts >minorholdings. But South could not. If North double and East is passing, >what >should South do? Bid 3D? Double by North would be takeout of 3C at this point, and is thus not the appropriate bid; the damage was done the round before. (And South would reply 3D.) >North is not allowed to ask for his partner. And if he asks what will happen if >South?s first play is a spade against a EW-contract and that >gives NS a >positive score? >How should North act after 2S-? and after 3C-P-P-? North's behavior after 2S was correct. He suspects a missing alert, but asking about a missing alert (and then passing when the bid is explained as natural) gives unauthorized information to his partner. After the correct explanation, North should call the director, who will ask North and South (away from the table) what they would do given the proper explanation. North should then say that he would double 2S; South would keep his pass. >What ruling is correct? The director should rule based on the likely results given correct explanation. If North doubles 2S, East will pass (no preference between the minors, and no desire for a spade lead to come up to his hand), South will raise to 3S, and I believe it is likely that North will both bid 4S and make it (playing East for AJxx of hearts because he knows West has at most two after trumps are drawn). Therefore, the proper ruling is +620 to N-S, -620 to E-W. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 12 03:05:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:05:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pairs tournament [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c912c6$eb6a5a10$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: Torsten ?strand asked: [big snip] >East asked South if he would like to summon a TD. South said >that the facts are established and maybe we will ask for a >TD later. [snip] >What ruling is correct? Richard Hills: If indeed East believes that attention has been drawn to an East-West MI irregularity, then East should not have asked South about summoning the Director; East should herself have immediately summoned the Director. It is a popular fallacy that it is only the non-offending side's duty to summon the Director. Law 9B1: (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. (b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. (c) Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled. (d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents. 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 Sep 12 04:02:57 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:02:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does understanding = agreement? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809102304t19bcf437n32de96d499ec6a48@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0809102304t19bcf437n32de96d499ec6a48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809111902s30ef99f5p16d4b7dd14714c49@mail.gmail.com> [Law 75B:] "...East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement..." [Peter Eidt] In terms of set theory "Understandings" is the superset of "Agreements". [Grattan] +=+ Law 40B1(b): "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning." There is a purpose in this law to bring any reference to these terms, particularly in regulations where it continues to be used, unarguably within the scope of the 2007 laws. (We had it in mind that some RAs might react very slowly, if at all, to changes in the terminology.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [Richard Hills] Yes, a partnership "agreement" is a partnership "understanding". But I disagree that using two terms is pointless. Since the more popular term is "agreement", it makes sense to use that popular term in the indicative examples which comprise Law 75. [Jerry Fusselman] So, for the question that is the title of the OP, Peter writes that they are not equal, that there are cases understandings that are not agreements, and presumably that Law 75B is silent on whether these cases need be accurately described to the opponents. Richard reads the same law and comes to a different conclusion, saying that they are equal. Grattan expresses no specific opinion on the question in the title. The law he cites can be read both ways: Peter's and Richard's. Grattan does, however, explain a reason for the including the term "partnership agreement" once in the laws that I, rather stupidly, had not thought of. However, is the purpose he mentions really served by the regulations as written? How about a clear statement somewhere that partnership agreement = partnership understanding? Or at least an LC statement to that effect. Or maybe they are not equal in LC eyes. Maybe there are partnership understandings that are neither implicit nor explicit partnership agreements. In reading the key passage, there is a matter of simple logic: If you say that every man is a mammal, you have not said that every mammal is a man. If the law makers think that their sentence "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding" means to everyone that they are the same, I am afraid they missed the mark. I think we have all seen, on BLML and at bridge tables, statements along the lines of "Well, yes, I know he often has a five-card major when he opens 1NT, but I never agreed to that, and I hate it, so it is not our agreement, and it is therefore not discloseable." The word "agreement" was an unfortunate choice in the laws, because it leads to CPUs due to the colloquial understanding of the term. The colloquial meaning rather undermines Richard's idea that somehow it is good to include it in the laws. The narrow colloquial meaning is an argument for leaving it out rather than using it in a smattering of places, such as the important Law 75B. It seems to me that "agreement" should have been rooted out completely, except for one place to serve Grattan's purpose, and I wish that it would be defined as meaning exactly what partnership understand means in the broad sense. Originally, I read Law 75B assuming that Richard is right, but now I see that basic English makes it seem that Peter is right, and that Law 75B does not have the scope I think it should have had. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 12 04:10:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:10:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >You seem to be agreeing that this particular law is ambiguous. Richard Hills: No. Law 40 is clear on how mutual partnership understandings are created, and that the opponents must be informed. Laws 40A3, 40C1 and 75 are clear that it is possible to temporarily forget a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Robert Frick: >It seems to be up to a regulating authority to disambiguate it. >Probably of getting it right is a good factor to consider, Richard Hills: It seems to me that "MI or misbid?" is one of the _least_ ambiguous concepts in the current Lawbook, given that a reworded and reorganised Law 75 is devoted to the topic. Robert Frick: >but there are other factors. I don't think it is good to force a >player to produce UI solely so he may be punished for creating >that UI (Stephanie's argument). Richard Hills: If by "solely" Robert means a question asked merely to trip up the opponents, then that is not Stefanie's argument, nor indeed is it anyone's argument. Robert Frick: >And no one has argued with Alain's claim that people would rather >play bridge that way. Richard Hills: Not in the current thread. As a newbie to blml, Robert is unaware that this dWS topic has been exhaustively (and exhaustingly) debated on blml for more than half-a-dozen years. Robert Frick: >BTW, is it correct that if that player had described the meaning >of the 2H bid in a multi-auction, and then the opps had been >damaged by that misleading information, the opps would not be >protected? Richard Hills: Have you stopped beating your wife? "Damage" does not occur if a partnership does not commit an infraction. A completely accurate description of mutual partnership understanding is not in any way "misleading". Nor must players be "protected" if they are not told what cards are in the opposing hands. Law 75C, second sentence: "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." 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 Sep 12 04:10:35 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:10:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <8CAE1F84BF18F11-210-4F43@webmail-nf17.sim.aol.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809111910u79cec0ebpc9b2a571a6470d76@mail.gmail.com> > Richard Hills: > > The ACBL > has a regulation requiring partnerships to have agreements > in their "to be expected" auctions, What regulation is that? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 12 05:34:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:34:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <537jc4lkd7nhr08ss8nasq28seq7mke25v@4ax.com> Message-ID: Law 40A3: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." Brian Meadows: >But we know that this is (or at least was) not always the >case, Richard, and that the WBFLC has given at least tacit >blessing to NCBOs restricting this "right" - e.g. those NCBOs >who prevent you by regulation from psyching your GF opener, >or any artificial opener, or a multi 2D, Law 40B2(d): "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." Brian Meadows: >or upgrading a 9 HCP balanced hand to open a 10-12 1NT, Law 40B2(a), first sentence: "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding." Richard Hills: A condition imposed on the allowance of the SPU of a 10-12 1NT could be that the understanding only remained legal if the opener _always_ held at least 10 hcp. Brian Meadows: >or no doubt any of many other restrictions. And yes, you'll get >ruled against if you violate one of these regulations even if it >is the "one psyche per partnership lifetime". 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." Richard Hills: If I had psyched my strong 1C opening bid, that would have been a "one psyche per partnership lifetime" (since my previous strong 1C psyche had been in 1980s youth bridge with a different partner). However, both ABF regs and Asian Cup regs now conditionally allow a strong 1C opening bid provided that it is _never_ psyched. Ergo, in this hypothetical case I would clearly deserve a Law 40B5 score adjustment and procedural penalty. Brian Meadows: >It seems that L40A is not worth the paper on which it was >written, or has all that supposedly changed with the latest Laws? Richard Hills: It seems to me that calls which are _not_ artificial _nor_ Special Partnership Understandings may be freely psyched, provided that such free psyching is consistent with the constraints and limits imposed by 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." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 12 07:39:25 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:39:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:10:22 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> You seem to be agreeing that this particular law is ambiguous. > > Richard Hills: > > No. Law 40 is clear on how mutual partnership understandings > are created, and that the opponents must be informed. Laws 40A3, > 40C1 and 75 are clear that it is possible to temporarily forget a > pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. I don't see how this is relevant. > > Robert Frick: > >> It seems to be up to a regulating authority to disambiguate it. >> Probably of getting it right is a good factor to consider, > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that "MI or misbid?" is one of the _least_ > ambiguous concepts in the current Lawbook, given that a reworded > and reorganised Law 75 is devoted to the topic. I am not sure exactly how an accurate description of partner's intended meaning is categorized as misinformation. > > Robert Frick: > >> but there are other factors. I don't think it is good to force a >> player to produce UI solely so he may be punished for creating >> that UI (Stephanie's argument). > > Richard Hills: > > If by "solely" Robert means a question asked merely to trip up the > opponents, then that is not Stefanie's argument, nor indeed is it > anyone's argument. Nope, not at all what I meant. > > Robert Frick: > >> And no one has argued with Alain's claim that people would rather >> play bridge that way. > > Richard Hills: > > Not in the current thread. As a newbie to blml, Robert is unaware > that this dWS topic has been exhaustively (and exhaustingly) > debated on blml for more than half-a-dozen years. Bad guess. > > Robert Frick: > >> BTW, is it correct that if that player had described the meaning >> of the 2H bid in a multi-auction, and then the opps had been >> damaged by that misleading information, the opps would not be >> protected? > > Richard Hills: > > Have you stopped beating your wife? "Damage" does not occur if a > partnership does not commit an infraction. A completely accurate > description of mutual partnership understanding is not in any way > "misleading". Nor must players be "protected" if they are not told > what cards are in the opposing hands. Fine. So West passed up an opportunity to legally mislead the opps. > > Law 75C, second sentence: > > "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." Still ambiguous. In the given auction, N-S received an accurate description of the EW agreement for the auction East thought they were having. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 12 08:36:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:36:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Lone wereWolff (was L25B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080910104137.2C393D305DF@mailgw2.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: >Goodness, > >Well I like the philosophy behind this, having an almighty who >knows what is right and what is wrong and decides. We have had >(and still have) some great examples of them in the world. > >Reading what seems to be in his newest book I am not sure that >Bobby qualifies, The Ten Commandments of Bobby Wolff (with thanks to Arthur Hugh Clough, 1819-1861): Thou shalt have Bobby only; who Would be at the expense of two? No graven images may be Worshipp'd, except Bob's Equity! Swear not at all; for, for thy curse Bobby Wolff is none the worse: Convention Disruption to amend Will serve to keep Bobby thy friend: Honour thy Bobby; that is, all To whom claim appeals may befall: Thou shalt misrule; and need'st not score Officiously to keep the Law: Do not a psychic call commit; Advantage rarely comes of it: Thou shalt not cheat; for empty lustre, When it's so lucrative to bluster: Defame Kojak; then let the lie Have time on its own wings to fly: Thou shalt sponsor; since tradition Approves all forms of competition. Ton Kooijman: [snip] >I hope that Kojak is able to ignore what is written about him, >let me tell him that I do. Richard Hills: Me too. Perhaps it was Bobby Wolff's highly successful campaign against cheating and lesser unethical practices which caused him to become slightly paranoid, seeing enemies and unethical practices behind every bush. Unfortunately, Bobby Wolff's campaign against lesser unethical practices was _not_ an unqualified success, since he defined a Break In Tempo as an unethical practice, then Bobby Wolff chose to erect a ludicrous and unLawful edifice of "Hesitation Disruption" on that foundation. (See page 236 of "The Lone Wolff" for a comprehensive description of "Hesitation Disruption".) Blmler Nigel Guthrie has a similar heterodox preference, but Nigel has the common sense to realise that his preference requires a Law change. Meanwhile Bobby Wolff simply ruled as an eisegetical antinomian for all of his ACBL Appeal Casebooks commentaries. 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 Fri Sep 12 09:00:38 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:00:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/09/2008, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:10:22 -0400, wrote: > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> You seem to be agreeing that this particular law is ambiguous. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > No. Law 40 is clear on how mutual partnership understandings > > are created, and that the opponents must be informed. Laws 40A3, > > 40C1 and 75 are clear that it is possible to temporarily forget a > > pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. > > I don't see how this is relevant. > > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> It seems to be up to a regulating authority to disambiguate it. > >> Probably of getting it right is a good factor to consider, > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > It seems to me that "MI or misbid?" is one of the _least_ > > ambiguous concepts in the current Lawbook, given that a reworded > > and reorganised Law 75 is devoted to the topic. > > I am not sure exactly how an accurate description of partner's intended > meaning is categorized as misinformation. If that information doesn't fit their agreement, it IS misinformation according to law, since the law defines that the information they're entitled to is what their auction mean per agreement. However, given information that fits the hand, opponents normally (not always) won't be damaged by this MI. > > > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> but there are other factors. I don't think it is good to force a > >> player to produce UI solely so he may be punished for creating > >> that UI (Stephanie's argument). > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > If by "solely" Robert means a question asked merely to trip up the > > opponents, then that is not Stefanie's argument, nor indeed is it > > anyone's argument. > > Nope, not at all what I meant. > > > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> And no one has argued with Alain's claim that people would rather > >> play bridge that way. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Not in the current thread. As a newbie to blml, Robert is unaware > > that this dWS topic has been exhaustively (and exhaustingly) > > debated on blml for more than half-a-dozen years. > > Bad guess. > > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> BTW, is it correct that if that player had described the meaning > >> of the 2H bid in a multi-auction, and then the opps had been > >> damaged by that misleading information, the opps would not be > >> protected? > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Have you stopped beating your wife? "Damage" does not occur if a > > partnership does not commit an infraction. A completely accurate > > description of mutual partnership understanding is not in any way > > "misleading". Nor must players be "protected" if they are not told > > what cards are in the opposing hands. > > Fine. So West passed up an opportunity to legally mislead the opps. Informing opps what partner's bid means by agreement isn't misleading them. Partners misbid is misleading them, but that's legal - like a intended psyche. > > > > > Law 75C, second sentence: > > > > "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." > > Still ambiguous. In the given auction, N-S received an accurate > description of the EW agreement for the auction East thought they were > having. If it's impossible to find out what their agreement is (or they in fact doesn't have any), an explanation that fits the actual hand is considered to be correct, whereas any other explanation is considered MI. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 12 11:31:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:31:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48CA36F8.4030703@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> Sorry, I just can't see it in the laws. The choices are between (1) >> explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner understood the >> auction, >> or (2) explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner should have >> understood the auction. I don't see ANYWHERE in the laws where it >> indicates which of these is to be done. >> > > We seem to be overlooking the fact that, in general, the alternative > to Robert's #2 is not, in fact, his #1. Choice #1 in reality is > explaining the meaning of partner's bid as *you think* partner > understood the auction. The case for explaining what partner thinks > instead of what your actual agreement is falls apart when you allow > for the possibility that you might be getting it wrong. > AG : you're right. However, when he explains your bid, possibly wrongly, you know what he thinks. I won't gainsay that dWS attitude won't always work. What I suggest is that it be admitted, for fairness sake, to the player's own risk. It's like when you have two exposed cards : there was an irregularity, and now you have to guess how to minimize its impact. With the difference being that, in the present case, the impact is not only on you, but also on the smoothness of the tournament Best regards Alain > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 11 23:25:30 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:25:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented References: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601c914be$7c825db0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented >> >> Sorry, I just can't see it in the laws. The choices are between (1) >> explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner understood the >> auction, >> or (2) explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner should have >> understood the auction. I don't see ANYWHERE in the laws where it >> indicates which of these is to be done. > > We seem to be overlooking the fact that, in general, the alternative > to Robert's #2 is not, in fact, his #1. Choice #1 in reality is > explaining the meaning of partner's bid as *you think* partner > understood the auction. The case for explaining what partner thinks > instead of what your actual agreement is falls apart when you allow > for the possibility that you might be getting it wrong. > +=+ What we need, Eric, is for someone to explain to Robert in his own language that the choice is not between the two options that he imagines. There is only one lawful option - to state the meaning of partner's call in accordance with the actual partnership agreement. Under the Director's examination of the facts eventually he will have to rule what was the *actual* agreement. This may turn out to be as one partner believed it, as the other partner believed it, or indeed neither of these things. Regardless of what either may have thought, each had the duty of explaining his partner's calls in accordance with the actual partnership agreement and if, in their confusion, either has misled opponents as to the actual partnership agreement the Director will give redress for any consequent damage. On occasion the finding may be that there was no partnership agreement and that a player was in error if he told opponents that there was one. As a side issue should the Director become aware that one of the players has given an explanation that he knew not to be in accordance with the actual agreement, in his discretion he may award a procedural penalty for this serious departure from correct procedure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 12 12:45:34 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:45:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does understanding = agreement? References: <2b1e598b0809102304t19bcf437n32de96d499ec6a48@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0809111902s30ef99f5p16d4b7dd14714c49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002a01c914c7$1a7ee120$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 3:02 AM Subject: [blml] Does understanding = agreement? > [Law 75B:] > > "...East-West are entitled to an accurate description of > the North-South agreement..." > ...................................omissis........................................ > > I think we have all seen, on BLML and at bridge tables, statements > along the lines of "Well, yes, I know he often has a five-card major > when he opens 1NT, but I never agreed to that, and I hate it, so it is > not our agreement, and it is therefore not discloseable." The word > "agreement" was an unfortunate choice in the laws, because it leads to > CPUs due to the colloquial understanding of the term. > +=+ The example given for illustrative purposes in Law 75 is of an agreement. The statement above quoted from Law 75B is in reference to the example and is not exclusive of other requirements for disclosure. The player who suggests something is not discloseable because 'it is not our agreement' should have his attention drawn to Laws 20F and 40A from which he will learn that it is 'partnership understandings' that are discloseable. These include not only matters that are 'agreements' as he argues them but also any understandings born of mutual partnership experience or awareness, or out of discussion. Jerry's player may hate it, but he cannot deny that he understands his partner may have a five card major when he opens 1NT and he must disclose this understanding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 12 12:53:43 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:53:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002b01c914c7$1ac18f70$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Brian Meadows: > >>It seems that L40A is not worth the paper on which it was >>written, or has all that supposedly changed with the latest Laws? > +=+ Law 40 incorporates major changes from the 1997 laws. It provides a default position on which RAs and TOs may build system regulations adapted to the environment of the tournament to which they apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 12 13:45:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:45:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CA563D.4020900@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > If that information doesn't fit their agreement, it IS misinformation > according to law, since the law defines that the information they're > entitled to is what their auction mean per agreement. However, given > information that fits the hand, opponents normally (not always) won't > be damaged by this MI. > AG : it might be useful to add explicitly in TD courses, booklets etc. what the main reason for Harald's "not always" means : players are entitled to draw inferences about non-alertable bids using informations that can be deduced from alertable bids. If MI arises, then the inferences will be muddled. Here is a recent example. There were screens. W E 1H 2C 3C 4H 4S 4NT 5H 6C South was told by West that 3C didn't show extra strength (unusual in this country). This wasn't the agreement, althhough it was the correct explanation for West's hand. But it had an influence on the meaning of East's 4H : good hand facing "minimum", but "fast arrival" facing "extra values", and this had an impact on the play. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 12 13:55:14 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:55:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:10:22 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> You seem to be agreeing that this particular law is ambiguous. > > Richard Hills: > > No. Law 40 is clear on how mutual partnership understandings > are created, and that the opponents must be informed. Laws 40A3, > 40C1 and 75 are clear that it is possible to temporarily forget a > pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Trying again. This partnership has an understanding of what 2H means if 2D is multi, but they also seem to have an understanding of what 2H means if 2D is not multi. I don't see where any of these laws say which understanding West is supposed to divulge. (Feel free to try to explain it to me.) Suppose West says "My bid was a multi-2D but given my partner's failure to alert, my partner has taken it as not-multi. Would you rather hear our agreement as to what this bid means following a multi-2D, or a non-multi-2D?" If the opps agree in this assessment, they don't care about the meaning of the bid over a multi-2D, then want to know useful information about what East has, so they want the agreement of what 2H means following a non-multi-2D. So we have one agreement that the opps want to know and another agreement they could/should care less about (except to resolve issues of UI and equity). I don't see where the laws force West to tell the opps the agreement the opps don't want to know. Furthermore, the opps will take West's explanation as indicating the intended meaning of East's bid and hence saying something about East's hand. So, West's explanation of the partnership agreement following a multi-2D will/might be misleading. And Richard argues that this misleading information results a mistaken bid so the opps will not be protected from any damage done by the misleading information. Why would anyone create a law forcing a player to provide misleading information to the opps? Or, given that I don't yet see it in the laws, why would anyone want to interpret the laws that way? > > Robert Frick: > >> It seems to be up to a regulating authority to disambiguate it. >> Probably of getting it right is a good factor to consider, > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that "MI or misbid?" is one of the _least_ > ambiguous concepts in the current Lawbook, given that a reworded > and reorganised Law 75 is devoted to the topic. > > Robert Frick: > >> but there are other factors. I don't think it is good to force a >> player to produce UI solely so he may be punished for creating >> that UI (Stephanie's argument). > > Richard Hills: > > If by "solely" Robert means a question asked merely to trip up the > opponents, then that is not Stefanie's argument, nor indeed is it > anyone's argument. > > Robert Frick: > >> And no one has argued with Alain's claim that people would rather >> play bridge that way. > > Richard Hills: > > Not in the current thread. As a newbie to blml, Robert is unaware > that this dWS topic has been exhaustively (and exhaustingly) > debated on blml for more than half-a-dozen years. > > Robert Frick: > >> BTW, is it correct that if that player had described the meaning >> of the 2H bid in a multi-auction, and then the opps had been >> damaged by that misleading information, the opps would not be >> protected? > > Richard Hills: > > Have you stopped beating your wife? "Damage" does not occur if a > partnership does not commit an infraction. A completely accurate > description of mutual partnership understanding is not in any way > "misleading". Nor must players be "protected" if they are not told > what cards are in the opposing hands. > > Law 75C, second sentence: > > "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." > > > 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 12 14:20:15 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:20:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48C9A2B9.3010301@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <005301c914d1$ee8c9200$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Richard Hills] > Sure, a mutual partnership agreement to open a random 2NT would be a > Brown Sticker or HUM convention. But the mutual partnership agreement > was not that - it was a mutual partnership agreement not to > open 2NT at all. So the _partnership_ was not in breach of the CoC. > > [Nige1] > Richard's partnership defined 2N as meaningless and agreed not to use > it. Richard was aware of this when he deliberately opened 2N. IMO that > must contravene the Brown sticker prohibition of a 2N random bid. > Otherwise any partnership could use the same ploy to define "random" > calls. Paradoxically, in this case, "No agreement" is an agreement. > +=+ An agreement to have no agreement concerning the meaning of a 2NT opener allows that if 2NT is opened there is no limitation on the shape or values of the hand on which it is made. So it may be of any distribution and it may be strong or, tactically the more likely, it may be weak. It is the case, therefore, that (a) it may be weak, and (b) it does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. The WBF decrees that an opening bid with these possibilities is Brown Sticker - and in view of the regulation this is ipso facto determined to be a special partnership understanding. The partnership was certainly in breach of the CoC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 12 15:36:46 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:36:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 11, 2008, at 11:34 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Brian Meadows: > >> It seems that L40A is not worth the paper on which it was >> written, or has all that supposedly changed with the latest Laws? > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that calls which are _not_ artificial _nor_ Special > Partnership Understandings may be freely psyched, provided that > such free psyching is consistent with the constraints and limits > imposed by Law 40C1: L40B1 gives the RA carte blanche to designate any understanding it chooses as a "special partnership understanding". Which means that an RA can effectively decree L40A to be "not worth the paper on which it was written". This summer the top financial officials in the U.S. administration testified before Congress to their certainty that if Congress granted them the power to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac it would never be used, as the mere act of doing so would restore the confidence of the market in those institutions thus allowing them to raise the private capital they needed without federal help. Last week those same officials announced a $200 billion bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Power granted inevitably becomes power used. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 12 15:58:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:58:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:39 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Robert Frick: >> >>> BTW, is it correct that if that player had described the meaning >>> of the 2H bid in a multi-auction, and then the opps had been >>> damaged by that misleading information, the opps would not be >>> protected? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Have you stopped beating your wife? "Damage" does not occur if a >> partnership does not commit an infraction. A completely accurate >> description of mutual partnership understanding is not in any way >> "misleading". Nor must players be "protected" if they are not told >> what cards are in the opposing hands. > > Fine. So West passed up an opportunity to legally mislead the opps. > >> Law 75C, second sentence: >> >> "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." > > Still ambiguous. In the given auction, N-S received an accurate > description of the EW agreement for the auction East thought they were > having. One could, of course, do both, provide the legally required information and volunteer the extraneous information: "That means X, but if he thought my last bid meant Y then he might have intended it to mean Z." But that's only useful in clear-cut situations. Even those of us who regularly deprecate the dWS acknowledge that it would be viable if players were able to explain partner's actual intention (in lieu of explaining the actual partnership agreement) with 100% accuracy every time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rbeye at yahoo.com Fri Sep 12 16:05:57 2008 From: rbeye at yahoo.com (Richard Beye) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:05:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809111910u79cec0ebpc9b2a571a6470d76@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <227295.19589.qm@web33105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Richard Hills: The ACBL has a regulation requiring partnerships to have agreements in their "to be expected" auctions, On Thu, 9/11/08, Jerry Fusselman wrote: What regulation is that? The General Conditions of Contest http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Conditions-of-Contest/General-AllEvents.pdf "2. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed. 3. Players should review their own convention cards before the start of the session to make sure that they are current on the agreements with this particular partner. In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made rather than misinformation given. The convention card and previous auctions are the most obvious ways to resolve any disagreements concerning misbid vs misinformation." From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 17:11:24 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:11:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809120811q38dfe4dw378d4e8f3c348dc1@mail.gmail.com> Robert Frick wrote: > > Suppose West says "My bid was a multi-2D but given my partner's failure to > alert, my partner has taken it as not-multi. Would you rather hear our > agreement as to what this bid means following a multi-2D, or a > non-multi-2D?" If the opps agree in this assessment, they don't care about > the meaning of the bid over a multi-2D, then want to know useful > information about what East has, so they want the agreement of what 2H > means following a non-multi-2D. > There is another consideration you have not mentioned. They would also want to know what your calls mean when you make them assuming it is a multi-2D auction. But then it gets tricky if AI from the auction gradually proves to you that it was not a multi-2D. Jerry Fusselman From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 12 17:19:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:19:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CA888D.7090102@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > But that's only useful in clear-cut situations. Even those of us who > regularly deprecate the dWS acknowledge that it would be viable if > players were able to explain partner's actual intention (in lieu of > explaining the actual partnership agreement) with 100% accuracy every > time. > AG : what about using it only when you're able ? For ewemple, when partner gave an explanation that you hear. If partner alerts your 1H response to 1C, then explains it on request as showing spades, you can be sure his 2S response is nonforcing, so you'll say them it's nonforcing - and treat it as forcing, of course. And this is a majority of cases. The main case when you won't know is when partner fails to alert, because he might just be considering the bid isn't alertable, or forgot to alert. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Sep 13 03:24:08 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:24:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be><010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be> <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <48CB1638.4050605@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > You know what ? I wouldn't be proud to be the random recipient of a > swing that's created by the laws only. So, giving me only the IMPs I was > entitled to as a consequence of their error will probably minimize > inconvenience to me too. > > Stefanie Rohan: > > That is your opinion, but the problem is that the next time this gambit is > attempted it will most likely be against some other pair, who may feel > differently. If they would prefer to get a swing in their favour "created by > the laws" (and by which other route do we get any scores at all?), then it > is their right to have a chance to get it. > hmmmm ... what laws are being broken? And were the opponents compensated for that breaking? Then I don't see what else there is to matter. Just understand me perfectly: there was MI, and correction for that, ok? The only "Law" that is additionally broken is the Law that MS adepts believe exists, but which does not: the obligation of giving UI to partner. Many of the problems with these kinds of stories arise from the way they are being presented: The one player "knew" his partner had misalerted, and he then commited the irregularity of now also misalerting. Tell the story any differently and the problem dissapears: Just recount the story with the original bidder being uncertain of his system: he sees partner alert (or not) and now knows what partner thinks the system is. He does not make use of that, of course, and bids on in the system he thinks he's playing, and he continues to alert and explain according to what his partner has started. What's so wrong with that? > UI created by your side can damage only your side. You are also not > permitted to "notice" partner's alerts, failures to alert, or explanations. > So there can be no question that to predicate one's actions on knowledge of > such is nothing less than cheating. And the fact that it is done to avoid > damaging your own side is particularly abhorrent. > > In any case, next time perhaps the OS's teammates will not be quite so > chuffed by the DP they are hit with. Especially if it consists of banning > from the event. > What DP? I'll contest that DP until Strassbourg. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Sep 13 03:25:37 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:25:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CB1691.5060808@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > [snip] > >> They [the declaring side] said that the law only requires >> them to correct explanations that they hear and are wrong, >> not the ones they don't hear, and so they just never listen. >> The defender calls you. What do you do? > > Richard Hills: > > I remind the declaring side (and also remind Herman De Wael) > that players lack the power to interpret Law; this power is > reserved for the Director. > OK, so I'm the Director, and I interpret the law. Now what? Is it inadmissible to interpret the law any differently than does the great Richard Hills? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 12 21:53:17 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:53:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48CA888D.7090102@ulb.ac.be> References: <48CA888D.7090102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <980AD90B-9DB9-49A3-913B-FD835B695DFC@starpower.net> On Sep 12, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> But that's only useful in clear-cut situations. Even those of us who >> regularly deprecate the dWS acknowledge that it would be viable if >> players were able to explain partner's actual intention (in lieu of >> explaining the actual partnership agreement) with 100% accuracy every >> time. > > AG : what about using it only when you're able ? For ewemple, when > partner gave an explanation that you hear. > > If partner alerts your 1H response to 1C, then explains it on > request as > showing spades, you can be sure his 2S response is nonforcing, so > you'll > say them it's nonforcing - and treat it as forcing, of course. So Alain would correctly describe his partner's hand to two of his opponents, but only at the cost of deliberately misdescribing his own hand to all three. If you tell your opponents that partner's 2S is non-forcing, and then treat it as forcing and so bid over it, won't you be guilty of deliberately misleading them into thinking that you have a hand suited to making that bid over a non-forcing 2S when you do not? And won't you also be misleading partner into incorrectly and improperly providing a misdescription based on that assumption if he is asked about your call? > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 12 22:17:18 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:17:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48CB1638.4050605@skynet.be> References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be><010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be> <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48CB1638.4050605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <067E4287-0CB4-4357-BD72-89C71F46ECB2@starpower.net> On Sep 12, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Tell the story any differently and the problem dissapears: Just > recount > the story with the original bidder being uncertain of his system: he > sees partner alert (or not) and now knows what partner thinks the > system > is. He does not make use of that, of course, and bids on in the system > he thinks he's playing, and he continues to alert and explain > according > to what his partner has started. What's so wrong with that? One thing wrong with it is the presumption that by "see[ing] partner alert (or not)" you will be able to accurately infer "what [] partner has started". Another, as I recently pointed out in reply to Alain, is that (even correctly) explaining "according to what partner has started" will quite often require misleading your opponents about your own hand. A third is that having described "what partner has started", someone -- not "you", of course -- might succumb to the temptation to overlook the legal obligation to continue bidding according to what you, as opposed to partner, started; having avoided revealing any inconsistency between them, you can cheat in this way in confidence that you won't be caught. Some have suggested that in real life this may the principal attraction of the dWS. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 13 01:34:15 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:34:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <067E4287-0CB4-4357-BD72-89C71F46ECB2@starpower.net> References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be> <010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be> <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48CB1638.4050605@skynet.be> <067E4287-0CB4-4357-BD72-89C71F46ECB2@starpower.net> Message-ID: The auction last Monday was W S E N 1D 1NT 2D 2NT(1) P 3NT(2) P 4C(3) P P P/4D P P P (1) not alerted, inteaded as Lebensohl -- a relay to 3C (2) not alerted. S Obviously forgot Lebensohl (3) not alerted If you want to argue that a player cannot describe the intended meaning of a bid and instead the auction must be interpreted in the context of the correct meaning of the bids, then the failure to alert 3NT was improper -- 3NT should have been alerted and described as having no systemic agreement. Interestingly, this makes the 3NT bid similar to Richard Hill's opening 2NT. The 3NT was accidental, not intentional. People claimed that Richard's 2NT bid could have meaning, but the 3NT bid cannot. So "no agreement" seems to be a perfect description of it's meaning in a Lebensohl auction. Does this trigger the ACBL's requirement to have available a suggested defense? Bob From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 13 03:06:14 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:06:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented References: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <045d01c9153c$eb81e770$f55c9951@stefanie> > The case for explaining what partner thinks > instead of what your actual agreement is falls apart when you allow > for the possibility that you might be getting it wrong. > Or the possibility that in a case like this, partner was on the same wavelength as you and simply forgot to alert, or alerted while you were taking a sip of your beer. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 13 03:10:19 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:10:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented References: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48CA36F8.4030703@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <046701c9153d$7dc32860$f55c9951@stefanie> Alain, have you considered another relevant fact here, that the opponents don't get to find out during the auction or play that our 2D bid is not natural? Sorry, the onus in disclosure is protecting our opponents, not protecting our side. Stefanie Rohan London, England Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> Sorry, I just can't see it in the laws. The choices are between (1) >> explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner understood the >> auction, >> or (2) explaining the meaning of partner's bid as partner should have >> understood the auction. I don't see ANYWHERE in the laws where it >> indicates which of these is to be done. >> > > We seem to be overlooking the fact that, in general, the alternative > to Robert's #2 is not, in fact, his #1. Choice #1 in reality is > explaining the meaning of partner's bid as *you think* partner > understood the auction. The case for explaining what partner thinks > instead of what your actual agreement is falls apart when you allow > for the possibility that you might be getting it wrong. > AG : you're right. However, when he explains your bid, possibly wrongly, you know what he thinks. I won't gainsay that dWS attitude won't always work. What I suggest is that it be admitted, for fairness sake, to the player's own risk. It's like when you have two exposed cards : there was an irregularity, and now you have to guess how to minimize its impact. With the difference being that, in the present case, the impact is not only on you, but also on the smoothness of the tournament Best regards Alain > _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 13 03:14:09 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:14:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented References: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> <000601c914be$7c825db0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <046d01c9153e$06b1efd0$f55c9951@stefanie> Grattan: > On occasion the finding > may be that there was no partnership agreement and that a player was > in error if he told opponents that there was one. > True. But in the case under discussion, the 2D bidder thought that his 2D was artificial. He would have had no reason to think that this was not his agreement except for partner's failure to alert. Whether he was correct about his agreement or not, or if there was in fact no agreement, it is not legal for him to change his mind based on partner's alert. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 13 03:42:03 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:42:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <049901c91541$ecba7530$f55c9951@stefanie> > Robert Frick: > >>but there are other factors. I don't think it is good to force a >>player to produce UI solely so he may be punished for creating >>that UI (Stephanie's argument). > > Richard Hills: > > If by "solely" Robert means a question asked merely to trip up the > opponents, then that is not Stefanie's argument, nor indeed is it > anyone's argument. I have, in fact been quite explicit about this. I have, on this forum, stated the following: When you know that the opponents are having a cock-up, or that they are in unfamiliar territory, it is unethical to ask them for an explanation with the purpose of creating UI for their side. > > Robert Frick: > >>And no one has argued with Alain's claim that people would rather >>play bridge that way. > > Richard Hills: > > Not in the current thread. As a newbie to blml, Robert is unaware > that this dWS topic has been exhaustively (and exhaustingly) > debated on blml for more than half-a-dozen years. And very few people would rather play bridge that way. Stefanie Rohan London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 13 05:58:31 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:58:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Robert Frick: > >> but there are other factors. I don't think it is good to force a >> player to produce UI solely so he may be punished for creating >> that UI (Stephanie's argument). > > Richard Hills: > > If by "solely" Robert means a question asked merely to trip up the > opponents, then that is not Stefanie's argument, nor indeed is it > anyone's argument. No, I didn't mean that. Again, the question is which partnership agreement/understanding/meaning/whatever should he give the oponents. (Should they receive the agreements for 2D not being multi or the misleading and UI filled agreements for 2D being multi.) Law 20F5(a) seems to me to clearly say that West cannot indicate to partner that partner has made an incorrect interpretation. Various laws seems to say that West has only to explain what the bid means according to their agreements. But which agreement? (The agreements about what 2H means if 2D is mulit or the agreement about what 2H means if 2D is not multi.) That leaves, IMO, Law 16B1(a), which is clearly on the side of giving the UI-filled explanation (and hence balances L20F5(a). West has a choice of which explanation to give. East's failure to alert is unexpected, hence West has to select the LA which is not suggested by the UI. In this case, it is offering the explanation that does not create UI for partner. West did select it. Stefanie's argument is that it is inappropriate to select this alternative precisely because it deprives the opps of IMPs they deserve. (For example, "It is not a "win" for the opponents, who were, as you yourself note, entitled to more than 3 IMPs." Putting this procedurally, the director could have changed the result to what would have happened had However, this would seem to me to be an odious state of affairs for the laws (and the people trying to support them). 1. If this is what the law really is, then this law cannot be remotely justified as providing equity or redress. Yes, East misexplained a bid and they should pay the price for that, and yes that means West has UI and he should pay the price. We know that price -- they end up losing 3 IMPs on the board. Now the laws are forcing them to create additional UI? Then the laws punish them for the creation of that UI? That isn't restoring equity. It's letting the laws run amok. 2. Or view this a different way. Richard Hills made the seemly safe claim that "'Damage' does not occur if a partnership does not commit an infraction." Well, if West is really forced to create UI by the laws, then the creation of the UI isn't an infraction. Then the laws punish West for the creation of this UI by forcing East to choose LA's not suggested by it. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 13 06:08:09 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 05:08:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <056101c91556$5579dbb0$f55c9951@stefanie> Robert Frick: > East's failure to alert is unexpected, hence > West has to select the LA which is not suggested by the UI. In this case, > it is offering the explanation that does not create UI for partner. errr... the explanation that East's bid was natural is not only suggested, but is underwritten by the UI. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Sep 13 09:35:22 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:35:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be> <010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be> <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48CB1638.4050605@skynet.be> <067E4287-0CB4-4357-BD72-89C71F46ECB2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48CB6D3A.5030601@t-online.de> Hello Robert, Robert Frick schrieb: > The auction last Monday was > > W S E N > 1D 1NT 2D 2NT(1) > P 3NT(2) P 4C(3) > P P P/4D P > P P > > (1) not alerted, inteaded as Lebensohl -- a relay to 3C > (2) not alerted. S Obviously forgot Lebensohl > (3) not alerted > > If you want to argue that a player cannot describe the intended meaning of > a bid and instead the auction must be interpreted in the context of the > correct meaning of the bids, then the failure to alert 3NT was improper -- > 3NT should have been alerted and described as having no systemic agreement. why? Wouldn`t partner bid 3NT with AJ10,KJ10,AJ10,Axxx, expecting to make 3NT opposite any sane Lebensohl bid? Isn't that the famous leader of men, General Bridge-Knowledge? It may be unexpected, even with an alert, but surely neither impossible nor lacking (implicit) agreement. Only the missing alert moves the probability of partner holding such a hand from pretty likely (what else could he have got for 3NT after alerting 2NT) to pretty unlikely. > > Interestingly, this makes the 3NT bid similar to Richard Hill's opening > 2NT. The 3NT was accidental, not intentional. Of course it was intentional. Assuming that partner really forgot Lebensohl (or thought it didn't apply) he intentionally accepted the invitation. It just doesn't coincide with North's intention of competing for the partscore... > People claimed that > Richard's 2NT bid could have meaning, but the 3NT bid cannot. See above. Of course it has a meaning. Wouldn`t you bid 3NT on that hand opposite Lebensohl? So I disagree with your statement below. Best regards Matthias > So "no > agreement" seems to be a perfect description of it's meaning in a > Lebensohl auction. > > Does this trigger the ACBL's requirement to have available a suggested > defense? > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Sep 13 09:56:54 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:56:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> Hello Robert, Robert Frick schrieb: >> Robert Frick: >> >>> but there are other factors. I don't think it is good to force a >>> player to produce UI solely so he may be punished for creating >>> that UI (Stephanie's argument). >> Richard Hills: >> >> If by "solely" Robert means a question asked merely to trip up the >> opponents, then that is not Stefanie's argument, nor indeed is it >> anyone's argument. > > No, I didn't mean that. Again, the question is which partnership > agreement/understanding/meaning/whatever should he give the oponents. > (Should they receive the agreements for 2D not being multi or the > misleading and UI filled agreements for 2D being multi.) > > Law 20F5(a) seems to me to clearly say that West cannot indicate to > partner that partner has made an incorrect interpretation. Various laws > seems to say that West has only to explain what the bid means according to > their agreements. But which agreement? (The agreements about what 2H means > if 2D is mulit or the agreement about what 2H means if 2D is not multi.) if they agreed to play multi they can't have an agreement what 2H means when 2D wasn't multi, can they? So there is only one agreement to describe. > > That leaves, IMO, Law 16B1(a), which is clearly on the side of giving the > UI-filled explanation (and hence balances L20F5(a). West has a choice of > which explanation to give. East's failure to alert is unexpected, hence > West has to select the LA which is not suggested by the UI. In this case, > it is offering the explanation that does not create UI for partner. > > West did select it. Stefanie's argument is that it is inappropriate to > select this alternative precisely because it deprives the opps of IMPs > they deserve. (For example, "It is not a "win" for the opponents, who > were, as you yourself note, entitled to more than 3 IMPs." Putting this > procedurally, the director could have changed the result to what would > have happened had > > However, this would seem to me to be an odious state of affairs for the > laws (and the people trying to support them). > > 1. If this is what the law really is, then this law cannot be remotely > justified as providing equity or redress. Yes, East misexplained a bid and > they should pay the price for that, and yes that means West has UI and he > should pay the price. We know that price -- they end up losing 3 IMPs on > the board. > > Now the laws are forcing them to create additional UI? Then the laws > punish them for the creation of that UI? There is never any "punishment", let alone rectification, for creation of UI. Would you care to point out where the creation of UI ever leads to score correction? It is only the _use_ of UI that leads to score correction. > That isn't restoring equity. It's > letting the laws run amok. > > 2. Or view this a different way. Richard Hills made the seemly safe claim > that "'Damage' does not occur if a partnership does not commit an > infraction." Well, if West is really forced to create UI by the laws, then > the creation of the UI isn't an infraction. Right. Only intentional creation of UI is an infraction. Proper alerts, proper responses to opps question about the system are never infractions. They may create UI, sure. > Then the laws punish West for > the creation of this UI by forcing East to choose LA's not suggested by it. This is totally wrong. Laws do not punish. Laws define proper procedure. The probable bad score does not occur because the law punishes someone, it occurs because life punishes someone for being forgetful, tired, confused, whatever. The problem lies in not getting it right, not in having no loophole to wriggle through. The dWs is about being tired of collecting bottoms because partner was stupid again. Well, that's too bad. Bear it with dignity, or get another partner. Have a nice weekend Matthias From adam at tameware.com Sat Sep 13 17:04:28 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:04:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ cases posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd40809130802u4664463bme69637f7c0b5b72a@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40809072004r2dc329bdp36b0af45719aae9@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40809130802u4664463bme69637f7c0b5b72a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40809130804g21853f98m62a3ec8ef350e987@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:04 PM, I wrote: > The ACBL has posted initial versions of the NABC+ case write-ups from > the Las Vegas NABC here: > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/LasVegas2008.html > > No comments are there yet. I'll post my draft comments on BLML shortly. Not every write-up indicates who was present. Here's the info -- it will be incorporated when the comments are posted. 1. N, S, E 2. W 3. N, S, W 4. N 5. N,S, W 6. All 7. All 8. All 9. E 10. All + E/W team Captain Pam Wittes 11. E, W 12. N, S, E 13. N, S, W 14. N, E, W -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 13 17:38:54 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:38:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> Message-ID: Partner makes an incorrect alert or explanation. What should the laws prescribe? 1. I immediately correct it. I could understand this: My information is to the opps, it is UI to partner, and the auction proceeds. For some reason, this isn't the way we play bridge. That's fine too. 2. I correct it after partner's first turn to bid. Partner has to make one bid in the dark, as does one opponent. I could understand the rules being this way, even though they aren't. Nigel wouldn't like it because it lacks the simplicity of #1 or #4. 3. After partner's first turn to bid, I alert or explain partner's bid in a way that both partner and opponents are likely to understand that partner's explanation of my bid is wrong. However, partner is more likely to understand this information than the opps are. THIS SEEMS ILLOGICAL. Either we want everyone to know, or we don't. If we want everyone to know, let's just tell them. This would be even worse if the procedure was to SOMETIMES do this. Where is the logic in that? 4. I do nothing to reveal to partner (and the opps) that partner has misexplained my bid. I rate this with #1 and #2 -- I am not sure why we would choose one of these options over the other, but they all look fine to me. One might think the laws support this option: "A player whose partner has given a mistake explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made." From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Sep 14 04:23:47 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:23:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005301c914d1$ee8c9200$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ An agreement to have no agreement concerning the meaning of a >2NT opener allows that if 2NT is opened there is no limitation on >the shape or values of the hand on which it is made. [snip] >The partnership was certainly in breach of the CoC. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: But the Ali-Hills partnership in question did not have "an agreement to have no agreement" about 2NT, Ali-Hills had "an agreement to never open" 2NT. If, hypothetically, both members of the Ali-Hills partnership had obeyed their "agreement to never open" 2NT, as Rubens-partner obeyed their "agreement to never open" 2D, 2H and 2S, would either Ali-Hills or Rubens-partner be _certainly_ in breach of the CoC? 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 Sun Sep 14 04:44:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:44:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <046d01c9153e$06b1efd0$f55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan asserted: [snip] >it is not legal for him to change his mind based on partner's >alert. Richard Hills quibbles: Yes and no. It is illegal for you to change your bidding strategy because partner unexpectedly alerted or unexpectedly failed to alert. References: Law 73C and Law 75A But if partner's unexpected alert or unexpected failure to alert causes you to realise that you have previously given an incorrect explanation, then you must immediately call the TD. 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." So in subsequent rounds of the auction, you are required to explain partner's calls in accordance with your mutual partnership understanding, but you are required to keep bidding in accordance with your initial misinterpretation of partner's calls. 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 Sun Sep 14 05:44:02 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:44:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <046d01c9153e$06b1efd0$f55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809132044x714f4011uf926aa24dca6a464@mail.gmail.com> Richard wrote: > > So in subsequent rounds of the auction, you are required to > explain partner's calls in accordance with your mutual > partnership understanding, but you are required to keep > bidding in accordance with your initial misinterpretation of > partner's calls. > Unless the auction gives you sufficent AI that your initial interpretation could not possibly be correct. Jerry Fusselman From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 14 20:56:46 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:56:46 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <00b701c91336$a551c110$2e5f9951@stefanie> References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be><010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be><017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C7933E.8010701@ulb.ac.be> <00b701c91336$a551c110$2e5f9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48CD5E6E.7070806@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >> >> You know what ? I wouldn't be proud to be the random recipient of a >> swing that's created by the laws only. So, giving me only the IMPs I was >> entitled to as a consequence of their error will probably minimize >> inconvenience to me too. >> >> Stefanie Rohan: >> >> That is your opinion, but the problem is that the next time this gambit is >> attempted it will most likely be against some other pair, who may feel >> differently. If they would prefer to get a swing in their favour "created >> by >> the laws" (and by which other route do we get any scores at all?), then it >> is their right to have a chance to get it. >> > AG : and that's precisely where dWS intervenes. It will often avoid this. > > SR: Yes. This is why dWS illegal. > No Stephanie, _You_ don't like this - maybe because you are a masochist, or a sadist. But that does not make it illegal. Read the laws and tell us why a player should be obliged to give UI to his partner? From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 14 21:02:37 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:02:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CD5FCD.6000100@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > >> Now, there are two possible attitudes : >> a) ban a player for trying to make bridge a player-friendly game >> b) think about making the rules more player-friendly >> I've taken my pick and it's b). > > Richard Hills: > > A false dichotomy. Alain can campaign for changed misinformation > rules. Stefanie can campaign for changed insufficient bid rules. > Wrong, dWS does _not_ campaign for changed MI rules. I have always stated that the MI, as given, shall be judged upon. It is the obligatory giving of UI that I object to. And please, ask yourself the question: you may believe it is wrong, but a player has done it anyway. You rule upon the MI he has given, you don't have to rule on the (non-existent) UI. What else are you going to do? Rule that he has illegally refused to give UI to his partner and try to imagine what would have happened if the player had given the UI? Totally impossible. PP, you say? Maybe to HDW, of whom you know he would do this. But what about this player, who finds a?out about dWS all by himself - who does not even know it's supposed to be wrong? And what about the player who states he genuinely believed his partner had given the right explanation and he was doing the same? How are you going to believe such a player? Will you accept from him a consistent explanation - will you do so from me? > But Stefanie admits that until the IB rules are changed, she must > abide by them. If Alain does not abide by current MI rules, then > Alain is just another wereWolff. > But I _am_ abiding by the rules, as I interpret them. You may believe I am wrong, but I believe you are too, and there is really nothing to distinguish between us. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 14 21:04:37 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:04:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CD6045.1030006@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Of course, like most wereWolffs, West had good > intentions. West did not alert East's conventional > 2H because West had UI that East had misunderstood > the auction, and therefore East believed that 2H was > a natural bid. > NO, not just good intentions. West was following the law that states he should not _in any manner_ indicate that East had made a mistake. > The road to hell is paved with good intentions. West > must act in accordance with what the Law is, not in > accordance with what West would like the Law to be. > And West was following one particular law to the letter. If we cannot agree on which is the stronger law, how can any player? > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 14 21:09:14 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:09:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CD615A.8020300@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:10:22 -0400, wrote: > >> Robert Frick: >> >>> You seem to be agreeing that this particular law is ambiguous. >> Richard Hills: >> >> No. Law 40 is clear on how mutual partnership understandings >> are created, and that the opponents must be informed. Laws 40A3, >> 40C1 and 75 are clear that it is possible to temporarily forget a >> pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. > > Trying again. This partnership has an understanding of what 2H means if 2D > is multi, but they also seem to have an understanding of what 2H means if > 2D is not multi. I don't see where any of these laws say which > understanding West is supposed to divulge. (Feel free to try to explain it > to me.) > BOTH. Which is why I always say the MS supporters are also giving MI. Try my example: 4NT - asking for minors but explained as Blackwood 5Di - how many aces? diamond preference is MI. Opponents are entitled to know what the responses to Blackwood are. So the player has to tell them "1 ace". By adding "diamond preference" to this, the player is not being helpful (we know nothing of the minor holding of the 5Di bidder), he is just circumventing the law on correcting partner's mistake. Very improper, IMO. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 14 21:11:20 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:11:20 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > There is never any "punishment", let alone rectification, for creation > of UI. Would you care to point out where the creation of UI ever leads > to score correction? It is only the _use_ of UI that leads to score > correction. > Indeed Matthias, but being prevented from taking the right action is a punishment for the UI, not for the using UI, since you would not be doing so. You have a lesser score nevertheless, and this solely by the creation of the UI. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 14 21:16:25 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:16:25 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <046701c9153d$7dc32860$f55c9951@stefanie> References: <00ac01c91407$c1d57c10$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48CA36F8.4030703@ulb.ac.be> <046701c9153d$7dc32860$f55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48CD6309.3070307@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Alain, have you considered another relevant fact here, that the opponents > don't get to find out during the auction or play that our 2D bid is not > natural? Sorry, the onus in disclosure is protecting our opponents, not > protecting our side. > But Stefanie, that is how the laws work! If there is no follow-up question and the misinformers get to play the contract, the MI will only be revealed at the end of the play and the TD haas to solve it. Why should that situation be any different when there is a follow-up question? Don't forget that the MI on the follow-up question is many magnitudes smaller than the original MI. Your interpretation creates two different situations at two very similar tables. At one table, there is no follow-up question and play proceeds until the TD solves the MI, at the other, where there is a follow-up question, in you universe the MI is solved, UI is created, a different contract is reached, and opponents have received extra information (that they are not entitled to but is still AI to them) enabling them to double for maximum penalties. The only difference between the two tables is the lazy opponent asking possibly unnecessary questions. Herman. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 14 17:57:23 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48CD5E6E.7070806@skynet.be> References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be> <010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be> <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C7933E.8010701@ulb.ac.be> <00b701c91336$a551c110$2e5f9951@stefanie> <48CD5E6E.7070806@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:56:46 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >>> >>> You know what ? I wouldn't be proud to be the random recipient of a >>> swing that's created by the laws only. So, giving me only the IMPs I >>> was >>> entitled to as a consequence of their error will probably minimize >>> inconvenience to me too. >>> >>> Stefanie Rohan: >>> >>> That is your opinion, but the problem is that the next time this >>> gambit is >>> attempted it will most likely be against some other pair, who may feel >>> differently. If they would prefer to get a swing in their favour >>> "created >>> by >>> the laws" (and by which other route do we get any scores at all?), >>> then it >>> is their right to have a chance to get it. >>> >> AG : and that's precisely where dWS intervenes. It will often avoid >> this. >> >> SR: Yes. This is why dWS illegal. >> > > No Stephanie, _You_ don't like this - maybe because you are a masochist, > or a sadist. > But that does not make it illegal. > Read the laws and tell us why a player should be obliged to give UI to > his partner? There has been a lot of discussion of this already. People have different answers. I think Stefanie argued that Law 16B1(a) applies, not only to calls and plays, but to all actions. If so, it requires players to choose from the LA's not suggested by an unexpected explanation or failure to alert. (Of course she will have to argue with Richard Hills about Law20F4.) Hey, consider this auction: 1H P 3S(1) P 4S(2) P 4NT(3) P 5H(4) P 6H P ?? (1) I meant as splinter, partner interpreted as spades, hence not alerted (2) meant as spade support, interpreted as showing a spade control (3) understood as RKC Blackwood by both players! Now, how should I explain the 5H bid? I can say "two conrols and denies the queen of trump" or I can say "two controls and denies the queen of hearts". It is very much to my advantage to give the first explanation. If I give the second explanation, my partner is going to have to convert my 6H bid to 6S. (This is a known fact.) If I give the first explanation, then partner has no UI that a misunderstanding has occurred and she can decide to pass 6H (which is what she did). So if these two explanations are LA's, and if Law 16B1(a) applies to actions instead of just calls and plays, I have to give the second explanation, because the first is suggested by the UI from her failure to alert my 3S bid. Or so the argument will go. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 15 01:11:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:11:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CD5FCD.6000100@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: >But I _am_ abiding by the rules, as I interpret them. You >may believe I am wrong, but I believe you are too, and >there is really nothing to distinguish between us. Richard Hills quibbles: I agree that my blml statements are often wrong, but they are less wrong than Herman De Wael's statements, and that is what distinguishes between us. The two statements "the Earth is a sphere" and "the Earth is flat" are both wrong. This is because the Earth is actually a slightly irregular oblate spheroid. So the statement "the Earth is a sphere" is _less_ wrong than "the Earth is flat", and that is what distinguishes between the two worldviews. As Grattan Endicott noted earlier, opinions are to be qualitatively weighed, not arithmetically added. Since Herman De Wael's flat Earth beliefs about Law interpretation are very often contrary to the oblate spheroid beliefs of the _authors_ of the Lawbook (large numbers of anti-dWS blml postings by Lawbook authors Endicott, Kooijman and Schoder), that is what distinguishes between the lightweight opinions of Herman De Wael and, for example, the heavyweight opinions of Matthias Berghaus. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6 (first three sentences only, plus my emphasis added): "The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed **anxiety** lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present **strange opinions**. The Secretary supported the Chairman in what he had said." 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 Sep 15 02:04:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:04:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 40B1(a), first sentence: "In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as 'special partnership understandings'." Eric Landau asserted: >L40B1 gives the RA carte blanche to designate any >understanding it chooses as a "special partnership >understanding". Which means that an RA can effectively >decree L40A to be "not worth the paper on which it was >written". [snip] >Power granted inevitably becomes power used. Richard Hills quibbles: If the first sentence of Law 40B1(a) was the only sentence of Law 40B1(a), then Eric Landau's "carte blanche" assertion would be correct. But... Law 40B1(a), second sentence: "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament." Richard Hills quibbles: If an RA arbitrarily defined a 16-18 1NT opening as an SPU, their cart would be blanched by a real-life court ruling that the RA had recklessly formed an opinion about what would be readily understood and anticipated by the players in the tournament. 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 Mon Sep 15 03:42:32 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:42:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809141842p53d190dbwb173fe3e87fb522@mail.gmail.com> > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > If an RA arbitrarily defined a 16-18 1NT opening as an SPU, > their cart would be blanched by a real-life court ruling > that the RA had recklessly formed an opinion about what > would be readily understood and anticipated by the players > in the tournament. > Richard's cute example misses the point completely. No one worries about 16-18 or 15-17 1 NT opening being deemed an SPU in a land where the strong notrump is king. It will never happen. But some of us do worry about 11-13. Would an RA that ruled that 11-13 1 NT openings are SPUs be found to have been reckless, to use Richard's term? Would Richard have quibbled the following version of Eric's statement (with the word minority added): L40B1 gives the RA carte blanche to designate any minority understanding it chooses as a "special partnership understanding". Also, please pardon my ignorance, but seriously, has any RA ever been found to be reckless? And if so, what happened? Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 15 03:44:20 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:44:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001801c916d4$eacb4e40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Law 40B1(a), first sentence: > > "In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate > certain partnership understandings as 'special partnership > understandings'." > > Eric Landau asserted: > >>L40B1 gives the RA carte blanche to designate any >>understanding it chooses as a "special partnership >>understanding". Which means that an RA can effectively >>decree L40A to be "not worth the paper on which it was >>written". > > [snip] > >>Power granted inevitably becomes power used. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > If the first sentence of Law 40B1(a) was the only sentence > of Law 40B1(a), then Eric Landau's "carte blanche" assertion > would be correct. But... > > Law 40B1(a), second sentence: > > "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, > in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be > readily understood and anticipated by a significant number > of players in the tournament." > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > If an RA arbitrarily defined a 16-18 1NT opening as an SPU, > their cart would be blanched by a real-life court ruling > that the RA had recklessly formed an opinion about what > would be readily understood and anticipated by the players > in the tournament. > +=+ Unless perhaps 1NT openers in a particular tournament are almost universally expected to be 12-14 HCP when perhaps the RA might think a 16-18 1NT would not be anticipated readily and might present that case. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 15 03:50:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:50:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >I think Stefanie argued that Law 16B1(a) applies, not only >to calls and plays, but to all actions. If so, it requires >players to choose from the LA's not suggested by an >unexpected explanation or failure to alert. (Of course she >will have to argue with Richard Hills about Law 20F4.) Richard Hills: I think blml netiquette should normally require a direct quote of another blmler, rather than indirect paraphrasing of that blmler. I shall now indirectly paraphrase Grattan Endicott. :-) Grattan, like me, believes that it is legal to give a timely* accurate explanation even if the accuracy is only because of UI received. *tempestive, in due season Law 16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." Richard Hills: Note that Law 16A3 does _not_ say "No player may base an explanation on other information", while many other Laws, for example Law 20F4, do require accurate explanations. Robert Frick: >Hey, consider this auction: > >1H P 3S(1) P >4S(2) P 4NT(3) P >5H(4) P 6H P >?? > >(1) I meant as splinter, partner interpreted as spades, >hence not alerted >(2) meant as spade support, interpreted as showing a spade >control >(3) understood as RKC Blackwood by both players! > >Now, how should I explain the 5H bid? Richard Hills: 5H should be explained in accordance with the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. (a) If 3S = spades in _this_ partnership, and Robert chose a splinter bid because Robert was temporarily thinking of his _other_ partnership, Robert must explain 5H as two keycards in spades, but denying the queen of spades. In this scenario Robert's partner luckily has not yet received any UI, so she may legally guess to pass 6H. (b) If 3S = splinter in _this_ partnership, and Robert's partner has temporary amnesia, Robert must explain 5H as two keycards in hearts, but denying the queen of hearts. In this scenario Robert's partner unluckily has now received UI, so she may _not_ illegally guess to pass 6H, as Law 75A applies. (c) If 3S = neither an explicit nor an implicit pre-existing mutual partnership understanding in _this_ partnership, then Robert must explain, "We have a mutual understanding that 4NT is Keycard Blackwood, but we do not have any mutual understanding which of spades or hearts is the agreed trump suit." Again, in this scenario Robert's partner unluckily has now received UI, so she may _not_ illegally guess to pass 6H, as once more Law 75A applies. Robert Frick: >I can say "two controls and denies the queen of trump" or I >can say "two controls and denies the queen of hearts". It >is very much to my advantage to give the first explanation. Law 40B6(a): "...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement..." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 15 05:05:24 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:05:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:50:13 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> I think Stefanie argued that Law 16B1(a) applies, not only >> to calls and plays, but to all actions. If so, it requires >> players to choose from the LA's not suggested by an >> unexpected explanation or failure to alert. (Of course she >> will have to argue with Richard Hills about Law 20F4.) > > Richard Hills: > > I think blml netiquette should normally require a direct > quote of another blmler, rather than indirect paraphrasing > of that blmler. Paraphrasing can also be a good listening technique. But I understand the need for a quote too. This was just pretty messy, and I assume other people want to make the same claim anyway. First message in this thread from Stephanie -------- "Alain: > Now I don't know what the TD would have decided if a mess ensued after > compound UI, but it would usually have cost more than 3 IMPs. > This is the typical case where using dWS minimizes inconvenience to > opponents, TD and teammates. > Yes, it's usually held that you aren't allowed to use this win-win-win > solution. So what ? Stephanie: It is not a "win" for the opponents, who were, as you yourself note, entitled to more than 3 IMPs." ------------ Second message by Stephanie in this thread: --------- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" You know what ? I wouldn't be proud to be the random recipient of a swing that's created by the laws only. So, giving me only the IMPs I was entitled to as a consequence of their error will probably minimize inconvenience to me too. Stefanie Rohan: That is your opinion, but the problem is that the next time this gambit is attempted it will most likely be against some other pair, who may feel differently. If they would prefer to get a swing in their favour "created by the laws" (and by which other route do we get any scores at all?), then it is their right to have a chance to get it. UI created by your side can damage only your side. You are also not permitted to "notice" partner's alerts, failures to alert, or explanations. So there can be no question that to predicate one's actions on knowledge of such is nothing less than cheating. And the fact that it is done to avoid damaging your own side is particularly abhorrent. In any case, next time perhaps the OS's teammates will not be quite so chuffed by the DP they are hit with. Especially if it consists of banning from the event. --------- > > I shall now indirectly paraphrase Grattan Endicott. :-) > Grattan, like me, believes that it is legal to give a > timely* accurate explanation even if the accuracy is only > because of UI received. > > *tempestive, in due season Which is what West did, right? I thought you were arguing that West's action was illegal. > > Law 16A3: > > "No player may base a call or play on other information > (such information being designated extraneous)." > > Richard Hills: > > Note that Law 16A3 does _not_ say "No player may base an > explanation on other information", while many other Laws, > for example Law 20F4, do require accurate explanations. Great! There is a tiny problem that you might want 16A3 to apply to decisions about irregularities. Just to be fair to the people who want to argue that Law 16 applies to West. > > Robert Frick: > >> Hey, consider this auction: >> >> 1H P 3S(1) P >> 4S(2) P 4NT(3) P >> 5H(4) P 6H P >> ?? >> >> (1) I meant as splinter, partner interpreted as spades, >> hence not alerted >> (2) meant as spade support, interpreted as showing a spade >> control >> (3) understood as RKC Blackwood by both players! >> >> Now, how should I explain the 5H bid? > > Richard Hills: > > 5H should be explained in accordance with the pre-existing > mutual partnership understanding. > > (a) If 3S = spades in _this_ partnership, and Robert chose a > splinter bid because Robert was temporarily thinking of his > _other_ partnership, Robert must explain 5H as two keycards > in spades, but denying the queen of spades. In this > scenario Robert's partner luckily has not yet received any > UI, so she may legally guess to pass 6H. > > (b) If 3S = splinter in _this_ partnership, and Robert's > partner has temporary amnesia, Robert must explain 5H as two > keycards in hearts, but denying the queen of hearts. In > this scenario Robert's partner unluckily has now received > UI, so she may _not_ illegally guess to pass 6H, as Law 75A > applies. > > (c) If 3S = neither an explicit nor an implicit pre-existing > mutual partnership understanding in _this_ partnership, then > Robert must explain, "We have a mutual understanding that > 4NT is Keycard Blackwood, but we do not have any mutual > understanding which of spades or hearts is the agreed trump > suit." Again, in this scenario Robert's partner unluckily > has now received UI, so she may _not_ illegally guess to > pass 6H, as once more Law 75A applies. We agreed to play splinters. > > Robert Frick: > >> I can say "two controls and denies the queen of trump" or I >> can say "two controls and denies the queen of hearts". It >> is very much to my advantage to give the first explanation. > > Law 40B6(a): > > "...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed > to him through partnership agreement..." I don't think her bid told me anything about the queen of hearts, so it would be very odd to say I had to communicate that information. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 15 05:53:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:53:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>I can say "two controls and denies the queen of trump" or I >>can say "two controls and denies the queen of hearts". It >>is very much to my advantage to give the first explanation. Law 40B6(a): "...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement..." Robert Frick: >I don't think her bid told me anything about the queen of >hearts, so it would be very odd to say I had to communicate >that information. Richard Hills: If, by partnership agreement, hearts is the agreed trump suit, then knowledge that hearts (not spades) is supposed to be trumps is "special information" that the opponents are entitled to know. Especially since ACBL Regulations require a complete data dump when responding to a question (that is, the ACBL Regs imply that a supplementary question, "What is trump?" should be unnecessary). Robert Frick: >We agreed to play splinters. >..... >If I give the second explanation, my partner is going to have >to convert my 6H bid to 6S. (This is a known fact.) If I give >the first explanation, then partner has no UI that a >misunderstanding has occurred and she can decide to pass 6H >(which is what she did). Richard Hills: Just as I committed a heinous crime by deliberately plotting to subvert the Asian Cup Conditions of Contest, so it seems to me that Robert Frick also committed a heinous crime by deliberately plotting to subvert the Incomplete Explanation Law, Law 40B6(a), plus consequentially the Awareness of Potential Damage Law, Law 23: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass. Richard Hills: * as, for example, by partner's non-bid of 6S. 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 Mon Sep 15 05:55:37 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:55:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809142055l5bf35c17k46f7911ec313b619@mail.gmail.com> Richard wrote:> > I think blml netiquette should normally require a direct > quote of another blmler, rather than indirect paraphrasing > of that blmler. > An accurate paraphrase is often better than a direct quote. I have been quoted several times on BLML inaccurately, and a few times with key parts of the sentence rather despicably removed to completely change the meaning. In contrast, an accurate paraphrase is a sign of good listening and understanding, and it is an honor to be understood. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 15 08:15:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:15:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40809130804g21853f98m62a3ec8ef350e987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: APPEAL NABC+ EIGHT Subject Unauthorized Information (UI) DIC Henry Cukoff Event NABC+ Fast Open Pairs Session Second Qualifying Date July 24, 2008 BD# 5 Frank Leonard VUL N/S K94 DLR North A96 98 AQ842 Robert Todd Jenni Carmichael J632 AT75 J5 T73 KJT64 Q3 K9 JT53 Phoebe Packer Q8 KQ842 A752 76 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Pass 2D (2) X 2H Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3H (4) Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 points (2) Announced as transfer to hearts (3) Not Alerted by agreement asks for more information (4) Not Alerted by agreement shows 13/14 and not 4 hearts Final Contract 3H by North Opening Lead DQ Table Result Making 3, N/S +140 Director Ruling 4H N, down 1, N/S -100 Committee Ruling 3H N, making 3, N/S +140 The Facts: The director was called after the opening lead. It was determined that the opening bidder showed three hearts by accepting the transfer over the double. The Ruling: There was UI available for South. Bidding 4H was a logical alternative to passing which was demonstrably suggested by the failure to Alert as partner may have forgotten the agreement and was turning down the invitation. Therefore, in accordance with Laws 16 and 12C2, the table result was adjusted to 4H by North, down one, N/S minus 100. The Appeal: The screening director stated that: At the end of the auction, South informed his opponents that there had been a failure to Alert. South's 2NT was an artificial game try. North's 3H showed a maximum with three trump . but not three good ones. South had not Alerted the 3H bid for fear of giving North UI. (Editor's Note: South is required to Alert North's conventional response even though North did not Alert South's call. While Alerting may provide UI to North and may restrict North's options, such is the fallout from an initial failure to Alert. If the opponents are damaged by this UI then the TD will adjust the score.) N/S stated that North's 2H bid over the double showed at least three trump; so, South's game try was made in that context. With the defense likely to get off to a good start by leading diamonds, with East in a position to over-ruff and the high card count borderline for game; South judged that North would need four trump for game to have a good play. Thus, she believed the pass was clear-cut. E/W said since South had tried for game and North had by agreement shown a maximum, they thought it was logical for South to continue to game. Her failure to do so could have been influenced by the absence of an Alert by North, which suggested that North intended to show a minimum with his 3H bid. The committee discovered that N/S have been partners for a long time. They changed agreements recently, however, and North is less comfortable with the system than South is. The Decision: UI was present, and it suggested passing. The committee focused on the question of whether bidding 4H was a logical alternative to passing 3H. South's bridge logic was compelling. It is difficult to construct a North hand consistent with the authorized information that will produce a good play for game. Note that opener holds a maximum with three trump. None of his 13 HCP were in jacks and his only queen was in a strong five-card suit headed by the ace. He held a top honor in trump, a ruffing value and no wastage in diamonds. With the jack of clubs instead of a small one or the king instead of the queen, many players would open with a strong 1NT. In addition, the hand lay extremely favorably for declarer. The club finesse was onside, the SA was positioned to give declarer an extra entry to hand, trumps split 3-2, diamonds were 5-2 rather than 6-1, and a diamond over-ruff would be in the hand with the long trump. With all that ten tricks still requires careful play. The committee determined that bidding 4H was not a logical alternative and restored the table result of 3H by South making three, N/S plus 140 and E/W minus 140. The Committee: Doug Doub (Chair), Dick Budd and Jim Thurtell 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 torsten.astrand at telia.com Mon Sep 15 08:51:59 2008 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:51:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pairs tournament [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005601c916ff$8da23820$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> I need a statement how to proceed in cases like this. Thank you David for your answer. How will an AC act? E/ALL AKT542 Q987 J 54 3 J97 42 AJ63 KT975 AQ6 J9862 KQT Q86 KT5 8432 A73 E S W N 1NT* P 2S** P*** 3C**** P P P***** *15-17 **No alert *** Waiting some seconds for an alert before passing **** No alert ***** asking what?s going on before passing? Answer by East, maybe I should alert 2S but I was not sure. My courage sank. My partner (occasional) is a "bridgeplayer" and he might ask me to bid a minor. (correct according to agreement is 2NT) East asked South if he would like to summon a TD. South said that the facts are established and maybe we will ask for a TD later. It is probable that North could see that the 2S is asking for Easts minorholdings. But South could not. If North double and East is passing, what should South do? Bid 3D? North is not allowed to ask for his partner. And if he asks what will happen if South?s first play is a spade against a EW-contract and that gives NS a positive score? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 3:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Pairs tournament [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Torsten ?strand asked: [big snip] >East asked South if he would like to summon a TD. South said >that the facts are established and maybe we will ask for a >TD later. [snip] >What ruling is correct? Richard Hills: If indeed East believes that attention has been drawn to an East-West MI irregularity, then East should not have asked South about summoning the Director; East should herself have immediately summoned the Director. It is a popular fallacy that it is only the non-offending side's duty to summon the Director. Law 9B1: (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. (b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. (c) Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled. (d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents. 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 Mon Sep 15 08:59:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:59:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >South had not Alerted the 3H bid for fear of giving North >UI. > >(Editor's Note: South is required to Alert North's >conventional response even though North did not Alert >South's call. While Alerting may provide UI to North and >may restrict North's options, such is the fallout from an >initial failure to Alert. If the opponents are damaged by >this UI then the TD will adjust the score.) Richard Hills: It seems that the erroneous ideas of Herman De Wael can be spontaneously and independently replicated. Perhaps, since this is now proved to be a popular grass-roots fallacy, the WBF Laws Committee should reconsider its earlier reluctance to create a formal and written refutation. Appeals Committee: >South's bridge logic was compelling. It is difficult to >construct a North hand consistent with the authorized >information that will produce a good play for game. Note >that opener holds a maximum with three trump. None of his >13 HCP were in jacks and his only queen was in a strong >five-card suit headed by the ace. He held a top honor in >trump, a ruffing value and no wastage in diamonds. With the >jack of clubs instead of a small one or the king instead of >the queen, many players would open with a strong 1NT. In >addition, the hand lay extremely favorably for declarer. >The club finesse was onside, the SA was positioned to give >declarer an extra entry to hand, trumps split 3-2, diamonds >were 5-2 rather than 6-1, and a diamond over-ruff would be >in the hand with the long trump. With all that ten tricks >still requires careful play. Richard Hills: In my opinion, the Appeals Committee went off on totally the wrong tangent. The actual North hand was irrelevant. What was relevant was the auction, the South hand, and how many peers of South would punt 4H on what North had systemically promised. And the Appeals Committee analysis that 4H is odds-against is also totally the wrong tangent. For example, if without UI South is a highly optimistic player, never scoring +170, then it is irrelevant that South after seeing all four hands can solemnly assert that game is against the odds. 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 Mon Sep 15 09:30:51 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:30:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080915172744.03330738@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 04:59 PM 15/09/2008, you wrote: > >South had not Alerted the 3H bid for fear of giving North > >UI. > > > >(Editor's Note: South is required to Alert North's > >conventional response even though North did not Alert > >South's call. While Alerting may provide UI to North and > >may restrict North's options, such is the fallout from an > >initial failure to Alert. If the opponents are damaged by > >this UI then the TD will adjust the score.) > >Richard Hills: > >It seems that the erroneous ideas of Herman De Wael can be >spontaneously and independently replicated. Perhaps, since >this is now proved to be a popular grass-roots fallacy, the >WBF Laws Committee should reconsider its earlier reluctance >to create a formal and written refutation. > At least there is none among us blml'ers who are not "full bottle" on the Official Interpretation. Perhaps this egregiously incorrect ruling will send a small message up the line at ACBL at least, Regards, Tony (Sydney) >Appeals Committee: > > >South's bridge logic was compelling. It is difficult to > >construct a North hand consistent with the authorized > >information that will produce a good play for game. Note > >that opener holds a maximum with three trump. None of his > >13 HCP were in jacks and his only queen was in a strong > >five-card suit headed by the ace. He held a top honor in > >trump, a ruffing value and no wastage in diamonds. With the > >jack of clubs instead of a small one or the king instead of > >the queen, many players would open with a strong 1NT. In > >addition, the hand lay extremely favorably for declarer. > >The club finesse was onside, the SA was positioned to give > >declarer an extra entry to hand, trumps split 3-2, diamonds > >were 5-2 rather than 6-1, and a diamond over-ruff would be > >in the hand with the long trump. With all that ten tricks > >still requires careful play. > >Richard Hills: > >In my opinion, the Appeals Committee went off on totally the >wrong tangent. The actual North hand was irrelevant. What >was relevant was the auction, the South hand, and how many >peers of South would punt 4H on what North had systemically >promised. > >And the Appeals Committee analysis that 4H is odds-against >is also totally the wrong tangent. > >For example, if without UI South is a highly optimistic >player, never scoring +170, then it is irrelevant that South >after seeing all four hands can solemnly assert that game is >against the odds. > > >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 Mon Sep 15 09:31:04 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:31:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CE0F38.2040204@NTLworld.com> [APPEAL NABC+ EIGHT quoted by Richard Hills] Subject Unauthorized Information (UI) DIC Henry Cukoff Event NABC+ Fast Open Pairs Session Second Qualifying Date July 24, 2008 BD# 5 Frank Leonard VUL N/S K94 DLR North A96 98 AQ842 Robert Todd Jenni Carmichael J632 AT75 J5 T73 KJT64 Q3 K9 JT53 Phoebe Packer Q8 KQ842 A752 76 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) Pass 2D (2) X 2H Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3H (4) Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 points (2) Announced as transfer to hearts (3) Not Alerted by agreement asks for more information (4) Not Alerted by agreement shows 13/14 and not 4 hearts Final Contract 3H by North Opening Lead DQ Table Result Making 3, N/S +140 Director Ruling 4H N, down 1, N/S -100 Committee Ruling 3H N, making 3, N/S +140 The Facts: The director was called after the opening lead. It was determined that the opening bidder showed three hearts by accepting the transfer over the double. The Ruling: There was UI available for South. Bidding 4H was a logical alternative to passing which was demonstrably suggested by the failure to Alert as partner may have forgotten the agreement and was turning down the invitation. Therefore, in accordance with Laws 16 and 12C2, the table result was adjusted to 4H by North, down one, N/S minus 100. The Appeal: The screening director stated that: At the end of the auction, South informed his opponents that there had been a failure to Alert. South's 2NT was an artificial game try. North's 3H showed a maximum with three trump . but not three good ones. South had not Alerted the 3H bid for fear of giving North UI. (Editor's Note: South is required to Alert North's conventional response even though North did not Alert South's call. While Alerting may provide UI to North and may restrict North's options, such is the fallout from an initial failure to Alert. If the opponents are damaged by this UI then the TD will adjust the score.) N/S stated that North's 2H bid over the double showed at least three trump; so, South's game try was made in that context. With the defense likely to get off to a good start by leading diamonds, with East in a position to over-ruff and the high card count borderline for game; South judged that North would need four trump for game to have a good play. Thus, she believed the pass was clear-cut. E/W said since South had tried for game and North had by agreement shown a maximum, they thought it was logical for South to continue to game. Her failure to do so could have been influenced by the absence of an Alert by North, which suggested that North intended to show a minimum with his 3H bid. The committee discovered that N/S have been partners for a long time. They changed agreements recently, however, and North is less comfortable with the system than South is. The Decision: UI was present, and it suggested passing. The committee focused on the question of whether bidding 4H was a logical alternative to passing 3H. South's bridge logic was compelling. It is difficult to construct a North hand consistent with the authorized information that will produce a good play for game. Note that opener holds a maximum with three trump. None of his 13 HCP were in jacks and his only queen was in a strong five-card suit headed by the ace. He held a top honor in trump, a ruffing value and no wastage in diamonds. With the jack of clubs instead of a small one or the king instead of the queen, many players would open with a strong 1NT. In addition, the hand lay extremely favorably for declarer. The club finesse was onside, the SA was positioned to give declarer an extra entry to hand, trumps split 3-2, diamonds were 5-2 rather than 6-1, and a diamond over-ruff would be in the hand with the long trump. With all that ten tricks still requires careful play. The committee determined that bidding 4H was not a logical alternative and restored the table result of 3H by South making three, N/S plus 140 and E/W minus 140. The Committee: Doug Doub (Chair), Dick Budd and Jim Thurtell [Nigel] South holds an 11 count with 2 doubletons, opposite a partner, who has advertised a 13-14 HCP and 3 card support. 4H appears to be an LA for South, notwithstanding that, in this instance, South may have demonstrated impeccable judgement. The unauthorised information, from North's failure to alert South's artificial 2N rebid, cast doubt on whether North had his bid. IMO, the UI demonstrably suggested South's pass rather than a raise to game. Thus, damaging East-West. Hence, the director's ruling seems correct, the committee's wrong. IMO the committee should have consulted a group of South's peers, rather than exercising their own expert judgement, illuminated by knowledge of the full deal. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 15 18:48:00 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:48:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CE91C0.9090504@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> But I _am_ abiding by the rules, as I interpret them. You >> may believe I am wrong, but I believe you are too, and >> there is really nothing to distinguish between us. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > I agree that my blml statements are often wrong, but they > are less wrong than Herman De Wael's statements, and that > is what distinguishes between us. > And why are you less wrong than I? Because I'm a Belgian? Sorry Richard, won't wash. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 15 18:54:41 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:54:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: <48C1125F.8090203@ulb.ac.be> <010f01c91107$ceadcdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C50B02.4060007@ulb.ac.be> <017901c9129d$da5e0510$0100a8c0@stefanie> <48C7933E.8010701@ulb.ac.be> <00b701c91336$a551c110$2e5f9951@stefanie> <48CD5E6E.7070806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48CE9351.6030003@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > There has been a lot of discussion of this already. People have different > answers. I think Stefanie argued that Law 16B1(a) applies, not only to > calls and plays, but to all actions. If so, it requires players to choose > from the LA's not suggested by an unexpected explanation or failure to > alert. (Of course she will have to argue with Richard Hills about Law20F4.) > An argument which has been often given, and which is completely wrong. Just read L16 agains and you'll see that it deals only with calls and plays, nothing else. > Hey, consider this auction: > > 1H P 3S(1) P > 4S(2) P 4NT(3) P > 5H(4) P 6H P > ?? > > (1) I meant as splinter, partner interpreted as spades, hence not alerted > (2) meant as spade support, interpreted as showing a spade control > (3) understood as RKC Blackwood by both players! > > Now, how should I explain the 5H bid? I can say "two conrols and denies > the queen of trump" or I can say "two controls and denies the queen of > hearts". It is very much to my advantage to give the first explanation. If > I give the second explanation, my partner is going to have to convert my > 6H bid to 6S. (This is a known fact.) If I give the first explanation, > then partner has no UI that a misunderstanding has occurred and she can > decide to pass 6H (which is what she did). > > So if these two explanations are LA's, and if Law 16B1(a) applies to > actions instead of just calls and plays, I have to give the second > explanation, because the first is suggested by the UI from her failure to > alert my 3S bid. > And for precisely that reason, you should NOT explain it like that. Explaining it like "the queen of hearts" is "indicating in any manner" that a mistake (the explanation of 3S) has been made. Of course, saying "the queen of trumps" while partner would expect you to say "the queen of spades" is still a little "indicating", but you might get away with it. If they ask what trumps is, you should say with an iron face: "spades". But they won't ask that, since 3S was not alerted, so they'll also think it's spades. Which is one reason why the dWS causes less problems: when they don't ask, you and I will have the same table outcome. If they do, MS result will be worse than dWS one. That creates an advantage for "askers". I don't think we should need to create advantages like that. > Or so the argument will go. > I realize, Robert, that I'm not argueing against you, only against those that haven't understood yet. Herman From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 15 10:40:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:40:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CE1F84.90105@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > BD# 5 Frank Leonard > VUL N/S K94 > DLR North A96 > 98 > AQ842 > Robert Todd Jenni Carmichael > J632 AT75 > J5 T73 > KJT64 Q3 > K9 JT53 > Phoebe Packer > Q8 > KQ842 > A752 > 76 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1NT(1) Pass 2D (2) > X 2H Pass 2NT(3) > Pass 3H (4) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) 12-14 points > (2) Announced as transfer to hearts > (3) Not Alerted by agreement asks for more information > (4) Not Alerted by agreement shows 13/14 and not 4 hearts > > Final Contract > 3H by North > > Opening Lead > DQ > > Table Result > Making 3, N/S +140 > > Director Ruling > 4H N, down 1, N/S -100 > > Committee Ruling > 3H N, making 3, N/S +14 > AG : this is a very interesting case, for several reasons. The first one is the apparent use of dWS by South. Notice that it was done at a time when it didn't help South, because any UI transferred to North by the use of MS principles would have been useless, the bidding being close. But perhaps South wasn't sure he would pass (if he bids 3NT, then UI might be important). > The Ruling: There was UI available for South. Bidding 4H > was a logical alternative to passing which was demonstrably > suggested by the failure to Alert as partner may have > forgotten the agreement and was turning down the > invitation. Therefore, in accordance with Laws 16 and 12C2, > the table result was adjusted to 4H by North, down one, N/S > minus 100. > > The Appeal: The screening director stated that: At the end > of the auction, South informed his opponents that there had > been a failure to Alert. South's 2NT was an artificial game > try. North's 3H showed a maximum with three trump . but not > three good ones. South had not Alerted the 3H bid for fear > of giving North UI. > > > E/W said since South had tried for game and North had by > agreement shown a maximum, they thought it was logical for > South to continue to game. Her failure to do so could have > been influenced by the absence of an Alert by North, which > suggested that North intended to show a minimum with his 3H > bid. > > AG : this is to be weighted against the fact that North's bid matched the system. South stopped in 3H, having received a correct description of partner's hand. Where's UI use ? > South's bridge logic was compelling. It is difficult to > construct a North hand consistent with the authorized > information that will produce a good play for game. Note > that opener holds a maximum with three trump. None of his > 13 HCP were in jacks and his only queen was in a strong > five-card suit headed by the ace. He held a top honor in > trump, a ruffing value and no wastage in diamonds. With the > jack of clubs instead of a small one or the king instead of > the queen, many players would open with a strong 1NT. In > addition, the hand lay extremely favorably for declarer. > The club finesse was onside, the SA was positioned to give > declarer an extra entry to hand, trumps split 3-2, diamonds > were 5-2 rather than 6-1, and a diamond over-ruff would be > in the hand with the long trump. With all that ten tricks > still requires careful play. > > The committee determined that bidding 4H was not a logical > alternative and restored the table result of 3H by South > making three, N/S plus 140 and E/W minus 140. > AG : that's well judged. There is no hint of UI use. And may I add that, if South asked rather than bashing 4H, it might be that he wanted to know how many hearts partner held. Notice that, even if using dWS here was of no help, we see its classical conclusion : yes, South gave MI for one moment, but this hadn't any influence on the deal, because he could correct it and duly did so. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 15 10:51:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:51:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CE0F38.2040204@NTLworld.com> References: <48CE0F38.2040204@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48CE220B.1060905@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nigel] > South holds an 11 count with 2 doubletons, opposite a partner, who has > advertised a 13-14 HCP and 3 card support. 4H appears to be an LA for > South, notwithstanding that, in this instance, South may have > demonstrated impeccable judgement. The unauthorised information, from > North's failure to alert South's artificial 2N rebid, cast doubt on > whether North had his bid. IMO, the UI demonstrably suggested South's > pass rather than a raise to game. Thus, damaging East-West. > Are you comfortable when declaring that South got UI that North didn't understand the 2NT bid, while in fact he did understand ? (if 2NT was natural, 3H wans't the right bid, with a maximum and a long suit) In many cases, blmlers have accepted the idea that a player's hand is a piece of evidence about how he understood the bidding, and now you're totally discarding it ? The only interpretation I can find of what happened at the table is that North forgot to alert, but knew where he was. This could be MI (although benign in this case), but hardly UI. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 15 20:34:08 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:34:08 -0700 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CEAAA0.6020701@skynet.be> Two totally separate points: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> South had not Alerted the 3H bid for fear of giving North >> UI. >> >> (Editor's Note: South is required to Alert North's >> conventional response even though North did not Alert >> South's call. While Alerting may provide UI to North and >> may restrict North's options, such is the fallout from an >> initial failure to Alert. If the opponents are damaged by >> this UI then the TD will adjust the score.) > > Richard Hills: > > It seems that the erroneous ideas of Herman De Wael can be > spontaneously and independently replicated. Perhaps, since > this is now proved to be a popular grass-roots fallacy, the > WBF Laws Committee should reconsider its earlier reluctance > to create a formal and written refutation. > It seems that the players have more confort for the dWS than most of the blml readers. Maybe that should teach those readers something. dWS is far more logical than any of you seem to think. > Appeals Committee: > >> South's bridge logic was compelling. It is difficult to >> construct a North hand consistent with the authorized >> information that will produce a good play for game. Note >> that opener holds a maximum with three trump. None of his >> 13 HCP were in jacks and his only queen was in a strong >> five-card suit headed by the ace. He held a top honor in >> trump, a ruffing value and no wastage in diamonds. With the >> jack of clubs instead of a small one or the king instead of >> the queen, many players would open with a strong 1NT. In >> addition, the hand lay extremely favorably for declarer. >> The club finesse was onside, the SA was positioned to give >> declarer an extra entry to hand, trumps split 3-2, diamonds >> were 5-2 rather than 6-1, and a diamond over-ruff would be >> in the hand with the long trump. With all that ten tricks >> still requires careful play. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, the Appeals Committee went off on totally the > wrong tangent. The actual North hand was irrelevant. What > was relevant was the auction, the South hand, and how many > peers of South would punt 4H on what North had systemically > promised. > I agree totally with Richard here. If West intended 2NT as an asking bid, then he should bid the game with an answer that shows the maximum. It is impossible to ask something and then still think game is not a LA. > And the Appeals Committee analysis that 4H is odds-against > is also totally the wrong tangent. > Indeed - the only thing that matters is whether East would bid the game without the UI. > For example, if without UI South is a highly optimistic > player, never scoring +170, then it is irrelevant that South > after seeing all four hands can solemnly assert that game is > against the odds. > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 15 12:21:52 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:21:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CEAAA0.6020701@skynet.be> References: <48CEAAA0.6020701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48CE3740.9000102@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> In my opinion, the Appeals Committee went off on totally the >> wrong tangent. The actual North hand was irrelevant. What >> was relevant was the auction, the South hand, and how many >> peers of South would punt 4H on what North had systemically >> promised. >> >> > > I agree totally with Richard here. If West intended 2NT as an asking > bid, then he should bid the game with an answer that shows the maximum. > It is impossible to ask something and then still think game is not a LA. > > AG : I don't agree. South learned that his partner had 3 trumps, not 4, and this, in a context where overruffs were a concern, was an important item of information. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Sep 15 12:57:28 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:57:28 EDT Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 15/09/2008 08:00:08 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: What was relevant was the auction, the South hand, and how many peers of South would punt 4H on what North had systemically promised. [paul lamford] "punt 4H" smacks of all the fact-twisting of the McCain-Palin campaign. Without that I agree with the rest of the sentence. A simulation showed that 4H only made 23% of the time opposite the authorised information of the North hand. We are not told that South was a punter, and indeed, I have found that bridge punters tend to be fairly timid, unlike their professional partners :) The authorised information would make me pass like a shot. Even though 2NT was not alerted, North's sign off in three hearts would show no interest in game in any system that I have ever come across. And why would South make a game-try, whatever it meant, and then bid on over preference to hearts? If South had bid game, and it had worked, then he or she would merit a maximum PP, as well as an adjusted score. It cannot be right when he makes the normal pass for it to be adjusted to 4H. I wholeheartedly agree with the decision of the AC, although not necessarily the way that they reached it. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Sep 15 13:09:45 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:09:45 EDT Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 15/09/2008 11:30:13 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: If West intended 2NT as an asking bid, then he should bid the game with an answer that shows the maximum. [paul lamford] We were told that 3H denied four hearts, so how can the answer have showed a maximum? Are you saying that 3H was forcing? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 15 13:21:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:21:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CE4526.3060008@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 15/09/2008 08:00:08 GMT Standard Time, > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > What was relevant was the auction, the South hand, and how many peers of > South would punt 4H on what North had systemically promised. > > [paul lamford] "punt 4H" smacks of all the fact-twisting of the McCain-Palin > campaign. Without that I agree with the rest of the sentence. A simulation > showed that 4H only made 23% of the time opposite the authorised information > of the North hand. > > We are not told that South was a punter, and indeed, I have found that > bridge punters tend to be fairly timid, unlike their professional partners :) The > authorised information would make me pass like a shot. Even though 2NT was > not alerted, North's sign off in three hearts would show no interest in game in > any system that I have ever come across. And why would South make a game-try, > whatever it meant, and then bid on over preference to hearts? > AG : I think you misread the case, Paul. The systemic information is that partner has a maximum and so-so fit in hearts. The UI from his non-alert is that he could have a minimum. We have to decide whether South is allowed to pass, that is, whether a pass is clearcut given the systemic information. I'm glad to hear it is, according to simulations, but your last phrase about partner holding a minimum is using UI. However, I'm ready to accept South's statement that he'd only bid 4H facing a maximum and four trumps. That would be a rreason for asking. And it seems to be a right assessment of his hand's value. I'm keen on that point, because it nearly matches my system (only, 2S would be the asking bid) and that's how I would bid. Remember, you have to ask South's peers, people who use such a system. Best regards Alain From Gampas at aol.com Mon Sep 15 13:52:08 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:52:08 EDT Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 15/09/2008 12:26:21 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: AG : I think you misread the case, Paul. The systemic information is that partner has a maximum and so-so fit in hearts.The UI from his non-alert is that he could have a minimum. [paul lamford] No I read it correctly. I presume, although we are not told, that pass instead of 2H on the previous round would be exactly three hearts. We are not told what redouble would be, so we will assume it is undiscussed. Off topic, I think it should be three hearts and a desire to compete to the three level if they bid on. If that is their method, it would make bidding four hearts now utterly absurd. So we know partner has three or four hearts, and 12-14, and we ask, and are disappointed to learn that he has only three, and this is much worse, after 2D was doubled, than four. We will have to draw trumps to avoid diamond ruffs. The gain from his not having a 12 count is far far less significant. Changing the North hand to 12 with four hearts made game around 68%. There is an incomparable difference. As Andrew Robson has often written the ninth trump is vital, but even more so here, as partner is likely to have a doubleton diamond, or maybe be 4-3-3-3. The authorised information here makes it easy. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 15 22:58:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:58:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CE3740.9000102@ulb.ac.be> References: <48CEAAA0.6020701@skynet.be> <48CE3740.9000102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48CECC8A.6040303@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> In my opinion, the Appeals Committee went off on totally the >>> wrong tangent. The actual North hand was irrelevant. What >>> was relevant was the auction, the South hand, and how many >>> peers of South would punt 4H on what North had systemically >>> promised. >>> >>> >> I agree totally with Richard here. If West intended 2NT as an asking >> bid, then he should bid the game with an answer that shows the maximum. >> It is impossible to ask something and then still think game is not a LA. >> >> > AG : I don't agree. South learned that his partner had 3 trumps, not 4, > and this, in a context where overruffs were a concern, was an important > item of information. > > OK, I'm inclined to go with you on matters of bridge technique. However: did East/West present that piece of evidence to the AC? It's very easy to do so: "I was asking 2NT in order to hear if partner has 3 or 4 hearts, and since he told me only 3, I passed 3H". And then it's up to the AC to decide if this is true. It's not up to the AC to rule what they would have done, only if 4H were a logical alternative. It seems to me that if a player asks about something, and there are 4 possible answers, then on a double maximum, it is criminal to pass, and on a double minimum, it seems there is no LA to bidding on. On a divided min/max, there have to be LAs. But as I said, I bow to your bridge knowledge and would not vote against you after you've listened to my reasoning. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 15 13:49:11 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:49:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'De Wael School' Message-ID: <003f01c9172c$efb00560$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004101c9172c$f0331810$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >> There is never any "punishment", let alone rectification, for creation >> of UI. Would you care to point out where the creation of UI ever leads >> to score correction? It is only the _use_ of UI that leads to score >> correction. >> > > Herman > Indeed Matthias, but being prevented from taking the right action is a > punishment for the UI, not for the using UI, since you would not be > doing so. You have a lesser score nevertheless, and this solely by the > creation of the UI. > +=+ The phrase to look at carefully here is "the right action". This is not synonymous with 'the correct action'. The argument pretends to substitute the 'right' action, that is to say an idiosyncratic opinion that an individual argues to be less objectionable, in place of the 'correct' action predicated by the proper authorized interpretation of the law. The WBF Code of Practice defines the relevant interpretation of law in this regard. I quote : "A player who, without design*, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." On the other hand a player who fails to explain a partnership understanding as Law 40B6 requires commits an evident infraction of law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (* a player who gives an explanation as required by law does not do so with design to convey the UI. Any UI conveyed is incidental to the compliance with law.) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 15 14:11:05 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:11:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CEAAA0.6020701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004001c9172c$eff069c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Appeals Committee: >> >>> South's bridge logic was compelling. It is difficult to >>> construct a North hand consistent with the authorized >>> information that will produce a good play for game. Note >>> that opener holds a maximum with three trump. None of his >>> 13 HCP were in jacks and his only queen was in a strong >>> five-card suit headed by the ace. He held a top honor in >>> trump, a ruffing value and no wastage in diamonds. With the >>> jack of clubs instead of a small one or the king instead of >>> the queen, many players would open with a strong 1NT. In >>> addition, the hand lay extremely favorably for declarer. >>> The club finesse was onside, the SA was positioned to give >>> declarer an extra entry to hand, trumps split 3-2, diamonds >>> were 5-2 rather than 6-1, and a diamond over-ruff would be >>> in the hand with the long trump. With all that ten tricks >>> still requires careful play. >> +=+ If I understand correctly the Appeals Committee decided that the 4H bid was not a logical alternative, or if it was then it was not suggested more than the Pass by the UI (which was agreed to exist). Am I right in thinking this was under the 1997 Code of Laws in which there is no definition of 'logical alternative'? There is a lot in the AC argument cited above that is entirely irrelevant - all the discussion about the actual cards and the lie of the cards. The question of whether 4H is a logical alternative is to be judged in the bidding situation, blind to all but 13 cards. (I am not saying the AC misjudged this - I make no comment on that. I am pointing to the risk of being influenced in that judgement by the post hoc view of the actual cards.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 15 14:30:27 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:30:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <009201c9172f$44bd53d0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In a message dated 15/09/2008 11:30:13 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: If West intended 2NT as an asking bid, then he should bid the game with an answer that shows the maximum. > [paul lamford] We were told that 3H denied four hearts, so how can the answer have showed a maximum? Are you saying that 3H was forcing? +=+ It would be interesting to know precisely what were the methods of the partnership under scrutiny. Did the enquiry specifically ask about the number of hearts, specifically ask about high card strength, or less specifically ask partner to judge the general value of his hand? And in answer to the question put, what did the response say? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 15 14:35:10 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:35:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> There is never any "punishment", let alone rectification, for creation >> of UI. Would you care to point out where the creation of UI ever leads >> to score correction? It is only the _use_ of UI that leads to score >> correction. >> > > Indeed Matthias, but being prevented from taking the right action is a > punishment for the UI, not for the using UI, since you would not be > doing so. You have a lesser score nevertheless, and this solely by the > creation of the UI. > > Herman. > Why should my score necessarily be worse by keeping to the rules? And even if it is, so what? We play by the rules. Where is the problem? Best regards Matthias From Gampas at aol.com Mon Sep 15 13:53:37 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:53:37 EDT Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 15/09/2008 12:26:21 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: AG : I think you misread the case, Paul. The systemic information is that partner has a maximum and so-so fit in hearts.The UI from his non-alert is that he could have a minimum. [paul lamford] No I read it correctly. I presume, although we are not told, that pass instead of 2H on the previous round would be exactly TWO hearts. We are not told what redouble would be, so we will assume it is undiscussed. Off topic, I think it should be three hearts and a desire to compete to the three level if they bid on. If that is their method, it would make bidding four hearts now utterly absurd. So we know partner has three or four hearts, and 12-14, and we ask, and are disappointed to learn that he has only three, and this is much worse, after 2D was doubled, than four. We will have to draw trumps to avoid diamond ruffs. The gain from his not having a 12 count is far far less significant. Changing the North hand to 12 with four hearts made game around 68%. There is an incomparable difference. As Andrew Robson has often written the ninth trump is vital, but even more so here, as partner is likely to have a doubleton diamond, or maybe be 4-3-3-3. The authorised information here makes it easy. Sorry repeated the message, as I made an important error, in capitals. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080915/ce7d6f2f/attachment.htm From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Sep 15 15:16:05 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:16:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CE6015.7050300@NTLworld.com> [Paul Lamford] So we know partner has three or four hearts, and 12-14, and we ask, and are disappointed to learn that he has only three, and this is much worse, after 2D was doubled, than four. We will have to draw trumps to avoid diamond ruffs. The gain from his not having a 12 count is far far less significant. Changing the North hand to 12 with four hearts made game around 68%. There is an incomparable difference. As Andrew Robson has often written the ninth trump is vital, but even more so here, as partner is likely to have a doubleton diamond, or maybe be 4-3-3-3. The authorised information here makes it easy. [Nige1] Nobody doubts the analytical powers of Paul or the committee. What matters are - the systemic meaning of the auction. (As Grattan points out, this does not seem to have been fully established). - Logical alternatives, as judged by South's *peers*. (Neither the director nor the committee appear to have investigated this). Amusingly, as the cards lie, with the right views, 4H is a lucky make. (Duck DQ, win DA, ruff a diamond high, return to hand with HQ, ruff a diamond with H9 (over-ruffed to stop the overtrick), Win the return, enter hand in spades, draw trumps, and take the club finesse. Losing 1 spade, 1 heart and 1 diamond. How should that affect the ruling? Should South argue, that if he had bid 4H, then North would have made it? If the director respects North, should he give a large weight to 4H=, when considering redress? From Gampas at aol.com Mon Sep 15 15:31:30 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:31:30 EDT Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 15/09/2008 14:17:47 GMT Standard Time, Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes: [Giving correct analysis that 4H would make with best play] How should that affect the ruling? Should South argue, that if he had bid 4H, then North would have made it? If the director respects North, should he give a large weight to 4H=, when considering redress? [paul lamford] If the AC were to decide that 4H was an LA *demonstrably* suggested by the UI, then they would assign a weighted score which reflects the probability of 4H making, and this would need to be less than the effect of leaving the score unchanged. I agree with Grattan in another response that we need to know the methods here. I would suggest that they are something like the following, as we know what one of them means: 3C = Minimum with 3 hearts; 3D = Minimum with 4 hearts; 3H = Maximum with 3 hearts and 3S = Maximum with 4 hearts. On the basis that the one that bypasses 3H would be the highest, Ogust-style. I would, on this hand, regard 4H as the only LA if partner bid 3D, and Pass as the only LA if partner bid 3H. But then I have had the benefit of runnning simulations, which the player did not have at the table. I have no idea how peers of this South would behave - but we must not assume they would make a seemingly incorrect punt. And I agree that the analysis by the AC of how lucky a make 4H is was completely irrelevant. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 15 15:14:56 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:14:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CE5FD0.9080503@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 15/09/2008 12:26:21 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be > writes: > > AG : I think you misread the case, Paul. The systemic information is that > partner has a maximum and so-so fit in hearts.The UI from his non-alert is that > he could have a minimum. > > [paul lamford] > No I read it correctly. I presume, although we are not told, that pass > instead of 2H on the previous round would be exactly three hearts. IIRC, 2H showed 3+ (that's standard) and presumably pass shows less (or less playability). > We are not told > what redouble would be, so we will assume it is undiscussed. Off topic, I > think it should be three hearts and a desire to compete to the three level if > they bid on. If that is their method, it would make bidding four hearts now > utterly absurd. > That's an interesting point. Indeed, we can't decide 10% on what's suggested unless all possible options were described. However, we can still rely on the systemic description of 3H. > > So we know partner has three or four hearts, and 12-14, and we ask, and are > disappointed to learn that he has only three, and this is much worse, after 2D > was doubled, than four. We will have to draw trumps to avoid diamond ruffs. > The gain from his not having a 12 count is far far less significant. Changing > the North hand to 12 with four hearts made game around 68%. There is an > incomparable difference. As Andrew Robson has often written the ninth trump is > vital, but even more so here, as partner is likely to have a doubleton diamond, > or maybe be 4-3-3-3. The authorised information here makes it easy. > > > AG : I can't agree more, and would like to read what those who wrote 4H is a standout have to say against this. It remembers me of a not-to-old deal : Q9xxxx xx xx AQx pass 1D* 1S 2S** 2NT*** 3H**** 3S pass * natural & unbalanced ** often 3-card raise (but then not too minimum, as could have passed) *** asks for further description **** maximum ; exactly 3 spades ; singleton club (3451, 3361, 3460) - He tells you he owns a maximum and you're stopping ? What on Earth did you expect ? - Some other pattern. Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 15 15:36:43 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:36:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: > >>I can say "two controls and denies the queen of trump" or I >>can say "two controls and denies the queen of hearts". It >>is very much to my advantage to give the first explanation. > But your agreement is that 5H shows 2 of 5 and denies the Queen of trump. It's how you discussd it. You didn't say "if D are trump it shows 2/5 and denies DQ" etc. It would be an unnecessary creation of UI to say "Queen of Grapes". John > Law 40B6(a): > > "...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed > to him through partnership agreement..." > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC > respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The > official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's > website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 15 15:17:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:17:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004001c9172c$eff069c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48CEAAA0.6020701@skynet.be> <004001c9172c$eff069c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48CE6057.9090008@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ If I understand correctly the Appeals Committee decided > that the 4H bid was not a logical alternative, or if it was then it > was not suggested more than the Pass by the UI (which was > agreed to exist). Am I right in thinking this was under the 1997 > Code of Laws in which there is no definition of 'logical alternative'? > There is a lot in the AC argument cited above that is entirely > irrelevant - all the discussion about the actual cards and the lie of > the cards. The question of whether 4H is a logical alternative is to > be judged in the bidding situation, blind to all but 13 cards. (I am > not saying the AC misjudged this - I make no comment on that. I > am pointing to the risk of being influenced in that judgement by the > post hoc view of the actual cards.) > AG : agreed. But they still need to look at the actual hand, because it's a serious hint that North's problem was merely that he forgot to alert, not that he misconstructed the meaning of 3H. In which case UI from him not alerting weakiens considerably. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 15 15:37:21 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:37:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card In-Reply-To: <001801c916d4$eacb4e40$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <001801c916d4$eacb4e40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:44 PM, Grattan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > >> Law 40B1(a), first sentence: >> >> "In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate >> certain partnership understandings as 'special partnership >> understandings'." >> >> Eric Landau asserted: >> >>> L40B1 gives the RA carte blanche to designate any >>> understanding it chooses as a "special partnership >>> understanding". Which means that an RA can effectively >>> decree L40A to be "not worth the paper on which it was >>> written". >> >> [snip] >> >>> Power granted inevitably becomes power used. >> >> Richard Hills quibbles: >> >> If the first sentence of Law 40B1(a) was the only sentence >> of Law 40B1(a), then Eric Landau's "carte blanche" assertion >> would be correct. But... >> >> Law 40B1(a), second sentence: >> >> "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, >> in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be >> readily understood and anticipated by a significant number >> of players in the tournament." >> >> Richard Hills quibbles: >> >> If an RA arbitrarily defined a 16-18 1NT opening as an SPU, >> their cart would be blanched by a real-life court ruling >> that the RA had recklessly formed an opinion about what >> would be readily understood and anticipated by the players >> in the tournament. > > +=+ Unless perhaps 1NT openers in a particular tournament are > almost universally expected to be 12-14 HCP when perhaps the > RA might think a 16-18 1NT would not be anticipated readily > and might present that case. To whom, that? The law establishes neither requirement nor mecahnism for them to "present that case" to anyone other than themselves, nor any provision for challenging whatever decision they make. A "real- life court ruling" is an interesting thought experiment, but lacks any connection to reality. The inescapable truth is that they get to do whatever they please. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 15 15:25:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:25:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48CE6267.7080308@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >>> There is never any "punishment", let alone rectification, for creation >>> of UI. Would you care to point out where the creation of UI ever leads >>> to score correction? It is only the _use_ of UI that leads to score >>> correction. >>> >>> >> Indeed Matthias, but being prevented from taking the right action is a >> punishment for the UI, not for the using UI, since you would not be >> doing so. You have a lesser score nevertheless, and this solely by the >> creation of the UI. >> >> Herman. >> >> > > Why should my score necessarily be worse by keeping to the rules? And > even if it is, so what? We play by the rules. Where is the problem? > AG : the problem is that, if the players' spontaneous logic is that dWS makes less of a mess of the deal, as I told you last week, the attitude of adaptating the rules to this logic seems to some of us better than that of adaptating the logic to the rules. There is a debate on a similar subject in Brussels : are you allowed to position your car on zebra marks in order to see whether a vehicle comes to which you have to give way ? The Law says you aren't allowed to stop on zebra marks, and it tells nothing about where you should stop to give way (absent any marks to that effect). Whence you must act dangerously, by stopping at a point where you don't see anything. Some have stated that the Law, not the drivers' actions, needs to be changed, but they aren't heard yet. I hope they will eventually be heard, as will be dWS exponents. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 15 15:37:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:37:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CECC8A.6040303@skynet.be> References: <48CEAAA0.6020701@skynet.be> <48CE3740.9000102@ulb.ac.be> <48CECC8A.6040303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48CE650B.2060403@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>>> In my opinion, the Appeals Committee went off on totally the >>>> wrong tangent. The actual North hand was irrelevant. What >>>> was relevant was the auction, the South hand, and how many >>>> peers of South would punt 4H on what North had systemically >>>> promised. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I agree totally with Richard here. If West intended 2NT as an asking >>> bid, then he should bid the game with an answer that shows the maximum. >>> It is impossible to ask something and then still think game is not a LA. >>> >>> >>> >> AG : I don't agree. South learned that his partner had 3 trumps, not 4, >> and this, in a context where overruffs were a concern, was an important >> item of information. >> >> >> > > OK, I'm inclined to go with you on matters of bridge technique. > However: did East/West present that piece of evidence to the AC? > It's very easy to do so: > "I was asking 2NT in order to hear if partner has 3 or 4 hearts, and > since he told me only 3, I passed 3H". > And then it's up to the AC to decide if this is true. > AG : indeed. The first thing is to determine whether the explanation for the 3H bid is correct. Did they have system notes ? We weren't told that, but if their system is so sophisticated, they probably did. The second thing, not to be confused with the first one, is to check whether the reasons given for passing 3H could be self-serving. I think that those who answer a firm aye, because "a maximum should yield a game", are wrong, as Paul has well explained : the max / min distinction is, in this case, less important than the 3 / 4 cards distinction, so the claim that "there have to be LAs on divided min/max" is questionable. But obviously the case isn't obvious at all. So, the best thing to do for an AC would be to ask some players who are accustomed to such methods what they would have bid (3NT, anyone ?). As usual, they seem not to have done this. Best regards alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 15 16:17:37 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:17:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59E5E033-0ED7-4A62-8823-67192727724D@starpower.net> On Sep 15, 2008, at 9:36 AM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: >>> I can say "two controls and denies the queen of trump" or I >>> can say "two controls and denies the queen of hearts". It >>> is very much to my advantage to give the first explanation. > > But your agreement is that 5H shows 2 of 5 and denies the Queen of > trump. > It's how you discussd it. You didn't say "if D are trump it shows > 2/5 and > denies DQ" etc. It would be an unnecessary creation of UI to say > "Queen of > Grapes". In a regular partnership, I will have had explicit discussion of what suit (or suits!) is treated as "trumps" for key-card Blackwood, and would consider this information to which the opponents are entitled as part of an explanation of partner's reply to 4NT. But in a more casual partnership, our discussed agreement would be "two controls and the queen of whatever you think trumps are", and I can see no rationale for the opponents to be told anything more than our exact and complete agreement verbatim. Sometimes the correct explanation or your agreements has less to do with the technical requirements of the disclosure laws than with the non-trivial question of what your agreements actually are. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 15 16:33:49 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:33:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card References: <001801c916d4$eacb4e40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <005401c91740$153aa340$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] WBF System Card > On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:44 PM, Grattan wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> >>> Law 40B1(a), first sentence: >>> >>> "In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate >>> certain partnership understandings as 'special partnership >>> understandings'." >>> >>> Eric Landau asserted: >>> >>>> L40B1 gives the RA carte blanche to designate any >>>> understanding it chooses as a "special partnership >>>> understanding". Which means that an RA can effectively >>>> decree L40A to be "not worth the paper on which it was >>>> written". >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Power granted inevitably becomes power used. >>> >>> Richard Hills quibbles: >>> >>> If the first sentence of Law 40B1(a) was the only sentence >>> of Law 40B1(a), then Eric Landau's "carte blanche" assertion >>> would be correct. But... >>> >>> Law 40B1(a), second sentence: >>> >>> "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, >>> in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be >>> readily understood and anticipated by a significant number >>> of players in the tournament." >>> >>> Richard Hills quibbles: >>> >>> If an RA arbitrarily defined a 16-18 1NT opening as an SPU, >>> their cart would be blanched by a real-life court ruling >>> that the RA had recklessly formed an opinion about what >>> would be readily understood and anticipated by the players >>> in the tournament. >> >> +=+ Unless perhaps 1NT openers in a particular tournament are >> almost universally expected to be 12-14 HCP when perhaps the >> RA might think a 16-18 1NT would not be anticipated readily >> and might present that case. > > To whom, that? The law establishes neither requirement nor mecahnism > for them to "present that case" to anyone other than themselves, nor > any provision for challenging whatever decision they make. A "real- > life court ruling" is an interesting thought experiment, but lacks > any connection to reality. The inescapable truth is that they get to > do whatever they please. > +=+ I was responding to the earlier email postulating reference to "a real-life court ruling" . Of course, in these days of Committees of Arbitration in Sport it is not everywhere nor in all things the case that any idea of such intervention "lacks any connection to reality". It could be some places are a tad ahead of the ACBL in this area. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 15 16:40:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:40:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 In-Reply-To: <48CE6057.9090008@ulb.ac.be> References: <48CEAAA0.6020701@skynet.be> <004001c9172c$eff069c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48CE6057.9090008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5D3BE963-64E3-483B-B4C5-0D635269BC30@starpower.net> On Sep 15, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Grattan a ?crit : > >> +=+ If I understand correctly the Appeals Committee decided >> that the 4H bid was not a logical alternative, or if it was then it >> was not suggested more than the Pass by the UI (which was >> agreed to exist). Am I right in thinking this was under the 1997 >> Code of Laws in which there is no definition of 'logical >> alternative'? >> There is a lot in the AC argument cited above that is entirely >> irrelevant - all the discussion about the actual cards and the lie of >> the cards. The question of whether 4H is a logical alternative is to >> be judged in the bidding situation, blind to all but 13 cards. (I am >> not saying the AC misjudged this - I make no comment on that. I >> am pointing to the risk of being influenced in that judgement by the >> post hoc view of the actual cards.) > > AG : agreed. But they still need to look at the actual hand, because > it's a serious hint that North's problem was merely that he forgot to > alert, not that he misconstructed the meaning of 3H. In which case UI > from him not alerting weakiens considerably. Is that true? I thought we had concluded in an earlier thread that the judgment as to what "could demonstrably have been suggested... by the extraneous information" depended entirely on the table action and the EI-recipient's holding, and was to be made without regard to the EI-provider's actual holding. Am I mistaken? As I recall, we needed this principle to justify our conclusion on the thread problem, in which a player in receipt of presumptive UI that appeared to suggest that his partner held a maximum bid a game on a questionable hand; it turned out that partner held a minimum and game was near-certain to go down, but wound up making on an extraordinarily unlikely lie of the cards, and we concluded that this did indeed constitute "damage" subject to adjustment. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 15 16:49:29 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:49:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <019801c91742$425aff30$f45d9951@stefanie> > Robert Frick: > >>I can say "two controls and denies the queen of trump" or I >>can say "two controls and denies the queen of hearts". It >>is very much to my advantage to give the first explanation. > The auction is not yet finished, so there is not yet a trump suit. How on earth can you give the first explanation? It is normal here to tell the suit in which the queen has been denied. And deliberately trying to hide whatever the system dictates is the RKCB suit is against at least the spirit (if not the letter) of full disclosure. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 02:41:49 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:41:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] 'De Wael School' In-Reply-To: <003f01c9172c$efb00560$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <003f01c9172c$efb00560$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48CF00CD.9010800@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "He is very fond of making things which > he does not want, and then giving them > to people who have no use for them." > [Sir Anthony Hope Hawkins] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > (Herman) > It seems that the players have more comfort for > the dWS than most of the blml readers. Maybe > that should teach those readers something. > dWS is far more logical than any of you seem > to think. > < > +=+ Herman is fully entitled to argue logic and > desirability. He did not persuade the 2007 Laws > Drafting Subcommittee, and he is not entitled to > suggest that, contrary to official guidance, the > laws may be interpreted in the way he argues to > be desirable. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > At some point, I shall publish the something like 10 arguments pro dWS that I have so far counted. Really there are no arguments contra. To continue to say, in the face of all the arguments, that one law is stronger than some other, simply because that's the way it is, is beyond reason. Herman. From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 15 18:15:18 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:15:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented References: <59E5E033-0ED7-4A62-8823-67192727724D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <35358CF327F341648B977E848C0D5EE2@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented > On Sep 15, 2008, at 9:36 AM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: > >>>> I can say "two controls and denies the queen of trump" or I >>>> can say "two controls and denies the queen of hearts". It >>>> is very much to my advantage to give the first explanation. >> >> But your agreement is that 5H shows 2 of 5 and denies the Queen of >> trump. >> It's how you discussd it. You didn't say "if D are trump it shows >> 2/5 and >> denies DQ" etc. It would be an unnecessary creation of UI to say >> "Queen of >> Grapes". > > In a regular partnership, I will have had explicit discussion of what > suit (or suits!) is treated as "trumps" for key-card Blackwood, and > would consider this information to which the opponents are entitled > as part of an explanation of partner's reply to 4NT. point well made. John But in a more > casual partnership, our discussed agreement would be "two controls > and the queen of whatever you think trumps are", and I can see no > rationale for the opponents to be told anything more than our exact > and complete agreement verbatim. > > Sometimes the correct explanation or your agreements has less to do > with the technical requirements of the disclosure laws than with the > non-trivial question of what your agreements actually are. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 05:10:37 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:10:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> There is never any "punishment", let alone rectification, for creation >>> of UI. Would you care to point out where the creation of UI ever leads >>> to score correction? It is only the _use_ of UI that leads to score >>> correction. >>> >> Indeed Matthias, but being prevented from taking the right action is a >> punishment for the UI, not for the using UI, since you would not be >> doing so. You have a lesser score nevertheless, and this solely by the >> creation of the UI. >> >> Herman. >> > > Why should my score necessarily be worse by keeping to the rules? And > even if it is, so what? We play by the rules. Where is the problem? > You misunderstood Matthias. If we are playing together, and I avoid giving you UI, you are free to act - and you usually act correctly, and achieve a reasonable score. But if I give you UI, and you don't use it (which of course you don't), you will make an inferior call and we will reach a lower score. That way, it is the giving of the UI that has created our worse score - not your non-use of it. So while it is true that giving UI is not against the laws, it is still a bad idea, since your score will be badly affected! > Best regards > Matthias > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 05:13:09 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:13:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004101c9172c$f0331810$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <004101c9172c$f0331810$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48CF2445.2070109@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > The WBF Code of Practice defines the relevant interpretation > of law in this regard. I quote : "A player who, without design*, makes > unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an > infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a > breach of the laws." > On the other hand a player who fails to explain a partnership > understanding as Law 40B6 requires commits an evident infraction > of law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > (* a player who gives an explanation as required by law does not > do so with design to convey the UI. Any UI conveyed is incidental > to the compliance with law.) > > Grattan, even if you believe that giving UI is not an infraction, the player is still breaking L20F5a. That is still an infraction! From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 05:15:05 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:15:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CF24B9.7010307@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> I can say "two controls and denies the queen of trump" or I >>> can say "two controls and denies the queen of hearts". It >>> is very much to my advantage to give the first explanation. > > But your agreement is that 5H shows 2 of 5 and denies the Queen of trump. > It's how you discussd it. You didn't say "if D are trump it shows 2/5 and > denies DQ" etc. It would be an unnecessary creation of UI to say "Queen of > Grapes". > Nevertheless John, it would be MI. The fact that you can, in this case, hide your MI in such a way that it becomes no UI (yet) is unimportant in this whole discussion - the opponent merely needs to ask "and what are grumps?" and you are back in the shit. > John > Herman. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 15 21:30:25 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:30:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be><48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <02c701c91769$81259aa0$f45d9951@stefanie> > If we are playing together, and I avoid giving you UI, you are free to > act - and you usually act correctly, and achieve a reasonable score. > But if I give you UI, and you don't use it (which of course you don't), > you will make an inferior call and we will reach a lower score. > That way, it is the giving of the UI that has created our worse score - > not your non-use of it. > > So while it is true that giving UI is not against the laws, it is still > a bad idea, since your score will be badly affected! Herman, you know perfectly well that the point of full disclosure is to protect our opponents, not to protect our side's score. If we have given MI, and this results in UI, and our score is damaged, it is OK. Stefanie Rohan London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 15 22:07:36 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:07:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CF24B9.7010307@skynet.be> References: <48CF24B9.7010307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c9176e$b3c73c70$1b55b550$@com> [HdW] the opponent merely needs to ask "and what are grumps?" [DALB] That's easy. Grumps are people who refuse to see any merit whatsoever in the dWS. >and you are back in the shit [DALB] This sentence contains a four-letter word to which I take exception. I would prefer "still" to "back". David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 15 22:12:44 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:12:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CF2445.2070109@skynet.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <004101c9172c$f0331810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48CF2445.2070109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c9176f$6c76bf20$45643d60$@com> [HdW] Grattan, even if you believe that giving UI is not an infraction, the player is still breaking L20F5a. That is still an infraction! [DALB] The WBF Code of Practice quoted by Grattan makes it clear that, as I have suggested in the past, explaining the methods to the opponents is not considered an indication to partner (who is in duty bound to act as though he had not heard them, at least for as long as the auction is in progress). Wherefore there is no infraction of Law 20F5a in providing correct explanations of the partnership agreement. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 15 22:59:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:59:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael Message-ID: Well, guess what subject has reappeared on BLML, like a zombie rising from the dead? I'm afraid it's dWS time again, folks. But maybe, just maybe, we needn't all crank up our killfiles again, maybe we can have a rational discussion. All that will take is an agreement as to what we're debating about. The "dWS" is an alternative approach to disclosure; we all know by now what it entails. It is patently not without merit. A number of thoughtful and serious members of this forum are prepared to argue that the dWS is superior to the accepted protocol for disclosure, and therefore its use should be made at least legal, if not mandatory. I happen to disagree (as of now), but believe that this is definitely a discussion worth having. But we will not have it if, as has been the case in the past, Herman insists on hijacking the discussion by sheer volume of noise into a debate over his ridiculous and insupportable assertion that the dWS *is* legal under current law, an assertion which has been repeatedly and unanimously contradicted by every member of this forum who was in any way involved in writing the current laws. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that anyone in this forum other than Herman, no matter how committed they may be to the merits of dWS-style disclosure, believes this assertion. Which is why they continue to slap at Herman when he repeats this crap for the 7000th time (it is not, as Herman has suggested, just because he is Belgian). So let us make a pact among us, that anyone's future attempt to assert the *current legality* of the dWS will be simply ignored, neither replied to nor commented on. And then, perhaps, we can get on with a civil and sensible discussion of the theoretical and practical advantages of the dWS approach to disclosure, without the noise and rancor that have driven us to our killfiles in the past. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 16 00:22:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:22:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Lone wereWolff (was L25B) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Walt Whitman (1819-1892): Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) "The Lone Wolff", author Bobby Wolff, page 236: The decision made on that specific board would not affect the field, so it would be scored as played. However, hesitation disruptions must be stopped to avoid giving the huddling side unfair advantage. So, after the scores are entered, a serious procedural penalty at the discretion of the director (half a board, a whole board?) is taken off the offenders' score at the end of the game. Thus justice is served - and hesitation disruption will soon disappear from the bridge scene because of the harsh loss it entails! WBF Code of Practice, co-author Bobby Wolff, page 6: A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. WBF Code of Practice, co-author Bobby Wolff, page 7: It is important to keep in mind which member of the partnership has the unauthorized information and to consider only that player's actions when following the path to a judgement. A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws. WBF Code of Practice, co-author Bobby Wolff, page 9: A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a violation of the laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeal committee awards a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has been violated. Richard Hills: Earlier this month at the Asian Cup I had a face-to-face meeting with another co-author of the WBF CoP, WBF Vice- President John Wignall. In our brief social get-together I was able to tell he had a charming manner and subtle mind, so I could understand how John Wignall successfully herded cats in his more recent role as Chairman of the Laws Drafting Committee. (And, to pre-empt a possible grumble from Nigel Guthrie, John Wignall is not merely a bridge administrator but also a fine bridge player. John won Melbourne's most prestigious open teams event this year, the Victor Champion Cup, plus John's team in the open division of the Asian Cup very nearly reached the semi-finals.) 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 Sep 16 00:56:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:56:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CE91C0.9090504@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills quibbles: >>>I agree that my blml statements are often wrong, but they >>>are less wrong than Herman De Wael's statements, and that >>>is what distinguishes between us. Herman De Wael questions "Why?": >>And why are you less wrong than I? Because I'm a Belgian? >>Sorry Richard, won't wash. Jerry Fusselman advises: >An accurate paraphrase is often better than a direct quote. >I have been quoted several times on BLML inaccurately, and a >few times with key parts of the sentence rather despicably >removed to completely change the meaning. Three paragraphs (HDW despicably removed?) answering "Why?": The two statements "the Earth is a sphere" and "the Earth is flat" are both wrong. This is because the Earth is actually a slightly irregular oblate spheroid. So the statement "the Earth is a sphere" is _less_ wrong than "the Earth is flat", and that is what distinguishes between the two worldviews. As Grattan Endicott noted earlier, opinions are to be qualitatively weighed, not arithmetically added. Since Herman De Wael's flat Earth beliefs about Law interpretation are very often contrary to the oblate spheroid beliefs of the _authors_ of the Lawbook (large numbers of anti-dWS blml postings by Lawbook authors Endicott, Kooijman and Schoder), that is what distinguishes between the lightweight opinions of Herman De Wael and, for example, the heavyweight opinions of Matthias Berghaus. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6 (first three sentences only, plus my emphasis added): "The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed **anxiety** lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present **strange opinions**. The Secretary supported the Chairman in what he had said." 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 Sep 16 01:20:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:20:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >We are not told that South was a punter, and indeed, I >have found that bridge punters tend to be fairly timid, >unlike their professional partners :) Richard Hills: Another example of two nations divided by a common language. What English experts label a "punter", Aussie experts label a "sponsor". What Aussie experts label a "punter", English experts would label an "optimist" or perhaps a "MadDog". :-) The Aussie word "punter" perhaps comes from the uniquely idiosyncratic sport "Australian Rules Football". 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 Sep 16 01:34:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:34:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CE4526.3060008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 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." Alain Gottcheiner: [big snip] >Remember, you have to ask South's peers, people who use such >a system. Richard Hills: I disagree. South's class of players in this appeal would be those with similar hand evaluation skills. It is not at all necessary for those polled to play the same methods; they merely need to be given the auction so far and told that North's 3H bid promises 13-14 hcp and exactly 3 hearts. 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 Sep 16 02:24:21 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:24:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809151724r487ec325n800a0ca3433f47c6@mail.gmail.com> [paul lamford] "punt 4H" smacks of all the fact-twisting of the McCain-Palin campaign. [Jerry Fusselman] Oh my, if you think Obama's campaign is honest, you've been duped by the MSM. Fortunately, there is hope for you if you read the columns of Thomas Sowell in http://www.tsowell.com/columns.htm . June of 2008 is good. But should we really be discussing politics on this forum? From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 16 03:02:41 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:02:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael References: Message-ID: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> I'm willing. I had, and still have, considerable sympathy for what I think of as the "original" dWS, which appeared on these pages more than a decade ago. The premise there was that if you were not sure about your agreement, or did not think that you had an explicit one, you are forced to guess, and should tell this to your opponents. If you get it right, there will be no problem; if you get it wrong you will have given UI and MI, but the opponents will be OK because they are protected from damage. And they will have a much better time of continuing the auction and playing and defending sensibly. If one say "no agreement" or "might be A, might be B", then the opponents are in the dark. Also, I have as little patience as Herman with people who say "no agreement" and proceed to get it right. Your partner made a conventional bid; he must have had *some* basis for thinking you would know what it meant. And to tell the truth, I am not sure that this approach is not legal. As far as the "current" dWS is concerned, though, I have no sympathy at all with it. Its adherents freely admit that its purpose is to get a better score for our side, after WE have erred by misbidding or giving a misexplanation, or have inappropriately alerted or failed to alert. Just as an aside, the problem with these last cases is readily apparent -- it could be that the error was simply partner's alert or failure to alert, or maybe we didn't notice whether he did. In any case, I think that the whole idea of trying to "get away" unharmed by our own infractions is not part of what I think bridge is all about. Anyway, I have stated my general views many times before. But if we want to talk about the desirability of making the dWS legal, I would like to bring up a serious practical problem. If the principle of "full disclosure" is relaxed, people will have trouble identifying the situations when full, partial or false disclosure is required. Some will do it with nefarious intent, and others will not. But guilty and innocent will say that they were trying to follow the (new, dWS-friendly) laws; and to be fair, I think that they will be far too complex for many. Some will also forget to correct the misinformation at the appropriate time. A line has to be drawn somewhere between full-disclosure and non-disclosure. I think that if that line is drawn anywhere short of full disclosure, we are opening up a huge grey area; an area in which it will be hard for most people to even see where the line is. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 16 03:17:45 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:17:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Apology to Herman De Wael [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael questions "Why?": >>And why are you less wrong than I? Because I'm a Belgian? >>Sorry Richard, won't wash. And then I wrote: >Three paragraphs (HDW despicably removed?) answering "Why?": This was totally uncalled for by me. The obviously correct explanation was that Herman De Wael read the first paragraph of my earlier posting, quickly responded to that paragraph, but simply failed to read subsequent paragraphs - so Herman did _not_ so-called "despicably" deliberately delete those paragraphs. I will take a sabbatical from blml until I can consistently debate issues of Bridge Law, rather than indulge in "ad hominem" attacks. 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 Sep 16 06:11:32 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:11:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c9176f$6c76bf20$45643d60$@com> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <004101c9172c$f0331810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48CF2445.2070109@skynet.be> <000401c9176f$6c76bf20$45643d60$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809152111t6285e96s461c0fb13ba05640@mail.gmail.com> [DALB] The WBF Code of Practice quoted by Grattan makes it clear that, as I have suggested in the past, explaining the methods to the opponents is not considered an indication to partner (who is in duty bound to act as though he had not heard them, at least for as long as the auction is in progress). [Jerry] Without getting into the larger issue (i.e., the meaning of the quoted WBF Code of Practice), I want to focus attention on the parenthetical, which I consider wrong, or at best, overly brief. The laws call for a higher standard. Richard contributed the following six days ago, in this thread: [Richard Hills, 6 days ago] No, you are _required_ to notice partner's alerts, failures to alert, and explanations. Then you are _required_ to avoid selecting a logical alternative that is demonstrably suggested by partner's UI. That is, you may not select the logical alternative that you would "always" choose in the absence of UI if it is now demonstrably suggested by pard's UI. In such circumstances you must instead select a non-suggested logical alternative that you would "never" normally choose. References: Law 73C, Law 16B1 [Jerry] Though I have asked David about this before, I would still like his opinion on this. Does David think that Richard's standards are too high? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 06:57:23 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:57:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF System Card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <227295.19589.qm@web33105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <2b1e598b0809111910u79cec0ebpc9b2a571a6470d76@mail.gmail.com> <227295.19589.qm@web33105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809152157y5a45e701g4b3f7e5a0b4f316a@mail.gmail.com> Richard Beye wrote: > > The General Conditions of Contest > http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Conditions-of-Contest/General-AllEvents.pdf > > "2. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed. > 3. Players should review their own convention cards before the start of the session to make sure that they are current on the agreements with this particular partner. In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made rather than misinformation given. The convention card and previous auctions are the most obvious ways to resolve any disagreements concerning misbid vs misinformation." > Thanks so much, Richard! I am studying it. I had not seen this pdf before. One sentence is messed up in the pdf: "Failure to do so may result in a director should be summoned." It starts on the bottom of page 4. Perhaps a line of text was lost. What should it really say? I plan to ask a few questions about the pdf soon. It is an interesting document, and I wish more ACBL players would follow it. Sometimes, we ACBL players wonder which documents on the ACBL.org website are the law in ACBL tournaments, and some clarification of that might be useful to us. Regards, Jerry Fusselman From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Sep 16 08:22:08 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:22:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <004101c9172c$f0331810$0202a8c0@Mildred><48CF2445.2070109@skynet.be> <000401c9176f$6c76bf20$45643d60$@com> Message-ID: <024601c917c4$8c2f78c0$fb8f0453@mala15b1d381fb> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [HdW] > > Grattan, even if you believe that giving UI is not an infraction, the > player > is still breaking L20F5a. That is still an infraction! > > [DALB] > > The WBF Code of Practice quoted by Grattan makes And The WBF Code Of Practice supersedes the law? Shall we talk about the famous "Lille interpretations" and the concept of a "stupid mistake" that was supposed to take precedence over L25? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dzwon taniej na zagraniczne komorki! Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1f0e From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Sep 16 08:46:35 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:46:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] 'De Wael School' In-Reply-To: <48CF00CD.9010800@skynet.be> References: <003f01c9172c$efb00560$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48CF00CD.9010800@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 16/09/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott > also > ************************************** > > "He is very fond of making things which > > he does not want, and then giving them > > to people who have no use for them." > > [Sir Anthony Hope Hawkins] > > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > (Herman) > > It seems that the players have more comfort for > > the dWS than most of the blml readers. Maybe > > that should teach those readers something. > > dWS is far more logical than any of you seem > > to think. > > < > > +=+ Herman is fully entitled to argue logic and > > desirability. He did not persuade the 2007 Laws > > Drafting Subcommittee, and he is not entitled to > > suggest that, contrary to official guidance, the > > laws may be interpreted in the way he argues to > > be desirable. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > At some point, I shall publish the something like 10 arguments pro dWS > that I have so far counted. Really there are no arguments contra. > To continue to say, in the face of all the arguments, that one law is > stronger than some other, simply because that's the way it is, is beyond > reason. One might agree or disagree on what is logical or better for bridge. But, in the end, the WBFLC is the power to define and interpret the laws. > > Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 16 09:18:25 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:18:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CE6267.7080308@ulb.ac.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CE6267.7080308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48CF5DC1.1020200@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >> Why should my score necessarily be worse by keeping to the rules? And >> even if it is, so what? We play by the rules. Where is the problem? >> > > AG : the problem is that, if the players' spontaneous logic is that dWS > makes less of a mess of the deal, as I told you last week, the attitude > of adaptating the rules to this logic seems to some of us better than > that of adaptating the logic to the rules. > The act of adapting rules to logic is done in the WBF Drafting Committee (and the bodies for accepting or rejecting those drafts), and has been done for the rules that will apply for the next couple or years. It may be different the next time around (though I doubt that), but for the time being the rules are clear. There is no harm in discussing alternative rule systems, nor in campaigning to have the rules changed, but there is much harm in advising other people to deviate from the laws (as Herman does, if I remember correctly. Apologies if I don't.) Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 16 09:44:07 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:44:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Why should my score necessarily be worse by keeping to the rules? And >> even if it is, so what? We play by the rules. Where is the problem? >> > > You misunderstood Matthias. > > If we are playing together, and I avoid giving you UI, you are free to > act - and you usually act correctly, and achieve a reasonable score. > But if I give you UI, and you don't use it (which of course you don't), > you will make an inferior call and we will reach a lower score. While this will be true some of the time (maybe even quite often) I do not see why selecting a call not suggested by UI has necessarily to lead to an inferior score. The UI could suggest a bad call, so I better avoid it. The call selected may lead to the same contract. We may even have some luck and stay out of a good contract that happens not to make. And so on. Yes, some of the time we will have to steer into a disaster with open eyes. So what? We should not have given that wrong explanation or failed to alert or whatever in the first place. If we get some bad score it would entirely be our fault. If we contravened some law or regulation we just have to bear the consequences. Sometimes that is not fun at all, true, but again: so what? Best regards Matthias From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 16 09:56:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:56:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <024601c917c4$8c2f78c0$fb8f0453@mala15b1d381fb> Message-ID: David Burn: >>The WBF Code of Practice quoted by Grattan makes Konrad Ciborowski: >And The WBF Code Of Practice supersedes the law? Richard Hills: No, in jurisdictions where it operates, the WBF Code of Practice is an official interpretation of the Law, created by the now-disbanded Lausanne Group, which Group was specifically delegated the plenipotentiary authority to create the CoP by the WBF Executive. Konrad Ciborowski: >Shall we talk about the famous "Lille >interpretations" and the concept of a "stupid >mistake" that was supposed to take precedence over >L25? Richard Hills: The concept of the Rule of Law is bound up with obeying stupid Laws and/or obeying stupid official interpretations of Law. If one truly believes in the Rule of Law, one simply suggests to the powers- that-be that they improve such Laws and/or official interpretations. Indeed, one of the Lille interpretations was over-ruled by a much improved 2007 Law 92D. While the notoriously stupid 1997 Law 25B has been replaced by the boringly sensible 2007 Law 25B. If a wereWolff ignores Laws and/or official interpretations because that wereWolff believes them to be stupid, then that wereWolff is not obeying the Rule of Law. In a non-bridge context, such as the Springboks tour of Australia in 1971, it may be permissible to break the Rule of Law by rioting against a racially selected rugby team. But since Duplicate Bridge is a social game of luck/skill, it is "Inconceivable!" that breaking the Rule of Law in our game would be desirable. 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 Sep 16 10:43:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:43:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02c701c91769$81259aa0$f45d9951@stefanie> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be><48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <02c701c91769$81259aa0$f45d9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48CF7197.4070508@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : >> If we are playing together, and I avoid giving you UI, you are free to >> act - and you usually act correctly, and achieve a reasonable score. >> But if I give you UI, and you don't use it (which of course you don't), >> you will make an inferior call and we will reach a lower score. >> That way, it is the giving of the UI that has created our worse score - >> not your non-use of it. >> >> So while it is true that giving UI is not against the laws, it is still >> a bad idea, since your score will be badly affected! >> > > Herman, you know perfectly well that the point of full disclosure is to > protect our opponents, not to protect our side's score. If we have given MI, > and this results in UI, and our score is damaged, it is OK. > AG : but what Stefanie seems to forget is that *additional* MI will seldom create more damage for the opponents, while creating UI will often make the deal unplayable and / or damage the field. I, for one, advocate using dWS principles only when it looks likel additional MI won't create more damage, and if that appears to be wrong, of course the TD will have to adjust. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 16 10:50:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:50:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CF7342.80808@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Well, guess what subject has reappeared on BLML, like a zombie rising > from the dead? I'm afraid it's dWS time again, folks. But maybe, > just maybe, we needn't all crank up our killfiles again, maybe we can > have a rational discussion. All that will take is an agreement as to > what we're debating about. > > The "dWS" is an alternative approach to disclosure; we all know by > now what it entails. It is patently not without merit. A number of > thoughtful and serious members of this forum are prepared to argue > that the dWS is superior to the accepted protocol for disclosure, and > therefore its use should be made at least legal, if not mandatory. I > happen to disagree (as of now), but believe that this is definitely a > discussion worth having. > > But we will not have it if, as has been the case in the past, Herman > insists on hijacking the discussion by sheer volume of noise into a > debate over his ridiculous and insupportable assertion that the dWS > *is* legal under current law AG : I don't think Herman has ever written this. He merely pretends that the present way to deal with information problems isn't legal either, if one takes the laws to the letter. I agree with him. He also says that it's enough of a reason to be allowed to choose one's course of action under the present laws. I don't fully agree, but he's right on Natural Law principles. Nobody can be declatred guilty if all courses of action in one specified situation would somehow have been illegal. So, I have to agree with Herman one one more point : many of us seem to misunderstand his main statements. And that's a reason to state them again. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 16 10:54:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:54:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CF7444.6030405@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > "The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the > Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed **anxiety** > lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their > NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose > contributors present **strange opinions**. The Secretary > supported the Chairman in what he had said." > > Do they realize Copernic's opinions were considered rather strange the first 200 years after they've been formulated ? I mean, if a Forum isn't for discussing new ideas, what is it for ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 16 10:59:33 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:59:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CF7575.3040603@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Another example of two nations divided by a common > language. What English experts label a "punter", Aussie > experts label a "sponsor". What Aussie experts label a > "punter", English experts would label an "optimist" or > perhaps a "MadDog". :-) (...) > The Aussie word "punter" perhaps comes from the uniquely > idiosyncratic sport "Australian Rules Football". Don't worry, the word "punter" is used in a similar sense in Rugby too. And notice that in some gambling card games, a punter is something totally different : any person that plays against the bank. And this seems to be the origin of the phrase "the average punter". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 16 11:02:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:02:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CF7621.9020305@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > 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." > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [big snip] > > >> Remember, you have to ask South's peers, people who use such >> a system. >> > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree. South's class of players in this appeal would be > those with similar hand evaluation skills. It is not at all > necessary for those polled to play the same methods; they > merely need to be given the auction so far and told that > North's 3H bid promises 13-14 hcp and exactly 3 hearts. > > AG : I don't understand. Several of us agreed that it would be important to put to the test South's claim that he didn't relay to enquire about range, but mainly about the number of hearts.And how would someone who doesn't practice such relay bids tell us whether it's plausible ? Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 20:07:23 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:07:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CF5DC1.1020200@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CE6267.7080308@ulb.ac.be> <48CF5DC1.1020200@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48CFF5DB.4070502@skynet.be> Completely correct argumentation, Matthias, but pity that ... Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: >> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : >>> Why should my score necessarily be worse by keeping to the rules? And >>> even if it is, so what? We play by the rules. Where is the problem? >>> >> AG : the problem is that, if the players' spontaneous logic is that dWS >> makes less of a mess of the deal, as I told you last week, the attitude >> of adaptating the rules to this logic seems to some of us better than >> that of adaptating the logic to the rules. >> > > The act of adapting rules to logic is done in the WBF Drafting Committee > (and the bodies for accepting or rejecting those drafts), and has been > done for the rules that will apply for the next couple or years. It may > be different the next time around (though I doubt that), but for the > time being the rules are clear. > There is no harm in discussing alternative rule systems, nor in > campaigning to have the rules changed, but there is much harm in > advising other people to deviate from the laws (as Herman does, if I > remember correctly. Apologies if I don't.) > ... I believe I am not campaigning for the rules to be changed, but rather for them to be maintained. I believe dWS is currently legal, and more in conformance with the general logic of the laws in general. The fact that players all over the world (two mentioned in the last two weeks) keep inventing the dWS all by themselves is evidence for that statement. I also believe that if the WBF think the game would be better off without dWS, then they need to change the laws (an official interpretation would be sufficient for that) but they need to consider three things: 1) that would (IMO) be detrimental to the game - the least they could do is hear me out 2) it would be impossible to uphold - a simple interpretation might stop me from acting like this, but not those others from inventing it, and still others from acting like it deliberately, it would not be possible to distinguish the one from the other 3) stopping that particular hole would mean the laws would change beyond recognition, and it would suit the lawmakers to think ahead and look before they leap. > Best regards > Matthias > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 20:11:22 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:11:22 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> Why should my score necessarily be worse by keeping to the rules? And >>> even if it is, so what? We play by the rules. Where is the problem? >>> >> You misunderstood Matthias. >> >> If we are playing together, and I avoid giving you UI, you are free to >> act - and you usually act correctly, and achieve a reasonable score. >> But if I give you UI, and you don't use it (which of course you don't), >> you will make an inferior call and we will reach a lower score. > > While this will be true some of the time (maybe even quite often) I do > not see why selecting a call not suggested by UI has necessarily to lead > to an inferior score. The UI could suggest a bad call, so I better avoid > it. The call selected may lead to the same contract. We may even have > some luck and stay out of a good contract that happens not to make. And > so on. You do realize that I knew this - and you also realize that it is a very minority position? > Yes, some of the time we will have to steer into a disaster with open > eyes. So what? We should not have given that wrong explanation or failed > to alert or whatever in the first place. If we get some bad score it > would entirely be our fault. If we contravened some law or regulation we > just have to bear the consequences. Sometimes that is not fun at all, > true, but again: so what? > But the question was not if we wanted to give UI or not. My point was to refute your argument that giving UI is not punished. It is! Now if something is not a crime, then why is it punished. So your argument that, in the choice between giving UI and MI, one should give UI because that is not punished, is wrong. And that is not even the choice I am talking about. It is the choice between breaking L20F5a and giving MI. And L20F5a is a very strong law, that it behooves players not to be breaking! > Best regards > Matthias > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 20:12:56 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:12:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c9176f$6c76bf20$45643d60$@com> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <004101c9172c$f0331810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48CF2445.2070109@skynet.be> <000401c9176f$6c76bf20$45643d60$@com> Message-ID: <48CFF728.2000103@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Grattan, even if you believe that giving UI is not an infraction, the player > is still breaking L20F5a. That is still an infraction! > > [DALB] > > The WBF Code of Practice quoted by Grattan makes it clear that, as I have > suggested in the past, explaining the methods to the opponents is not > considered an indication to partner (who is in duty bound to act as though > he had not heard them, at least for as long as the auction is in progress). > Wherefore there is no infraction of Law 20F5a in providing correct > explanations of the partnership agreement. > David - don't write nonsense. of course this is indicating to partner that a mistake has happened. Please re-write your argument differently, you'll see it is far far less convinciung if you stick to simple truths. > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 20:15:19 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:15:19 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > David Burn: > >>> The WBF Code of Practice quoted by Grattan makes > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >> And The WBF Code Of Practice supersedes the law? > > Richard Hills: > > No, in jurisdictions where it operates, the WBF > Code of Practice is an official interpretation of > the Law, created by the now-disbanded Lausanne > Group, which Group was specifically delegated the > plenipotentiary authority to create the CoP by the > WBF Executive. > So we have a law - that states clearly that something may not be done, not in any manner. And we have an interpretation that apparently contradicts this, but such an interpretation does not even mention that particular article, not does it propose a change to that article, adding some "except ...". And that article has remained unchanged for 3 law changes despite the fact that I've been talking about this for 15 years? And you accept that as an argument ?????? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 20:18:55 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:18:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] 'De Wael School' In-Reply-To: References: <003f01c9172c$efb00560$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48CF00CD.9010800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48CFF88F.5070905@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 16/09/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Grattan wrote: >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************** >>> "He is very fond of making things which >>> he does not want, and then giving them >>> to people who have no use for them." >>> [Sir Anthony Hope Hawkins] >>> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> (Herman) >>> It seems that the players have more comfort for >>> the dWS than most of the blml readers. Maybe >>> that should teach those readers something. >>> dWS is far more logical than any of you seem >>> to think. >>> < >>> +=+ Herman is fully entitled to argue logic and >>> desirability. He did not persuade the 2007 Laws >>> Drafting Subcommittee, and he is not entitled to >>> suggest that, contrary to official guidance, the >>> laws may be interpreted in the way he argues to >>> be desirable. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >>> >> At some point, I shall publish the something like 10 arguments pro dWS >> that I have so far counted. Really there are no arguments contra. >> To continue to say, in the face of all the arguments, that one law is >> stronger than some other, simply because that's the way it is, is beyond >> reason. > > One might agree or disagree on what is logical or better for bridge. > But, in the end, the WBFLC is the power to define and interpret the > laws. Then I'd wish they'd do so - they haven't, so far. Grattan came closest by suggesting the words of an interpretation. So far, I have not seen that interpretation being officialised. I urge the WBFLC to put this thing on the agenda, but also to invite me to their reunion on that matter. This is far too important. Furthermore, I urge blml-readers to stop thinking this matter is settled by the WBF. It is not. Not a single word has been changed to the text of L20F5a, which is the basis for the dWS. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 20:27:05 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:27:05 -0700 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CFFA79.20808@skynet.be> Well Eric, I applaude your invitation and am quite willing to accept it and do this discussion on your terms. But I strongly object to your calling the dWS currently illegal. I ask you to provide other evidence than the fact that Grattan, in a personal opinion, has said he believes it to be illegal. Of course I agree that dWS actions are infractions of at least one law. But I ask you to provide me with citations from the laws that clearly state that the MS actions are not infractions of L20F5a. I accept that we need not discuss the current legality of dWS and still be constructive. But I protest to your underlying assertment that MS actions are currently legal (with legal defined the same way for both schools). If we discuss this without speaking of the current legality of dWS, then we must also forget the current legality of MS, and discuss both schools on merits alone. OK, in that light I cast a first stone: A player misexplains and makes a call. His partner must remain silent about the mistake. The opponents ask the partner what the second call means. The partner must now reveal the mistake. At a different table, the opponents ask nothing. The partner must remain silent about the mistake. Do you consider this a logical way for the laws to be? Eric Landau wrote: > Well, guess what subject has reappeared on BLML, like a zombie rising > from the dead? I'm afraid it's dWS time again, folks. But maybe, > just maybe, we needn't all crank up our killfiles again, maybe we can > have a rational discussion. All that will take is an agreement as to > what we're debating about. > > The "dWS" is an alternative approach to disclosure; we all know by > now what it entails. It is patently not without merit. A number of > thoughtful and serious members of this forum are prepared to argue > that the dWS is superior to the accepted protocol for disclosure, and > therefore its use should be made at least legal, if not mandatory. I > happen to disagree (as of now), but believe that this is definitely a > discussion worth having. > > But we will not have it if, as has been the case in the past, Herman > insists on hijacking the discussion by sheer volume of noise into a > debate over his ridiculous and insupportable assertion that the dWS > *is* legal under current law, an assertion which has been repeatedly > and unanimously contradicted by every member of this forum who was in > any way involved in writing the current laws. I have seen no > evidence whatsoever that anyone in this forum other than Herman, no > matter how committed they may be to the merits of dWS-style > disclosure, believes this assertion. Which is why they continue to > slap at Herman when he repeats this crap for the 7000th time (it is > not, as Herman has suggested, just because he is Belgian). > > So let us make a pact among us, that anyone's future attempt to > assert the *current legality* of the dWS will be simply ignored, > neither replied to nor commented on. And then, perhaps, we can get > on with a civil and sensible discussion of the theoretical and > practical advantages of the dWS approach to disclosure, without the > noise and rancor that have driven us to our killfiles in the past. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 20:30:09 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:30:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] Apology to Herman De Wael [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48CFFB31.8050800@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael questions "Why?": > >>> And why are you less wrong than I? Because I'm a Belgian? >>> Sorry Richard, won't wash. > > And then I wrote: > >> Three paragraphs (HDW despicably removed?) answering "Why?": > > This was totally uncalled for by me. The obviously correct It was so totally uncalled for I did not even wish to object. I accept your apology. Indeed, I read your paragraphs and found them not necessary of reply. We can both claim to be Galileo, only time will tell who has it right. I needed not to criticise this so I (despicably) removed them from my reply. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Tue Sep 16 11:35:24 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:35:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CF7575.3040603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004301c917df$8f7a1ba0$2401a8c0@p41600> It also refers to students on boats pushing them with poles (a la Venice). ln[b] ****************************************** If you don't keep up the payments to your exorcist you may be repossessed. ****************************************** > Another example of two nations divided by a common > language. What English experts label a "punter", Aussie > experts label a "sponsor". What Aussie experts label a > "punter", English experts would label an "optimist" or > perhaps a "MadDog". :-) (...) > The Aussie word "punter" perhaps comes from the uniquely > idiosyncratic sport "Australian Rules Football". Don't worry, the word "punter" is used in a similar sense in Rugby too. And notice that in some gambling card games, a punter is something totally different : any person that plays against the bank. And this seems to be the origin of the phrase "the average punter". Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 16 11:44:56 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:44:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <008a01c917e0$e40d4d80$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > David Burn: > >>>The WBF Code of Practice quoted by Grattan makes > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >>And The WBF Code Of Practice supersedes the law? > > Richard Hills: > > No, in jurisdictions where it operates, the WBF > Code of Practice is an official interpretation of > the Law, created by the now-disbanded Lausanne > Group, which Group was specifically delegated the > plenipotentiary authority to create the CoP by the > WBF Executive. > +=+ Richard is correct. If and when eventually an interpretative appendix to the 2007 Laws is issued, it may be wise to include a statement incorporating interpretations in the CoP where they do not conflict with the appendix. (There may be a need to establish a power of an RA to exclude.) I will add the question to my little list of subjects for discussion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 16 11:45:14 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:45:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael References: <48CF7342.80808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <01c401c917e0$ebf588a0$7cad9b51@stefanie> Sorry, Eric. I guess it was too much to hope for. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael Eric Landau a ?crit : > Well, guess what subject has reappeared on BLML, like a zombie rising > from the dead? I'm afraid it's dWS time again, folks. But maybe, > just maybe, we needn't all crank up our killfiles again, maybe we can > have a rational discussion. All that will take is an agreement as to > what we're debating about. > > The "dWS" is an alternative approach to disclosure; we all know by > now what it entails. It is patently not without merit. A number of > thoughtful and serious members of this forum are prepared to argue > that the dWS is superior to the accepted protocol for disclosure, and > therefore its use should be made at least legal, if not mandatory. I > happen to disagree (as of now), but believe that this is definitely a > discussion worth having. > > But we will not have it if, as has been the case in the past, Herman > insists on hijacking the discussion by sheer volume of noise into a > debate over his ridiculous and insupportable assertion that the dWS > *is* legal under current law AG : I don't think Herman has ever written this. He merely pretends that the present way to deal with information problems isn't legal either, if one takes the laws to the letter. I agree with him. He also says that it's enough of a reason to be allowed to choose one's course of action under the present laws. I don't fully agree, but he's right on Natural Law principles. Nobody can be declatred guilty if all courses of action in one specified situation would somehow have been illegal. So, I have to agree with Herman one one more point : many of us seem to misunderstand his main statements. And that's a reason to state them again. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 16 12:05:03 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:05:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael In-Reply-To: <48CF7342.80808@ulb.ac.be> References: <48CF7342.80808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001f01c917e3$b07480d0$115d8270$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Eric Landau a ?crit : ............. > > But we will not have it if, as has been the case in the past, Herman > > insists on hijacking the discussion by sheer volume of noise into a > > debate over his ridiculous and insupportable assertion that the dWS > > *is* legal under current law > > AG : I don't think Herman has ever written this. He merely pretends that > the present way to deal with information problems isn't legal either, if > one takes the laws to the letter. I agree with him. What Herman has written, and still insists despite WBFLC having rejected his arguments with their current revision of laws, is that the laws are self-contradictory and that as a consequence of this dWs is perfectly legal as being one of the possible interpretations of the laws. WBFLC has repeatedly made it perfectly clear, and we should observe that the laws primarily instruct players to ignore all information received from partner when selecting their own actions, except such information that is the result of legal calls and plays. The laws include some exceptions to this principle; most important is the procedure available to a player who understands that his partner has given opponents incorrect (in his own opinion) information on their understandings. The laws state that you shall always give your opponents the correct description on your partnership understandings, not your partner's hand when you understand from UI that his hand does not conform to your understandings. It is the duty of the Director subsequently to resolve any complications and if warranted adjust the result obtained on the board. The correct procedure shall be similar to that when playing with screens or some sort of online bridge where you only receive the information from your partner that is AI to you. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 16 11:50:02 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:50:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CF7575.3040603@ulb.ac.be> <004301c917df$8f7a1ba0$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <009f01c917e6$e9ee5f40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > It also refers to students on boats pushing them > with poles (a la Venice). > > ln[b] > ****************************************** > If you don't keep up the payments to your exorcist > you may be repossessed. > ****************************************** >> Another example of two nations divided by a common >> language. What English experts label a "punter", > Aussie >> experts label a "sponsor". What Aussie experts > label a >> "punter", English experts would label an > "optimist" or >> perhaps a "MadDog". :-) (...) >> The Aussie word "punter" perhaps comes from the > uniquely >> idiosyncratic sport "Australian Rules Football". > Don't worry, the word "punter" is used in a similar > sense in Rugby too. > > And notice that in some gambling card games, a > punter is something > totally different : any person that plays against > the bank. And this > seems to be the origin of the phrase "the average > punter". > > Best regards > > Alain > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 16 12:26:18 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:26:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00a001c917e6$ea35ef90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > So we have a law - that states clearly that something may not be done, not in any manner. > And we have an interpretation that apparently contradicts this, but such an interpretation does not even mention that particular article, nor does it propose a change to that article, adding some "except ...". And that article has remained unchanged for 3 law changes despite the fact that I've been talking about this for 15 years? > And you accept that as an argument ?????? > +=+ Herman's error lies in his not understanding what it is that 'may not be done'. The word 'indicate' is a transitive verb meaning 'to point to'. The interpretation of this word notes that it entails a purposeful act of pointing to the mistake that has been made and that compliance with another law is not an action that has such purpose, so that if the mistake becomes apparent from the compliant action it is an incidental effect not involving (purposeful) indication. Therefore there is no violation of 2007 Law 20F5(a). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 16 12:52:00 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:52:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> [HdW] So we have a law - that states clearly that something may not be done, not in any manner. [DALB] We do. But even you may accept that it is occasionally necessary for certain actions to be considered not in breach of this Law. For example, if I explain my partner's call as systemically forcing and then pass it, this pass is an indication to him in some manner that he has made a mistake. But it is not considered such an indication (otherwise the game could not continue at all). Now, if a call or play is considered not an indication under your favourite Law 20, why should not an explanation be considered not an indication? The "simple truth" you ask me to write is that unless an explanation to the opponents is considered a breach of Law 20F5a, your entire case collapses. The WBF has said (in effect) that an explanation to the opponents is not considered a breach of any Law at all, including Law 20F5a, so your entire case has collapsed. Whether or not this is a good thing can be argued, but it is a thing nonetheless. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 16 12:48:12 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:48:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael In-Reply-To: <001f01c917e3$b07480d0$115d8270$@no> References: <48CF7342.80808@ulb.ac.be> <001f01c917e3$b07480d0$115d8270$@no> Message-ID: <48CF8EEC.8070307@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> > ............. > >>> But we will not have it if, as has been the case in the past, Herman >>> insists on hijacking the discussion by sheer volume of noise into a >>> debate over his ridiculous and insupportable assertion that the dWS >>> *is* legal under current law >>> >> AG : I don't think Herman has ever written this. He merely pretends that >> the present way to deal with information problems isn't legal either, if >> one takes the laws to the letter. I agree with him. >> > > What Herman has written, and still insists despite WBFLC having rejected his > arguments with their current revision of laws, is that the laws are > self-contradictory and that as a consequence of this dWs is perfectly legal > as being one of the possible interpretations of the laws. > > Indeed. And it's not absurd. See my point about Natural Law on my previous post. Officials have taken strong positions against dWS, and against Natural Law. I know that's their right and function. But I can understand Herman's claim that, if Laws were unequal, that would need to be stated in TFLB itself, and that the present state of law is fuzzy. Yes, that's another issue than discussing the interest of a change, as Eric usefully pointed to in a recent post. So what ? > The correct procedure shall be similar to that when playing with screens or > some sort of online bridge where you only receive the information from your > partner that is AI to you. > > That's about the most clear statements about what has to be done, and I'm ready to accept it as Lawful. But, since I noticed several cases when screens did create specific information problems, I still consider it not to be ideal. One such case is when the explanations differ on both sides of the screen and that has a bearing on the NOS's agreements. If a player misexplains his partner's bid, perhaps there is MI, but there is a fair chance that the NOS won't be damaged, because they will know how they play against the (possibly wrong) meaning. Screens will snafu the deal once and for all. One live example : 1NT * Dbl ** 2H *** * 13-15 ** explained as penalties, but doubler didn't think 13-15 was "weak enough" to play it such Intended as 'spades + another'. *** natural against penalty double ; transfer against artificial double (system on) If 2H becomes the final contract, which could well be the case, and if the result is normal, there will be no need to adjust the score (unless the orientation of the contract changes the result). Or perhaps it would be better than normal to the NOS (opps didn't find their spades), and there will be no need either. But you can be sure that everything will be mixed up if, with screens on, Doubler explains 'spades and another' and Advancer explains 'penalties'. So, you see, bringing the case back to screns isn't a panacaea. Best regards lain. > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 16 13:12:17 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:12:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a001c917e6$ea35ef90$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <00a001c917e6$ea35ef90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48CF9491.6010207@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > +=+ Herman's error lies in his not understanding what it is > that 'may not be done'. The word 'indicate' is a transitive > verb meaning 'to point to'. The interpretation of this word > notes that it entails a purposeful act AG : that's interesting. I own two dictionaries. Harraps French/English makes 'indicate' a possible synonym of 'denote'. Longman makes it a possible synonym of 'make clear'. Both of which can be accidental rather than purposeful. One possible way out of this ambigu?ty, and not a difficult one, would be to use another verb or a small phrase. BTW, I'm not ready to allow players to frown on heraing their partner's explanation, on the grounds that it's usually unintentional. Of course, such a clarification wouldn't alter the fact that using dWS principles would be clever. It would just be one of those clever, but disallowed, things, certainly less of a mess than the acual state. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 23:12:26 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:12:26 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a001c917e6$ea35ef90$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <00a001c917e6$ea35ef90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48D0213A.40707@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > And you accept that as an argument ?????? > +=+ Herman's error lies in his not understanding what it is > that 'may not be done'. The word 'indicate' is a transitive > verb meaning 'to point to'. The interpretation of this word > notes that it entails a purposeful act of pointing to the mistake > that has been made and that compliance with another law > is not an action that has such purpose, so that if the mistake > becomes apparent from the compliant action it is an incidental > effect not involving (purposeful) indication. Therefore there is > no violation of 2007 Law 20F5(a). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Sorry Grattan, I do not accept this. "indicate in any manner" means precisely what we think it does. If a person says "5di shows 1 ace" then that is exactly the same as "4NT was not asking for minors". By using the word "indicate" rather than "say" or "make known", the lawmakers have insured that every single way (a raised eyebrow is enough) in which partner gets the message (and even opponents) that something is wrong, is covered. Your argument is not valid and I don't accept it. Sorry, but I hope I will get some support in this here. To say that something does not mean what it apparently does, just in order not to lose an argument, seems to me very very weak. I expected better from you, Grattan. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 16 23:17:39 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:17:39 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> Message-ID: <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > So we have a law - that states clearly that something may not be done, not > in any manner. > > [DALB] > > We do. But even you may accept that it is occasionally necessary for certain > actions to be considered not in breach of this Law. For example, if I > explain my partner's call as systemically forcing and then pass it, this > pass is an indication to him in some manner that he has made a mistake. But > it is not considered such an indication (otherwise the game could not > continue at all). > > Now, if a call or play is considered not an indication under your favourite > Law 20, why should not an explanation be considered not an indication? The > "simple truth" you ask me to write is that unless an explanation to the > opponents is considered a breach of Law 20F5a, your entire case collapses. > The WBF has said (in effect) that an explanation to the opponents is not > considered a breach of any Law at all, including Law 20F5a, so your entire > case has collapsed. Whether or not this is a good thing can be argued, but > it is a thing nonetheless. > I prefer this argument vastly to that of Grattan. But David should realize that he is coming to the wrong conclusion. Although I do not like his example (after all, one can be passing a forcing bid) I can easily understand it. Where David goes wrong, is that he says his passing is not an indication that something has gone wrong. It is such an indication, and we should investigate if the irregularity is acceptable or not. For what it is worth, I accept that in David's case, the irregularity is acceptable. However, while this means that I must admit that L20F5a is not the strongest law in the book, David makes a logical error in using that as an argument that dWS is wrong. Yes, there are Laws that are stronger than L20F5a. But I do not agree that the MI laws are among them. > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 16 13:59:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:59:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> Message-ID: <48CF9FA9.7050509@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [DALB] > > We do. But even you may accept that it is occasionally necessary for certain > actions to be considered not in breach of this Law. For example, if I > explain my partner's call as systemically forcing and then pass it, this > pass is an indication to him in some manner that he has made a mistake. But > it is not considered such an indication (otherwise the game could not > continue at all). > AG : IBTD. It can be andication that you made a mistake, either within the system or in counting your HCP strength. Or that you psyched. And it's a rather uncertain business (remember the 2D case ?) But the important thing is that you used the word 'indication', which shows (or indicates) that 'indicating' needn't be purposeful, contrarily to what some have stated. Less important, but still relevant IMNSHO, is that what you described above could be deemed illegal - for example if you weren't requested to explain partner's bid, in which case the purpose of your mannerism is obvious. > Now, if a call or play is considered not an indication under your favourite > Law 20, why should not an explanation be considered not an indication? The > "simple truth" you ask me to write is that unless an explanation to the > opponents is considered a breach of Law 20F5a, your entire case collapses. > The WBF has said (in effect) that an explanation to the opponents is not > considered a breach of any Law at all, including Law 20F5a, so your entire > case has collapsed. Whether or not this is a good thing can be argued, but > it is a thing nonetheless. > Okay. So write it down in the laws, please. "An explanation made in conformity with the local rules for disclosure won't be considered a breach of this law" If this is all that's needed to kill the ambiguity for ever (and I think it is), then it's worth the trouble, and we may tackle the question of "whteher it's a good thing" with an easy mind. Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 16 15:25:51 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:25:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CFF5DB.4070502@skynet.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CE6267.7080308@ulb.ac.be> <48CF5DC1.1020200@t-online.de> <48CFF5DB.4070502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48CFB3DF.7030307@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> The act of adapting rules to logic is done in the WBF Drafting Committee >> (and the bodies for accepting or rejecting those drafts), and has been >> done for the rules that will apply for the next couple or years. It may >> be different the next time around (though I doubt that), but for the >> time being the rules are clear. >> There is no harm in discussing alternative rule systems, nor in >> campaigning to have the rules changed, but there is much harm in >> advising other people to deviate from the laws (as Herman does, if I >> remember correctly. Apologies if I don't.) >> > > ... I believe I am not campaigning for the rules to be changed, but > rather for them to be maintained. > I believe dWS is currently legal, and more in conformance with the > general logic of the laws in general. Last Friday some guy chose to believe that my money belonged to him. That did not make him right, German law holding a different opinion. The WBFLC chooses to believe that your view is incorrect (as you well know, but choose to continuously disregard), and, being the minds behind the legislative powers of the WBF, they are in a position to do so. They have the authority to make such statements, and have done so, again and again. > The fact that players all over the > world (two mentioned in the last two weeks) keep inventing the dWS all > by themselves is evidence for that statement. The fact that millions of players did not invent the dWs by themselves may of course be safely disregarded, as it does not add to argument... > > I also believe that if the WBF think the game would be better off > without dWS, then they need to change the laws (an official > interpretation would be sufficient for that) but they need to consider > three things: > 1) that would (IMO) be detrimental to the game - the least they could do > is hear me out You started propagating your view more than 10 years ago. That gives me a hint that they probably did so and disagreed with your view. You are still entitled to further tries to make them change their mind. > 2) it would be impossible to uphold - a simple interpretation might stop > me from acting like this, but not those others from inventing it, and > still others from acting like it deliberately, it would not be possible > to distinguish the one from the other Let's say the WBF adopts dWs. Now what would hinder someone to invent the notion that the opps are not entitled to know what's in partner's hand (since explainer cannot possibly know), but only to agreements (which explainer can and should know)? In which way would the situation be better than now? > 3) stopping that particular hole would mean the laws would change beyond > recognition, and it would suit the lawmakers to think ahead and look > before they leap. No, Herman, they would not change at all. What is needed is for you to recognize that (for example) L20F5 is not broken by explanations.The key word here is authority. The people with the authority to say so have declared what "to indicate" means in the context of the laws, or "in any manner" and so forth. If someone repeatedly refuses to listen to the pronounciations of the authorities there is no remedy, as such person will continue to do so until the law texts are as wanted. Then another such person will appear, ad infinitum. Herman ,while I have some sympathies for your views, there is a simple fact why I think your approach is dead wrong, and that is the nature of humans. In another word: cheating. Now you and others are able to explain according to the UI given, then summon the director and clear the whole thing up. Take a look around. Not on BLML, people here are interested in the laws, they try to understand them in order to be better able to follow them. What about the legions of players who don't? They will not all become cheaters, it will be a minority, but it would poison our game. Lots of people would invent the notion that if you described partner's hand all is well, and if oppos don't play them for another hand as they actually hold, well, that's too bad, isn't it. Most of them would not even realize that they are cheating. The law asked them to explain partner's hand and they did so, what's the problem? That is not the game I want to play. I want to play a game where I pay for the mistakes of my partnership. We win together, we lose together. I do not want to wriggle out of our mishaps, our forgets, sloppy agreements, whatever. I want to win, but not at all costs. Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 16 15:37:02 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:37:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48CFB67E.3060606@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > But the question was not if we wanted to give UI or not. My point was to > refute your argument that giving UI is not punished. It is! No, Herman, what is being "punished" is the mistake that lead to UI. Wouldn't you say that someone who is too tired or too forgetul or whatever has earned a bad score? Make no mistakes and there will be no UI or MI, and there will be no score corrections either. If my partner gets something wrong my choices may be restricted. So what? He made a mistake, we are a partnership, so my score may suffer from that. Fine. Nobody forced me to play with that particular partner, it was my choice. Now I have to love with the consequences of that choice. Followers of the dWs try to avoid living with that choice. If you feel disadvantaged, because some people with lesser ethical standards are not "punished" often enough, well, educate the TD as well as the players. Best regards Matthias From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 16 15:46:08 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:46:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael In-Reply-To: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> On Sep 15, 2008, at 9:02 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I'm willing. > > I had, and still have, considerable sympathy for what I think of as > the > "original" dWS, which appeared on these pages more than a decade > ago. The > premise there was that if you were not sure about your agreement, > or did not > think that you had an explicit one, you are forced to guess, and > should tell > this to your opponents. > > If you get it right, there will be no problem; if you get it wrong > you will > have given UI and MI, but the opponents will be OK because they are > protected from damage. And they will have a much better time of > continuing > the auction and playing and defending sensibly. If one say "no > agreement" or > "might be A, might be B", then the opponents are in the dark. Also, > I have > as little patience as Herman with people who say "no agreement" and > proceed > to get it right. Your partner made a conventional bid; he must have > had > *some* basis for thinking you would know what it meant. And to tell > the > truth, I am not sure that this approach is not legal. > > As far as the "current" dWS is concerned, though, I have no > sympathy at all > with it. Its adherents freely admit that its purpose is to get a > better > score for our side, after WE have erred by misbidding or giving a > misexplanation, or have inappropriately alerted or failed to alert. > Just as > an aside, the problem with these last cases is readily apparent -- > it could > be that the error was simply partner's alert or failure to alert, > or maybe > we didn't notice whether he did. In any case, I think that the > whole idea of > trying to "get away" unharmed by our own infractions is not part of > what I > think bridge is all about. > > Anyway, I have stated my general views many times before. But if we > want to > talk about the desirability of making the dWS legal, I would like > to bring > up a serious practical problem. If the principle of "full > disclosure" is > relaxed, people will have trouble identifying the situations when > full, > partial or false disclosure is required. Some will do it with > nefarious > intent, and others will not. But guilty and innocent will say that > they were > trying to follow the (new, dWS-friendly) laws; and to be fair, I > think that > they will be far too complex for many. Some will also forget to > correct the > misinformation at the appropriate time. > > A line has to be drawn somewhere between full-disclosure and non- > disclosure. > I think that if that line is drawn anywhere short of full > disclosure, we are > opening up a huge grey area; an area in which it will be hard for most > people to even see where the line is. Our previous discussions have left us with too narrow a focus. We're thinking about the dWS as Herman practices it today, as he argues its compatibility with current law. But at its most fundamental level, the dWS is about changing the object of disclosure from the partnership's agreements to the actual intention of the bidder. The question isn't "full disclosure or less than full disclosure?", it's "full disclosure of what?" Previous discussions have been about a dWS that has been shoehorned into the current laws (where Herman believes it can already be found), but that seems unworkable. ISTM that if we're going to change the fundamental principle of disclosure, we're going to need to revisit the entire body of law regarding disclosure, which means potential new answers to questions of who, when and how as well as what. I don't think there's much to be said for tweaking a law or two, or reversing a WBFLC interpretation, to make Herman's idiosyncratic dWS practices (which depend on his "turning himself in afterwards") legal. If we are to adopt dWS principles in a consistent and sensible way, I believe we're going to need to rewrite all of the laws that touch on disclosure, and much of the laws that touch on UI. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 16 15:55:20 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:55:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > But David should realize that he is coming to the wrong conclusion. > Although I do not like his example (after all, one can be passing a > forcing bid) I can easily understand it. Where David goes wrong, is that > he says his passing is not an indication that something has gone wrong. David didn't say anything of the sort. If you have an indication for something it does not automatically mean that someone indicated it. If my car is missing it is an indication that it was stolen. Nobody indicated that to me. I worked it out from 1. I have the only key 2. Time was to short for the car being towed away by the police, as it was there 2 minutes ago. "To indicate" and "indication" may have the same root (I am to lazy to look that up), but that does not mean that they are interchangeable or that one depends on the other. So if partner explains something differently from what I intended it as, that is an indication that someone goofed, but he not indicate something, he followed his legal obligations. Pointing to something is a voluntary act, following the law is not. Best regards Matthias From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 16 15:59:03 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:59:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <024601c917c4$8c2f78c0$fb8f0453@mala15b1d381fb> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <004101c9172c$f0331810$0202a8c0@Mildred><48CF2445.2070109@skynet.be> <000401c9176f$6c76bf20$45643d60$@com> <024601c917c4$8c2f78c0$fb8f0453@mala15b1d381fb> Message-ID: <48CFBBA7.7020601@NTLworld.com> [Konrad Ciborowski] And The WBF Code Of Practice supersedes the law? Shall we talk about the famous "Lille interpretations" and the concept of a "stupid mistake" that was supposed to take precedence over L25? [Nigel] As usual, Konrad hits the nail squarely on the head. The law book should be the primary and impeccable source. Then it wouldn't matter so much if an individual legislature in the subsidiary tower of Babel got it wrong sometimes. To this end, the law-book should be *complete*. Not only should it dot all the i's and cross all the t's as far as basic laws are concerned; it should also cover screens, bidding boxes, system cards, alerting, announcing, victory point tables, and so on. A subsudiary legislature would still be free to over-ride any of these defaults with its own regulations; but then it would be clear that it had done so and it would be responsible for any resulting mess; if it didn't do its own thing, then there would be a complete coherent consistent set of laws to fall back on. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 16 16:56:02 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:56:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael In-Reply-To: <48CF7342.80808@ulb.ac.be> References: <48CF7342.80808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48CFC902.8090104@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I don't think Herman has ever written this. He merely pretends that the present way to deal with information problems isn't legal either, if one takes the laws to the letter. I agree with him. He also says that it's enough of a reason to be allowed to choose one's course of action under the present laws. I don't fully agree, but he's right on Natural Law principles. Nobody can be declatred guilty if all courses of action in one specified situation would somehow have been illegal. So, I have to agree with Herman; one more point : many of us seem to misunderstand his main statements. And that's a reason to state them again. [Nige1] Alain accurtely explains the DWS controversy. Law-makers had the opportunity to confirm or refute Herman in the 2007 laws but, judging by the renewed debate, seem to have muffed it: in particular the WBFLC needed to define partnership understanding even more carefully than they have now done; and further qualify the ban on giving UI. For example, IMO, the following are "partnership understnndings": [A] A convention defined in a book which your partnership agrees specifies your system -- but neither partner has yet read the relevant paragraph. [B] An undiscussed convention that you play with other players in your group; you know your pick-up partner plays regularly in the same group; and you assume partner will understand it if you employ it. Perhaps, for DWS purposes, it would suffice for the law-makers to clarify that an understanding is what you thought it was -- not what you deduce that partner now seems to think it is. Arguably, you often you infer the latter illegally, from UI. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 16 17:10:42 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:10:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> Message-ID: <48CFCC72.8000409@NTLworld.com> [HdW] So we have a law - that states clearly that something may not be done, not in any manner. [DALB] We do. But even you may accept that it is occasionally necessary for certain actions to be considered not in breach of this Law. For example, if I explain my partner's call as systemically forcing and then pass it, this pass is an indication to him in some manner that he has made a mistake. But it is not considered such an indication (otherwise the game could not continue at all). Now, if a call or play is considered not an indication under your favourite Law 20, why should not an explanation be considered not an indication? The "simple truth" you ask me to write is that unless an explanation to the opponents is considered a breach of Law 20F5a, your entire case collapses. The WBF has said (in effect) that an explanation to the opponents is not considered a breach of any Law at all, including Law 20F5a, so your entire case has collapsed. Whether or not this is a good thing can be argued, but it is a thing nonetheless. {Nige1] It is good that David Burn hasn't cherry-picked dictionary definitions to justify these exceptions. Surely, however, it is not too late to make such exceptions explicit in the law-book and so curtail this sophistry? From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 02:22:52 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:22:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CFB3DF.7030307@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CE6267.7080308@ulb.ac.be> <48CF5DC1.1020200@t-online.de> <48CFF5DB.4070502@skynet.be> <48CFB3DF.7030307@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D04DDC.6030506@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> ... I believe I am not campaigning for the rules to be changed, but >> rather for them to be maintained. >> I believe dWS is currently legal, and more in conformance with the >> general logic of the laws in general. > > Last Friday some guy chose to believe that my money belonged to him. > That did not make him right, German law holding a different opinion. The > WBFLC chooses to believe that your view is incorrect (as you well know, > but choose to continuously disregard), and, being the minds behind the > legislative powers of the WBF, they are in a position to do so. They > have the authority to make such statements, and have done so, again and > again. > No, Grattan has done so - and it's the only part he's not constantly reminding us that's just a personal opinion. Grattan is not the WBF. >> The fact that players all over the >> world (two mentioned in the last two weeks) keep inventing the dWS all >> by themselves is evidence for that statement. > > The fact that millions of players did not invent the dWs by themselves > may of course be safely disregarded, as it does not add to argument... > Millions of players may not have had the chance to do anything - have you got examples? I have not had many of them. >> I also believe that if the WBF think the game would be better off >> without dWS, then they need to change the laws (an official >> interpretation would be sufficient for that) but they need to consider >> three things: >> 1) that would (IMO) be detrimental to the game - the least they could do >> is hear me out > > You started propagating your view more than 10 years ago. That gives me > a hint that they probably did so and disagreed with your view. You are > still entitled to further tries to make them change their mind. > >> 2) it would be impossible to uphold - a simple interpretation might stop >> me from acting like this, but not those others from inventing it, and >> still others from acting like it deliberately, it would not be possible >> to distinguish the one from the other > > Let's say the WBF adopts dWs. Now what would hinder someone to invent > the notion that the opps are not entitled to know what's in partner's > hand (since explainer cannot possibly know), but only to agreements > (which explainer can and should know)? In which way would the situation > be better than now? > Ehm? come again? Have you understood anything? dWS is nothing more than an extension of L20F5a. What do you do when someone mistakingly corrects partner's explanation? You rule UI. Just the same with a player breaking dWS. The difference between the two situations is that if the WBF adopt dWS, and someone starts following MS, there is an easy penalty: the UI will hinder them greatly, and the TD will rule harshly. OTOH, if the WBF adopt MS (to a larger extent than they possibly currently do) they can chose one of two options: 1) provide no penalties for it, as is the case now - was there anything in the Las Vegas case that you found handled wrongly - do you care to add any penalties to the offenders there? Well, in such a universerse I'll be happy to play. I'll just continue doing dWS and stop bothering others about it. I'll get better scores, but who cares? 2) provide penalties for it. This what I predict in my case 3 below: >> 3) stopping that particular hole would mean the laws would change beyond >> recognition, and it would suit the lawmakers to think ahead and look >> before they leap. > > No, Herman, they would not change at all. What is needed is for you to > recognize that (for example) L20F5 is not broken by explanations.The key > word here is authority. The people with the authority to say so have > declared what "to indicate" means in the context of the laws, or "in any > manner" and so forth. If someone repeatedly refuses to listen to the > pronounciations of the authorities there is no remedy, as such person > will continue to do so until the law texts are as wanted. Then another > such person will appear, ad infinitum. > Well, if that is your opinion, then I'll just continue to act as I would in the past - what's stopping me? It's illegal, you say? And I do it anyway. Great. > Herman ,while I have some sympathies for your views, there is a simple > fact why I think your approach is dead wrong, and that is the nature of > humans. In another word: cheating. Now you and others are able to > explain according to the UI given, then summon the director and clear > the whole thing up. Take a look around. Not on BLML, people here are > interested in the laws, they try to understand them in order to be > better able to follow them. What about the legions of players who don't? Exactly!!!!! The legions of players who cannot handle UI are much better off with a rule that makes certain no UI is given in the first place! Which is what all the laws in the book (including L20F5a) are actually doing! Mathias, you are living in the only country that I know of that have retained the forbidding of asking after a revoke. Why did you do that? Because you felt the game was better without UI. Which is precisely the reason why dWS is better - for the players. It's easier to explain, it produces less problems for the TD. > They will not all become cheaters, it will be a minority, but it would > poison our game. Lots of people would invent the notion that if you > described partner's hand all is well, and if oppos don't play them for > another hand as they actually hold, well, that's too bad, isn't it. Most > of them would not even realize that they are cheating. The law asked > them to explain partner's hand and they did so, what's the problem? That > is not the game I want to play. I want to play a game where I pay for > the mistakes of my partnership. We win together, we lose together. I do > not want to wriggle out of our mishaps, our forgets, sloppy agreements, > whatever. I want to win, but not at all costs. > And I prefer to play a game in which I can win within the rules. I don't want to beplaying redoubled slams, three off, if we can be rescued by thinking, while staying within the laws. You make an interesting point though. You say that with dWS it's ok to explain partner's hand - that is not really the case. When I explain the dWS to players, they are quite clear that what they are doing is continuing the wrong explanation in the sole purpose of not waking up partner (following L20F5a). I tell them they are obliged to add their MI to the things they need to tell the TD when they call him before the opening lead (or after the play). And one more thing: why can it be so bad to explain what is in his hand? That is what the opponents want. In in these cases, it's even what they are entitled to. I always say that a MS explanation must contain BOTH explanations. Since the opponents already know what convention partner is answering to, they are entitled to know precisely how we are playing that convention. > Best regards > Matthias > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 02:24:12 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:24:12 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CFB67E.3060606@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be> <48CFB67E.3060606@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D04E2C.7030609@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> But the question was not if we wanted to give UI or not. My point was to >> refute your argument that giving UI is not punished. It is! > > No, Herman, what is being "punished" is the mistake that lead to UI. > Wouldn't you say that someone who is too tired or too forgetul or > whatever has earned a bad score? > Make no mistakes and there will be no UI or MI, and there will be no > score corrections either. If my partner gets something wrong my choices > may be restricted. So what? He made a mistake, we are a partnership, so > my score may suffer from that. Fine. Nobody forced me to play with that > particular partner, it was my choice. Now I have to love with the > consequences of that choice. Followers of the dWs try to avoid living > with that choice. > If you feel disadvantaged, because some people with lesser ethical > standards are not "punished" often enough, well, educate the TD as well > as the players. > Mathias, that is the masochistic approach. If we make a mistake, we want to be punished severely. Most players do not have that approach. It is not a valid argument for defending the MS view. > Best regards > Matthias > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 02:27:16 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:27:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> Mathias, do you regard raising an eyebrow as "indicating in any manner that a mistake has been made". Yes? Then stop this silly argument. L20F5a is being broken. And if you think it is not, then you are deluded by your failure to find good arguments in favour of MS. There aren't any. You may believe that it is OK to break L20F5a, for some greater good, but don't come saying that "1 ace" and "4NT was not Blackwood" and "you silly bastard" are not all "indicating that a mistake has been made". Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> But David should realize that he is coming to the wrong conclusion. >> Although I do not like his example (after all, one can be passing a >> forcing bid) I can easily understand it. Where David goes wrong, is that >> he says his passing is not an indication that something has gone wrong. > > David didn't say anything of the sort. If you have an indication for > something it does not automatically mean that someone indicated it. If > my car is missing it is an indication that it was stolen. Nobody > indicated that to me. I worked it out from > 1. I have the only key > 2. Time was to short for the car being towed away by the police, as it > was there 2 minutes ago. > > "To indicate" and "indication" may have the same root (I am to lazy to > look that up), but that does not mean that they are interchangeable or > that one depends on the other. So if partner explains something > differently from what I intended it as, that is an indication that > someone goofed, but he not indicate something, he followed his legal > obligations. Pointing to something is a voluntary act, following the law > is not. > > Best regards > Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 02:34:09 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:34:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael In-Reply-To: <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48D05081.2090202@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Our previous discussions have left us with too narrow a focus. We're > thinking about the dWS as Herman practices it today, as he argues its > compatibility with current law. But at its most fundamental level, > the dWS is about changing the object of disclosure from the > partnership's agreements to the actual intention of the bidder. The > question isn't "full disclosure or less than full disclosure?", it's > "full disclosure of what?" > Eric has totally misunderstood. Sorry Eric, but you have. There is no question, within the dWS, that the explanation that we say must be given, is MI. There is no discussion about full disclosure and what it means. The only thing we are discussing is whether or not it is OK, for a short while, to leave opponents under the impression that a previously given explanation was the correct one, while we know it was not. But that is precisely what L20F5a instructs us to do. As soon as partner misexplains, there is MI, and we know it. We could be speaking out, but we are instructed by the laws not to do so. We must patiently wait the end of the hand, and accept the Director's judgment on the case. We are not allowed to correct the MI. dWS goes only one step further - in explaining some further set of bids, the illusion is maintained that the first explanation was the right one. We know it isn't, but we are bound by L20F5a to leave the illusion be, and accept the Director's verdict afterwards. In that sense, Eric, you have gotten a wrong impression. There is no question about full disclosure - that is still paramount. But it will have to wait until the end. That way, there will be no difference with regards to who the opponent is. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 02:35:00 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:35:00 -0700 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael In-Reply-To: <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48D050B4.3080205@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Previous discussions have been about a dWS that has been shoehorned > into the current laws (where Herman believes it can already be > found), but that seems unworkable. ISTM that if we're going to > change the fundamental principle of disclosure, we're going to need > to revisit the entire body of law regarding disclosure, which means > potential new answers to questions of who, when and how as well as > what. I don't think there's much to be said for tweaking a law or > two, or reversing a WBFLC interpretation, to make Herman's > idiosyncratic dWS practices (which depend on his "turning himself in > afterwards") legal. If we are to adopt dWS principles in a > consistent and sensible way, I believe we're going to need to rewrite > all of the laws that touch on disclosure, and much of the laws that > touch on UI. > Absolutely not. Not a single piece of the laws needs to be rewritten. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 16 17:48:56 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:48:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CFB67E.3060606@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be> <48CFB67E.3060606@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48CFD568.1060000@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> But the question was not if we wanted to give UI or not. My point was to >> refute your argument that giving UI is not punished. It is! >> > > No, Herman, what is being "punished" is the mistake that lead to UI. > Wouldn't you say that someone who is too tired or too forgetul or > whatever has earned a bad score? > Make no mistakes and there will be no UI or MI, and there will be no > score corrections either. If my partner gets something wrong my choices > may be restricted. So what? AG : I think the answer to this question is rather straightforward : laws are there to restore equity, and it will usually be more easy to ensure this after MI than after UI. Is the NOS entitled to points earned from UI Morton's Fork effect on the OS, when there is a way to restore equity and no more ? I'd say No. (ISTM that the change in revoke laws not only makes them simpler, but also aims at equity rather than punishment) If you reached some strange contract through misbidding, you're allowed to play in any way that could lessen the impact of your error. In MI/UI cases, my feeling is that you should be, too. Yes, it's against the rules, but it shouldn't. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 16 19:14:27 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:14:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48CF7197.4070508@ulb.ac.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be><48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <02c701c91769$81259aa0$f45d9951@stefanie> <48CF7197.4070508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 16, 2008, at 4:43 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : >>> If we are playing together, and I avoid giving you UI, you are >>> free to >>> act - and you usually act correctly, and achieve a reasonable score. >>> But if I give you UI, and you don't use it (which of course you >>> don't), >>> you will make an inferior call and we will reach a lower score. >>> That way, it is the giving of the UI that has created our worse >>> score - >>> not your non-use of it. >>> >>> So while it is true that giving UI is not against the laws, it is >>> still >>> a bad idea, since your score will be badly affected! >> >> Herman, you know perfectly well that the point of full disclosure >> is to >> protect our opponents, not to protect our side's score. If we have >> given MI, >> and this results in UI, and our score is damaged, it is OK. > > AG : but what Stefanie seems to forget is that *additional* MI will > seldom create more damage for the opponents, while creating UI will > often make the deal unplayable and / or damage the field. > I, for one, advocate using dWS principles only when it looks likel > additional MI won't create more damage, and if that appears to be > wrong, > of course the TD will have to adjust. This demonstrates the sorry state Herman's hijacking of the previous discussion of the dWS has left us in. No consistent, rational or sensible interpretation of dWS-like disclosure will come out of the absurd notion that a valid disclosure protocol will require players to deliberately give false information (i.e. lie to their opponents). It is nonsense to talk about "giving additional MI" or "balancing the MI against the UI" in this context. To produce a workable protocol will require nothing less than a total rethinking of the distinction between valid information and MI. Any sane and rational dWS will involve recognizing that players are entitled to information as to the intended meaning of an opponent's call and explicitly delivering it. It can't be about delivering that information under some silly pretense of disclosing something else entirely. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 16 19:58:16 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:58:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael In-Reply-To: <48CF7342.80808@ulb.ac.be> References: <48CF7342.80808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <23074529-C1AF-4A0F-A9E9-CAA4AE127EE3@starpower.net> On Sep 16, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> Well, guess what subject has reappeared on BLML, like a zombie rising >> from the dead? I'm afraid it's dWS time again, folks. But maybe, >> just maybe, we needn't all crank up our killfiles again, maybe we can >> have a rational discussion. All that will take is an agreement as to >> what we're debating about. >> >> The "dWS" is an alternative approach to disclosure; we all know by >> now what it entails. It is patently not without merit. A number of >> thoughtful and serious members of this forum are prepared to argue >> that the dWS is superior to the accepted protocol for disclosure, and >> therefore its use should be made at least legal, if not mandatory. I >> happen to disagree (as of now), but believe that this is definitely a >> discussion worth having. >> >> But we will not have it if, as has been the case in the past, Herman >> insists on hijacking the discussion by sheer volume of noise into a >> debate over his ridiculous and insupportable assertion that the dWS >> *is* legal under current law > > AG : I don't think Herman has ever written this. He merely pretends > that > the present way to deal with information problems isn't legal > either, if > one takes the laws to the letter. I agree with him. > He also says that it's enough of a reason to be allowed to choose > one's > course of action under the present laws. I don't fully agree, but he's > right on Natural Law principles. Nobody can be declatred guilty if all > courses of action in one specified situation would somehow have been > illegal. Offhand I can think of three different lines of argument here, each not new to this forum, each worthy of a thread of its own. A quick outline: The consistency argument: Herman and Alain ask us to accept as a fundamental truth that the game of duplicate contract bridge is literally unplayable. The game is defined by its laws, so if you can't play it without breaking its laws, you can't play it, period. They argue, in effect, that since there is no playable game called "duplicate contract bridge" they're entitled to play some other game defined by rules of their own choosing. The authority argument: Yes, if one parses the precise letter of the law, one can make a (rather transparently weak, IMHO) case thart "the present way to deal with information problems isn't legal either". But the folks who wrote the laws, who interpret the laws, and who generally run the game have repeatedly, definitively and unanimously declared that to be a misreading, even to the extent of issuing a formal interpretation that says so in absolute and unamibiguous terms. The morality argument: Even if we were to accept the legal equivalence of Herman's "dWS" and "MS", the former, unlike the latter, requires us to tell outright lies to our opponents, which, in a game allegedly played for fun/entertainment/hobby purposes, is simply the wrong thing to do. To get past this, we must accept the statement of "natural law" in Alain's last sentence, which totally contravenes conventional morality. It remains wrong -- indeed, illegal -- to gun down the pedestrians who are blocking our path along the sidewalk even when our only alternative means of getting past them to some mandated destination is to cross the street illegally. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 16 20:09:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:09:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sep 16, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Yes, some of the time we will have to steer into a disaster with open >> eyes. So what? We should not have given that wrong explanation or >> failed >> to alert or whatever in the first place. If we get some bad score it >> would entirely be our fault. If we contravened some law or >> regulation we >> just have to bear the consequences. Sometimes that is not fun at all, >> true, but again: so what? > > But the question was not if we wanted to give UI or not. My point > was to > refute your argument that giving UI is not punished. It is! > Now if something is not a crime, then why is it punished. > So your argument that, in the choice between giving UI and MI, one > should give UI because that is not punished, is wrong. > And that is not even the choice I am talking about. > > It is the choice between breaking L20F5a and giving MI. > And L20F5a is a very strong law, that it behooves players not to be > breaking! Nice logic. I'd rather be dry than wet. If I go out in the rain I will be punished. It must be a crime to go out in the rain. If I have a court date but it's raining, I get to stay home. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 16 20:23:39 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:23:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael In-Reply-To: <48CFFA79.20808@skynet.be> References: <48CFFA79.20808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8E8D4B8D-5F78-44F9-B26B-9A642FE37F19@starpower.net> On Sep 16, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well Eric, > > I applaude your invitation and am quite willing to accept it and do > this > discussion on your terms. OK. When do you plan to start? > But I strongly object to your calling the dWS currently illegal. > I ask you to provide other evidence than the fact that Grattan, in a > personal opinion, has said he believes it to be illegal. > > Of course I agree that dWS actions are infractions of at least one > law. > But I ask you to provide me with citations from the laws that clearly > state that the MS actions are not infractions of L20F5a. > > I accept that we need not discuss the current legality of dWS and > still > be constructive. But I protest to your underlying assertment that MS > actions are currently legal (with legal defined the same way for both > schools). If we discuss this without speaking of the current > legality of > dWS, then we must also forget the current legality of MS, and discuss > both schools on merits alone. > > OK, in that light I cast a first stone: > > A player misexplains and makes a call. > His partner must remain silent about the mistake. > The opponents ask the partner what the second call means. > The partner must now reveal the mistake. > At a different table, the opponents ask nothing. > The partner must remain silent about the mistake. > > Do you consider this a logical way for the laws to be? Every word of the above after the first sentence is about the dWS in the context of current law. I have no comment on any of it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 16 20:57:18 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:57:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48CFB3DF.7030307@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CE6267.7080308@ulb.ac.be> <48CF5DC1.1020200@t-online.de> <48CFF5DB.4070502@skynet.be> <48CFB3DF.7030307@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sep 16, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> 2) it would be impossible to uphold - a simple interpretation >> might stop >> me from acting like this, but not those others from inventing it, and >> still others from acting like it deliberately, it would not be >> possible >> to distinguish the one from the other > > Let's say the WBF adopts dWs. Now what would hinder someone to invent > the notion that the opps are not entitled to know what's in partner's > hand (since explainer cannot possibly know), but only to agreements > (which explainer can and should know)? In which way would the > situation > be better than now? Another example of the sort of narrowly focused thinking to which Herman's hijacking the discussion into his own context has led us. The dWS is all about telling the opponents about partner's actual hand. Adopting the dWS requires giving up "the notion that the opps are not entitled to know what's in partner's hand". Since "explainer cannot possibly know", perhaps we need to think about respecifying "explainer". In any case, one thing we clearly need to do is understand and respect the difference between opponents' prospectively knowing "what the bidder intended" and "what the bidder's partner thinks the bidder intended" -- since those can only be definitively revealed by two different people. The dWS is about replacing opponent's entitlement to know (only) what the "true" partnership agreement is with something else, presumably one of the above. Maybe we should start with, which one? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 16 23:29:26 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:29:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be><48CFB67E.3060606@t-online.de> <48D04E2C.7030609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c9184b$12c00e00$e55c9951@stefanie> HdW: > Mathias, that is the masochistic approach. If we make a mistake, we want > to be punished severely. Most players do not have that approach. It is > not a valid argument for defending the MS view. > I think that most players are willing to take their medicine. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 16 23:34:07 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:34:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael References: <48CF7342.80808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000e01c9184b$130a0f50$e55c9951@stefanie> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Herman > insists on hijacking the discussion by sheer volume of noise into a > debate over his ridiculous and insupportable assertion that the dWS > *is* legal under current law AG : I don't think Herman has ever written this. He merely pretends that the present way to deal with information problems isn't legal either, if one takes the laws to the letter. Herman deWael, 16 September 2008: I believe dWS is currently legal, and more in conformance with the general logic of the laws in general. SR: And would you please respect the wishes of the OP? This is not what this thread is supposed to be about. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 16 23:50:27 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:50:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be><48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be><02c701c91769$81259aa0$f45d9951@stefanie> <48CF7197.4070508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001001c9184b$13a2a5d0$e55c9951@stefanie> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" AG : but what Stefanie seems to forget is that *additional* MI will seldom create more damage for the opponents, while creating UI will often make the deal unplayable and / or damage the field. SR: I have not "forgotten" this. I have never maintained it. AG: I, for one, advocate using dWS principles only when it looks likel additional MI won't create more damage, and if that appears to be wrong, of course the TD will have to adjust. And how exactly would you like to codify this so that the average player could judge the situation in the way you do? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 16 23:46:23 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:46:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS without Mr. de Wael References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> > On Sep 15, 2008, at 9:02 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> I'm willing. >> >> I had, and still have, considerable sympathy for what I think of as >> the >> "original" dWS, which appeared on these pages more than a decade >> ago. The >> premise there was that if you were not sure about your agreement, >> or did not >> think that you had an explicit one, you are forced to guess, and >> should tell >> this to your opponents. >> >> If you get it right, there will be no problem; if you get it wrong >> you will >> have given UI and MI, but the opponents will be OK because they are >> protected from damage. And they will have a much better time of >> continuing >> the auction and playing and defending sensibly. If one say "no >> agreement" or >> "might be A, might be B", then the opponents are in the dark. Also, >> I have >> as little patience as Herman with people who say "no agreement" and >> proceed >> to get it right. Your partner made a conventional bid; he must have >> had >> *some* basis for thinking you would know what it meant. And to tell >> the >> truth, I am not sure that this approach is not legal. >> >> As far as the "current" dWS is concerned, though, I have no >> sympathy at all >> with it. Its adherents freely admit that its purpose is to get a >> better >> score for our side, after WE have erred by misbidding or giving a >> misexplanation, or have inappropriately alerted or failed to alert. >> Just as >> an aside, the problem with these last cases is readily apparent -- >> it could >> be that the error was simply partner's alert or failure to alert, >> or maybe >> we didn't notice whether he did. In any case, I think that the >> whole idea of >> trying to "get away" unharmed by our own infractions is not part of >> what I >> think bridge is all about. >> >> Anyway, I have stated my general views many times before. But if we >> want to >> talk about the desirability of making the dWS legal, I would like >> to bring >> up a serious practical problem. If the principle of "full >> disclosure" is >> relaxed, people will have trouble identifying the situations when >> full, >> partial or false disclosure is required. Some will do it with >> nefarious >> intent, and others will not. But guilty and innocent will say that >> they were >> trying to follow the (new, dWS-friendly) laws; and to be fair, I >> think that >> they will be far too complex for many. Some will also forget to >> correct the >> misinformation at the appropriate time. >> >> A line has to be drawn somewhere between full-disclosure and non- >> disclosure. >> I think that if that line is drawn anywhere short of full >> disclosure, we are >> opening up a huge grey area; an area in which it will be hard for most >> people to even see where the line is. EL: The > question isn't "full disclosure or less than full disclosure?", it's > "full disclosure of what?" Yes, OK. Reread my above posting with "full and accurate disclosure of the partnership's methods when asked for an explanation " substituted for "full disclosure". EL: > If we are to adopt dWS principles in a > consistent and sensible way, I believe we're going to need to rewrite > all of the laws that touch on disclosure, and much of the laws that > touch on UI. Probably, yes. And making the creation of UI an offense will be difficult, because a player does create a BIT because he has to think. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 00:01:52 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:01:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS and DSC Message-ID: <001101c9184b$13d96d40$e55c9951@stefanie> So as not to hijack Eric's thread: EL: The authority argument: Yes, if one parses the precise letter of the law, one can make a (rather transparently weak, IMHO) case that "the present way to deal with information problems isn't legal either". But the folks who wrote the laws, who interpret the laws, and who generally run the game have repeatedly, definitively and unanimously declared that to be a misreading, even to the extent of issuing a formal interpretation that says so in absolute and unambiguous terms. SR: Grattan has admitted that the DSC, despite his own urgings, did not bother to include in the *Laws* a single sentence to make the legality or otherwise of the dWS incontrovertibly clear, just because they didn't want it to seem like they were monkeys, performing when Herman pulled their chain. I really think that this was a disgraceful and childish attitude to take. Just an example of how the DSC have done one of the most incompetent jobs of any group, given any task, of all time. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 00:41:07 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:41:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be><001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48CF9FA9.7050509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00b101c9184d$4fec6290$e55c9951@stefanie> AG : But the important thing is that you used the word 'indication', which shows (or indicates) that 'indicating' needn't be purposeful, contrarily to what some have stated. SR: No, Mr. Burn has said the exact opposite. He has said that "to indicate" is purposeful, while there may be an "indication" that is not the product of someone actively having indicated. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 17 02:42:40 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:42:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Killfiles (was Revisit...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01c401c917e0$ebf588a0$7cad9b51@stefanie> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >Well, guess what subject has reappeared on BLML, like a >zombie rising from the dead? I'm afraid it's dWS time >again, folks. But maybe, just maybe, we needn't all >crank up our killfiles again, maybe we can have a >rational discussion. All that will take is an agreement >as to what we're debating about. Richard Hills: Let us debate Law 77. A German player whose name is (to the best of my recollection) H.J. Hauff has a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of the scoring Law, with the belief that scores should be non-reciprocal. That is, if in a Mitchell movement matchpoint pairs North-South score +170, Hauff scores East-West as 0. And if instead North- South score +140, Hauff again scores East-West as 0. If this interpretation of Law 77 was valid, then it would obviously cause a major change in matchpoint pairs strategy. To some extent Hauff's interpretation has merit, because many moons ago Law 77 was borrowed from the Contract (Rubber) Bridge Lawbook, so the fact that Duplicate Bridge scores are reciprocal is not specifically spelled out. Hauff even spent real money (not just blml electrons) by buying a full-page advertisement in The Bridge World to reveal his Law 77 interpretation. But is it necessary for the WBF Laws Committee to waste time issuing a formal minute refuting the delusions of a crank who wishes to alter the fundamental nature of Duplicate Bridge? And is it necessary for the WBF Laws Committee to waste time issuing a formal minute refuting the delusions of another crank who wishes to alter the fundamental nature of Duplicate Bridge? Perhaps I am being unfair, comparing apples with oranges in order to make a meretricious point. On 13th February 2008 David Burn wrote: >>What was good enough for the Bellman ought to be >>tolerated in Herman's case. After all, he has been >>arguing a minority position at long odds, and the fact >>that he continues to do so almost without rancour is a >>tribute to [a] his sincerity; [b] his integrity and >>[c] his grasp through thick and thin of the >>difficulties involved. >> >>I don't deny that L20F5 creates a serious problem >>(just as L27 in the new code is about to do, and the >>infamous L25 in the 1997 code did). I think that >>Herman has been unresponsive to the arguments >>advanced, especially by those in positions of >>authority, to resolve the problem (which is to say >>that I can well understand why Grattan Endicott and >>Ton Kooijman are a bit fed up with him). I think, as I >>have said many times, that he is wrong to rely on the >>"principle" that creation of UI is more to be avoided >>than creation of MI; and that he is wrong to say that >>the Laws are somehow "hierarchically" based on that >>principle. >> >>But if the anti-dWS amendment, or appendix, or >>whatever, actually makes its way into the Laws, then >>Herman will have done the game a great service by >>recognising that there was a difficulty in the first >>place. If it does not - well, he will continue to do >>the game a great service by insisting that the matter >>should be resolved one way or another. >> >>Of one thing I am sure: it is not good enough for >>those who make the Laws to say, ex cathedra, that it >>is obvious what those Laws mean. In truth, that wasn't >>good enough even when Kaplan was Archbishop; as recent >>correspondence has made clear, if bridge really is to >>be a global game, the Lawmakers ought to listen very >>hard to people such as Robert Geller, who does not >>know how to translate the Laws into Japanese because >>he does not know what they mean in English. And the >>Lawmakers ought also to listen to Herman de Wael. 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 Sep 17 03:28:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:28:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] The field (was dWS...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CF7197.4070508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Edmund Burke (1729-1797): Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that of course they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour. Alain Gottcheiner asserted: ...creating UI will often make the deal unplayable and / or damage the field... Richard Hills quibbles: Indeed, "protecting the field" is also a foundation stone of Bobby Wolff's Hesitation Disruption philosophy. But where is a reference stating that "protecting the field is much more important than protecting the non-offenders" to be found in the Lawbook and/or in the WBF Code of Practice? 2007 Introduction, second sentence: "They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where nonoffenders may otherwise be damaged." 2007 Law 12B1: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending 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)." WBF Code of Practice (co-author Bobby Wolff), page 4: "An appeal against a ruling may only be made by a side present at the table where the ruling was given. No account is to be taken of the interests of other contestants in the outcome." 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 Sep 17 04:09:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:09:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CF7621.9020305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>I disagree. South's class of players in this appeal would be >>those with similar hand evaluation skills. It is not at all >>necessary for those polled to play the same methods; they >>merely need to be given the auction so far and told that >>North's 3H bid promises 13-14 hcp and exactly 3 hearts. Alain Gottcheiner: >I don't understand. Several of us agreed that it would be >important to put to the test South's claim that he didn't >relay to enquire about range, but mainly about the number of >hearts. And how would someone who doesn't practice such relay >bids tell us whether it's plausible ? Richard Hills: I still disagree. South's motivation for relaying is not relevant. What is relevant is how many peers who share South's hand evaluation skills would bid 4H at the decision point when South must pass-or-bid in response to North's 3H. If a sufficient number of peers would bid 4H (which, in my opinion, would be the case), then the TD's Law 16 ruling of 4H -100 was correct, and the AC's ruling of 3H +140 was incorrect. Another error made by the AC was deciding the issue from scratch. WBF Code of Practice, "Inclination of Committee", 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." 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 05:01:39 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:01:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CD5FCD.6000100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <016201c91871$b4ca7cf0$e55c9951@stefanie> HdW: PP, you say? Maybe to HDW, of whom you know he would do this. But what about this player, who finds a?out about dWS all by himself - who does not even know it's supposed to be wrong? SR: What about him? He will get a lighter PP for a first-time offence than you will. HdW: And what about the player who states he genuinely believed his partner had given the right explanation and he was doing the same? SR: He is not permitted to change his mind about the agreements after hearing his partner's explanation. If he was under an illusion, he must maintain it. HdW: How are you going to believe such a player? Will you accept from him a consistent explanation - will you do so from me? SR: If a player will lie to the director, there is not a whole lot that can be done. It is possible to cheat in bridge. HdW: But I _am_ abiding by the rules, as I interpret them. You may believe I am wrong, but I believe you are too, and there is really nothing to distinguish between us. SR: Except for the fact that you are actually wrong. Stefanie Rohan London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 17 06:44:23 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:44:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > If a wereWolff ignores Laws and/or official > interpretations because that wereWolff believes > them to be stupid, then that wereWolff is not > obeying the Rule of Law. My understanding is that if I drop the ace of hearts during the auction, then make the final pass of the auction, my partner has to pass at his first opportunity, which in this case will be during the next auction. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 17 07:37:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:37:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law rules OK [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Queen Elizabeth rules UK" Richard Hills asserted: >>If a werewolf ignores Laws and/or official >>interpretations because that werewolf believes >>them to be stupid, then that werewolf is not >>obeying the Rule of Law. Robert Frick quibbled: >My understanding is that if I drop the ace of >hearts during the auction, then make the final >pass of the auction, my partner has to pass at >his first opportunity, which in this case will >be during the next auction. Law 41D, Dummy's Hand "...the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer... Richard Hills counter-quibbles: So my understanding of Law 41D is that the least rancid of dummy's cards are towards declarer, while dummy has to suffer the stench of having the most mephitic cards closer to herself. :-) Merely because an obtuse or dogmatic player or director is _capable_ of misinterpreting any or all of Laws 20F5(a), 24B, 41D and 77 does not necessarily _imply_ that the Rule of Law is abolished for Duplicate Bridge. 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 Wed Sep 17 07:53:59 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:53:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 16B1(a) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "After a partner makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play...the partner may not choose from among logical alternative one that could be demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." I don't find this as clear as I would like. But I think it means I can't use UI for selecting between calls and plays, and only calls and plays. If so, then I can use UI to avoid giving a misleading explanation of partner's bid and creating even more UI. This is a conclusion I would like. However, it there is a general problem in the laws where they talk about calls and/or plays and the law should actually apply to actions. So us werewolves would often like to extend those laws. In this particular case, it seems clear to me that a player should not be allowed to use UI in making some decision in response to an irregularity. Whatever the laws actually say on this. So I want to extent L16B1(a) to at least some situations. I think maybe there is a useful distinction between actions which are designed to help the opponents and actions which are designed to improve my own score. I select calls, plays, and options after an irregularity for my own benefit. It makes sense that L16B1(a) should apply to these. But describing partner's hand is done for the benefit of the opponents. So I am thinking that it will work well if L16B1(a) is extended to all selfish decisions but not to decisions designed to help the opps. Can anyone thing of any exceptions? For example, suppose I use UI to call the director against myself? Can I use UI to summon the director for L20F4? Of course, if you don't want to be a werewolf, then you are stuck with being able to use UI for any action other than a call or play. Or you can try for a convoluted interpretation of L16B1(a) -- whether or not you can use UI for a decision following an irregularity depends on whether the UI could suggest a call or play. But IMO that doesn't make any sense. What makes sense is that you can't use UI for making a decision following an irregularity is if the UI would suggest one decision over another. As always, sorry if I have missed something major or if this has already been thorougly discussed. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 17 08:15:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:15:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Killfiles (was Revisit...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CFC902.8090104@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Law 40A1(a): "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." Nigel Guthrie asserted: [snip] >For example, IMO, the following are "partnership >understandings": > >[A] A convention defined in a book which your >partnership agrees specifies your system -- but >neither partner has yet read the relevant >paragraph. > >[B] An undiscussed convention that you play with >other players in your group; you know your pick- >up partner plays regularly in the same group; and >you assume partner will understand it if you >employ it. Richard Hills quibbles: Yes and no. [A] = not an understanding, since there is not any mutual experience of the relevant paragraph. [B] = implicit understanding, since there is now a mutual awareness of a default convention used by the local group. Nigel Guthrie asserted: >Perhaps, for DWS purposes, it would suffice for >the law-makers to clarify that an understanding >is what you thought it was -- Richard Hills quibbles: To say "clarify" is an understatement, as Nigel is actually proposing a radical Law change away from the decades-old policy of "a unilateral belief by one partner is not necessarily a pre-existing mutual understanding of both partners". Nigel Guthrie asserted: >not what you deduce that partner now seems to >think it is. Arguably, you often you infer the >latter illegally, from UI. Richard Hills quibbles: Gaining inferences from UI is not illegal, and indeed may be required for the purposes of Law 20F4. It is rather choosing a UI-suggested call or play which is illegal. I do, however, agree with Nigel that choosing a UI-suggested call or play does happen often. Alternatively using UI to provide a beneficial-to- your-side inaccurate or incomplete explanation is fortunately a rarer form of impropriety. 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 Wed Sep 17 08:29:39 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:29:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law rules OK [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Richard. How are you doing? I was sorting through the posts for the past few days, but nothing looked that interesting so far. > "Queen Elizabeth rules UK" > > Richard Hills asserted: > >>> If a werewolf ignores Laws and/or official >>> interpretations because that werewolf believes >>> them to be stupid, then that werewolf is not >>> obeying the Rule of Law. > > Robert Frick quibbled: > >> My understanding is that if I drop the ace of >> hearts during the auction, then make the final >> pass of the auction, my partner has to pass at >> his first opportunity, which in this case will >> be during the next auction. > > Law 41D, Dummy's Hand > > "...the cards in order of rank with lowest > ranking cards towards declarer... > > Richard Hills counter-quibbles: > > So my understanding of Law 41D is that the least > rancid of dummy's cards are towards declarer, > while dummy has to suffer the stench of having > the most mephitic cards closer to herself. > > :-) > > Merely because an obtuse or dogmatic player or > director is _capable_ of misinterpreting any or > all of Laws 20F5(a), 24B, 41D and 77 does not > necessarily _imply_ that the Rule of Law is > abolished for Duplicate Bridge. I am not sure how this is relevant to anything. I mean, David Stevenson for example is misinterprets laws. How is that relevant? From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 17 08:44:04 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:44:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] retraction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very sorry everyone. I meant to send that last one just to Richard. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 18:30:02 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:30:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CE6267.7080308@ulb.ac.be> <48CF5DC1.1020200@t-online.de> <48CFF5DB.4070502@skynet.be> <48CFB3DF.7030307@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D1308A.3030706@skynet.be> Eric still has not understood. Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 16, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >> >>> 2) it would be impossible to uphold - a simple interpretation >>> might stop >>> me from acting like this, but not those others from inventing it, and >>> still others from acting like it deliberately, it would not be >>> possible >>> to distinguish the one from the other >> Let's say the WBF adopts dWs. Now what would hinder someone to invent >> the notion that the opps are not entitled to know what's in partner's >> hand (since explainer cannot possibly know), but only to agreements >> (which explainer can and should know)? In which way would the >> situation >> be better than now? > > Another example of the sort of narrowly focused thinking to which > Herman's hijacking the discussion into his own context has led us. > The dWS is all about telling the opponents about partner's actual > hand. Adopting the dWS requires giving up "the notion that the opps > are not entitled to know what's in partner's hand". Since "explainer > cannot possibly know", perhaps we need to think about respecifying > "explainer". In any case, one thing we clearly need to do is > understand and respect the difference between opponents' > prospectively knowing "what the bidder intended" and "what the > bidder's partner thinks the bidder intended" -- since those can only > be definitively revealed by two different people. The dWS is about > replacing opponent's entitlement to know (only) what the "true" > partnership agreement is with something else, presumably one of the > above. Maybe we should start with, which one? > NO. Full disclosure principles are not being changed. While I advocate explaining consistently, I am not saying that this becomes correct explanation. When the laws tell a player to remain silent about partner's misexplanation, does that mean the misexplanation now becomes correct explanation - no it doesn't! All I'm saying is that when trying to follow L20F5a a little further than you seem to be wanting, a player has to lie about his real system. I do not consider that any worse as him being obligated to remain silent about his real system. > > Eric Landau Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 18:31:10 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:31:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be><48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <02c701c91769$81259aa0$f45d9951@stefanie> <48CF7197.4070508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48D130CE.4050502@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Any sane and rational dWS will involve recognizing that players are > entitled to information as to the intended meaning of an opponent's > call and explicitly delivering it. It can't be about delivering that > information under some silly pretense of disclosing something else > entirely. > But if course I recognise this. I'm not saying it's a correct explanation, I'm saying it's a deliberate misexplanation to protect following L20F5a. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 18:33:01 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:33:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001c9184b$13a2a5d0$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be><48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be><02c701c91769$81259aa0$f45d9951@stefanie> <48CF7197.4070508@ulb.ac.be> <001001c9184b$13a2a5d0$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D1313D.3000308@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > AG : but what Stefanie seems to forget is that *additional* MI will > seldom create more damage for the opponents, while creating UI will > often make the deal unplayable and / or damage the field. > > SR: I have not "forgotten" this. I have never maintained it. > > AG: I, for one, advocate using dWS principles only when it looks likel > additional MI won't create more damage, and if that appears to be wrong, > of course the TD will have to adjust. > > And how exactly would you like to codify this so that the average player > could judge the situation in the way you do? > Which is precisely why Alain's approach is not correct. The laws should be simple an proscribe dWS at every turn. Just like L20F5a is simple - the player must always remain silent, even when he feels it would be to his benefit to correct the misinformation (as he could be thinking if the UI is of no consequence). > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 18:34:11 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:34:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c9184b$12c00e00$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be><48CFB67E.3060606@t-online.de> <48D04E2C.7030609@skynet.be> <000a01c9184b$12c00e00$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D13183.6030100@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HdW: > > >> Mathias, that is the masochistic approach. If we make a mistake, we want >> to be punished severely. Most players do not have that approach. It is >> not a valid argument for defending the MS view. >> > I think that most players are willing to take their medicine. > Oh no they're not. Not if there is another way that makes it possible for partner to recover. You are just being sadistic - and even masochistic if you want to act this way. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 18:37:44 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:37:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <016201c91871$b4ca7cf0$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <48CD5FCD.6000100@skynet.be> <016201c91871$b4ca7cf0$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D13258.4050605@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HdW: > > And what about the player who states he genuinely believed his partner > had given the right explanation and he was doing the same? > > SR: > > He is not permitted to change his mind about the agreements after hearing > his partner's explanation. If he was under an illusion, he must maintain it. > Have you never made a wrong call and then realized from your partner's explanation that you did? Why should I not be allowed to suddenly remember the system and explain everything correctly thereafter? Of course my bids must be according to what I thought the system was before I heard the previous explanation - but certainly my explanations must be correct ones, no? > HdW: > > How are you going to believe such a player? Will you accept from him a > consistent explanation - will you do so from me? > > SR: > > If a player will lie to the director, there is not a whole lot that can be > done. It is possible to cheat in bridge. > > HdW: > > But I _am_ abiding by the rules, as I interpret them. You may believe I > am wrong, but I believe you are too, and there is really nothing to > distinguish between us. > > SR: > > Except for the fact that you are actually wrong. > > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 17 10:50:14 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:50:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be><001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com><48CF9FA9.7050509@ulb.ac.be> <00b101c9184d$4fec6290$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <000c01c918a4$c098c3b0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] AG : But the important thing is that you used the word 'indication', which shows (or indicates) that 'indicating' needn't be purposeful, contrarily to what some have stated. > SR: No, Mr. Burn has said the exact opposite. He has said that "to indicate" is purposeful, while there may be an "indication" that is not the product of someone actively having indicated. > GE: Herman's error lies in his not understanding what it is that 'may not be done'. The word 'indicate' is a transitive verb meaning 'to point to'. The interpretation of this word notes that it entails a purposeful act of pointing to the mistake that has been made and that compliance with another law is not an action that has such purpose, so that if the mistake becomes apparent from the compliant action it is an incidental effect not involving (purposeful) indication. Therefore there is no violation of 2007 Law 20F5(a). > HDW Sorry Grattan, I do not accept this. "indicate in any manner" means precisely what we think it does. > GE: +=+ Now in my view this last is bumptious. Mr. De Wael sets himself above the members of the WBFLC in the interpretation of the English text of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, even though it is observed that their interpretation is in accord with correct English usage. We may put Mr. De Wael to one side and ignore his pretence. For the record, the word 'indicate' in Law 20F5 signifies a purposeful act of drawing attention to the mistake that has occurred. Compliance with law is not an action with freedom of purpose, so that if the mistake becomes apparent from the compliant action it is an incidental outcome that does not result from an intention to indicate. There is in that no violation of Law 20F5(a). +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Sep 17 11:12:18 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:12:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D04DDC.6030506@skynet.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CE6267.7080308@ulb.ac.be> <48CF5DC1.1020200@t-online.de> <48CFF5DB.4070502@skynet.be> <48CFB3DF.7030307@t-online.de> <48D04DDC.6030506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D0C9F2.6050008@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > And I prefer to play a game in which I can win within the rules. I don't > want to be playing redoubled slams, three off, if we can be rescued by > thinking, while staying within the laws. > So do I, Herman, so do I. It's just that I want to stay within a different set of laws than you do. > And one more thing: why can it be so bad to explain what is in his hand? > That is what the opponents want. Not me, Herman. I want to find out why someone made a bid. It tells me volumes about his hand. Under dWs this would only work if the hand coincides with the system. Often enough a good player plas with a weak player. I am much more interested in why te good player bid as he did than to know what the weak player thought his hand looked like. I wouldn't trust him anyway. If someone gives me the impression that he holds the minors (while in truth he used Blackwood), how in hell am I supposed to double 5D for the lead with Axx? Sorting out that disaster after the final pass is not good enough. Why should I (who have done nothing wrong) have to convince the TD about what I would have done if I had received the systemically correct explanation? Why should I have to suffer opps lying about their system? What have I done wrong in my last incarnation to be beset with intentional liars in this one? Never mind that the more ethical of them are prepared to clear up the confusion after the final pass. I don't care. I do not want to play against liars. Hiding that under "I wanted to describe partner's hand to you" is just a mask. It is about wriggling out of mistakes at the expense of the NOS. > In in these cases, it's even what they > are entitled to. I always say that a MS explanation must contain BOTH > explanations. Since the opponents already know what convention partner > is answering to, they are entitled to know precisely how we are playing > that convention. They can ask, can't they? Even if they don't, the law will protect them. Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Sep 17 11:28:08 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:28:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D04E2C.7030609@skynet.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be> <48CFB67E.3060606@t-online.de> <48D04E2C.7030609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D0CDA8.7010703@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> But the question was not if we wanted to give UI or not. My point was to >>> refute your argument that giving UI is not punished. It is! >> No, Herman, what is being "punished" is the mistake that lead to UI. >> Wouldn't you say that someone who is too tired or too forgetul or >> whatever has earned a bad score? >> Make no mistakes and there will be no UI or MI, and there will be no >> score corrections either. If my partner gets something wrong my choices >> may be restricted. So what? He made a mistake, we are a partnership, so >> my score may suffer from that. Fine. Nobody forced me to play with that >> particular partner, it was my choice. Now I have to love with the >> consequences of that choice. Followers of the dWs try to avoid living >> with that choice. >> If you feel disadvantaged, because some people with lesser ethical >> standards are not "punished" often enough, well, educate the TD as well >> as the players. >> > > Mathias, that is the masochistic approach. If we make a mistake, we want > to be punished severely. Most players do not have that approach. It is > not a valid argument for defending the MS view. > No, Herman, it is called the legal approach. It is how Bridge is played, was played and I hope will be played. There is no masochism involved. It is about what the rules are, not how we want them to be. If you call accepting bad results because of mistakes masochistic, isn't that because you think you suffer from partner's mistakes? Wouldn`t it be better to change your partner than change the rules of the game, so you suffer less? Or change your attitude to bad scores, so you suffer less? Where I play and direct, players(well, most of them) bear their partnership's mistakes gracefully. They did something wrong, they accept their score correction. No problem. Quite often they ask how to avoid it in the future, and then they try to avoid it. They learned something. Sometimes players tell me proudly how they incurred some bad score because they kept to the laws (usually players from the courses I give on rules, but sometimes those whose score I corrected in he past). That doesn't always work, sure, we have some people who are difficult to change in their ways, but it gets better all the time. Slowly, yes, and relapses happen, but it works. They would not accept being lied to, even if were cleared up before the lead. Nobody I know likes being lied to. Neither do I. Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Sep 17 11:47:02 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:47:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Mathias, do you regard raising an eyebrow as "indicating in any manner > that a mistake has been made". > Yes? > Then stop this silly argument. > L20F5a is being broken. Would you care to tell me where I (or anyone defending my point of view) has argued that raising an eyebrow does not break L20F5? Herman, this is what L20F5 is about. That, and nothing else. Raising an eyebrow, shaking one's head, groaning, whatever. That is "indicating in any manner...". It's what we tried to tell you all along. > And if you think it is not, then you are deluded by your failure to find > good arguments in favour of MS. There aren't any. Oh, there are. There just aren't any that you are willing to accept, and this is not going to change, which is why this will be my last posting to this topic. > > You may believe that it is OK to break L20F5a, for some greater good, > but don't come saying that "1 ace" and "4NT was not Blackwood" and "you > silly bastard" are not all "indicating that a mistake has been made". > "1 ace" does not violate L20F5, as it is your duty to explain the systemic meaning, while the other two remarks are in breach of L20F5. Now you will argue that "1 ace" and "4NT was not for the minors" send the same message, and you will be nearly right, as I do not know how many aces the Blackwood bidder will have to assume from the second remark, but so what? I will find out that a misunderstanding has taken place anyway, even with dWs, will I not? You have to correct the explanations anyway, so this is about lying to me in order not to restrict partner's choices, and have your score corrected at the end anyway... The 4NT example is exceedingly silly in any case, since you say yourself that Blackwooder has to bid according to his system, so the disaster probably has already happened. Well, I am out of this thread. Talking to a wall can tax even my considerable (even if I say so myself) resistance to boredom. Best regards Matthias From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 21:30:06 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:30:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D0C9F2.6050008@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CE6267.7080308@ulb.ac.be> <48CF5DC1.1020200@t-online.de> <48CFF5DB.4070502@skynet.be> <48CFB3DF.7030307@t-online.de> <48D04DDC.6030506@skynet.be> <48D0C9F2.6050008@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D15ABE.80900@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> And I prefer to play a game in which I can win within the rules. I don't >> want to be playing redoubled slams, three off, if we can be rescued by >> thinking, while staying within the laws. >> > > So do I, Herman, so do I. It's just that I want to stay within a > different set of laws than you do. > > >> And one more thing: why can it be so bad to explain what is in his hand? >> That is what the opponents want. > > Not me, Herman. I want to find out why someone made a bid. Which, in this case, is exactly the same thing! Do you really understand this problem? 4NT (intending for minors - explained as Blackwood) - 5Di. So, the real system is that 5Di shows diamond preference. But logic dictates that the player is showing one ace, and that he probably has one ace. The opponents are not interested in knowing that 5Di shows diamond preference, yet that is what you will be telling them. But that is not what is important in your message - what is important is that you'll be telling them 4NT was not Blackwood; and that is something L20F5a prohibits you from doing. At the end of the ensueing difficulties, your opponent will still ask "BTW, how many aces does he have?" You'll know he has one, and you'll have to tell them that. So in the end, we both will have said the same thing "one ace", and you'll have added "but 4NT was not Blackwood". Now I wonder why the laws should prohibit you from saying "4NT was not Blackwood" when they look at the System Card, but they should oblige you to say "4NT was not Blackwood" when they ask the question. That is the lack of consistency I find troubling in the MS. > It tells me > volumes about his hand. Under dWs this would only work if the hand > coincides with the system. Often enough a good player plas with a weak > player. I am much more interested in why te good player bid as he did > than to know what the weak player thought his hand looked like. I > wouldn't trust him anyway. > If someone gives me the impression that he holds the minors (while in > truth he used Blackwood), how in hell am I supposed to double 5D for the > lead with Axx? Sorting out that disaster after the final pass is not > good enough. Why should I (who have done nothing wrong) have to convince > the TD about what I would have done if I had received the systemically > correct explanation? > But that is precisely what the laws say will happen if you just rely on the SC to find out what the 5Di response means! Why should the table happenings be any different for an opponent who looks at the SC and for one who asks a question? > Why should I have to suffer opps lying about their system? Because you also have to suffer them being quiet about their partner's misexplanation. You accept that? Why not the next step then? > What have I > done wrong in my last incarnation to be beset with intentional liars in > this one? You have done nothing wrong - these are not intentional liers, these are people following what the WBF thought was the best solution to a dilemma. > Never mind that the more ethical of them are prepared to clear > up the confusion after the final pass. I don't care. I do not want to > play against liars. Hiding that under "I wanted to describe partner's > hand to you" is just a mask. It is about wriggling out of mistakes at > the expense of the NOS. > But that is NOT what the dWS is about - it's not about describing partner's hand - forget that. DWS is a about consistency. Player A gives wrong information, and player B does nothing to correct that. That is how the WBF wanted the game to be played - they should be consistent about that. >> In in these cases, it's even what they >> are entitled to. I always say that a MS explanation must contain BOTH >> explanations. Since the opponents already know what convention partner >> is answering to, they are entitled to know precisely how we are playing >> that convention. > > They can ask, can't they? Even if they don't, the law will protect them. > Indeed they can ask - that is what they do - but you refuse to tell them, because you will start by explaining that you are in fact not playing the convention at all. All they're interested in is how many aces he's shown, and you answer that you were not asking for aces at all. Your response is not only against L20F5a, it's deliberately evasive as well. You oblige your opponents to ask the question a second time, and you don't even feel bad about it. > Best regards > Matthias > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 22:00:59 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:00:59 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D0CDA8.7010703@t-online.de> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be> <48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <48CF63C7.90707@t-online.de> <48CFF6CA.9010502@skynet.be> <48CFB67E.3060606@t-online.de> <48D04E2C.7030609@skynet.be> <48D0CDA8.7010703@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D161FB.7000500@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> >> Mathias, that is the masochistic approach. If we make a mistake, we want >> to be punished severely. Most players do not have that approach. It is >> not a valid argument for defending the MS view. >> > > No, Herman, it is called the legal approach. It is how Bridge is played, > was played and I hope will be played. There is no masochism involved. It > is about what the rules are, not how we want them to be. No Mathias, it is how YOU want the laws to be, not ME, so certainly not WE. And you are being sadistic and masochistic if you want the laws to punish the misunderstanding so severely. And that would not be so bad, if you were to treat all cases equally. But you don't. You are quite happy with a table continuing to believe the misinformation as long as no follow-up question is put. When 4NT is explained as Blackwood, and the response is 5Di, some opponents will simply look at the System Card, notice the responses, and play on. Those tables will not get the bad result you wish for them. And you're happy with that. But if the opponent, rather than look at the SC in front of him, asks how many aces were shown, you are suddenly no longer happy with a mild result, but you want the 4NT bidder to answer "actually 4NT was not Blackwood" (and he'll still have to tell how many aces his partner has shown). So again, this is not how WE want the laws to be. I want the laws to be consistent. If a MI is given, the partner must not correct it. Anytime, in any manner. That includes not saying "4NT was not Blackwood" and it also includes quietly replying "5Di shows 0 or 3 KC". > If you call accepting bad results because of mistakes masochistic, isn't > that because you think you suffer from partner's mistakes? Wouldn`t it > be better to change your partner than change the rules of the game, so > you suffer less? Or change your attitude to bad scores, so you suffer less? No, I am quite happy with the way the laws are, L20F5a in particular. Both as infractor and infractee. > Where I play and direct, players(well, most of them) bear their > partnership's mistakes gracefully. They did something wrong, they accept > their score correction. No problem. Quite often they ask how to avoid it > in the future, and then they try to avoid it. They learned something. > Sometimes players tell me proudly how they incurred some bad score > because they kept to the laws (usually players from the courses I give > on rules, but sometimes those whose score I corrected in he past). That > doesn't always work, sure, we have some people who are difficult to > change in their ways, but it gets better all the time. Slowly, yes, and > relapses happen, but it works. They would not accept being lied to, even > if were cleared up before the lead. Nobody I know likes being lied to. But it is not being lied to. You'll have to answer, eventually, what the call showed in the system your partner thought he was playing. So my answer is not a lie - it's incomplete. It omits everything that would also be omitted if there had been no question in the first place. > Neither do I. > > Best regards > Matthias > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 22:02:48 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:02:48 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Mathias, do you regard raising an eyebrow as "indicating in any manner >> that a mistake has been made". >> Yes? >> Then stop this silly argument. >> L20F5a is being broken. > > Would you care to tell me where I (or anyone defending my point of view) > has argued that raising an eyebrow does not break L20F5? Herman, this is > what L20F5 is about. That, and nothing else. Raising an eyebrow, shaking > one's head, groaning, whatever. That is "indicating in any manner...". > It's what we tried to tell you all along. > So raising an eyebrow is breaking L20F5a, but saying "4NT was not Blackwood" is not? Matthias, I don't mind you arguing that it's OK to break L20F5a in these circumstances, but I think you are deluding yourself when you believe L20F5a is not being broken. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 17 22:11:23 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:11:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner Message-ID: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> Please, some sensible people. Are you as amazed as I am at the insistence of Grattan and some others that "indicate in any manner" does not include some of the following: example of bidding 4NT intended as minors - explained as Blackwood - raising an eyebrow - saying "you stupid partner" - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" Please, sensible people, tell Grattan that he is wrong. All of these actions are "indicating in any manner that a mistake has been made". All of these actions are in breach of L20F5a. I am not talking about some of these actions being allowed anyway - but please help me convince Grattan that his argumentation is wrong. Please help me retain my sanity - even if you think I don't have any. In particular, David?, John?, Eric? I value your opinions, really I do. Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 13:45:01 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:45:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c918ba$d2069440$7613bcc0$@com> [HdW] Are you as amazed as I am at the insistence of Grattan and some others that "indicate in any manner" does not include some of the following: example of bidding 4NT intended as minors - explained as Blackwood - raising an eyebrow - saying "you stupid partner" - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" [DALB] I am not amazed in the least. As Grattan says, the word "indicate" is interpreted in this context as "act with the purpose of allowing partner to deduce that he has made an error". The first three examples above are actions with the purpose of allowing partner to deduce that he has made an error; the fourth is not. Now, whereas the OED defines "to indicate" as: to point out, point to, make known, show (more or less distinctly). it is appropriate for the WBF to say "in this context, we use the word 'indicate' only in the first sense, that of 'pointing out' some aspect of the situation for partner's benefit". There are a number of instances in the Laws where a word cannot be interpreted in every one of its possible senses in the language; where there is ambiguity the WBF should clarify which meaning is intended, and it has done so in this case. David Burn London, England From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Sep 17 13:47:02 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:47:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> OK, so I violate my resolve, but just for one mail. Herman, would you care to actually read a posting before responding with utter nonsense? I never have told anyone that "4NT is not such-and-such" is _not_ breaking L20F5, and I would be grateful if you would desist maintaining that I had. Of course it is (and Grattan has never maintained that it is not, contrary to another post you have made). It just so happens that giving the correct systemic explanation without making faces or outbursts is _not_ in violation of 20F5 . Any behaviour except giving the systemic explanation (and nothing more) is in violation of 20F5, and nobody I know has said differently. Do yourself a favour and read some posts to their end before sheer adrenaline takes over. No one - I repeat: no one whatsoever - has (to my knowledge) ever maintained that grimaces, gratuitous comments, untimely corrections of partner's explanations, and similar things, are not infracting L20F5. They do, of course. All the defenders of "MS" have maintained is that giving the correct explanation as per system does not. Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> Mathias, do you regard raising an eyebrow as "indicating in any manner >>> that a mistake has been made". >>> Yes? >>> Then stop this silly argument. >>> L20F5a is being broken. >> Would you care to tell me where I (or anyone defending my point of view) >> has argued that raising an eyebrow does not break L20F5? Herman, this is >> what L20F5 is about. That, and nothing else. Raising an eyebrow, shaking >> one's head, groaning, whatever. That is "indicating in any manner...". >> It's what we tried to tell you all along. >> > > So raising an eyebrow is breaking L20F5a, but saying "4NT was not > Blackwood" is not? > Matthias, I don't mind you arguing that it's OK to break L20F5a in these > circumstances, but I think you are deluding yourself when you believe > L20F5a is not being broken. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 17 13:58:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:58:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be><48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <02c701c91769$81259aa0$f45d9951@stefanie> <48CF7197.4070508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48D0F0E4.6060509@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > This demonstrates the sorry state Herman's hijacking of the previous > discussion of the dWS has left us in. No consistent, rational or > sensible interpretation of dWS-like disclosure will come out of the > absurd notion that a valid disclosure protocol will require players > to deliberately give false information (i.e. lie to their > opponents). AG : please notice that explaining the bidding "partner's way" could well be giving the right information. Nothing up to now said whose interpretation of the system was right. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Sep 17 15:06:00 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:06:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D100B8.9040200@verizon.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Please, some sensible people. > > Are you as amazed as I am at the insistence of Grattan and some others > that "indicate in any manner" does not include some of the following: > > example of bidding 4NT intended as minors - explained as Blackwood > > - raising an eyebrow > - saying "you stupid partner" > - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" > - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" > > Please, sensible people, tell Grattan that he is wrong. > All of these actions are "indicating in any manner that a mistake has > been made". > All of these actions are in breach of L20F5a. > > I am not talking about some of these actions being allowed anyway - but > please help me convince Grattan that his argumentation is wrong. > > Please help me retain my sanity - even if you think I don't have any. > > In particular, David?, John?, Eric? > I value your opinions, really I do. > > Herman > Herman, You hold x xxx xxx QJTxxx. Partner opens 1S, RHO passes. You now bid 3C (playing weak jump shifts). There is no alert. LHO asks partner what your bid is, and partner incorrectly says "strong jump shift". LHO passes, partner bids 3S, RHO passes, and it's your turn. What's your call? There is no exception in L20F5a for the auction itself. It therefore must fall under "indicate in any manner" in the way that you use the concept. L20F5a does not make any distinction between whether the "indication" is UI or AI to partner. Under your interpretation, you cannot do it. "Pass" will indicate to partner that he has made an error. So, under your definition of "indicate in any manner", pass is not an allowable call. Do you bid 3N, 4C, or 4S? Should the TD be summoned if you pass, since that meets your criteria for "indicate in any manner"? Would you issue a PP, and possible score adjustment, for violation of L20F5a if the player with the hand above found the pass? I cannot help you convince Grattan that he's wrong, because he's not. Disallowing a pass in the auction above would be silliness, and yet is required by your interpretation of "indicate in any manner". Since I hope that you can see that the player can indeed violate your definition of "indicate in any manner", and that pass is allowable above, therefore your interpretation of "indicate in any manner" cannot be correct. "Indicate in any manner" must leave room for legal bridge actions. Grattan's (and many others') interpretation of "indicate in any manner" would allow a pass in the scenario above. Your interpretation would not. Do you really believe that pass is not an allowable call above? If not, then you need to rethink your definition of "indicate in any manner". Hirsch From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Sep 17 15:37:42 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:37:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <000001c918ba$d2069440$7613bcc0$@com> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <000001c918ba$d2069440$7613bcc0$@com> Message-ID: <48D10826.10903@NTLworld.com> [David Burn] it is appropriate for the WBF to say "in this context, we use the word 'indicate' only in the first sense, that of 'pointing out' some aspect of the situation for partner's benefit". There are a number of instances in the Laws where a word cannot be interpreted in every one of its possible senses in the language; where there is ambiguity the WBF should clarify which meaning is intended, and it has done so in this case. [Nige1] Excellent news! Please indicate (in the sense of "point out") the relevant official WBFLC minute. A more effective clarification would be to alter the wording of the law-book, because, in context, a normal interpretation of "indicate" includes "show". It is true that other words in the law book have several meanings but few are so ambiguous *in context*, that they would confuse an ordinary player (and perhaps those that are would also benefit from a similar belated clarification). From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 17 15:38:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:38:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS In-Reply-To: <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: On Sep 16, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > EL: >> If we are to adopt dWS principles in a >> consistent and sensible way, I believe we're going to need to rewrite >> all of the laws that touch on disclosure, and much of the laws that >> touch on UI. > > Probably, yes. And making the creation of UI an offense will be > difficult, > because a player does create a BIT because he has to think. I don't see the connection between a dWS-like approach to disclosure and making the creation of UI an offense; I'm a bit curious where Stefanie is going with this. My thinking has been along these lines: When a player makes a bid, there are three "meanings" to be reconciled: (a) what the player intended his bid to mean, (b) what his partner thinks he intended his bid to mean, and (c) what his bid *should* mean according to the partnership's systemic agreements. There are four irregular cases: each of (a), (b) and (c) differing from the other two, and all three different. Under current law, we neither "see" nor deal with the case in which (a) and (b) agree but differ from (c). When (a) and (b) differ, we confront the necessity to determine whether it is (a), (b) or neither which agrees with (c). This is difficult and problematic -- not surprising, since even the players themselves may be confused and unable to provide a definitive answer -- and requires the use of an arbitrary legal presumption (misinformation rather than misbid) when the issue can't be otherwise resolved. What I call a "dWS-like approach" (to avoid the semantic issue of what the "real dWS" is) is one in which the "meaning" one is responsible for disclosing is something other than (c). In Herman's at-the-table version of the dWS, that becomes (b), but it could just as easily be (a). Or something else. The only obvious constraint is that whatever it is, it should yield the same information that the opponents are entitled to under current law in the case where (a), (b) and (c) all agree. But the bottom line is a protocol in which, when (a) and (b) differ, evaluating what consitutes "proper" disclosure does not depend on determining (c). The most obvious flaw in the existing protocol is that it requires a definitive determination as to what (c) is even in those cases where, in reality, there is no (c). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 17 15:54:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:54:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS and DSC In-Reply-To: <001101c9184b$13d96d40$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <001101c9184b$13d96d40$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: On Sep 16, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > SR: Grattan has admitted that the DSC, despite his own urgings, did > not > bother to include in the *Laws* a single sentence to make the > legality or > otherwise of the dWS incontrovertibly clear, just because they > didn't want > it to seem like they were monkeys, performing when Herman pulled their > chain. I really think that this was a disgraceful and childish > attitude to > take. > > Just an example of how the DSC have done one of the most > incompetent jobs of > any group, given any task, of all time. I do have some sympathy for the DSC's reluctance to set the precedent of revising the language of the law, even when 99.999% of its readers find it perfectly clear, every time some nutcase out there insists on proselytizing for some silly idiosyncratic alternate interpretation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 17 15:46:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:46:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D100B8.9040200@verizon.net> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <48D100B8.9040200@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48D10A37.2040702@ulb.ac.be> Hirsch Davis a ?crit : > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Please, some sensible people. >> >> Are you as amazed as I am at the insistence of Grattan and some others >> that "indicate in any manner" does not include some of the following: >> >> example of bidding 4NT intended as minors - explained as Blackwood >> >> - raising an eyebrow >> - saying "you stupid partner" >> - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" >> - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" >> >> Please, sensible people, tell Grattan that he is wrong. >> All of these actions are "indicating in any manner that a mistake has >> been made". >> All of these actions are in breach of L20F5a. >> >> I am not talking about some of these actions being allowed anyway - but >> please help me convince Grattan that his argumentation is wrong. >> >> Please help me retain my sanity - even if you think I don't have any. >> >> In particular, David?, John?, Eric? >> I value your opinions, really I do. >> >> Herman >> >> > > Herman, > > You hold x xxx xxx QJTxxx. Partner opens 1S, RHO passes. You now bid > 3C (playing weak jump shifts). There is no alert. LHO asks partner > what your bid is, and partner incorrectly says "strong jump shift". LHO > passes, partner bids 3S, RHO passes, and it's your turn. What's your call? > > There is no exception in L20F5a for the auction itself. It therefore > must fall under "indicate in any manner" in the way that you use the > concept. L20F5a does not make any distinction between whether the > "indication" is UI or AI to partner. Under your interpretation, you > cannot do it. > > "Pass" will indicate to partner that he has made an error. AG : I'd admit that interpretation, but some esteemed members of blml have said this isn't constitutive of 'indicating'. Your example is very interesting, as it shows that, sometimes, passing information is unavoidable. It isn't, however, representing the same class as the ones where dWS principles come into action. Here, you have no choice but revealing the problem, and everybody knows what happened. In MI vs UI problems, there exists an alternative (whether it'll be used is another thing, but there exists) and occasionally the information won't be accessible to the opponents, which makes the mess worse. Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 17 16:02:51 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:02:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:11 PM Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner > Please, some sensible people. in answer to herman's cri de coeur: Herman has always had some case; not to my mind one where it has to be answerd (as in answering a couurt summons) but he has a case that he's entitled to grumble about. Grumpy old man that I too am, there are many things I grumble about but don't feel the need to set out on a missionary expedition to publish them. I think Herman's case at best falls into the generic "Moan, moan moan" stamps foot category, rather than ever into the "Unfair I'm gonna writ someone" proselytisng category. For me an "indication" is no more than a pointer. "To indicate" is "to point in a general direction". The Light Brigade charged the Russian guns because an incompetent lieutenant indicated the valley of death, rather than the guns themselves. "To indicate" is far less strong than "state" "aver" "affirm" and might loosely be translated by the Am. English "guess" or French "croire". "Where's the town centER?" "Oh, a mile or so up the 'pike I guess". or in my franglais; "Ou est la centre ville?" "C'est plus ou moins un virgule six kilometres d'ici, par c'te route, je crois". This is an indication by some means or another. > > Are you as amazed as I am at the insistence of Grattan and some others > that "indicate in any manner" does not include some of the following: > > example of bidding 4NT intended as minors - explained as Blackwood > > - raising an eyebrow > - saying "you stupid partner" > - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" > - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" Because such statements/actions are often infractions by definition (Possibly the 4th is not an infaction btw); they also create UI which of itself is not illegal. They do create substantial problems for the indicator's partner who is mandated to ignore them and to bend over backward (definition of LA) not to to use the information contained therein. We know that many players will cheat as a result of these infractions and their consequent UI, but we are still in a mise en scene where the laws can cope. The HdWS has no problems with adjustments if MI is given, it should equally have no problems with adjustments if UI is used. "May not indicate" is not as strong as "must not indicate" and yet 40C3b is interesting in that it clearly states that lying about your agreements can eventually lead to a penalty. Nothing in 20F5a goes this route - the explicit statemment about penalties is not there written.. I state and I aver and I affirm that it's clear that lying in Bridge Law is worse that telling partner he's wrong I am content that the interpretation (which in my opinion is redundant) "indicated" by the WBF regarding 20F5a, whether ex-cathedra or not, points us in the direction we must go. Herman, I said I believed you were wrong 10 years ago. [Vide herman's web-site] Your arguments have "cause" or merit but not sufficient "cause" or merit to make me change my mind - I think the law is clear enough and is supported by an interpretation for those who retain some doubts. John (posting on the HdWS for the first and last time in an aeon) > > Please, sensible people, tell Grattan that he is wrong. > All of these actions are "indicating in any manner that a mistake has > been made". > All of these actions are in breach of L20F5a. > > I am not talking about some of these actions being allowed anyway - but > please help me convince Grattan that his argumentation is wrong. > > Please help me retain my sanity - even if you think I don't have any. > > In particular, David?, John?, Eric? ok? John > I value your opinions, really I do. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 17 16:09:10 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:09:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS and DSC References: <001101c9184b$13d96d40$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: > > I do have some sympathy for the DSC's reluctance to set the precedent > of revising the language of the law, even when 99.999% of its readers > find it perfectly clear, every time some nutcase out there insists on > proselytizing for some silly idiosyncratic alternate interpretation. > Eric!. you're OTT here. John > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 17 16:08:52 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:08:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <016201c91871$b4ca7cf0$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <48CD5FCD.6000100@skynet.be> <016201c91871$b4ca7cf0$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <0B3B0CB9-D030-463A-9C50-772436C0822D@starpower.net> On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:01 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HdW: > > PP, you say? Maybe to HDW, of whom you know he would do this. But what > about this player, who finds a?out about dWS all by himself - who does > not even know it's supposed to be wrong? > > SR: > > What about him? He will get a lighter PP for a first-time offence > than you > will. > > HdW: > > And what about the player who states he genuinely believed his partner > had given the right explanation and he was doing the same? > > SR: > > He is not permitted to change his mind about the agreements after > hearing > his partner's explanation. If he was under an illusion, he must > maintain it. I wonder what would happen to our full disclosure protocols and adjudications if that particular principle of current law were to be abandoned. It would solve the problem here ("how... to believe such a player"), but would undoubtedly introduce others. Might it be worth discussing? > HdW: > > How are you going to believe such a player? Will you accept from him a > consistent explanation - will you do so from me? > > SR: > > If a player will lie to the director, there is not a whole lot that > can be > done. It is possible to cheat in bridge. > > HdW: > > But I _am_ abiding by the rules, as I interpret them. You may > believe I > am wrong, but I believe you are too, and there is really nothing to > distinguish between us. > > SR: > > Except for the fact that you are actually wrong. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 17 16:10:48 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:10:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <000001c918ba$d2069440$7613bcc0$@com> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <000001c918ba$d2069440$7613bcc0$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:45:01 -0400, David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Are you as amazed as I am at the insistence of Grattan and some others > that > "indicate in any manner" does not include some of the following: > > example of bidding 4NT intended as minors - explained as Blackwood > > - raising an eyebrow > - saying "you stupid partner" > - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" > - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" > > [DALB] > > I am not amazed in the least. As Grattan says, the word "indicate" is > interpreted in this context as "act with the purpose of allowing partner > to > deduce that he has made an error". The first three examples above are > actions with the purpose of allowing partner to deduce that he has made > an > error; the fourth is not. I have a partner who does facial expressions. She doesn't do them on purpose. She would rather not do them. It's just that they pop out. So I would say that she does NOT do them with intent, much less intent to inform me. It would be silly for her to do them with intent to inform me, because she knows I will then bend over backwards to avoid using the information and the opponents can call the director and get protection. (and meanwhile the expressions are AI to the opponents). Is this what the law is supposed to be -- players cannot deliberately frown to signal their partner's but it is okay to just spontaneously frown? I don't think players understand the law that way. What I am trying to say is that I do not think "intent" or "purpose" are a good choice for how to interpret L20F5(a). I am not sure how you want to resolve this. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 01:16:09 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:16:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> OK Mathias, duly noted. But if MS actions are breaking L20F5a, then will you please stop criticising me for wishing to break some other law? Matthias Berghaus wrote: > OK, so I violate my resolve, but just for one mail. > > Herman, would you care to actually read a posting before responding with > utter nonsense? > > I never have told anyone that "4NT is not such-and-such" is _not_ > breaking L20F5, and I would be grateful if you would desist maintaining > that I had. Of course it is (and Grattan has never maintained that it is > not, contrary to another post you have made). It just so happens that > giving the correct systemic explanation without making faces or > outbursts is _not_ in violation of 20F5 . Any behaviour except giving > the systemic explanation (and nothing more) is in violation of 20F5, and > nobody I know has said differently. > > Do yourself a favour and read some posts to their end before sheer > adrenaline takes over. > > No one - I repeat: no one whatsoever - has (to my knowledge) ever > maintained that grimaces, gratuitous comments, untimely corrections of > partner's explanations, and similar things, are not infracting L20F5. > They do, of course. All the defenders of "MS" have maintained is that > giving the correct explanation as per system does not. > And there you go again. Sorry, Matthias, but do you not write here that MS actions do not break L20F5a? I don't want to go quoting you wrongly again, but it seems that you have just written that above. Will you please correct your statement above, or stand by it. Either you believe that MS actions do not break L20F5a, or you do. The first is simply too ridiculous for words, the second is what I've been stating all along - but you continue to harass me by saying that it is not true. Let's get this settled once and for all: MS actions are an infraction of L20F5a. MS adepts believe such an infraction is acceptable. Can we agree on the above? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 01:24:09 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:24:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS In-Reply-To: References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D19199.8030904@skynet.be> Eric touches on something very important. Eric Landau wrote: > My thinking has been along these lines: When a player makes a bid, > there are three "meanings" to be reconciled: (a) what the player > intended his bid to mean, (b) what his partner thinks he intended his > bid to mean, and (c) what his bid *should* mean according to the > partnership's systemic agreements. There are four irregular cases: > each of (a), (b) and (c) differing from the other two, and all three > different. Under current law, we neither "see" nor deal with the > case in which (a) and (b) agree but differ from (c). When (a) and > (b) differ, we confront the necessity to determine whether it is (a), > (b) or neither which agrees with (c). This is difficult and > problematic -- not surprising, since even the players themselves may > be confused and unable to provide a definitive answer -- and requires > the use of an arbitrary legal presumption (misinformation rather than > misbid) when the issue can't be otherwise resolved. > > What I call a "dWS-like approach" (to avoid the semantic issue of > what the "real dWS" is) is one in which the "meaning" one is > responsible for disclosing is something other than (c). In Herman's > at-the-table version of the dWS, that becomes (b), but it could just > as easily be (a). Or something else. The only obvious constraint is > that whatever it is, it should yield the same information that the > opponents are entitled to under current law in the case where (a), > (b) and (c) all agree. But the bottom line is a protocol in which, > when (a) and (b) differ, evaluating what consitutes "proper" > disclosure does not depend on determining (c). The most obvious flaw > in the existing protocol is that it requires a definitive > determination as to what (c) is even in those cases where, in > reality, there is no (c). > What the opponents should be getting, is (c). However, they have received (b). We know that (a) and (b) are not the same, so we must assume that A is uncertain about what (c) is as well. Now A can do only one of two things - explain (a) or (b) - he does not know (c). By explaining (a), he does three things: - he tries to explain (c) but might well get it wrong as well - he explains (a) when he knows partner intended (b), a deliberate misstatement - the opponents are entitled to know (b) - he breaks L20F5a (yes he does) MS supporters should do themselves a great service and crawl into the skin of player A in the other cases than the one they are used to: the skin of a player who realizes partner's explanation was the right one, and the skin of a player who is uncertain about the real system. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 01:27:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:27:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <000001c918ba$d2069440$7613bcc0$@com> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <000001c918ba$d2069440$7613bcc0$@com> Message-ID: <48D19276.1070909@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Are you as amazed as I am at the insistence of Grattan and some others that > "indicate in any manner" does not include some of the following: > > example of bidding 4NT intended as minors - explained as Blackwood > > - raising an eyebrow > - saying "you stupid partner" > - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" > - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" > > [DALB] > > I am not amazed in the least. As Grattan says, the word "indicate" is > interpreted in this context as "act with the purpose of allowing partner to > deduce that he has made an error". The first three examples above are > actions with the purpose of allowing partner to deduce that he has made an > error; the fourth is not. > > Now, whereas the OED defines "to indicate" as: > > to point out, point to, make known, show (more or less distinctly). > > it is appropriate for the WBF to say "in this context, we use the word > 'indicate' only in the first sense, that of 'pointing out' some aspect of > the situation for partner's benefit". There are a number of instances in the > Laws where a word cannot be interpreted in every one of its possible senses > in the language; where there is ambiguity the WBF should clarify which > meaning is intended, and it has done so in this case. > Granted that "pointing out" can be used in this manner, but even if the sentence was not for the benefit of the partner, it is to the benefit of the opponent. Then, the fourth sentence "points out", "indicates" to the opponents that a mistake has been made. Let me read L20F5a again: No, I don't see a "indicates to partner" in there. Also "may not correct the error". Do you not believe that the fourth sentence corrects the error? Really David, I had thought more of you than simply towing the MS line. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 01:30:04 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:30:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D100B8.9040200@verizon.net> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <48D100B8.9040200@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48D192FC.8020809@skynet.be> Hirsh, asked seven times and answered eight times. It is not because there are exceptions to L20F5a, that L20F5a drops out of the Lawbook. It is not because some laws are apparently stronger than L20F5a, that all laws are. The dilemma between bidding and L20F5a is not the same dilemma as that between explaining and L20F5a. Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Please, some sensible people. >> >> Are you as amazed as I am at the insistence of Grattan and some others >> that "indicate in any manner" does not include some of the following: >> >> example of bidding 4NT intended as minors - explained as Blackwood >> >> - raising an eyebrow >> - saying "you stupid partner" >> - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" >> - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" >> >> Please, sensible people, tell Grattan that he is wrong. >> All of these actions are "indicating in any manner that a mistake has >> been made". >> All of these actions are in breach of L20F5a. >> >> I am not talking about some of these actions being allowed anyway - but >> please help me convince Grattan that his argumentation is wrong. >> >> Please help me retain my sanity - even if you think I don't have any. >> >> In particular, David?, John?, Eric? >> I value your opinions, really I do. >> >> Herman >> > > Herman, > > You hold x xxx xxx QJTxxx. Partner opens 1S, RHO passes. You now bid > 3C (playing weak jump shifts). There is no alert. LHO asks partner > what your bid is, and partner incorrectly says "strong jump shift". LHO > passes, partner bids 3S, RHO passes, and it's your turn. What's your call? > > There is no exception in L20F5a for the auction itself. It therefore > must fall under "indicate in any manner" in the way that you use the > concept. L20F5a does not make any distinction between whether the > "indication" is UI or AI to partner. Under your interpretation, you > cannot do it. > > "Pass" will indicate to partner that he has made an error. So, under > your definition of "indicate in any manner", pass is not an allowable > call. Do you bid 3N, 4C, or 4S? Should the TD be summoned if you pass, > since that meets your criteria for "indicate in any manner"? Would you > issue a PP, and possible score adjustment, for violation of L20F5a if > the player with the hand above found the pass? > > I cannot help you convince Grattan that he's wrong, because he's not. > Disallowing a pass in the auction above would be silliness, and yet is > required by your interpretation of "indicate in any manner". Since I > hope that you can see that the player can indeed violate your definition > of "indicate in any manner", and that pass is allowable above, therefore > your interpretation of "indicate in any manner" cannot be correct. > "Indicate in any manner" must leave room for legal bridge actions. > Grattan's (and many others') interpretation of "indicate in any manner" > would allow a pass in the scenario above. Your interpretation would not. > > Do you really believe that pass is not an allowable call above? If not, > then you need to rethink your definition of "indicate in any manner". > > Hirsch > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 17 16:37:14 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:37:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 16B1(a) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 17, 2008, at 1:53 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > "After a partner makes available to his partner extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play...the partner may not choose from > among > logical alternative one that could be demonstrably have been suggested > over another by the extraneous information." > > I don't find this as clear as I would like. But I think it means I > can't > use UI for selecting between calls and plays, and only calls and > plays. > > If so, then I can use UI to avoid giving a misleading explanation of > partner's bid and creating even more UI. Provided, of course, that you violate no other laws in the process. > This is a conclusion I would like. However, it there is a general > problem > in the laws where they talk about calls and/or plays and the law > should > actually apply to actions. So us werewolves would often like to extend > those laws. In this particular case, it seems clear to me that a > player > should not be allowed to use UI in making some decision in response > to an > irregularity. Whatever the laws actually say on this. So I want to > extent > L16B1(a) to at least some situations. I am unable to think of any decision "in response to an irregularity" that does not potentially affect the players calls or plays (either immediately or subsequently as, for example, by deciding whose turn it is). Except for the decision as to whether to bring a conduct or ethics charge, and we certainly don't want to preclude the use of table UI in making that one. > I think maybe there is a useful distinction between actions which are > designed to help the opponents and actions which are designed to > improve > my own score. I select calls, plays, and options after an > irregularity for > my own benefit. It makes sense that L16B1(a) should apply to these. > But > describing partner's hand is done for the benefit of the opponents. > > So I am thinking that it will work well if L16B1(a) is extended to all > selfish decisions but not to decisions designed to help the opps. Can > anyone thing of any exceptions? For example, suppose I use UI to > call the > director against myself? Can I use UI to summon the director for > L20F4? > > Of course, if you don't want to be a werewolf, then you are stuck with > being able to use UI for any action other than a call or play. Or > you can > try for a convoluted interpretation of L16B1(a) -- whether or not > you can > use UI for a decision following an irregularity depends on whether > the UI > could suggest a call or play. But IMO that doesn't make any sense. > What > makes sense is that you can't use UI for making a decision > following an > irregularity is if the UI would suggest one decision over another. > > As always, sorry if I have missed something major or if this has > already > been thorougly discussed. We would benefit from a specific example in which a player (a) has a decision to make after an irregularity which does not involve choosing a call or play, (b) has UI, and (c) will make different decisions depending on whether or not he takes the UI into account ((c') neither of which itself violates any law!), in which (d) the outcome of the decision taken without using the UI would be, from the general perspective, preferable. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 01:43:49 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:43:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D10A37.2040702@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <48D100B8.9040200@verizon.net> <48D10A37.2040702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48D19635.9010108@skynet.be> Good answer, Alain, I hadn't yet thought of that one. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Your example is very interesting, as it shows that, sometimes, passing > information is unavoidable. > It isn't, however, representing the same class as the ones where dWS > principles come into action. Here, you have no choice but revealing the > problem, and everybody knows what happened. In MI vs UI problems, there > exists an alternative (whether it'll be used is another thing, but there > exists) and occasionally the information won't be accessible to the > opponents, which makes the mess worse. > If there is an alternative bid that does not reveal the misunderstanding, and it is a logical alternative, then, IMO, to chose the call that reveals the misunderstanding is tantamount to using the UI about the misunderstanding. If there is no logical alternative to the bid, then a player is obliged to break L20F5a, and so it must be acceptable to do so. In dWS cases, there is an alternative to following the MS school which is equal to breaking L20F5a: that is, to follow dWS principles. > Best regards > > Alain > Thanks Alain, Herman. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 16:50:19 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:50:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS and DSC References: <001101c9184b$13d96d40$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <032101c918d4$b52453c0$e55c9951@stefanie> EL: > I do have some sympathy for the DSC's reluctance to set the precedent > of revising the language of the law, even when 99.999% of its readers > find it perfectly clear, every time some nutcase out there insists on > proselytizing for some silly idiosyncratic alternate interpretation. Well, yes, but if a nutcase carries on long enough, he may gather acolytes. And worse still, a case was recently brought up where a player didn't know what his obligations were and tried the dWS. It would be easier for the volunteer playing director to deal with this if the illegality of the dWS were more explicit. And appeared in the Laws, because few club directors will look at WBFLC minutes or even know that they exist. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Sep 17 16:56:23 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:56:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS and DSC In-Reply-To: References: <001101c9184b$13d96d40$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D11A97.7000300@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] I do have some sympathy for the DSC's reluctance to set the precedent of revising the language of the law, even when 99.999% of its readers find it perfectly clear, every time some nutcase out there insists on proselytizing for some silly idiosyncratic alternate interpretation. [Nige1] One in a million? Even some BLMLers stick their heads above the parapet in defence of De Wael. Fair-minded BLMLers concede that the law is ambiguous on DWS, even if we don't like his ideas. For an ordinary player, in the law-book context, "show" seems to be a reasonable and sensible interpretation of "indicate". From my limited sample of players, I would have said that 100% think some laws are ambiguous. Eric may be an exception so I now revise that estimate downwards. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 17 16:27:02 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:27:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS In-Reply-To: References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D113B6.7010802@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > . > > My thinking has been along these lines: When a player makes a bid, > there are three "meanings" to be reconciled: (a) what the player > intended his bid to mean, (b) what his partner thinks he intended his > bid to mean, and (c) what his bid *should* mean according to the > partnership's systemic agreements. There are four irregular cases: > each of (a), (b) and (c) differing from the other two, and all three > different. Under current law, we neither "see" nor deal with the > case in which (a) and (b) agree but differ from (c). When (a) and > (b) differ, we confront the necessity to determine whether it is (a), > (b) or neither which agrees with (c). This is difficult and > problematic -- not surprising, since even the players themselves may > be confused and unable to provide a definitive answer -- and requires > the use of an arbitrary legal presumption (misinformation rather than > misbid) when the issue can't be otherwise resolved. > > What I call a "dWS-like approach" (to avoid the semantic issue of > what the "real dWS" is) is one in which the "meaning" one is > responsible for disclosing is something other than (c). In Herman's > at-the-table version of the dWS, that becomes (b), but it could just > as easily be (a). Or something else. The only obvious constraint is > that whatever it is, it should yield the same information that the > opponents are entitled to under current law in the case where (a), > (b) and (c) all agree. But the bottom line is a protocol in which, > when (a) and (b) differ, evaluating what consitutes "proper" > disclosure does not depend on determining (c). The most obvious flaw > in the existing protocol is that it requires a definitive > determination as to what (c) is even in those cases where, in > reality, there is no (c). > Thank you, Eric.This is a very complete and very sharp analysis of the problem. I'd just want to add that there are three dWS-like statements : 1. When (b) differs from (c), neither exlpaining (b) nor (c) is kosher, so we might as well use (b), which is easier to tackle. I think this is close to Herman's position. 2. (c) is mandated, but it would be better, for the sake of efficiency, to use (b), so please change the laws. 3. (c) is mandated, but if a player realizes that, in the present case, (b) would be more efficient in saving the board, and he's sure that (a) matches (b), then he'd be allowed to use (a/b). That's my position. Perhaops it won't need a change in the laws, only a change in its comments. Of course, a player will be able to give his opponents either (b) or (c), but never (a) when it doesn't match (b). Notice, also, that there exists a restricted dWS principle, which applies only when partner's explanations have made it clear that (b) doesn't match (c) (or rather (d), what you think system is). In full-fledged dWS, you explain partner's Namyats 4C as clubs when you know it can't be hearts. In restricted dWS, you exlpain it as hearts. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 17 16:39:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:39:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D1168E.9040703@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > For me an "indication" is no more than a pointer. "To indicate" is "to point > in a general direction". The Light Brigade charged the Russian guns because > an incompetent lieutenant indicated the valley of death, rather than the > guns themselves. "To indicate" is far less strong than "state" "aver" > "affirm" and might loosely be translated by the Am. English "guess" or > French "croire". AG : I don't understand that. "indicate" is the act of the person who gives information, "croire" and "guess" are acts of the person who receives and analyzes information. French "sugg?rer" or "montrer" would be more appropriate. > Because such statements/actions are often infractions by definition > (Possibly the 4th is not an infaction btw); they also create UI which of > itself is not illegal. They do create substantial problems for the > indicator's partner who is mandated to ignore them and to bend over backward > (definition of LA) not to to use the information contained therein. We know > that many players will cheat as a result of these infractions and their > consequent UI, but we are still in a mise en scene where the laws can cope. > The HdWS has no problems with adjustments if MI is given, it should equally > have no problems with adjustments if UI is used. AG : siometimes it's more difficult, however. And since restricted dWS (from my previous mail) only applies when there already is MI, you can surely see that adjustments would be easier when there is MI + MI than when there is MI + UI. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Sep 17 17:13:56 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:13:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Killfiles (was Revisit...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48D11EB4.1010104@NTLworld.com> [law 40A1(a) quoted by Richard Hills] "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." [Nigel] For example, IMO, the following [is a] "partnership understandings": [A] A convention defined in a book which your partnership agrees specifies your system -- but neither partner has yet read the relevant paragraph. [Richard Hills] [A] = not an understanding, since there is not any mutual experience of the relevant paragraph. [Nige1] But, in discussion, it was agreed to play according to the book. Suppose a player thinks the partnership understanding is "natural", so opens 4D. His partner alerts and explains it as "solid spades" because he thinks that is their agreement. but the book that they have agreed defines their sysrem speifies a 4D opener as a transfer to hearts. If the resulting misunderstanding damages opponents, how do you rule. From Gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 17 18:09:04 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:09:04 EDT Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 17/09/2008 03:10:28 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: If a sufficient number of peers would bid 4H (which, in my opinion, would be the case), [paul lamford] Was the player and his ability known to you, and did you then poll players you deemed to be his peers? From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 18:43:51 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:43:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be><48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <034e01c918e4$90f698e0$e55c9951@stefanie> HdW: > Let's get this settled once and for all: > MS actions are an infraction of L20F5a. MS adepts believe such an > infraction is acceptable. > Can we agree on the above? I don't know about Matthias. I know I certainly don't agree. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 17 18:59:04 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:59:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D113B6.7010802@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <039201c918e6$b1467820$e55c9951@stefanie> AG: 1. When (b) differs from (c), neither exlpaining (b) nor (c) is kosher, so we might as well use (b), which is easier to tackle. I think this is close to Herman's position. SR: Is (b) really easier to tackle? Suppose (a)=(c), and the player has no idea what (b) might be? I have more to say on this, but don't have the time at the moment. Anyway, what is the player obliged to do in this case? Say nothing? And why is (c) not kosher? It is what the laws require. AG: 3. (c) is mandated, but if a player realizes that, in the present case, (b) would be more efficient in saving the board, and he's sure that (a) matches (b), then he'd be allowed to use (a/b). SR: I think it would be rare that (a)=(b)!=(c). In this case (c) doesn't really exist in the mind of either player. I don't think it is really important to refute Herman's argument that if one of the players suddenly remembers (c), he must stick with (a/b). It is wrong, of course, but is probably too rare to worry about. Re: the reference to "saving the board": well, this is an example of the philosophy, not the practicality, of dWS and it is one of the things that most of us find repugnant. AG: Notice, also, that there exists a restricted dWS principle, which applies only when partner's explanations have made it clear that (b) doesn't match (c) (or rather (d), what you think system is). In full-fledged dWS, you explain partner's Namyats 4C as clubs when you know it can't be hearts. In restricted dWS, you exlpain it as hearts. SR: So which dWS are you advocating -- "full-fledged" or "restricted" dWS? And when the glorious day arrives when dWS becomes legal, will we have a further debate on which one is the legal position? Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 17 19:43:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:43:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Please, some sensible people. > > Are you as amazed as I am at the insistence of Grattan and some others > that "indicate in any manner" does not include some of the following: > > example of bidding 4NT intended as minors - explained as Blackwood > > - raising an eyebrow > - saying "you stupid partner" > - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" > - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" > > Please, sensible people, tell Grattan that he is wrong. > All of these actions are "indicating in any manner that a mistake has > been made". > All of these actions are in breach of L20F5a. > > I am not talking about some of these actions being allowed anyway - > but > please help me convince Grattan that his argumentation is wrong. > > Please help me retain my sanity - even if you think I don't have any. > > In particular, David?, John?, Eric? > I value your opinions, really I do. OK, I'll bite. > - raising an eyebrow ...is not required by any other law, and is therefore improper. > - saying "you stupid partner" ...is not required by any other law, and is therefore improper. > > - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" ...is not required by any other law, and is therefore improper. > - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" ...is required by other laws, and is therefore not only proper, but mandatory. That, AFAICT, is Grattan's position, and I agree with it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 17 20:16:10 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:16:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48D0F0E4.6060509@ulb.ac.be> References: <48CB7246.7050500@t-online.de> <48CD61D8.3050403@skynet.be><48CE567E.7090406@t-online.de> <48CF23AD.3060209@skynet.be> <02c701c91769$81259aa0$f45d9951@stefanie> <48CF7197.4070508@ulb.ac.be> <48D0F0E4.6060509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 17, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> This demonstrates the sorry state Herman's hijacking of the previous >> discussion of the dWS has left us in. No consistent, rational or >> sensible interpretation of dWS-like disclosure will come out of the >> absurd notion that a valid disclosure protocol will require players >> to deliberately give false information (i.e. lie to their >> opponents). > > AG : please notice that explaining the bidding "partner's way" could > well be giving the right information. Nothing up to now said whose > interpretation of the system was right. Indeed. The obvious flaw in the way we currently handle disclosure is that it may be that there isn't anything to be said as to "whose interpretation of the system was right" -- the "right" answer might be "neither", or there might even be no right answer -- but the adjudication of some irregularities in this procedure requires that some answer to the question be determined nevertheless. One way to fix this might be to allow the explainer to decide for himself that "partner's way" is indeed the "right information", and act accordingly. In the context of current law, though, that becomes an arbitrary presumption that may in reality be false, and, if so, requires the explainer to deliberately misrepresent the subject of disclosure (AKA lie). The way to fix that is to change the disclosure rules to make "partner's way" the "right information" by definition, i.e. the information to which the opponents are entitled by law. By "dWS-like disclosure" I mean a protocol by which one discloses "partner's way" rather than the "theoretical system way". I do not argue that this is necessarily a bad idea. I do argue that it might not be a bad idea *only if* "partner's way" is explicitly represented as such. I do not think it consistent, rational or sensible for "partner's way" to be explained while being explicitly represented as something entirely else, whether that be the "theoretical system way" or any other untruth. The obvious problem with Herman's version of the dWS isn't what he tells his opponents about his partner's call, it's what he tells his opponents about what he's telling his opponents about his partner's call. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 07:35:09 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:35:09 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <034e01c918e4$90f698e0$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be><48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <034e01c918e4$90f698e0$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D1E88D.1020301@skynet.be> OK Stephanie. Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HdW: > >> Let's get this settled once and for all: >> MS actions are an infraction of L20F5a. MS adepts believe such an >> infraction is acceptable. >> Can we agree on the above? > > I don't know about Matthias. I know I certainly don't agree. > So which one is it? MS actions are not an infraction of L20F5a? or they are not acceptable? Surely when you read L20F5a you must see that it's being broken! Tell me this: Suppose that after partner's explanation (Blackwood) and bid (5Di), the original bidder says "4NT was not Blackwood", even before opponent can ask a question. Do you agree with me that this is an infraction of L20F5a? Suppose rather than saying this, he says "5Di shows diamond preference" (again without a question). Is that an infraction of L20F5a? If you don't think this is an infraction, you have proven once again the extreme lengths people go to in order to maintain an untenable position. If you do think it is an infraction, will you then please tell me why it's no longer an infraction when a question has been asked? Not through any MS logic, simply by readin to me the part of L20F5a that says that there is an exception. Do you not understand what I mean here? I am quite willing to allow you to call the infraction acceptable under the circumstances. I would allow for it myself, from a player - if a question is asked. But the fact remains that L20F5a has been broken. Look Stephanie, this is very important. You keep saying that L20F5a is not broken, and you use this as an argument to say that the MS does not break any laws. But the only reason why you say that the law is not broken is because you start by saying that MS is not breaking any laws. That is circular reasoning, and I'd wish you'd realize it. Only then can you understand that there is an alternative. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 07:39:07 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:39:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48D1E97B.1020504@skynet.be> No Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > >> - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" > > ...is required by other laws, and is therefore not only proper, but > mandatory. > No Eric, I was not asking if it was mandatory or proper, but if it was "indicating in any manner". Please answer that one. Herman. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Sep 18 00:38:09 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:38:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809171538h65f995e9q53ea1bc116a27ddb@mail.gmail.com> Eric Landau wrote: >> - raising an eyebrow > > ...is not required by any other law, and is therefore improper. > Breathing is not required by any other law, and is therefore improper. "X is not required by any law and is therefore improper" is invalid reasoning. I realize that BLMLers have resorted to it often, but it is invalid. Otherwise, breathing is improper. Jerry Fusselman From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 18 01:08:12 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:08:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D1E97B.1020504@skynet.be> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> <48D1E97B.1020504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c9191a$42d8ac30$c88a0490$@com> [HdW] No Eric, I was not asking if it was mandatory or proper, but if it was "indicating in any manner". Please answer that one. [DALB] We already have. Many, many, many times. Yes: in some English senses of the word "indicate", explaining 5D as diamond preference when you know that partner means it to show one ace is "indicating in any manner" that he has made a mistake. But no: in the sense of the word "indicate" that the WBF has said it intends, explanations to the opponents are not to be considered indications to partner for the purpose of interpreting Law 20F5a. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 18 01:28:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:28:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>If a sufficient number of peers would bid 4H (which, in >>my opinion, would be the case) Paul Lamford: >Was the player and his ability known to you, and did you >then poll players you deemed to be his peers? Richard Hills: Anyone can have an opinion on what the result of a poll would be or will be. It is especially easy to win a poll if success is defined as winning merely 25% of the vote in the ACBL (or 30% of the vote for English logical alternative rulings). But either the writeup of this case is defective, or the actual TD and AC were _both_ defective in failing to poll peers. 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 Sep 18 01:39:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:39:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Killfiles (was Revisit...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D11EB4.1010104@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: For example, IMO, the following [is a] "partnership understandings": [A] A convention defined in a book which your partnership agrees specifies your system -- but neither partner has yet read the relevant paragraph. Richard Hills: [A] = not an understanding, since there is not any mutual experience of the relevant paragraph. Nige1 Guthrie: But, in discussion, it was agreed to play according to the book. Suppose a player thinks the partnership understanding is "natural", so opens 4D. His partner alerts and explains it as "solid spades" because he thinks that is their agreement. but the book that they have agreed defines their system specifies a 4D opener as a transfer to hearts. If the resulting misunderstanding damages opponents, how do you rule? Richard Hills: Firstly, I would politely inform the offending side that they are funky gibbons, applying a procedural penalty of requiring them to watch DVDs of "The Goodies" after the session. Secondly, I would rule that the offending side should have described 4D as "no agreement", so I rectify the consequent damage to the non-offending side on that basis. 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 Thu Sep 18 03:00:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:00:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick thinks: >What I am trying to say is that I do not think "intent" or >"purpose" are a good choice for how to interpret L20F5(a). I >am not sure how you want to resolve this. Grattan Endicott resolves for the record: [snip] >> For the record, the word 'indicate' in Law 20F5 signifies >>a purposeful act of drawing attention to the mistake that >>has occurred. Compliance with law is not an action with >>freedom of purpose, so that if the mistake becomes apparent >>from the compliant action it is an incidental outcome that >>does not result from an intention to indicate. There is in >>that no violation of Law 20F5(a). +=+ Robert Frick asks: >I have a partner who does facial expressions. She doesn't do >them on purpose. She would rather not do them. It's just that >they pop out. So I would say that she does NOT do them with >intent, much less intent to inform me. It would be silly for >her to do them with intent to inform me, because she knows I >will then bend over backwards to avoid using the information >and the opponents can call the director and get protection >(and meanwhile the expressions are AI to the opponents). > >Is this what the law is supposed to be -- players cannot >deliberately frown to signal their partner's but it is okay to >just spontaneously frown? I don't think players understand the >law that way. Law 73D1: "...Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." WBF Code of Practice, page 7: "It is important to keep in mind which member of the partnership has the unauthorized information and to consider only that player's actions when following the path to a judgement. A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." Best wishes Richard James Hills 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 18 03:22:00 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:22:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <049a01c9192c$f36ecc70$e55c9951@stefanie> > Richard Hills: > > Anyone can have an opinion on what the result of a poll > would be or will be. It is especially easy to win a poll > if success is defined as winning merely 25% of the vote > in the ACBL (or 30% of the vote for English logical > alternative rulings). In England the standard is 20% would consider it; of those, some number, 10%? 25%? I don't remember... would do it. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 18 03:54:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:54:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <049a01c9192c$f36ecc70$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Anyone can have an opinion on what the result of a poll >>would be or will be. It is especially easy to win a poll >>if success is defined as winning merely 25% of the vote >>in the ACBL (or 30% of the vote for English logical >>alternative rulings). Stefanie Rohan: >In England the standard is 20% would consider it; of >those, some number, 10%? 25%? I don't remember... would do >it. EBU White Book, clause 16.6, first three paragraphs: A "logical alternative" is a call or play which three or more in ten players of equal ability could be expected to make in the particular situation, if playing a similar system and style, but if the irregularity had not occurred. The converse of this is that if the TD or Appeals Committee is satisfied that over seven in ten of his peers would make a particular call, such call is evident and it is legal to make such a call whatever the unauthorised information involved. These definitions are modified somewhat if there are several possible alternatives. For example, if there are five apparent actions, and it would be expected that two players out of ten would find each one then they are all logical alternatives. 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 Sep 18 05:47:45 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:47:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080915172744.03330738@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: [Cards of the actual deal irrelevant to the ruling, so snipped] The Facts: The director was called after the comparison. 3H was neither Alerted nor, after questioning, explained properly. The only response was that E/W had no agreement of what the 3H bid showed. The Ruling: The director judged misexplanation with no evidence to the contrary and damage to N/S. Therefore, in accordance with [the 1997] Laws 75, 40C and 12C2 the table result was changed to 3NT by West down one, E/W minus 100. The Appeal: Only West did not attend the hearing. East and West (from different parts of the country) were playing together for the first time and had completed a convention card that day. They agreed that a 2NT response to 1NT would show diamonds and that opener's 3D bid would be forward going. They did not discuss the sequence any further. East judged that the chance that West would interpret a 3H bid as shortness was good enough to make it worth bidding. East noted that had West and South's heart holdings been reversed, a club lead would have defeated 3NT, while a heart lead would likely allow it to make. South said he would have doubled 3H had it been Alerted as showing shortness. Additionally, since East had indeed intended his 3H bid conventionally showing shortness, he should have explained it at the end of the auction. North claimed that he nearly led a heart as it was, and he certainly would have done so with a correct explanation of the 3H bid. The committee learned that at the end of the auction, North asked about the 3H bid. West said that they had no agreement. With some of his partners he played that it showed hearts and with others not. The Decision: Players are required to Alert their conventional calls and accurately explain their partnership agreements. They are not obliged to describe their hands to their opponents. E/W fully disclosed all of their partnership agreements and history. Thus, there is no basis for adjusting the table result. Since E/W had no agreement about 3H, "We have no agreement" was not only a proper response it was the only proper response. The committee restored the table result of 3NT by West, making five, E/W plus 660. The Committee: Doug Doub (Chair), Abby Heitner, Jacob Morgan, Blair Seidler and Aaron Silverstein. 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 Sep 18 06:50:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:50:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >The Ruling: The director judged misexplanation with no evidence >to the contrary and damage to N/S. Therefore, in accordance >with [the 1997] Laws 75, 40C and 12C2 the table result was >changed to 3NT by West down one, E/W minus 100. 2007 Law 21B1(b) / 2007 Law 75C: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." For this Law, the only change between the 1997 and 2007 Lawbooks (apart from renumbering and duplicating) was fixing a 1997 typo by replacing "Bid" with "Call". So the ACBL Director's interpretation of the word "evidence" is still relevant under the new 2007 Lawbook. >South said he would have doubled 3H had it been Alerted as >showing shortness. Additionally, since East had indeed intended >his 3H bid conventionally showing shortness, he should have >explained it at the end of the auction. Is an intention by one partner "evidence" of an agreement by both partners? That is, should a Director always rule "no agreement" to be a misexplanation because it is impossible to prove a negative? >E/W fully disclosed all of their partnership agreements and >history. Thus, there is no basis for adjusting the table result. >Since E/W had no agreement about 3H, "We have no agreement" was >not only a proper response it was the only proper response. Was the ACBL AC legally over-ruling the ACBL TD on a question of fact, or was the ACBL AC illegally over-ruling the ACBL TD on a question of interpretation of 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 18 08:29:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:29:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Pairs tournament [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005601c916ff$8da23820$4c72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: Torsten ?strand asked: >I need a statement how to proceed in cases like this. Thank >you David for your answer. > >How will an AC act? Richard Hills quibbles: The question instead should be, how will a TD rule? Given that the TD has been belatedly summoned, the first thing the TD should do is check the applicability of Law 11A: "The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." Richard Hills counter-quibbles: In this case it seems to me that Law 11A might not be relevant, since the correction of the MI came too late for North to conveniently get her spade suit into the auction, so one cannot say that North-South damaged themselves by delaying the Director call. Plus, of course, East-West were not damaged given that they stole the contract in 3C. 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 Sep 18 08:47:07 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:47:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <034e01c918e4$90f698e0$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <034e01c918e4$90f698e0$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: On 17/09/2008, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HdW: > > > Let's get this settled once and for all: > > MS actions are an infraction of L20F5a. MS adepts believe such an > > infraction is acceptable. > > Can we agree on the above? > > I don't know about Matthias. I know I certainly don't agree. Me neither. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 18 08:56:36 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:56:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >The Ruling: The director judged misexplanation with no evidence > >to the contrary and damage to N/S. Therefore, in accordance > >with [the 1997] Laws 75, 40C and 12C2 the table result was > >changed to 3NT by West down one, E/W minus 100. > > 2007 Law 21B1(b) / 2007 Law 75C: > > "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > > For this Law, the only change between the 1997 and 2007 Lawbooks > (apart from renumbering and duplicating) was fixing a 1997 typo > by replacing "Bid" with "Call". > > So the ACBL Director's interpretation of the word "evidence" is > still relevant under the new 2007 Lawbook. > > >South said he would have doubled 3H had it been Alerted as > >showing shortness. Additionally, since East had indeed intended > >his 3H bid conventionally showing shortness, he should have > >explained it at the end of the auction. > > Is an intention by one partner "evidence" of an agreement by both > partners? That is, should a Director always rule "no agreement" > to be a misexplanation because it is impossible to prove a > negative? > > >E/W fully disclosed all of their partnership agreements and > >history. Thus, there is no basis for adjusting the table result. > >Since E/W had no agreement about 3H, "We have no agreement" was > >not only a proper response it was the only proper response. > > Was the ACBL AC legally over-ruling the ACBL TD on a question of > fact, or was the ACBL AC illegally over-ruling the ACBL TD on a > question of interpretation of Law? Evidently (from what is written immediately above your question here) the AC judged that E/W had fully disclosed all of their partnership agreements and history and therefore legally overruled the TD on a question of fact. However I find such judgments questionable. TD had "judged misexplanation with no evidence to the contrary"; what evidence did the AC see that the TD had overlooked? "No agreements" must not be allowed used as an easy escape from a difficult misinformation situation; a player making a call on which there allegedly is no partnership understanding obviously does so with the expectation that his call shall be correctly understood by partner. An acceptable "evidence to the contrary" would for instance exist if the call in question apparently was misunderstood by the partner; was there any such evidence (that the TD then had overlooked) in the case? Regards Sven From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Tue Sep 16 21:16:45 2008 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:16:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> Get real guys Try Law 13F It's a cracker Thes guys who right (wrong) the Laws are careless and foolish If the average TD was as bad as the Law commission most tournaments would not finish Dealer North ? 84 Game All ? KQ764 Board 13 ? J7 ? 6532 ? 10965 ? Q7 6 ? J85 ? 103 ? KQ54 ? A10963 ? Q10 ? AJ97 ? AKJ32 ? A92 ? 82 ? K84 South is declarer in 2 Spades West leads two top Diamonds and switches to Spade10 East plays Spade 6 (an extra card from another pack) Declarer wins the Jack and all players follow small Declarer now cashes two further top Spades and asks to consult TD away from the table. He explains that something very funny has happened because he started with seven Spades and has played three rounds and both opponents have followed three times, but the Spade 9 has not yet appeared. How should the TD proceed? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080916/3344ab79/attachment-0001.htm From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Sep 17 17:59:34 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (hirsch9000 at verizon.net) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner Message-ID: <910234.90793.qm@web84106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Herman, Why is the dilemma between bidding and explaining any different? L20F5a makes no distinction between UI or AI, bidding or explaining, or anything else. It simply describes something that you cannot do. If your definition of "indicate in any manner" is correct, a call that reveals to partner that he has misexplained your call would be a violation of L20F5a. Since there exist alternative calls that do not reveal to partner that he has misexplained your call, it's clear that under your definition of "indicate in any manner", you must make one of those calls. That way, there is no Law violation at all. Can you provide a Law citation that would invalidate my analysis? I'm not interested in an argument, simply a citation of a Law that would supercede, or even merely conflict, with L20F5a in my example, which assumes that your definition of "indicate in any manner" is correct. Hirsch ----- Original Message ---- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 7:30:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Indicate in any manner Hirsh, asked seven times and answered eight times. It is not because there are exceptions to L20F5a, that L20F5a drops out of the Lawbook. It is not because some laws are apparently stronger than L20F5a, that all laws are. The dilemma between bidding and L20F5a is not the same dilemma as that between explaining and L20F5a. Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Please, some sensible people. >> >> Are you as amazed as I am at the insistence of Grattan and some others >> that "indicate in any manner" does not include some of the following: >> >> example of bidding 4NT intended as minors - explained as Blackwood >> >> - raising an eyebrow >> - saying "you stupid partner" >> - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" >> - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" >> >> Please, sensible people, tell Grattan that he is wrong. >> All of these actions are "indicating in any manner that a mistake has >> been made". >> All of these actions are in breach of L20F5a. >> >> I am not talking about some of these actions being allowed anyway - but >> please help me convince Grattan that his argumentation is wrong. >> >> Please help me retain my sanity - even if you think I don't have any. >> >> In particular, David?, John?, Eric? >> I value your opinions, really I do. >> >> Herman >> > > Herman, > > You hold x xxx xxx QJTxxx. Partner opens 1S, RHO passes. You now bid > 3C (playing weak jump shifts). There is no alert. LHO asks partner > what your bid is, and partner incorrectly says "strong jump shift". LHO > passes, partner bids 3S, RHO passes, and it's your turn. What's your call? > > There is no exception in L20F5a for the auction itself. It therefore > must fall under "indicate in any manner" in the way that you use the > concept. L20F5a does not make any distinction between whether the > "indication" is UI or AI to partner. Under your interpretation, you > cannot do it. > > "Pass" will indicate to partner that he has made an error. So, under > your definition of "indicate in any manner", pass is not an allowable > call. Do you bid 3N, 4C, or 4S? Should the TD be summoned if you pass, > since that meets your criteria for "indicate in any manner"? Would you > issue a PP, and possible score adjustment, for violation of L20F5a if > the player with the hand above found the pass? > > I cannot help you convince Grattan that he's wrong, because he's not. > Disallowing a pass in the auction above would be silliness, and yet is > required by your interpretation of "indicate in any manner". Since I > hope that you can see that the player can indeed violate your definition > of "indicate in any manner", and that pass is allowable above, therefore > your interpretation of "indicate in any manner" cannot be correct. > "Indicate in any manner" must leave room for legal bridge actions. > Grattan's (and many others') interpretation of "indicate in any manner" > would allow a pass in the scenario above. Your interpretation would not. > > Do you really believe that pass is not an allowable call above? If not, > then you need to rethink your definition of "indicate in any manner". > > Hirsch > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080917/75d3359e/attachment-0001.htm From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Sep 18 10:51:18 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:51:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no> References: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no> Message-ID: <48D21686.9000708@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >>> The Ruling: The director judged misexplanation with no evidence >>> to the contrary and damage to N/S. Therefore, in accordance >>> with [the 1997] Laws 75, 40C and 12C2 the table result was >>> changed to 3NT by West down one, E/W minus 100. >> 2007 Law 21B1(b) / 2007 Law 75C: >> >> "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than >> Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." >> >> For this Law, the only change between the 1997 and 2007 Lawbooks >> (apart from renumbering and duplicating) was fixing a 1997 typo >> by replacing "Bid" with "Call". >> >> So the ACBL Director's interpretation of the word "evidence" is >> still relevant under the new 2007 Lawbook. >> >>> South said he would have doubled 3H had it been Alerted as >>> showing shortness. Additionally, since East had indeed intended >>> his 3H bid conventionally showing shortness, he should have >>> explained it at the end of the auction. >> Is an intention by one partner "evidence" of an agreement by both >> partners? That is, should a Director always rule "no agreement" >> to be a misexplanation because it is impossible to prove a >> negative? >> >>> E/W fully disclosed all of their partnership agreements and >>> history. Thus, there is no basis for adjusting the table result. >>> Since E/W had no agreement about 3H, "We have no agreement" was >>> not only a proper response it was the only proper response. >> Was the ACBL AC legally over-ruling the ACBL TD on a question of >> fact, or was the ACBL AC illegally over-ruling the ACBL TD on a >> question of interpretation of Law? > > Evidently (from what is written immediately above your question here) the AC > judged that E/W had fully disclosed all of their partnership agreements and > history and therefore legally overruled the TD on a question of fact. > > However I find such judgments questionable. TD had "judged misexplanation > with no evidence to the contrary"; what evidence did the AC see that the TD > had overlooked? > > "No agreements" must not be allowed used as an easy escape from a difficult > misinformation situation; a player making a call on which there allegedly is > no partnership understanding obviously does so with the expectation that his > call shall be correctly understood by partner. no agreement is a proper explanation of a call when there is no more reason for partner to understand it than for an opponent. there may be different expectations in the mind of the player who makes the call: hoping partner is on the same wave-length, hoping partner will have a hand allowing him to understand, thinking it will be possible to recover later, thinking it is profitable to muddy the waters... jpr > An acceptable "evidence to the contrary" would for instance exist if the > call in question apparently was misunderstood by the partner; was there any > such evidence (that the TD then had overlooked) in the case? > > Regards Sven > -- _______________________________________________ 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 svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 18 10:51:53 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:51:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <001301c9196b$cc884ed0$6598ec70$@no> On Behalf Of Mike Amos Get real guys Try Law 13F It's a cracker Thes guys who right (wrong) the Laws are careless and foolish If the average TD was as bad as the Law commission most tournaments would not finish Dealer North ? 84 Game All ? KQ764 Board 13 ? J7 ? 6532 ? 10965 ? Q7 6 ? J85 ? 103 ? KQ54 ? A10963 ? Q10 ? AJ97 ? AKJ32 ? A92 ? 82 ? K84 South is declarer in 2 Spades West leads two top Diamonds and switches to Spade10 East plays Spade 6 (an extra card from another pack) Declarer wins the Jack and all players follow small Declarer now cashes two further top Spades and asks to consult TD away from the table. He explains that something very funny has happened because he started with seven Spades and has played three rounds and both opponents have followed three times, but the Spade 9 has not yet appeared. How should the TD proceed? [SP] What is so wrong with L13F? TD should judge the board and rule that South normally makes 9 tricks by drawing 4 trump rounds (forcing out West?s last trump) and thereafter make his 5 tricks in hearts. (This will indeed be the result also if TD lets play continue.) Regards Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 18 11:26:39 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:26:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <034e01c918e4$90f698e0$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be><48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <034e01c918e4$90f698e0$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D21ECF.7080100@t-online.de> Stefanie Rohan schrieb: > HdW: > >> Let's get this settled once and for all: >> MS actions are an infraction of L20F5a. MS adepts believe such an >> infraction is acceptable. >> Can we agree on the above? > > I don't know about Matthias. I know I certainly don't agree. Neither do I. Best regards Matthias > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 18 11:40:14 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:40:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Sorry, Matthias, but do you not write here that MS actions do not break > L20F5a? > I don't want to go quoting you wrongly again, but it seems that you have > just written that above. MS actions do not violate L20F5. To spell it out: explaining a call as per system and giving no indication by other means such as remarks, grimaces and so on does not violate L20F5. It generates UI, no question about it, but it the prescribed procedure, so it is not to be censured. The UI case (both ways) will be handled seperately, of course. > > Will you please correct your statement above, or stand by it. > > Either you believe that MS actions do not break L20F5a, or you do. > > The first is simply too ridiculous for words, the second is what I've > been stating all along - but you continue to harass me by saying that it > is not true. > > Let's get this settled once and for all: > MS actions are an infraction of L20F5a. MS adepts believe such an > infraction is acceptable. > Can we agree on the above? No. Three members of DSC have posted here how L20F5 is to be interpreted. That is enough for me. I do not need a voice out of a burning bush. I agree with a couple of others that an "official" statement of WBFLC would be a good thing, but the word of Grattan, Kojak and Ton is enough for me. Best regards Matthias From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 18 11:43:29 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:43:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D21686.9000708@meteo.fr> References: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no> <48D21686.9000708@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <001701c91973$01c45fb0$054d1f10$@no> On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort ............... > > "No agreements" must not be allowed used as an easy escape from a difficult > > misinformation situation; a player making a call on which there allegedly is > > no partnership understanding obviously does so with the expectation that his > > call shall be correctly understood by partner. > > no agreement is a proper explanation of a call when there is no more > reason for partner to understand it than for an opponent. So you say that "no agreements" is a proper explanation if I know that our opponents know our understanding of a call? I don't think that you can find any support for this anywhere in the laws. Sven > there may be > different expectations in the mind of the player who makes the call: > hoping partner is on the same wave-length, hoping partner will have a > hand allowing him to understand, thinking it will be possible to recover > later, thinking it is profitable to muddy the waters... > > jpr From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 18 11:46:39 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:46:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Offlist, offtopic In-Reply-To: <48D19199.8030904@skynet.be> References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D19199.8030904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D2237F.9000207@t-online.de> Herman, Just as an aside apropos of nothing: Your mails (and only yours, at least at the moment) arrive here hours "in the future", so to speak, meaning that I receive mails "sent" at 20 00 at 14 00. Herman, could you check your system time, please. Of course the problem can be with my provider or my system, but that is more difficult to check. If you find nothing please tell me, so I can find out where the problem is. My mail-client sorts mails chronologically, so I often read other people's responses to your mails before I get to the original mail. Thank you Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 18 11:49:37 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:49:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Offlist, offtopic In-Reply-To: <48D2237F.9000207@t-online.de> References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D19199.8030904@skynet.be> <48D2237F.9000207@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D22431.1040807@t-online.de> Matthias Berghaus schrieb: Sorry, obviously was meant to be sent to Herman alone. Those buttons make some things difficult instead of easy... From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 18 12:18:45 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:18:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <002e01c91977$f5e5f1e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D19199.8030904@skynet.be> <48D2237F.9000207@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001c91978$a3d84780$eb88d680$@com> [MB] Herman, Just as an aside apropos of nothing: Your mails (and only yours, at least at the moment) arrive here hours "in the future", so to speak [DALB] I am surprised that they arrive only a few hours in the future rather than nine years. After all, most of them relate to what the author hopes will be in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2017. They have nothing to do with the 2007 Laws. David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 21:47:51 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:47:51 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D2B067.7000602@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> Sorry, Matthias, but do you not write here that MS actions do not break >> L20F5a? >> I don't want to go quoting you wrongly again, but it seems that you have >> just written that above. > > MS actions do not violate L20F5. Matthias, do you realize what you are doing here? Surely you cannot mean this literally. Of course MS actions violate L20F5a. Only a very silly reading of that law can make you say that the sentence "5Di is diamond preference" is not the same as "4NT was not Blackwood" and that these sentences are not an infractio of L20F5a. Now I have a great respect for you, and you're not stupid. So you realize that what you are saying is not that the MS actions do not break L20F5a, but that such actions are not illegal per se. And I agree with that. BUT: When you say that MS actions are acceptable, you mean that in the sense that they are trying to follow some other law. Now if you are saying that to break one law in order to follow another one is acceptable, then you must be honest enough to also allow the reverse. In fact what you are constructing is the following logical sequence: 1) MS is acceptable 2) therefore, to break L20F5a is acceptable 3) therefore, breaking L20F5a is not an irregularity 4) therefore, dWS have no excuse for breaking the MI laws 5) therefore, dWS is unacceptable. This sequence is wrong between 2 and 3. I could just as easily construct the following sequence: 5) dWS is acceptable 4) therefore, there is no excuse for breaking L20F5a 3) therefore, breaking L20F5a is an irregularity 2) therefore, breaking L20F5a is unacceptable 1) therefore, MS is unacceptable. Now I don't make such a construction, because they are both wrong. You cannot prove the unacceptability from one school from the acceptability of the other. Never mind which one you would start from. All this argument can prove is the acceptability of both schools (or the inacceptability - but the we must stop playing). > To spell it out: explaining a call as > per system and giving no indication by other means such as remarks, > grimaces and so on does not violate L20F5. Yes it does. By any sane literal reading. You may say the breaking is acceptable (and I agree with that) but not that it is not breaking. > It generates UI, no question > about it, but it the prescribed procedure, so it is not to be censured. > The UI case (both ways) will be handled seperately, of course. > Indeed, it is not to be censured. But that does not mean it is not an infraction. >> Will you please correct your statement above, or stand by it. >> >> Either you believe that MS actions do not break L20F5a, or you do. >> >> The first is simply too ridiculous for words, the second is what I've >> been stating all along - but you continue to harass me by saying that it >> is not true. >> >> Let's get this settled once and for all: >> MS actions are an infraction of L20F5a. MS adepts believe such an >> infraction is acceptable. >> Can we agree on the above? > > No. > > Three members of DSC have posted here how L20F5 is to be interpreted. Yes, but all three use wrong words. They use "not an infraction". That is simply wrong, and if you use it to disprove the dWS, I argue against it. If you simply mean "is acceptable", and use it to prove the acceptability of the MS, then we are in agreement. > That is enough for me. I do not need a voice out of a burning bush. I > agree with a couple of others that an "official" statement of WBFLC > would be a good thing, but the word of Grattan, Kojak and Ton is enough > for me. > > Best regards > Matthias > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 18 12:53:42 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:53:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS In-Reply-To: <039201c918e6$b1467820$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D113B6.7010802@ulb.ac.be> <039201c918e6$b1467820$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D23336.6060004@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > AG: > 1. When (b) differs from (c), neither exlpaining (b) nor (c) is kosher, > so we might as well use (b), which is easier to tackle. I think this is > close to Herman's position. > > SR: > Is (b) really easier to tackle? Suppose (a)=(c), and the player has no idea > what (b) might be? I have more to say on this, but don't have the time at > the moment. Anyway, what is the player obliged to do in this case? Say > nothing? And why is (c) not kosher? It is what the laws require. > > AG : I thinkone of us misread the presentation of the problem. I underestood (a) as "what the player wanted to say" and (b) as "what his partner thinks he wanted to say". (a) will forever be inaccessible to partner, while (b) he knows. (does one know what one thinks ? I don't know but I think so :-P ) > SR: > I think it would be rare that (a)=(b)!=(c). In this case (c) doesn't really > exist in the mind of either player. AG : IBTD. If partner opens 4C and I hold AKQ of hearts, I have a good hunch that he meant clubs, even if the system notes, and our agreement, recalled before the session, say Namyats. > > Re: the reference to "saving the board": well, this is an example of the > philosophy, not the practicality, of dWS and it is one of the things that > most of us find repugnant. > > AG : in TD courses I followed, the first phrase my teacher (Nathalie Vandenbroeck) utterred about each and every case was :" how do we save the board ? ". > AG: > Notice, also, that there exists a restricted dWS principle, which > applies only when partner's explanations have made it clear that (b) > doesn't match (c) (or rather (d), what you think system is). > In full-fledged dWS, you explain partner's Namyats 4C as clubs when you > know it can't be hearts. > In restricted dWS, you exlpain it as hearts. > > SR: > So which dWS are you advocating -- "full-fledged" or "restricted" dWS? And > when the glorious day arrives when dWS becomes legal, will we have a further > debate on which one is the legal position? > I guess we will. Blml will never surrender brain racking O:-) . And I don't know which form will be better. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 18 12:56:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:56:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48D233EC.2000408@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" >> > > ...is not required by any other law, and is therefore improper. > > >> - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" >> > > ...is required by other laws, and is therefore not only proper, but > mandatory. > And that's the problem, because saying "5D shows diamond preference" automatically adds that "4NT was not Blackwood", yet the first is allowed and the second disallowed. That strikes me as odd (number of aces :-) ). From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 18 13:02:52 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:02:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no> References: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no> Message-ID: <48D2355C.6020701@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > However I find such judgments questionable. TD had "judged misexplanation > with no evidence to the contrary"; what evidence did the AC see that the TD > had overlooked? > AG : if the question is : what did they use, I can't answer. But I read it as meaning : "is there any possible evidence that only the AC could get ?". There is. For example, the clerk at the partnership desk can testify he just introduced them to eachother. It's a strong indication that they didn't discuss intricate sequences. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 13:17:24 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:17:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] Offlist, offtopic In-Reply-To: <48D22431.1040807@t-online.de> References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D19199.8030904@skynet.be> <48D2237F.9000207@t-online.de> <48D22431.1040807@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D238C4.1030004@skynet.be> And I was very grateful to Matthias. My computer thought he was stationed in Tijuana! Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Matthias Berghaus schrieb: > > Sorry, obviously was meant to be sent to Herman alone. Those buttons > make some things difficult instead of easy... > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 13:17:52 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:17:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] Offlist, offtopic In-Reply-To: <000001c91978$a3d84780$eb88d680$@com> References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie> <668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net> <000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D19199.8030904@skynet.be> <48D2237F.9000207@t-online.de> <000001c91978$a3d84780$eb88d680$@com> Message-ID: <48D238E0.60005@skynet.be> Thanks for putting a light spin on things, David - always nice to hear from you! David Burn wrote: > [MB] > > Herman, > > Just as an aside apropos of nothing: > Your mails (and only yours, at least at the moment) arrive here hours "in > the future", so to speak > > [DALB] > > I am surprised that they arrive only a few hours in the future rather than > nine years. After all, most of them relate to what the author hopes will be > in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2017. They have nothing to do with the 2007 > Laws. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 13:19:11 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:19:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <000f01c9191a$42d8ac30$c88a0490$@com> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> <48D1E97B.1020504@skynet.be> <000f01c9191a$42d8ac30$c88a0490$@com> Message-ID: <48D2392F.6070100@skynet.be> Thank you David, for your voice of sanity. Yes, the MS actions are infractions of L20F5a, which by WBF decision are acceptable. David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > No Eric, I was not asking if it was mandatory or proper, but if it was > "indicating in any manner". > > Please answer that one. > > [DALB] > > We already have. Many, many, many times. Yes: in some English senses of the > word "indicate", explaining 5D as diamond preference when you know that > partner means it to show one ace is "indicating in any manner" that he has > made a mistake. But no: in the sense of the word "indicate" that the WBF has > said it intends, explanations to the opponents are not to be considered > indications to partner for the purpose of interpreting Law 20F5a. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 13:22:35 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:22:35 -0700 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <910234.90793.qm@web84106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <910234.90793.qm@web84106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <48D239FB.1010909@skynet.be> Yes Hirsh, you have understood prefectly. hirsch9000 at verizon.net wrote: > Herman, > > Why is the dilemma between bidding and explaining any different? L20F5a > makes no distinction between UI or AI, bidding or explaining, or > anything else. It simply describes something that you cannot do. If > your definition of "indicate in any manner" is correct, a call that > reveals to partner that he has misexplained your call would be a > violation of L20F5a. Since there exist alternative calls that do not > reveal to partner that he has misexplained your call, it's clear that > under your definition of "indicate in any manner", you must make one of > those calls. That way, there is no Law violation at all. Can you > provide a Law citation that would invalidate my analysis? > Indeed maybe a player is required by L20F5a to choose a call that is not even a Logical alternative. But since that may mean there is no longer any call that is acceptable - I would imagine that some other obligation (to make a call in the first place) is stronger than L20F5a. Which says nothing about the problem we are addressing, of course. > I'm not interested in an argument, simply a citation of a Law that would > supercede, or even merely conflict, with L20F5a in my example, which > assumes that your definition of "indicate in any manner" is correct. > I don't understand your question. I believe you have the same interpretation of "indicate in any manner" than I do. > Hirsch > Herman. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Sep 18 13:22:57 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:22:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D23A11.9030204@NTLworld.com> [Matthias Berghaus] Three members of DSC have posted here how L20F5 is to be interpreted. That is enough for me. I do not need a voice out of a burning bush. I agree with a couple of others that an "official" statement of WBFLC would be a good thing, but the word of Grattan, Kojak and Ton is enough for me. [Nigel] As Grattan has repeatedly pointed out, for definitive legal guidance, you must stick to the law book and official documents, rather than take personal opinions as gospel, whether expressed in BLML or elsewhere. Even if we accept the apparent concensus of WBFLC opinion on BLML, that still leaves almost all players and most directors to their own devices. The best place for such clarifications is in the law-book itself. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 18 14:41:04 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:41:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D233EC.2000408@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> <48D233EC.2000408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:56:44 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" >>> >> >> ...is not required by any other law, and is therefore improper. >> >> >>> - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" >>> >> >> ...is required by other laws, and is therefore not only proper, but >> mandatory. >> > And that's the problem, because saying "5D shows diamond preference" > automatically adds that "4NT was not Blackwood", yet the first is > allowed and the second disallowed. That strikes me as odd (number of > aces :-) ). > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Sep 18 14:44:28 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:44:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c91973$01c45fb0$054d1f10$@no> References: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no><48D21686.9000708@meteo.fr> <001701c91973$01c45fb0$054d1f10$@no> Message-ID: <48D24D2C.3010800@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort > ............... >>> "No agreements" must not be allowed used as an easy escape from a > difficult >>> misinformation situation; a player making a call on which there > allegedly is >>> no partnership understanding obviously does so with the expectation that > his >>> call shall be correctly understood by partner. >> no agreement is a proper explanation of a call when there is no more >> reason for partner to understand it than for an opponent. > > So you say that "no agreements" is a proper explanation if I know that our > opponents know our understanding of a call? ... and if it was not discussed inside our partnership: yes no agreement is a relative concept: if our opponents have the same background as our partnership in order to understand the call, what could i teach to them that they don't know? if they have a lesser knowledge of this background, i need to tell them the call is undicussed and to add the background they miss to be in the same state as our partnership to have an opportunity to understand it. what could be more straightforward? jpr > > I don't think that you can find any support for this anywhere in the laws. > > Sven > >> there may be >> different expectations in the mind of the player who makes the call: >> hoping partner is on the same wave-length, hoping partner will have a >> hand allowing him to understand, thinking it will be possible to recover >> later, thinking it is profitable to muddy the waters... >> >> jpr > _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 18 15:07:00 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:07:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be><48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> <48D23A11.9030204@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <05ce01c9198f$707085d0$e55c9951@stefanie> > [Matthias Berghaus] > Three members of DSC have posted here how L20F5 is to be interpreted. > That is enough for me. I do not need a voice out of a burning bush. I > agree with a couple of others that an "official" statement of WBFLC > would be a good thing, but the word of Grattan, Kojak and Ton is enough > for me. > > [Nigel] > As Grattan has repeatedly pointed out, for definitive legal guidance, > you must stick to the law book and official documents, rather than take > personal opinions as gospel, whether expressed in BLML or elsewhere. > > Even if we accept the apparent concensus of WBFLC opinion on BLML, that > still leaves almost all players and most directors to their own devices. > > The best place for such clarifications is in the law-book itself. Right on. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 18 15:05:26 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:05:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> Message-ID: I am getting the impression that 1a. I should change my lawbook for Law 20F5, deleting "in any manner" and replacing it with "in any illegal manner". 1b. I should change Law 16B1(a) to read "call, play, or explanation" instead of "call or play". 1c. Law 20F1 is changed to make it clear that the explanation of bid should be in terms of the auction assuming the bids have their correct meaning. 2. When a player realizes that partner has misunderstood the auction, the player is (with these changes above) required by law to provide a misleading explanation, creating UI by revealing something he is otherwise not permitted to reveal at any other time or any other way. 3. It is unfortunate that bridge has to be played this way. But we have to follow the laws, no matter where they lead, even if substantial practice is different. 4. If I think the laws should be changed, I have to wait until 2018. Let me clarify 1a. The first attempt was to redefine indicate to mean "point out" or "draw attention to". This is inconsistent with the logic of the law. But if accepted, the misleading explanation is just as indicative as a frown. The second attempt was to redefine the law as applying only to purposive behaviors. This creates the problem that most frowns just kind of burst out and are not purposive. The third attempt was as given above. I believe it makes the law superfluous, but succeeds in its quest. Other explanations available upon request. And yes, I know I am not supposed to actually change my lawbook, I am instead just supposed to remember that that is how the laws are supposed to be interpreted. The two seem functionally equivalent to me. From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 18 15:06:47 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:06:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue backs. So, do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the board and award A+/A- (since the player with 14 failed to count) or do we have a 13-13 in which case I can award 2S making 4 ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Amos To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:16 PM Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete Get real guys Try Law 13F It's a cracker Thes guys who right (wrong) the Laws are careless and foolish If the average TD was as bad as the Law commission most tournaments would not finish Dealer North ? 84 Game All ? KQ764 Board 13 ? J7 ? 6532 ? 10965 ? Q7 6 ? J85 ? 103 ? KQ54 ? A10963 ? Q10 ? AJ97 ? AKJ32 ? A92 ? 82 ? K84 South is declarer in 2 Spades West leads two top Diamonds and switches to Spade10 East plays Spade 6 (an extra card from another pack) Declarer wins the Jack and all players follow small Declarer now cashes two further top Spades and asks to consult TD away from the table. He explains that something very funny has happened because he started with seven Spades and has played three rounds and both opponents have followed three times, but the Spade 9 has not yet appeared. How should the TD proceed? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20080918/51ef0180/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 18 15:30:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:30:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D24D2C.3010800@meteo.fr> References: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no><48D21686.9000708@meteo.fr> <001701c91973$01c45fb0$054d1f10$@no> <48D24D2C.3010800@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <48D257D8.4090503@ulb.ac.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > S > ... and if it was not discussed inside our partnership: yes > no agreement is a relative concept: if our opponents have the same > background as our partnership in order to understand the call, what > could i teach to them that they don't know? > AG : I have an answer to this : more than once, I asked about the meaning of a call that I knew they knew I knew, because I wanted to know whether they knew. I'm not sure that's proper, but there was a bridge reason : upon hearing from West that East's bid was strong, while I knew it wasn't in their system, I doubled the final contract. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 18 15:35:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:35:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I am getting the impression that > > 1a. I should change my lawbook for Law 20F5, deleting "in any manner" and > replacing it with "in any illegal manner". > AG : you aren't allowed to do things in an illegal manner. Isn't that a little bit of a pleonasm ? > 1b. I should change Law 16B1(a) to read "call, play, or explanation" > instead of "call or play". > AG : surely that would be one possibility in order to fix the MI / UI problem. Just officializing the traditional answer. > 2. When a player realizes that partner has misunderstood the auction, the > player is (with these changes above) required by law to provide a > misleading explanation, creating UI by revealing something he is otherwise > not permitted to reveal at any other time or any other way. > > 3. It is unfortunate that bridge has to be played this way. But we have to > follow the laws, no matter where they lead, even if substantial practice > is different. > AG : well said on both points. > Let me clarify 1a. The first attempt was to redefine indicate to mean > "point out" or "draw attention to". This is inconsistent with the logic of > the law. But if accepted, the misleading explanation is just as indicative > as a frown. > AG : even more so, because there might be many reasons to frown. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 18 15:36:45 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:36:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> Message-ID: <48D2596D.3070107@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > *Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue backs. > So, do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the board and > award A+/A- (since the player with 14 failed to count) or do we have a > 13-13 in which case I can award 2S making 4* AG : seems like it's 14-13. 2S making 4 seems right IMOBO. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 18 15:46:47 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:46:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> Message-ID: <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> [JMDP] Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue backs. So, do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the board and award A+/A- (since the player with 14 failed to count) or do we have a 13-13 in which case I can award 2S making 4 [DALB] The original post specified that East?s S6 was an extra card from another pack. But: Law 61A Definition of Revoke 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. This means that East's play of his extra S6, when he was required by law to play one of the cards in his original hand, is a revoke. Can a player revoke by following suit? It would appear that he can. David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 15:48:03 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:48:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D25C13.8020000@skynet.be> There is an alternative Robert, You could also just become an adept of the dWS. Oh yes, there is the derision on blml that goes with that. Small price to pay for some sanity in the lawbook. Robert Frick wrote: > I am getting the impression that > > 1a. I should change my lawbook for Law 20F5, deleting "in any manner" and > replacing it with "in any illegal manner". > > 1b. I should change Law 16B1(a) to read "call, play, or explanation" > instead of "call or play". > > 1c. Law 20F1 is changed to make it clear that the explanation of bid > should be in terms of the auction assuming the bids have their correct > meaning. > > 2. When a player realizes that partner has misunderstood the auction, the > player is (with these changes above) required by law to provide a > misleading explanation, creating UI by revealing something he is otherwise > not permitted to reveal at any other time or any other way. > > 3. It is unfortunate that bridge has to be played this way. But we have to > follow the laws, no matter where they lead, even if substantial practice > is different. > > 4. If I think the laws should be changed, I have to wait until 2018. > > > > Let me clarify 1a. The first attempt was to redefine indicate to mean > "point out" or "draw attention to". This is inconsistent with the logic of > the law. But if accepted, the misleading explanation is just as indicative > as a frown. > > The second attempt was to redefine the law as applying only to purposive > behaviors. This creates the problem that most frowns just kind of burst > out and are not purposive. > > The third attempt was as given above. I believe it makes the law > superfluous, but succeeds in its quest. > > Other explanations available upon request. > > And yes, I know I am not supposed to actually change my lawbook, I am > instead just supposed to remember that that is how the laws are supposed > to be interpreted. The two seem functionally equivalent to me. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 15:49:54 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:49:54 -0700 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D233EC.2000408@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> <48D233EC.2000408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48D25C82.90702@skynet.be> No Alain, wrong verb: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > And that's the problem, because saying "5D shows diamond preference" > automatically adds that "4NT was not Blackwood", No Alain, saying "5D shows diamond preference" _indicates_ that "4NT was not Blackwood". :) > yet the first is > allowed and the second disallowed. That strikes me as odd (number of > aces :-) ). > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 18 15:50:35 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:50:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D2B067.7000602@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> <48D2B067.7000602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D25CAB.2090802@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >> >>> Sorry, Matthias, but do you not write here that MS actions do not break >>> L20F5a? >>> I don't want to go quoting you wrongly again, but it seems that you have >>> just written that above. >> MS actions do not violate L20F5. > > Matthias, do you realize what you are doing here? > Surely you cannot mean this literally. Of course MS actions violate > L20F5a. Only a very silly reading of that law can make you say that the > sentence "5Di is diamond preference" is not the same as "4NT was not > Blackwood" and that these sentences are not an infractio of L20F5a. What I am saying is this: IMO L20F5 sets proper procedure. You may not voluntarily, intentionally indicate (by remarks, frowns, gestures, whatever) that a mistake has been made. You not only may but must explain your system correctly (as noted in another law). This is not voluntary, as the law compels you to so. Now if you intentionally ( not forced by law) transgress 20F5 you are in for a penalty. If you do so unintentionally (because you could not hide your surprise) you will get no penalty. As is well known, the smallest penalty is an admonition or a warning, which will usually suffice, especially for inexperienced players. Only habitual offenders will get hit with a big fine. Every such occurrence (whether 20F5 is broken or not) generates UI, no question about that. But, as we all know, unintended generation of UI is no infraction. Use of UI always is. > > Now I have a great respect for you, and you're not stupid. So you > realize that what you are saying is not that the MS actions do not break > L20F5a, but that such actions are not illegal per se. > > And I agree with that. > > BUT: When you say that MS actions are acceptable, you mean that in the > sense that they are trying to follow some other law. > Now if you are saying that to break one law in order to follow another > one is acceptable, then you must be honest enough to also allow the reverse. > > In fact what you are constructing is the following logical sequence: > > 1) MS is acceptable > 2) therefore, to break L20F5a is acceptable > 3) therefore, breaking L20F5a is not an irregularity > 4) therefore, dWS have no excuse for breaking the MI laws > 5) therefore, dWS is unacceptable. > What I construe is the following: 1) MS is legal. 2) To break any law is never acceptable. 3) Breaking L20F5 is an irregularity. 4) No one has an excuse for violating MI laws. 5) dWs violates L40B6a, therefore dWs is illegal. I know that you have a problem with 1), but I cannot change that. Heaven knows I have tried, and so have others, to no avail. I could have stopped after 1), as this nicely sums up the MS position, but I wanted to dot the i's and cross the t's. You have a problem with the MS interpretation of "to indicate", citing dictionaries which list alternative interpretations (in addition to the one MS uses). I bet you any amount of money you like that I am able to pick apart any text intended to set the rules of a game about as complex as those of Bridge with a dictionary and some minutes time. I will always find something. I remember well a stay in W?rzburg 25 years ago, visiting my girlfriend of that time. Since I did some studies in comparative linguistics at that time ( just for me) I visited the university library. I found an article in a renowned periodical on languages where an American philologist described the 28 different meanings of the German word "noch" (which you are probably familiar with, as your German is very good). I was quite amazed about what one can see in a word I had never spent any thought on, as a native speaker is wont to do about his language (in fact I only learned how many classes of verbs German has when I studied English). If an innocuous word like "noch" (which crops up every other sentence in German) can lead to very different interpretations, how long do you think will I need until I find something which stands the intended meaning on its head? There are enough words - in German and in English - which today mean just the opposite of what they did decades or centuries ago, or which have retained that sense in certain situations. If I really want to, how long will I need? 3 minutes? But this is just what you are doing at the moment. You insist on reading only one interpretation of "to indicate", against the expressed views of people who actually wrote that thing. It is all very well to raise the question, often enough it is downright necessary (and I feel that it was necessary here, just to get that cleared up), but to insist on your idiosyncratic (as Richard would probably put it) reading is wrong. If laws are just text you can always pick them apart, but you cannot do that if they have an intent. It may take work to find out that intent, as it did here, but I feel that there has to be a time when that intent has been made clear, and that is the case with L20F5. > >> To spell it out: explaining a call as >> per system and giving no indication by other means such as remarks, >> grimaces and so on does not violate L20F5. > > Yes it does. By any sane literal reading. There it is: literal reading. With literal reading you can prove or disprove anything. To sort something by rank does not mean that the most odorous suit is put to the right, as Richard has noticed. That is a literal reading too. And please don't tell me that some readings are more or less literal than others. Best regards Matthias From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 18 16:05:07 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:05:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809171538h65f995e9q53ea1bc116a27ddb@mail.gmail.com> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0809171538h65f995e9q53ea1bc116a27ddb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <27153213-D250-4A9E-AE0A-BE86FF28A2F1@starpower.net> On Sep 17, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >>> - raising an eyebrow >> >> ...is not required by any other law, and is therefore improper. > > Breathing is not required by any other law, and is therefore improper. > > "X is not required by any law and is therefore improper" is invalid > reasoning. I realize that BLMLers have resorted to it often, but it > is invalid. Otherwise, breathing is improper. Breathing is really rather unlikely to "suggest a call or play", but, yes, if one does breathe in a manner that does suggest a call or play (as might sighing deeply or gasping audibly), that is indeed improper. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 18 16:15:57 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:15:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D2392F.6070100@skynet.be> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> <48D1E97B.1020504@skynet.be> <000f01c9191a$42d8ac30$c88a0490$@com> <48D2392F.6070100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c91999$126c7c00$37457400$@com> [HdW] Yes, the MS actions are infractions of L20F5a, which by WBF decision are acceptable. [DALB] I make, and made, no such assertion. Suppose a Law says: "You may not insult partner, but you may call him an idiot." The implication of this is that the word "idiot" is not considered an insult for the purposes of this Law. We do not have such a Law; instead, we have a Law that says: "You may not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made, but you must explain your system correctly to the opponents." The implication of this is that explanations to the opponents are not considered indications that a mistake has been made for the purposes of this Law. Now, you may consider (and I may agree with you) that both of these Laws are rather strangely worded. If instead the first Law said: "You may not insult partner, except that you may call him an idiot", there would be no difficulty - the English sense of the word "insult" would be preserved, and the legal position would be clear. If instead the second Law said: "You may not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made, except that you must explain your system correctly to your opponents", again all difficulties would disappear and the dWS would clearly be illegal (as opposed to the current position, in which it is obscurely illegal). If, of course, the second Law said "You must explain your system correctly to the opponents, except that you may not indicate in any manner that your partner has made a mistake", there would again be no difficulty, and the dWS would clearly be legal. You and others have argued that this should be the case, and I have some (but not much) sympathy with your views. But you cannot argue that explanations to partner are infractions of Law 20F5a, because those responsible for Law 20F5a have clearly stated otherwise. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 18 16:17:24 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:17:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FAF74C4-BB90-43AE-A6EB-0E5AB3FB9496@starpower.net> On Sep 18, 2008, at 12:50 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> The Ruling: The director judged misexplanation with no evidence >> to the contrary and damage to N/S. Therefore, in accordance >> with [the 1997] Laws 75, 40C and 12C2 the table result was >> changed to 3NT by West down one, E/W minus 100. > > 2007 Law 21B1(b) / 2007 Law 75C: > > "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > > For this Law, the only change between the 1997 and 2007 Lawbooks > (apart from renumbering and duplicating) was fixing a 1997 typo > by replacing "Bid" with "Call". > > So the ACBL Director's interpretation of the word "evidence" is > still relevant under the new 2007 Lawbook. > >> South said he would have doubled 3H had it been Alerted as >> showing shortness. Additionally, since East had indeed intended >> his 3H bid conventionally showing shortness, he should have >> explained it at the end of the auction. > > Is an intention by one partner "evidence" of an agreement by both > partners? That is, should a Director always rule "no agreement" > to be a misexplanation because it is impossible to prove a > negative? No. As long as we believe that it is both possible and legal for a pair to have no agreement, we must allow adjudicators to determine that to be the case. To do otherwise would be to make having no agreement a de facto infraction. >> E/W fully disclosed all of their partnership agreements and >> history. Thus, there is no basis for adjusting the table result. >> Since E/W had no agreement about 3H, "We have no agreement" was >> not only a proper response it was the only proper response. > > Was the ACBL AC legally over-ruling the ACBL TD on a question of > fact, or was the ACBL AC illegally over-ruling the ACBL TD on a > question of interpretation of Law?l Thus this is a question of fact; the TD and AC disagreed on whether E- W did nor did not have an agreement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 18 16:42:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:42:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D233EC.2000408@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> <48D233EC.2000408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 18, 2008, at 6:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> - saying "4NT was not Blackwood" >> >> ...is not required by any other law, and is therefore improper. >> >>> - saying "5Di shows diamond preference" >> >> ...is required by other laws, and is therefore not only proper, but >> mandatory. > > And that's the problem, because saying "5D shows diamond preference" > automatically adds that "4NT was not Blackwood", yet the first is > allowed and the second disallowed. That strikes me as odd (number of > aces :-) ). I agree entirely. That's why I have recently urged this group to take up the issue of how this problem might be solved, and whether such a solution would be preferable to what we have now. We have wasted far too much time, however, on the (definitively settled, IMHO) question of whether or not implementing such a solution would require a change to the law (as opposed to individuals implementing it at the table on their own when they believe it is to their advantage to do so), and I have urged us to stop allowing the discussion to be hijacked onto that particular issue. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Sep 18 16:45:26 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:45:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D25CAB.2090802@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> <48D2B067.7000602@skynet.be> <48D25CAB.2090802@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D26986.10303@NTLworld.com> [Matthias Berghaus] There it is: literal reading. With literal reading you can prove or disprove anything. To sort something by rank does not mean that the most odorous suit is put to the right, as Richard has noticed. That is a literal reading too. And please don't tell me that some readings are more or less literal than others. [Nigel] Why not? No harm in a break from sophistry to state the obvious. Figurative readings may allow a variety of interpretations but a literal reading is more restrictive. There are ambiguities in the law book but the use of the word "rank" is uncontroversial. That word is used consistently. Its intended meaning is clear in context, even to an ordinary player. That is not the case for "indicate". From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 18 16:56:07 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:56:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48D25C13.8020000@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25C13.8020000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <43161ADA-D131-4977-B353-86E95CA5FC17@starpower.net> On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > There is an alternative Robert, > > You could also just become an adept of the dWS. > Oh yes, there is the derision on blml that goes with that. > Small price to pay for some sanity in the lawbook. Lest Robert be misled, he should know that he will suffer not only "the derision on blml that goes with that", but also the derision -- or far worse -- of his fellow players, who, not being conversant with BLML, Herman's ideas, or the "great dWS controversy", will simply assume he's trying to cheat. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 18 17:19:06 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:19:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D26986.10303@NTLworld.com> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> <48D2B067.7000602@skynet.be> <48D25CAB.2090802@t-online.de> <48D26986.10303@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48D2716A.6050706@t-online.de> Guthrie schrieb: > [Matthias Berghaus] > There it is: literal reading. With literal reading you can prove or > disprove anything. To sort something by rank does not mean that the most > odorous suit is put to the right, as Richard has noticed. That is a > literal reading too. And please don't tell me that some readings are > more or less literal than others. > > [Nigel] > Why not? No harm in a break from sophistry to state the obvious. > Figurative readings may allow a variety of interpretations but a literal > reading is more restrictive. There are ambiguities in the law book but > the use of the word "rank" is uncontroversial. That word is used > consistently. Its intended meaning is clear in context, even to an > ordinary player. That is not the case for "indicate". > It is clear in context to me. Reading Herman's posts ISTM that it is clear to him, too. It just so happens that he and I come to different conclusions what it means, from the same context. This reinforces what David wrote a couple of posts ago. It should have been worded clearer. The crux of the matter is that the meaning of a given text is abundantly clear to the author, but not necessarily to the reader, which makes clearer wording difficult, as it is already as clear as it will ever be for the author(s). There are enough words in any given language which may be read differently by people claiming to read them literally, depending on place of birth, age, education, sex, whatever. Stay in your language, but change the continent, and see what you get. Two people reading a sentence literally and coming to completely different results. Not always, not even very often, but it happens all the time. What we need are definitive statements by the authorities concerning certain points of law. The comments to the 1987 laws have been a great in understanding them, and I am at a loss to understand why such a text is not being prepared. So is Grattan, if I understood him correctly, but any committee depends on majority decisions, so we should prevail upon our respective NBOs to petition the WBF to produce such a work. Best regards Matthias From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 17:23:19 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:23:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D25CAB.2090802@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> <48D2B067.7000602@skynet.be> <48D25CAB.2090802@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D27267.60000@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > What I am saying is this: IMO L20F5 sets proper procedure. You may not > voluntarily, intentionally indicate (by remarks, frowns, gestures, > whatever) that a mistake has been made. You not only may but must > explain your system correctly (as noted in another law). This is not > voluntary, as the law compels you to so. > Now if you intentionally ( not forced by law) transgress 20F5 you are in > for a penalty. If you do so unintentionally (because you could not hide > your surprise) you will get no penalty. As is well known, the smallest > penalty is an admonition or a warning, which will usually suffice, > especially for inexperienced players. Only habitual offenders will get > hit with a big fine. > Every such occurrence (whether 20F5 is broken or not) generates UI, no > question about that. But, as we all know, unintended generation of UI is > no infraction. Use of UI always is. > Very well Matthias, but none of what you write tells us why this solution to the dilemma is to be preferred to the other solution. After all, you can say exactly the same thing about the laws on disclosure - you have to disclose correctly, but if you fail to do so involuntary, you will be less harshly punished than if you do so because you did not know, or because you were following a different law. After all, generation of MI is no infraction - damaging opponents is. I'm just trying to make you see that with this argument alone, you cannot prove that the dWS is illegal - all you are doing is proving that the MS is legal, something which I have never contested. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 17:25:23 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:25:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> 1b. I should change Law 16B1(a) to read "call, play, or explanation" >> instead of "call or play". >> > AG : surely that would be one possibility in order to fix the MI / UI > problem. Just officializing the traditional answer. No, just officialising a wrong interpretation which is not needed for anything except to try and prove dWS actions illegal. Rendering several other things illegal as well, such as going to the bar. But who cares about making the laws better? Only proving HDW wrong is what counts to some. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 17:26:37 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:26:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <43161ADA-D131-4977-B353-86E95CA5FC17@starpower.net> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25C13.8020000@skynet.be> <43161ADA-D131-4977-B353-86E95CA5FC17@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48D2732D.2080702@skynet.be> I had expected better from you Eric, Eric Landau wrote: > On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> There is an alternative Robert, >> >> You could also just become an adept of the dWS. >> Oh yes, there is the derision on blml that goes with that. >> Small price to pay for some sanity in the lawbook. > > Lest Robert be misled, he should know that he will suffer not only > "the derision on blml that goes with that", but also the derision -- > or far worse -- of his fellow players, who, not being conversant with > BLML, Herman's ideas, or the "great dWS controversy", will simply > assume he's trying to cheat. > Strong words, and absolutely unnecessary. I have explained the case to many players, who see the logic of it and don't believe it is cheating. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 17:32:45 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:32:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <000f01c91999$126c7c00$37457400$@com> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <643B14DC-9790-4E7B-A922-E9593E878053@starpower.net> <48D1E97B.1020504@skynet.be> <000f01c9191a$42d8ac30$c88a0490$@com> <48D2392F.6070100@skynet.be> <000f01c91999$126c7c00$37457400$@com> Message-ID: <48D2749D.4000709@skynet.be> Haha David, David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Yes, the MS actions are infractions of L20F5a, which by WBF decision are > acceptable. > > [DALB] > > I make, and made, no such assertion. Suppose a Law says: "You may not insult > partner, but you may call him an idiot." The implication of this is that the > word "idiot" is not considered an insult for the purposes of this Law. We do > not have such a Law; instead, we have a Law that says: "You may not indicate > in any manner that a mistake has been made, but you must explain your system > correctly to the opponents." That law is not in my lawbook. My lawbook has a law that says: you must correctly inform your opponents, except when avoiding to correct your partner's misexplanation. Don't find that law in your lawbook, David? Well sadly I cannot find your law in mine. And again: you are merely proving that MS actions are acceptable under law - that says nothing about dWS actions. > The implication of this is that explanations to > the opponents are not considered indications that a mistake has been made > for the purposes of this Law. > No David, the implication is that they are still indications, but that such indications will be less harshly treated than if the question had not been asked. Subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless. > Now, you may consider (and I may agree with you) that both of these Laws are > rather strangely worded. If instead the first Law said: "You may not insult > partner, except that you may call him an idiot", there would be no > difficulty - the English sense of the word "insult" would be preserved, and > the legal position would be clear. If instead the second Law said: "You may > not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made, except that you > must explain your system correctly to your opponents", again all > difficulties would disappear and the dWS would clearly be illegal (as > opposed to the current position, in which it is obscurely illegal). > No, not illegal at all - but your point is well made. If the WBF had wanted this exception to exist, then they would have written it. Since they haven't, maybe they don't particularly mind which way a player solves this dilemma. And don't say they did not know it. Ton and Grattan have known the dWS as long as you have (or maybe not - they had to read the name, you invented it - so you have a 5 minute headstart on the rest of us). > If, of course, the second Law said "You must explain your system correctly > to the opponents, except that you may not indicate in any manner that your > partner has made a mistake", there would again be no difficulty, and the dWS > would clearly be legal. You and others have argued that this should be the > case, and I have some (but not much) sympathy with your views. But you > cannot argue that explanations to partner are infractions of Law 20F5a, > because those responsible for Law 20F5a have clearly stated otherwise. > Again, if the lawmakers had decided to solve this dilemma, they might have written that law. They did not, and so the dilemma continues to exist and I continue to regard both schools as acceptable. And then maybe we could start arguing which of the two is better for the game of bridge? > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Sep 18 18:17:57 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:17:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D257D8.4090503@ulb.ac.be> References: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no><48D21686.9000708@meteo.fr> <00 1701c91973$01c45fb0$054d1f10$@no><48D24D2C.3010800@meteo.fr> <48D257D8.4090503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48D27F35.7090607@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : >> S >> ... and if it was not discussed inside our partnership: yes >> no agreement is a relative concept: if our opponents have the same >> background as our partnership in order to understand the call, what >> could i teach to them that they don't know? >> > AG : I have an answer to this : more than once, I asked about the > meaning of a call that I knew they knew I knew, because I wanted to know > whether they knew. I'm not sure that's proper, but there was a bridge > reason : upon hearing from West that East's bid was strong, while I knew > it wasn't in their system, I doubled the final contract. your asking is not in contradiction with my former sentence which dealt with some non-systemic call (undiscussed) which leant on some piece of general knowledge (general or broad or narrow or intimate but not universal) that you knew was or was not shared by opponents. jpr > > Best regards > > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Sep 18 18:24:35 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:24:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D192FC.8020809@skynet.be> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <48D100B8.9040200@verizon.net> <48D192FC.8020809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D280C3.2030907@verizon.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > It is not because there are exceptions to L20F5a, that L20F5a drops out > of the Lawbook. > > Curious. My Lawbook seems a little be less changeable than yours. In fact, it only seems to change about every ten years. No Law seems to drop out just to suit my convenience. Rather, I have to deal with all of them until the next set of Laws. Hirsch From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 18 18:48:24 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:48:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> Message-ID: <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [JMDP] > > Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue backs. So, do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the board and award A+/A- (since the player with 14 failed to count) or do we have a 13-13 in which case I can award 2S making 4 > > [DALB] > > The original post specified that East?s S6 was an extra card from another pack. But: > > Law 61A Definition of Revoke > > 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. > > This means that East's play of his extra S6, when he was required by law to play one of the cards in his original hand, is a revoke. Can a player revoke by following suit? It would appear that he can. > AG : I checked that, and couldn't convince myself there was any revoke, because L56 speaks of "a card or suit specified by law" and L44 doesn't say explicitly that the card played must be from the same pack, only the same suit.. To the contrary, it says one may play any card from one's hand ; the hand is the set of cards originally dealt to the player, but it isn't said "dealt on this deal", so I think we miss something to be able to categorize this as a revoke, as we would all wish. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 18 19:02:14 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:02:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D24D2C.3010800@meteo.fr> References: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no><48D21686.9000708@meteo.fr> <001701c91973$01c45fb0$054d1f10$@no> <48D24D2C.3010800@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000c01c919b0$4cedef50$e6c9cdf0$@no> On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort > > ............... > >>> "No agreements" must not be allowed used as an easy escape from a > > difficult > >>> misinformation situation; a player making a call on which there > > allegedly is > >>> no partnership understanding obviously does so with the expectation that > > his > >>> call shall be correctly understood by partner. > >> no agreement is a proper explanation of a call when there is no more > >> reason for partner to understand it than for an opponent. > > > > So you say that "no agreements" is a proper explanation if I know that our > > opponents know our understanding of a call? > > ... and if it was not discussed inside our partnership: yes > no agreement is a relative concept: if our opponents have the same > background as our partnership in order to understand the call, what > could i teach to them that they don't know? > if they have a lesser knowledge of this background, i need to tell them > the call is undicussed and to add the background they miss to be in the > same state as our partnership to have an opportunity to understand it. > what could be more straightforward? I didn't say anything about whether or not it was discussed; I quoted that you feel certain opponents know the understanding of the call. (That was the obvious essence of what you wrote.) If you have an understanding with your partner from other sources than discussion with him (see Law 40) this is still part of your partnership understanding, and it is illegal to hide behind "undiscussed" or "no agreement" when requested to disclose this understanding. Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 19:09:30 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:09:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D2716A.6050706@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> <48D2B067.7000602@skynet.be> <48D25CAB.2090802@t-online.de> <48D26986.10303@NTLworld.com> <48D2716A.6050706@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D28B4A.6090002@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Guthrie schrieb: >> [Matthias Berghaus] >> There it is: literal reading. With literal reading you can prove or >> disprove anything. To sort something by rank does not mean that the most >> odorous suit is put to the right, as Richard has noticed. That is a >> literal reading too. And please don't tell me that some readings are >> more or less literal than others. >> >> [Nigel] >> Why not? No harm in a break from sophistry to state the obvious. >> Figurative readings may allow a variety of interpretations but a literal >> reading is more restrictive. There are ambiguities in the law book but >> the use of the word "rank" is uncontroversial. That word is used >> consistently. Its intended meaning is clear in context, even to an >> ordinary player. That is not the case for "indicate". >> > > It is clear in context to me. Reading Herman's posts ISTM that it is > clear to him, too. It just so happens that he and I come to different > conclusions what it means, from the same context. > I even believe that it is clear to both of us, in the same manner. We both agree that it is not allowed without the question, and that it is acceptable (my word) / allowed (Matthias' word - they turn out to be the same thing) with the question. It is not the law that is unclear, it is the conclusion. Matthias interprets it as implying that dWS is illegal, I do no such thing. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 18 19:11:26 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:11:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Indicate in any manner In-Reply-To: <48D280C3.2030907@verizon.net> References: <48D1646B.3030006@skynet.be> <48D100B8.9040200@verizon.net> <48D192FC.8020809@skynet.be> <48D280C3.2030907@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48D28BBE.4030608@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: >> It is not because there are exceptions to L20F5a, that L20F5a drops out >> of the Lawbook. >> >> Very unfair editing, Hirsh. I do not believe this law has dropped out of the lawbook - some others seem to do so. > Curious. My Lawbook seems a little be less changeable than yours. In > fact, it only seems to change about every ten years. No Law seems to > drop out just to suit my convenience. Rather, I have to deal with all > of them until the next set of Laws. > I have no need for any change of laws to continue to believe that dWS is not only acceptable, but even fits in the lawbook better than MS. > Hirsch > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 18 19:41:52 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:41:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <48D2596D.3070107@ulb.ac.be> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <48D2596D.3070107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c919b5$d5fe0820$81fa1860$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > > *Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue backs. > > So, do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the board and > > award A+/A- (since the player with 14 failed to count) or do we have a > > 13-13 in which case I can award 2S making 4* > AG : seems like it's 14-13. 2S making 4 seems right IMOBO. This is the position after the first five tricks: Dealer North ? - Game All ? KQ764 Board 13 ? - ? 653 ? 9 ? - ? J85 ? 103 ? 54 ? A109 ? Q10 ? AJ9 ? 32 ? A92 ? - ? K84 South must now play another trump or West will eventually ruff the fourth heart played and South gets only three heart tricks. West will of course return another diamond whenever obtaining the lead. South can, instead of immediately pulling West's last trump enter dummy and play a club towards his King, but East then has no excuse for not using his Ace and return another diamond. Now South can no longer force out the last trump in West. So where does the tenth trick for declaring side come from? Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 18 19:44:44 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:44:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Shouldn't the 3H have been alerted? Basically, the opponents expected 3H to show hearts. If the agreement is "no agreement" and the default isn't natural -- which both players claimed to understand -- then 3H didn't show hearts. From svenpran at online.no Thu Sep 18 19:58:37 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:58:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000e01c919b8$2d419780$87c4c680$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ................. > > The original post specified that East?s S6 was an extra card from another pack. > > But: > > > > Law 61A Definition of Revoke > > > > 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. > > > > This means that East's play of his extra S6, when he was required by law to play > one of the cards in his original hand, is a revoke. Can a player revoke by following > suit? It would appear that he can. > > > > AG : I checked that, and couldn't convince myself there was any revoke, > because L56 speaks of "a card or suit specified by law" and L44 doesn't > say explicitly that the card played must be from the same pack, only the > same suit.. To the contrary, it says one may play any card from one's > hand ; the hand is the set of cards originally dealt to the player, but > it isn't said "dealt on this deal", so I think we miss something to be > able to categorize this as a revoke, as we would all wish. I agree with Alain, but for a different reason: Law 13F says: "Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue unaffected. If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded." This law includes the procedures to be followed without any reference to a possible revoke. Instead it says that the play continues unaffected but that an adjusted score may be awarded if the surplus card "is found to have been played to a quitted trick". I can only conclude from this that the existence of a surplus card in a deck can never in itself lead to the application of revoke laws. Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 18 20:04:50 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:04:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <06b001c919b9$0b76d0b0$e55c9951@stefanie> >> [JMDP] >> >> Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue backs. So, >> do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the board and award A+/A- >> (since the player with 14 failed to count) or do we have a 13-13 in which >> case I can award 2S making 4 >> >> [DALB] >> >> The original post specified that East?s S6 was an extra card from another >> pack. But: >> >> Law 61A Definition of Revoke >> >> 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. >> >> This means that East's play of his extra S6, when he was required by law >> to play one of the cards in his original hand, is a revoke. Can a player >> revoke by following suit? It would appear that he can. >> > > AG : I checked that, and couldn't convince myself there was any revoke, > because L56 speaks of "a card or suit specified by law" and L44 doesn't > say explicitly that the card played must be from the same pack, only the > same suit.. To the contrary, it says one may play any card from one's > hand ; the hand is the set of cards originally dealt to the player, but > it isn't said "dealt on this deal", so I think we miss something to be > able to categorize this as a revoke, as we would all wish. > Where do these laws come from? The relevant ones are 13F and 67B. The question is, once the surplus card is removed from the pack, are we left with a deficient trick? Stefanie Rohan London, England From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 18 20:55:08 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:55:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com><48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> <06b001c919b9$0b76d0b0$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <2C1E266AEFC14A1A938E73F5B95EF5EA@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Law Book should be complete >>> [JMDP] >>> >>> Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue backs. >>> So, >>> do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the board and award >>> A+/A- >>> (since the player with 14 failed to count) or do we have a 13-13 in >>> which >>> case I can award 2S making 4 >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> The original post specified that East's S6 was an extra card from >>> another >>> pack. Hah! Bumhug! We don't _know this_ 13F makes it clear enough. We play the hand out. East's 14th card is extraneous if that's the case. We can't legislate against east just because HE has the 2nd copy of the S6, it could have been in someone else's hand. I think i want to rule it was the other S6 and have a 14-12 and a 60-40 award. They weren't playing bridge, that's for sure. (Law 1), DALB's favourite law :) : >>> >>> Law 61A Definition of Revoke >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> This means that East's play of his extra S6, when he was required by law >>> to play one of the cards in his original hand, is a revoke. Can a player >>> revoke by following suit? It would appear that he can. >>> >> >> AG : I checked that, and couldn't convince myself there was any revoke, >> because L56 speaks of "a card or suit specified by law" and L44 doesn't >> say explicitly that the card played must be from the same pack, only the >> same suit.. To the contrary, it says one may play any card from one's >> hand ; the hand is the set of cards originally dealt to the player, but >> it isn't said "dealt on this deal", so I think we miss something to be >> able to categorize this as a revoke, as we would all wish. >> > Where do these laws come from? The relevant ones are 13F and 67B. The > question is, once the surplus card is removed from the pack, are we left > with a deficient trick? > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 18 21:18:34 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:18:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:48:24 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > David Burn a ?crit : >> [JMDP] >> >> Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue backs. >> So, do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the board and award >> A+/A- (since the player with 14 failed to count) or do we have a 13-13 >> in which case I can award 2S making 4 >> >> [DALB] >> >> The original post specified that East?s S6 was an extra card from >> another pack. But: >> >> Law 61A Definition of Revoke >> >> 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. >> >> This means that East's play of his extra S6, when he was required by >> law to play one of the cards in his original hand, is a revoke. Can a >> player revoke by following suit? It would appear that he can. >> > > AG : I checked that, and couldn't convince myself there was any revoke, > because L56 speaks of "a card or suit specified by law" and L44 doesn't > say explicitly that the card played must be from the same pack, only the > same suit.. To the contrary, it says one may play any card from one's > hand ; the hand is the set of cards originally dealt to the player, but > it isn't said "dealt on this deal", so I think we miss something to be > able to categorize this as a revoke, as we would all wish. > > Best regards > > Alain Hi Alain. Law 14B4 says that a missing card, no matter where it was, is deemed to have belonged continuously to the missing hand. I take that as indication that "hand" and "deal" should be defined such that the extra card was never a part of the end, no matter what the player thought. So there is a defective trick. And I am grateful to the authors of the new rules for Law 13F. The old rules did not handle this well. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 18 22:21:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:21:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Sep 18, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > David Burn a ?crit : >> [JMDP] >> >> Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue >> backs. So, do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the >> board and award A+/A- (since the player with 14 failed to count) >> or do we have a 13-13 in which case I can award 2S making 4 >> >> [DALB] >> >> The original post specified that East?s S6 was an extra card from >> another pack. But: >> >> Law 61A Definition of Revoke >> >> 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. >> >> This means that East's play of his extra S6, when he was required >> by law to play one of the cards in his original hand, is a revoke. >> Can a player revoke by following suit? It would appear that he can. > > AG : I checked that, and couldn't convince myself there was any > revoke, > because L56 speaks of "a card or suit specified by law" and L44 > doesn't > say explicitly that the card played must be from the same pack, > only the > same suit.. To the contrary, it says one may play any card from one's > hand ; the hand is the set of cards originally dealt to the > player, but > it isn't said "dealt on this deal", so I think we miss something to be > able to categorize this as a revoke, as we would all wish. Not all of us would so wish. I see no reason at all why it would be desirable to conflate the rules on wrong number of cards and the rules on revokes. They are entirely different things, no more related than any other two categories of irregularities selected at random. And I concur with Alain's inability to find anything in TFLB that suggests that the laws on either can or should be applied to the other. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 18 23:12:28 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:12:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <07dc01c919d3$41ae36e0$e55c9951@stefanie> EL: Not all of us would so wish. I see no reason at all why it would be desirable to conflate the rules on wrong number of cards and the rules on revokes. They are entirely different things, no more related than any other two categories of irregularities selected at random. And I concur with Alain's inability to find anything in TFLB that suggests that the laws on either can or should be applied to the other. SR: I don't wish one thing or another, but the interpretation we tried under Mike's tutelage at the County Directors' course seems Law-abiding. The surplus card is removed when it is found, as per Law 13F. If the card was in a quitted trick, we now have a defective trick, and according to L67B this may well result in a revoke. And it seems perfectly logical that when a card that should never have been in a hand was played to a trick, the player can be deemed not to have contributed a card to the trick. Next time he will count his cards. There may well be another way to resolve the irregularity; but what is it? Do we allow the person who started with 14 cards to continue to play with an extra card? If not, then... what? Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 19 02:12:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:12:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <07dc01c919d3$41ae36e0$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan asked: >I don't wish one thing or another, but the interpretation >we tried under Mike's tutelage at the County Directors' >course seems Law-abiding. The surplus card is removed >when it is found, as per Law 13F. If the card was in a >quitted trick, we now have a defective trick, and >according to L67B this may well result in a revoke. And >it seems perfectly logical that when a card that should >never have been in a hand was played to a trick, the >player can be deemed not to have contributed a card to >the trick. > >Next time he will count his cards. > >There may well be another way to resolve the irregularity; >but what is it? Do we allow the person who started with 14 >cards to continue to play with an extra card? If not, >then... what? Richard Hills answers: The final sentence of Law 13F states: "If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded." The final sentence of Law 13F does not state: "If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick Law 67 applies." So, if I was TD, I would resolve the irregularity by ruling that normal play was not possible and awarding an adjusted score (plus procedural penalties to the player who failed to count her cards, and to the other player at the other table who failed to correctly return her cards to her pocket in the board). This is consistent with Kojak's rule that a very specific Law - in this case Law 13F - over-rules a more general Law - in this case Law 67. 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 P.S. The Law Book is complete, since Law 12A1 and Law 81C2 fill any gaps. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Sep 19 02:44:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:44:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asked: >Shouldn't the 3H have been alerted? Basically, the opponents >expected 3H to show hearts. If the agreement is "no agreement" >and the default isn't natural -- which both players claimed to >understand -- then 3H didn't show hearts. Richard Hills almost answers: I do not know the current status of the ACBL Alert Regulation. (Indeed, due to its complexity and frequent amendments, not many ACBL players know the current status of the ACBL Alert Regulation.) But some years ago I did receive official guidance on the ABF Alert Regulation. In Aussie tournaments "no agreement" calls must not be alerted, but "anti-system" calls (e.g. partner's pass of your forcing bid) must be alerted if an alert is otherwise legal. An "anti-system" call does not include errors. If you choose to bid 4NT which is systemically old-fashioned Blackwood, and you hold two aces, and partner responds 5S promising three aces, and RHO enquires, you explain 5S as promising three aces rather than explaining 5S as an "anti-system" 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 19 03:48:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:48:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU/WBU Appeals Casebooks 2007 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have just received a message (see below) from David Stevenson that the 2007 EBU and WBU Appeals Casebooks are now available for download. The international panel of commentators includes some currently active blmlers in Alain Gottcheiner, Eric Landau, Paul Lamford and myself, with a special guest appearance by Grattan Endicott in EBU Appeal number 12. 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 * * * Hi all Thanks everyone. The appeals books are completed, and can be downloaded from http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm Once I get myself organised - probably a day or two - they will also be available from http://blakjak.org/appeals.htm -- Yours truly, David Stevenson -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 19 05:51:19 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:51:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:12:06 -0400, wrote: > Stefanie Rohan asked: > >> I don't wish one thing or another, but the interpretation >> we tried under Mike's tutelage at the County Directors' >> course seems Law-abiding. The surplus card is removed >> when it is found, as per Law 13F. If the card was in a >> quitted trick, we now have a defective trick, and >> according to L67B this may well result in a revoke. And >> it seems perfectly logical that when a card that should >> never have been in a hand was played to a trick, the >> player can be deemed not to have contributed a card to >> the trick. >> >> Next time he will count his cards. >> >> There may well be another way to resolve the irregularity; >> but what is it? Do we allow the person who started with 14 >> cards to continue to play with an extra card? If not, >> then... what? > > Richard Hills answers: > > The final sentence of Law 13F states: "If such a card is > found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted > score may be awarded." > > The final sentence of Law 13F does not state: "If such a > card is found to have been played to a quitted trick Law 67 > applies." > > So, if I was TD, I would resolve the irregularity by ruling > that normal play was not possible and awarding an adjusted > score (plus procedural penalties to the player who failed > to count her cards, and to the other player at the other > table who failed to correctly return her cards to her > pocket in the board). > > This is consistent with Kojak's rule that a very specific > Law - in this case Law 13F - over-rules a more general Law > - in this case Law 67. Is there any inconsistency? The extra card is removed by Law 13F. In this case, it creates a defective trick. By L67, a card is placed into the defective trick and it is treated as a revoke. L64C then directs the director to assign an adjusted score if regular penalty for a revoke (1 trick in this case) is inadequate rectification. So you have, after skipping merrily through the lawbook, that the director might award an adjusted score when the extra card has already been played. Do you want to quibble over "may" versus "might"? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 19 06:48:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:48:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >TD had "judged misexplanation with no evidence to the >contrary"; what evidence did the AC see that the TD >had overlooked? > >"No agreements" must not be allowed used as an easy >escape from a difficult misinformation situation; a >player making a call on which there allegedly is no >partnership understanding obviously does so with the >expectation that his call shall be correctly >understood by partner. [snip] Richard Hills: An expectation that a call shall be correctly understood by partner is irrelevant. Many bunnies and some experts play the Chameleon System, in which they let the AI from their own cards delude them into thinking that their call has an obvious meaning, only to find their partner flummoxed by the "no agreement" call. The key question to be resolved here is whether the verbal statement, "we have no agreement" is: (a) verbal _evidence_ that the partnership has no agreement (in which case the TD's ruling of no evidence to the contrary was clearly unLawful), or (b) merely a verbal _assertion_ that the partnership has no agreement, with any verbal or written evidence still to be collected. Previously I have voted for (a), but I am now changing my mind to vote for (b). So, in my opinion, both the TD and AC ruled correctly. The AC discovered additional evidence that the pair came from opposite ends of the country (so not any implicit understandings created by local norms) to play together for the first time, thus giving balance- of-probabilities credibility to the proposition that the partnership had "no agreement" about a bid which cropped up in the fourth round of their auction. 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 Sep 19 07:12:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:12:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: >>The final sentence of Law 13F states: "If such a card is >>found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted >>score may be awarded." >> >>The final sentence of Law 13F does not state: "If such a >>card is found to have been played to a quitted trick Law 67 >>applies." Robert Frick refuted: >Is there any inconsistency? The extra card is removed by Law >13F. In this case, it creates a defective trick. By L67, a >card is placed into the defective trick and it is treated as >a revoke. L64C then directs the director to assign an >adjusted score if regular penalty for a revoke (1 trick in >this case) is inadequate rectification. So you have, after >skipping merrily through the lawbook, that the director >might award an adjusted score when the extra card has >already been played. Do you want to quibble over "may" >versus "might"? Richard Hills concedes: Okay, for the second time in half-an-hour, I am willing to be convinced by rational argument that one of my interpretations of Law is incorrect. (And if the title of this thread was instead, "The Law Book should be unambiguous", then that would get my 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 07:47:21 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:47:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809182247t49784df3j13b44a3f4f11ff65@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > The AC discovered additional evidence that the pair > came from opposite ends of the country (so not any > implicit understandings created by local norms) to > play together for the first time, thus giving balance- > of-probabilities credibility to the proposition that > the partnership had "no agreement" about a bid which > cropped up in the fourth round of their auction. > Why are you using balance-of-probabilities? This was played in an ACBL event. Here are the ACBL conditions of contest: "In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made rather than misinformation given. The convention card and previous auctions are the most obvious ways to resolve any disagreements concerning misbid vs misinformation." Looks like the ACBL uses "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it's not MI" instead of "balance of probabilities that it is MI" for MI cases, so you have a higher bar to decide no MI. But maybe we need to know the definition of misbid. The laws offer no help that I can see. So, what is the definition of misbid? Is it "a call, not intended as a psych, that is inconsistent with the methods of the partnership"? It is not easy for me to come up with a good definition. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 19 07:51:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:51:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] There is nothing like a Dane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: EBU Appeals Casebook 2007, Final Comments Jens Brix Christiansen's comments: The general impression from a Danish point of view is that appeals are treated much the same in the EBU as they would have been in the DBF. The major difference from Danish practice is best summarized in these points: * It is a little easier to get a verdict of no logical alternative in the EBU than in the DBF. The difference in style is not tremendous, but it is definitely there. It will be interesting to observe a year or two from now whether the formal definition of logical alternative will cause this difference in style to disappear. * In the DBF we very rarely have cases regarding possible fielding of psyches, yet this year's crop of English and Welsh appeals have two such appeals, both of which are about the ultimate classification in the colour scheme. This is a statistically meagre sample, but it does make me wonder whether the colour scheme actually creates as many problems as it solves. * In the DBF we have regulations to the effect that an appeal normally will not be heard directly at the venue if one of the parties has left the venue after the end of normal play in bona fide ignorance of the appeal. Instead we settle the appeal afterwards in an offsite committee (which will be the regulating authority's committee for event at the national level) where both parties are heard via email. The EBU regulations place less emphasis on the contestants' right to be heard. The EBU approach comes as a surprise 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 08:56:14 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:56:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <07dc01c919d3$41ae36e0$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> <07dc01c919d3$41ae36e0$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: On 18/09/2008, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > EL: > > Not all of us would so wish. I see no reason at all why it would be > desirable to conflate the rules on wrong number of cards and the > rules on revokes. They are entirely different things, no more > related than any other two categories of irregularities selected at > random. And I concur with Alain's inability to find anything in TFLB > that suggests that the laws on either can or should be applied to the > other. > > SR: > > I don't wish one thing or another, but the interpretation we tried under > Mike's tutelage at the County Directors' course seems Law-abiding. The > surplus card is removed when it is found, as per Law 13F. If the card was in > a quitted trick, we now have a defective trick, and according to L67B this > may well result in a revoke. And it seems perfectly logical that when a card > that should never have been in a hand was played to a trick, the player can > be deemed not to have contributed a card to the trick. I entirely agree with the above analysis. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Next time he will count his cards. > > There may well be another way to resolve the irregularity; but what is it? > Do we allow the person who started with 14 cards to continue to play with an > extra card? If not, then... what? > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 19 09:08:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:08:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809182247t49784df3j13b44a3f4f11ff65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [big snip] >But maybe we need to know the definition of misbid. The laws >offer no help that I can see. Richard Hills: The word "misbid" appears zero times in the Laws. The phrase "Mistaken Call" does appear. "Call" is in the Definitions, but "Mistaken" is not, so presumably "Mistaken" has its normal dictionary definition. Jerry Fusselman: >So, what is the definition of misbid? Is it "a call, not >intended as a psych, that is inconsistent with the methods of >the partnership"? It is not easy for me to come up with a >good definition. Richard Hills: Is a definition necessary? The dictionary definition word "deviation" in Law 40C1 seems to cover all bases. It covers gross psyches, gross misbids, and shading of your 12-14 hcp 1NT opening to include some good 11 hcp and/or great 10 hcp. 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Sep 19 09:16:33 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:16:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <000d01c919b5$d5fe0820$81fa1860$@no> References: <85B0C40104A4 4D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><4 8D2596D.3070107@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c919b5$d5fe0820$81fa1860$@no> Message-ID: <48D351D1.1090703@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : >>> *Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue backs. >>> So, do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the board and >>> award A+/A- (since the player with 14 failed to count) or do we have a >>> 13-13 in which case I can award 2S making 4* >> AG : seems like it's 14-13. 2S making 4 seems right IMOBO. > > This is the position after the first five tricks: > > Dealer North ? - > Game All ? KQ764 > Board 13 ? - > ? 653 > ? 9 ? - > ? J85 ? 103 > ? 54 ? A109 > ? Q10 ? AJ9 > ? 32 > ? A92 > ? - > ? K84 > > South must now play another trump or West will eventually ruff the fourth heart played and South gets only three heart tricks. West will of course return another diamond whenever obtaining the lead. > > South can, instead of immediately pulling West's last trump enter dummy and play a club towards his King, but East then has no excuse for not using his Ace and return another diamond. ...diamond ruffed, HA, HQ, club discarded on 4h heart: 6 tricks out of 8 jpr Now South can no longer force out the last trump in West. > > So where does the tenth trick for declaring side come from? > > Regards Sven > -- _______________________________________________ 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 09:30:14 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:30:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0809182247t49784df3j13b44a3f4f11ff65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809190030s78ec25bawe469b3e12c1fe8cc@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry Fusselman] Here are the ACBL conditions of contest: "In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made rather than misinformation given. The convention card and previous auctions are the most obvious ways to resolve any disagreements concerning misbid vs misinformation." So, what is the definition of misbid? [Richard Hills] Is a definition necessary? The dictionary definition word "deviation" in Law 40C1 seems to cover all bases. It covers gross psyches, gross misbids, and shading of your 12-14 hcp 1NT opening to include some good 11 hcp and/or great 10 hcp. [Jerry Fusselman] Yes, I think a definition would help. Part of what you snipped was relevant, so I reinstated it above. You see, misbid does appear in the ACBL regulations, which governs the case under study. It would be nice to know what it means before deciding whether the ACBL committee ruled correctly on this MI case. If it is so clear what it means, someone should be able to define it. I would be impressed if anyone can do it in a way most of us agree with. I suspect it is difficult to avoid a circular definition, where you decide first whether or not there was MI. And that would be fine, but the ACBL regulation seems to make a statement that misbid is a useful term. Also note that balance of probabilities, which you used, is not what ACBL uses for MI cases. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Sep 19 09:30:41 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:30:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c919b0$4cedef50$e6c9cdf0$@no> References: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no><48D21686.9000708@meteo.fr> <00 1701c91973$01c45fb0$054d1f10$@no><48D24D2C.3010800@meteo.fr> <000c01c919b0$4cedef50$e6c9cdf0$@no> Message-ID: <48D35521.6040202@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort >>> ............... >>>>> "No agreements" must not be allowed used as an easy escape from a >>> difficult >>>>> misinformation situation; a player making a call on which there >>> allegedly is >>>>> no partnership understanding obviously does so with the expectation > that >>> his >>>>> call shall be correctly understood by partner. >>>> no agreement is a proper explanation of a call when there is no more >>>> reason for partner to understand it than for an opponent. >>> So you say that "no agreements" is a proper explanation if I know that > our >>> opponents know our understanding of a call? >> ... and if it was not discussed inside our partnership: yes >> no agreement is a relative concept: if our opponents have the same >> background as our partnership in order to understand the call, what >> could i teach to them that they don't know? >> if they have a lesser knowledge of this background, i need to tell them >> the call is undicussed and to add the background they miss to be in the >> same state as our partnership to have an opportunity to understand it. >> what could be more straightforward? > > I didn't say anything about whether or not it was discussed; I quoted that > you feel certain opponents know the understanding of the call. (That was the > obvious essence of what you wrote.) i seem to remenber from the original post that there was a nebulous call of 3H in the 3rd or 4th round of an auction, which was undiscussed. > > If you have an understanding with your partner from other sources than > discussion with him (see Law 40) this is still part of your partnership > understanding, and it is illegal to hide behind "undiscussed" or "no > agreement" when requested to disclose this understanding. if it is a "table understanding" there is nothing undisclosed to disclose. if there is a gap between the partnership understanding and the table understanding, this gap must be cancelled by an appropriate disclosing. if you don't know if there is a gap, you better disclose the bases of your possible undersrtanding. i think we are in agreement. jpr > > Sven > -- _______________________________________________ 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 svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 19 11:07:11 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:07:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D35521.6040202@meteo.fr> References: <000301c9195b$b1d25640$157702c0$@no><48D21686.9000708@meteo.fr> <00 1701c91973$01c45fb0$054d1f10$@no><48D24D2C.3010800@meteo.fr> <000c01c919b0$4cedef50$e6c9cdf0$@no> <48D35521.6040202@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000301c91a37$1a4e6ac0$4eeb4040$@no> On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort > >>> ............... > >>>>> "No agreements" must not be allowed used as an easy escape from a > >>> difficult > >>>>> misinformation situation; a player making a call on which there > >>> allegedly is > >>>>> no partnership understanding obviously does so with the expectation > > that > >>> his > >>>>> call shall be correctly understood by partner. > >>>> no agreement is a proper explanation of a call when there is no more > >>>> reason for partner to understand it than for an opponent. > >>> So you say that "no agreements" is a proper explanation if I know that > > our > >>> opponents know our understanding of a call? > >> ... and if it was not discussed inside our partnership: yes > >> no agreement is a relative concept: if our opponents have the same > >> background as our partnership in order to understand the call, what > >> could i teach to them that they don't know? > >> if they have a lesser knowledge of this background, i need to tell them > >> the call is undicussed and to add the background they miss to be in the > >> same state as our partnership to have an opportunity to understand it. > >> what could be more straightforward? > > > > I didn't say anything about whether or not it was discussed; I quoted that > > you feel certain opponents know the understanding of the call. (That was the > > obvious essence of what you wrote.) > > i seem to remenber from the original post that there was a nebulous call > of 3H in the 3rd or 4th round of an auction, which was undiscussed. > > > > If you have an understanding with your partner from other sources than > > discussion with him (see Law 40) this is still part of your partnership > > understanding, and it is illegal to hide behind "undiscussed" or "no > > agreement" when requested to disclose this understanding. > if it is a "table understanding" there is nothing undisclosed to > disclose. if there is a gap between the partnership understanding and > the table understanding, this gap must be cancelled by an appropriate > disclosing. if you don't know if there is a gap, you better disclose the > bases of your possible undersrtanding. i think we are in agreement. Yes, I think so too. What made me wonder was your statement that "no agreement" can be a proper response when there actually must exist some understanding that is known also to opponents. (And thanks for your rectification with the line of play that I overlooked in the other thread.) Regards Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 19 12:02:57 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:02:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000501c91a3e$e9b975f0$bd2c61d0$@com> [EL] I see no reason at all why it would be desirable to conflate the rules on wrong number of cards and the rules on revokes. [DALB] If you play to a trick a card that ought not to be in your hand, then ipso facto you fail to play a legal card to a trick. That is a revoke, just as it is a revoke if you fail to play any card at all to a trick. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 19 12:31:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:31:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <06b001c919b9$0b76d0b0$e55c9951@stefanie> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> <06b001c919b9$0b76d0b0$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D37F90.2090307@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : >>> [JMDP] >>> >>> Nice one. mike. Which S6 shall we remove? They both have blue backs. So, >>> do we have a 14-12 in which case i shall cancel the board and award A+/A- >>> (since the player with 14 failed to count) or do we have a 13-13 in which >>> case I can award 2S making 4 >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> The original post specified that East?s S6 was an extra card from another >>> pack. But: >>> >>> Law 61A Definition of Revoke >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> This means that East's play of his extra S6, when he was required by law >>> to play one of the cards in his original hand, is a revoke. Can a player >>> revoke by following suit? It would appear that he can. >>> >>> >> AG : I checked that, and couldn't convince myself there was any revoke, >> because L56 speaks of "a card or suit specified by law" and L44 doesn't >> say explicitly that the card played must be from the same pack, only the >> same suit.. To the contrary, it says one may play any card from one's >> hand ; the hand is the set of cards originally dealt to the player, but >> it isn't said "dealt on this deal", so I think we miss something to be >> able to categorize this as a revoke, as we would all wish. >> >> > Where do these laws come from? The relevant ones are 13F and 67B. The > question is, once the surplus card is removed from the pack, are we left > with a deficient trick? > > AG : The question is : do we apply a revoke penalty ? So I looked at revoke laws. Technical aspects were mentioned (specified by law), so I looked at the laws that speak of how one plays cards. Is that so strange ? You might decide that L67 is the one to be used, but it doesn't speak of revokes, so that one can't use it to answer the question about possible revokes. L67 speaks of when a player has too many or too few cards, because he played too few or too many cards from his due original share, a case that's quite different. So my feeling is that it isn't relevant here. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 19 13:19:58 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:19:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <48D37F90.2090307@ulb.ac.be> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> <06b001c919b9$0b76d0b0$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D37F90.2090307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c91a49$a6f775e0$f4e661a0$@com> [AG] I looked at the laws that speak of how one plays cards. Is that so strange ? You might decide that L67 is the one to be used, but it doesn't speak of revokes [DALB] Yes, it does. Law 67B. After Both Sides Play to Next Trick After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director should proceed as follows. 1. When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the Director shall require him forthwith to expose a card face-up in front of him and then place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); if (a) the offender has a card of the suit led to the defective trick, he must choose such a card to place among his played cards. *He is deemed to have revoked* on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2. (b) the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he chooses any card to place among his played cards. *He is deemed to have revoked* on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 19 13:53:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:53:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <000601c91a49$a6f775e0$f4e661a0$@com> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> <06b001c919b9$0b76d0b0$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D37F90.2090307@ulb.ac.be> <000601c91a49$a6f775e0$f4e661a0$@com> Message-ID: <48D392D2.60806@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director should proceed as follows. > > 1. When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the Director shall require him forthwith to expose a card face-up in front of him and then place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); if > > AG : I'd say this doesn't apply. The defender has played a card to this trick. The whole L67 applies to tricks where somebody hasn't played his card, which brings us back to the notion of played card. Alas, L44 doesn't explicitly tell us that the card one plays shall be one of those we were originally dealt. So, IMNSHO, the case has indeed been forgotten by the laws. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Sep 19 15:23:39 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:23:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sep 19, 2008, at 1:12 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills asserted: > >>> The final sentence of Law 13F states: "If such a card is >>> found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted >>> score may be awarded." >>> >>> The final sentence of Law 13F does not state: "If such a >>> card is found to have been played to a quitted trick Law 67 >>> applies." > > Robert Frick refuted: > >> Is there any inconsistency? The extra card is removed by Law >> 13F. In this case, it creates a defective trick. By L67, a >> card is placed into the defective trick and it is treated as >> a revoke. L64C then directs the director to assign an >> adjusted score if regular penalty for a revoke (1 trick in >> this case) is inadequate rectification. So you have, after >> skipping merrily through the lawbook, that the director >> might award an adjusted score when the extra card has >> already been played. Do you want to quibble over "may" >> versus "might"? > > Richard Hills concedes: > > Okay, for the second time in half-an-hour, I am willing to be > convinced by rational argument that one of my interpretations > of Law is incorrect. My initial response was along the same lines as Richard's, so ditto. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 19 16:07:15 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:07:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be><06b001c919b9$0b76d0b0$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D37F90.2090307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <45E4FF0CE96549228CB235FE6E3062E4@stefanie> AG: > L67 speaks of when a player has too many or too few cards, because he > played too few or too many cards from his due original share, a case > that's quite different. So my feeling is that it isn't relevant here. Yes, quite. The player's "original due share" was 13 cards. The interloper was never part of the deal. Is it much different from the joker somehow having appeared in the player's slot, and his having played it to a trick? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 19 16:18:52 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:18:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> <06b001c919b9$0b76d0b0$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D37F90.2090307@ulb.ac.be><000601c91a49$a6f775e0$f4e661a0$@com> <48D392D2.60806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <797D3D17B03644B78072B71D955F3E3B@stefanie> AG : I'd say this doesn't apply. The defender has played a card to this trick. The whole L67 applies to tricks where somebody hasn't played his card, which brings us back to the notion of played card. Alas, L44 doesn't explicitly tell us that the card one plays shall be one of those we were originally dealt. SR: Well, would it be different if a player took a card from her handbag and played it to a trick? I think that Law 1 is explicit about which cards should be played to a trick. AG: So, IMNSHO, the case has indeed been forgotten by the laws. SR: It has not, but I do not think you will listen. Why let facts get in the way of a good opinion? Stefanie Rohan London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 19 16:18:58 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:18:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> Message-ID: I bid 4NT. My partner explains this as Blackwood. I meant it for the minors, but partner is right, our system defines it as Blackwood. Now the opponents ask me to explain his 5D bid. What do I say? This is, believe it or not, a genuine question. But I think it relates to the previous discussion, where "for the minors" was the correct partnership understanding. Many blmlers argued that that 5D should be explained as a preference for the minors, even though I knew from partner's explanation that he meant it as a Blackwood response. One argument for this was that I could not use partner's unexpected explanation of my bid (UI) to explain partner's bid. If so, in this new situation I have to describe his bid as showing preference to diamonds. Another argument was that somewhere in laws 20, 40, and 75 was the rule that I had to explain the auction with the bids meaning what they should mean given our correct partnership understanding. This leads to the opposite answer, I describe his bid as a Blackwood response. And I am guessing you are in trouble now if you wanted to use both of those reasons. Meanwhile, I am not as happy with my "avoid UI" approach. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 19 16:27:33 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:27:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <45E4FF0CE96549228CB235FE6E3062E4@stefanie> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be><06b001c919b9$0b76d0b0$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D37F90.2090307@ulb.ac.be> <45E4FF0CE96549228CB235FE6E3062E4@stefanie> Message-ID: <000001c91a63$dc16dc60$94449520$@com> [SR] The player's "original due share" was 13 cards. The interloper was never part of the deal. [DALB] This is not actually clear to me. If the extra S6 was actually "dealt" to the East player (perhaps due to an error in the process of duplicating boards), it is possible that the deal should simply be treated as a fouled board at this table (with a PP to East for failure to count his cards prior to play). This is because the deal was not in accordance with Law 3, which stipulates that each player's hand should contain 13 cards and that any illegally dealt board is fouled. If on the other hand the S6 has been introduced into the East hand subsequent to the deal (perhaps due to an error at the previous table), then it is possible that the procedure we have been describing should be followed (removal of S6 creates a defective trick, and Laws 67 and 64 are applied in turn). In order to give the correct ruling, then, the Director must ascertain (if he can) how the extra card came to be in the player's hand. David Burn London, Enlgand From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Sep 19 18:18:23 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:18:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lone Wolff book Message-ID: <48D3D0CF.3050104@aol.com> Ahoy blmlers! In don't have Wolff's book at hand at the moment so am relying on my memory, which may not be any more accurate than Wolff's apparently is. May I suggest that there are a number of inaccuracies or more or less specious comments in the book. As I recall he writes that Babsch-Mannhardt (possibly misspelled) won the EM (or WM?) in 1970 by playing 70% I think a check of the records will show that their percentage was closer to 59%. But he credits their triumph, as I recall, to an illegal method or device that he doesn't name or describe. He says it was used by a neighbouring country (unnamed) against the Austrians and they adopted it, pledging however not to use it against each other. His source for this info is a player who is unnamed. Apparently this method (whatever it was) was so effective that it promised victory to anyone using it and was impossible to detect. (At least it doesn't seem to have been detected.) He doesn't say why it has, apparently not been used since then. That is my recollection but anyone can check it. If my memory is accurate the whole thing is ridiculous, malicious, insulting and hardly credible. That is only an example. I don't doubt that much of the book is accurate but there ought to be a bit more precision and detail when making accusations. Claims should be documented. Ciao, JE From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 19 19:43:15 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:43:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D3E4B3.5000805@skynet.be> Robert, you have no problem whatsoever. If Blackwood is the correct systemic meaning, then 5Di shows 1 ace both in partner's version AND in the real system. So both the dWS and the MS will demand that you answer simply "1 ace". And both schools will also demand that you pass on what you should interpret as diamond preference. This is not a problem. The real problem arises when you don't know which of the two systems is the true one. It might even be on your SC, but we're not yet in the clarification period so you'll have to make a choice. Robert Frick wrote: > I bid 4NT. My partner explains this as Blackwood. I meant it for the > minors, but partner is right, our system defines it as Blackwood. > > Now the opponents ask me to explain his 5D bid. What do I say? > > This is, believe it or not, a genuine question. But I think it relates to > the previous discussion, where "for the minors" was the correct > partnership understanding. Many blmlers argued that that 5D should be > explained as a preference for the minors, even though I knew from > partner's explanation that he meant it as a Blackwood response. One > argument for this was that I could not use partner's unexpected > explanation of my bid (UI) to explain partner's bid. If so, in this new > situation I have to describe his bid as showing preference to diamonds. > > Another argument was that somewhere in laws 20, 40, and 75 was the rule > that I had to explain the auction with the bids meaning what they should > mean given our correct partnership understanding. This leads to the > opposite answer, I describe his bid as a Blackwood response. > > And I am guessing you are in trouble now if you wanted to use both of > those reasons. Meanwhile, I am not as happy with my "avoid UI" approach. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 20 00:04:37 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:04:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> [RF] I bid 4NT. My partner explains this as Blackwood. I meant it for the minors, but partner is right, our system defines it as Blackwood. Now the opponents ask me to explain his 5D bid. What do I say? [snip] Meanwhile, I am not as happy with my "avoid UI" approach. [DALB] Nor should you be. Your duty is to give correct information about your methods to the opponents. If this involves giving unauthorized information to partner - well, so be it. Partner is not supposed in Law to receive this information, nor (which is the same thing) to act on it if he does receive it. That is, as we in the MS and the WBF have said many times, an explanation to the opponents is not deemed an indication [to partner or to anyone else] that a mistake has been made. I am aware that Herman is still struggling with this notion, but I cannot help that. Meanwhile, of course, partner's explanation is UI to you (even though it is the correct explanation of your methods). You must continue to act as though partner's 5D was a response to 4NT for the minors, not 4NT Blackwood. I am aware that this requires a degree of schizophrenia on your part, but the only remedy I can suggest for this is to learn your system before the next session. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 20 00:33:57 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:33:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <000001c91a63$dc16dc60$94449520$@com> References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN><000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com> <48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be><06b001c919b9$0b76d0b0$e55c9951@stefanie> <48D37F90.2090307@ulb.ac.be> <45E4FF0CE96549228CB235FE6E3062E4@stefanie> <000001c91a63$dc16dc60$94449520$@com> Message-ID: <000101c91aa7$cea3c630$6beb5290$@com> [DALB] This is because the deal was not in accordance with Law 3 [DALB again] Sorry. This should have read "Law 6". David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Sat Sep 20 01:54:29 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:54:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com><48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> <000501c91a3e$e9b975f0$bd2c61d0$@com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Law Book should be complete > [EL] > > I see no reason at all why it would be desirable to conflate the rules on > wrong number of cards and the rules on revokes. > > [DALB] > > If you play to a trick a card that ought not to be in your hand, then ipso > facto you fail to play a legal card to a trick. That is a revoke, just as > it > is a revoke if you fail to play any card at all to a trick. I'm clear on this. What do we do if both S 6's are in hands that hold 13 cards.? There is no reason to suppose that one or the other is prima inter pares. We can only suppose that the extraneaous 6 is the one in the 14 card hand. This is NO basis for assuming that it IS the extraneous card. I'll stick with my 60/40. or some other number if 2S was going to score better than that, since NS are by 27 to 26 the non offending side. Maybe I'll chase down the line and see if we are missing a S6 and I may then come round to awarding an adjusted score. But I ain't applying the revoke Law, definitiely not. 13F is clear on this, it does NOT say Apply L64 if the card's been played. Mike's wrong, I'll bet him a double whisky on that. John > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Sep 20 02:13:40 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:13:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com><48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> <000501c91a3e$e9b975f0$bd2c61d0$@com> Message-ID: <48D44034.3090500@t-online.de> John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > > I'm clear on this. What do we do if both S 6's are in hands that hold 13 > cards.? There is no reason to suppose that one or the other is prima inter > pares. We can only suppose that the extraneaous 6 is the one in the 14 card > hand. This is NO basis for assuming that it IS the extraneous card. I'll > stick with my 60/40. or some other number if 2S was going to score better > than that, since NS are by 27 to 26 the non offending side. Maybe I'll chase > down the line and see if we are missing a S6 and I may then come round to > awarding an adjusted score. But I ain't applying the revoke Law, definitiely > not. 13F is clear on this, it does NOT say Apply L64 if the card's been > played. Mike's wrong, I'll bet him a double whisky on that. John > I am not sure, either way. I have been taught (quite some time ago) that (on this deal) someone holds an additional rectangular piece of cardboard that resembles S6, but is, in fact, not a card at all, for the purposes of the deal being currently played. If we were to subscribe to that notion, "offender" would not have played a card to the trick in question, which leads us to L67 and revoke penalties. On the other hand there is no mention of L67 in L13, which leaves room for doubt. At the moment I tend to give an adjusted score plus a penalty (if the guy with 14 cards did not count), but could be convinced to go the revoke route. The strongest argument against a revoke (so far) has been that L13 looks to be more specific than L67, so should be used. Best regards Matthias From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 20 02:14:20 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:14:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com><48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be><000501c91a3e$e9b975f0$bd2c61d0$@com> Message-ID: Probst > We can only suppose that the extraneaous 6 is the one in the 14 card > hand. This is NO basis for assuming that it IS the extraneous card. This fact was given by the OP. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Sep 20 02:22:47 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:22:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D27267.60000@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> <48D2B067.7000602@skynet.be> <48D25CAB.2090802@t-online.de> <48D27267.60000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D44257.5090801@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Very well Matthias, but none of what you write tells us why this > solution to the dilemma is to be preferred to the other solution. > After all, you can say exactly the same thing about the laws on > disclosure - you have to disclose correctly, but if you fail to do so > involuntary, you will be less harshly punished than if you do so because > you did not know, or because you were following a different law. After > all, generation of MI is no infraction - damaging opponents is. Hello? Did you look at L40 lately? Of course generation of MI is an infraction. It has always been an infraction, and I hope it will continue to do so. Why would we adjust a score in MI cases if it were no infraction? I have been taught that there has to be an infraction before an adjustment is considered. How are we supposed to play this game if the MI may be given freely? > > I'm just trying to make you see that with this argument alone, you > cannot prove that the dWS is illegal - all you are doing is proving that > the MS is legal, something which I have never contested. Come again? Didn't we all read lots and lots of mails from you to the tune of "MS infracts L20F5 (by "indicating in any manner), so it is illegal"? Did I miss something here? Best regards Matthias > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 20 03:28:28 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:28:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com><48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be> <000501c91a3e$e9b975f0$bd2c61d0$@com> Message-ID: <000401c91ac0$2fa31630$8ee94290$@com> [JP] What do we do if both S 6's are in hands that hold 13 cards.? [DALB] Whereas the Pigeonhole Principle is surprisingly difficult to prove, it has nevertheless been proven. Even if it had not, its applicability to a particular case is well within the purview of a Director as competent as Mike Amos, who assures us that East and not West held an instance of the six of spades that had not been envisaged by the compilers of the hand records. [JP] Mike's wrong, I'll bet him a double whisky on that. [DALB] Can I have quadruple or quits? Mike, as diligent a Director as you could find in a day's march (or even a year's), tells us explicitly which of the sixes of spades was a "surplus card [Law 13F]". I believe him. Why don't you? The legal issues resulting from the existence of that spurious S6 in the East hand are complex. For myself, I would be inclined to say that the result on the hand should be annulled (because bridge is not played with a deck of 53 cards). But the authorities have made rules in respect of superfluous cards, and those rules should be both respected and carefully interpreted. If the deal is not to be annulled, North-South score plus 200 (they would have made two overtricks following some line that Probst understood but Pran did not, and they get an extra trick for the revoke). But if the deal is not to be annulled, I really do not care what happens. David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Sep 20 11:01:49 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:01:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D44257.5090801@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D221FE.4090704@t-online.de> <48D2B067.7000602@skynet.be> <48D25CAB.2090802@t-online.de> <48D27267.60000@skynet.be> <48D44257.5090801@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D4BBFD.4040500@skynet.be> But Matthias, don't you see that you are merely replying in the same way aas I did? Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Very well Matthias, but none of what you write tells us why this >> solution to the dilemma is to be preferred to the other solution. >> After all, you can say exactly the same thing about the laws on >> disclosure - you have to disclose correctly, but if you fail to do so >> involuntary, you will be less harshly punished than if you do so because >> you did not know, or because you were following a different law. After >> all, generation of MI is no infraction - damaging opponents is. > > Hello? Did you look at L40 lately? Of course generation of MI is an > infraction. It has always been an infraction, and I hope it will > continue to do so. Why would we adjust a score in MI cases if it were no > infraction? I have been taught that there has to be an infraction before > an adjustment is considered. > How are we supposed to play this game if the MI may be given freely? > Hello? Did you look at L20 lately? Of course generation of UI is an infraction. It has always been an infraction, and I hope it will continue to be so. ... Of course generation of MI is an infraction, I know that quite well. But I was simply mirroring your previous message, in which you said that creating UI is not an infraction. Well, if you look at it in some way, creating MI is not an infraction either - we do it all the time, and we simply have the TD put right any resulting damage. This game lives by its infractions, and we have even changed the words to imply that they are to be tolerated and rectified. Especially in cases like this, it is impossible for a player to get away without any infraction. So you must allow him to chose to follow one law while breaking the other. All the arguments you have made in the past few messages in this thread have been along one of two lines: - insisting that dWS causes infractions to be made (I know that and it doesn't matter) - trying to prove that MS does not cause infractions (in which you have failed) The conclusion of this sub-thread ought to be that if MS is acceptable (and I agree that it is) then it is only so because we tolerate one infraction because of wishing to follow another law. That system must be mirrorable (new word!) and should mean that dWS is also acceptable. Which says nothing about desirability. >> I'm just trying to make you see that with this argument alone, you >> cannot prove that the dWS is illegal - all you are doing is proving that >> the MS is legal, something which I have never contested. > > Come again? Didn't we all read lots and lots of mails from you to the > tune of "MS infracts L20F5 (by "indicating in any manner), so it is > illegal"? Did I miss something here? > > Best regards > Matthias > >> Herman. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sep 20 11:02:58 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:02:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> Message-ID: <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> David, you are not answering the question. David Burn wrote: > [RF] > > I bid 4NT. My partner explains this as Blackwood. I meant it for the minors, > but partner is right, our system defines it as Blackwood. > > Now the opponents ask me to explain his 5D bid. What do I say? > What do you say? Herman. From henk at ripe.net Sat Sep 20 13:18:23 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:18:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Lone Wolff book In-Reply-To: <48D3D0CF.3050104@aol.com> References: <48D3D0CF.3050104@aol.com> Message-ID: <48D4DBFF.2060904@ripe.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > That is only an example. I don't doubt that much of the book is > accurate but there ought to be a bit more precision and detail when > making accusations. Claims should be documented. Ciao, JE This book wasn't written to show facts, it was written to show Mr. Wolff's opinion. The latter can be summarized with "I said this, so it must be right". Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 20 18:26:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:26:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> HdW >> I bid 4NT. My partner explains this as Blackwood. I meant it for the >> minors, >> but partner is right, our system defines it as Blackwood. >> >> Now the opponents ask me to explain his 5D bid. What do I say? >> > > What do you say? This one is extremely easy. Why did you bid 4NT for the minors if 4NT is Blackwood? Was it an error? How did you discover your error? Are you authorised to discover it this way? Why do you ask the same questions over and over? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 20 22:06:24 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:06:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie><668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net><000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: EL: >>> If we are to adopt dWS principles in a >>> consistent and sensible way, I believe we're going to need to rewrite >>> all of the laws that touch on disclosure, and much of the laws that >>> touch on UI. SR: Probably, yes. And making the creation of UI an offense will be >> difficult, >> because a player does create a BIT because he has to think. EW: > I don't see the connection between a dWS-like approach to disclosure > and making the creation of UI an offense; I'm a bit curious where > Stefanie is going with this. Well, I might not be on the right track here; the issue confuses me a bit. It raises some impossible, it seems to me, questions. Let's say that disclosure rules are changed, so that what you must reveal is not your actual system as you think it is, but what is going on in your partner's mind. Now disclosing your actual system instead must be illegal -- it can't be possible to have two equally "acceptable" protocols, a player being permitted to choose whichever one is more beneficial to his partnership at a particular time (this is, of course, the situation Herman says we have now, although I am certain he gave in on this particular issue months ago. Anyway.) So. You must disclose what partner thinks your bid means. But it seems difficult to require you to know anything except for the system you are playing. Here are some of the problems that ensue... Let us suppose that Hal knows the system thoroughly. This is not necessary, but makes for an easier discussion at this time. Hal is playing with Dave. Let us use the term AS for "alert status" -- meaning whether a call is alertable, announcable, or neither. Hal makes a call and Dave either alerts or doesn't; whichever one Hal is not expecting. After Dave makes a call, Hal is asked what it means. How is Hal supposed to know? Perhaps he doesn't know what meaning his own bid would have been if it had a different AS than the one he thought, or perhaps he knows several meanings. Perhaps, thinks he, Dave knows the system, but simply got the AS wrong. But he will have provided MI (and, incidentally, UI), if he doesn't read Dave's mind successfully. Suppose Dave offers an explanation to Hal's call. "Trump asking". This is not in the agreed system, and Hal has no idea what it means. When he is now asked about Dave's bid, what should he say? "Answer to trump asking?" Here, unlike the above, he cannot fall back on an explanation based on the agreed system, because this time he KNOWS that Dave has got it wrong. Should he refuse to answer the question? Now suppose Dave thinks that Hal's bid is something else entirely from the agreed system, but it is a bid with the same AS. Now Hal has no reason to expect that Dave has deviated from the system, but will still be found guilty of giving MI (and, incidentally, UI), if he doesn't describe the system that is in Dave's head. This is one of the practical reasons that the dWS is impossible. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 21 09:51:40 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:51:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HdW > >>> I bid 4NT. My partner explains this as Blackwood. I meant it for the >>> minors, >>> but partner is right, our system defines it as Blackwood. >>> >>> Now the opponents ask me to explain his 5D bid. What do I say? >>> >> What do you say? > > This one is extremely easy. Why did you bid 4NT for the minors if 4NT is > Blackwood? Was it an error? How did you discover your error? Are you > authorised to discover it this way? Why do you ask the same questions over > and over? > Stephanie, you have completely misunderstood. You are sitting at a table. You have just bid 4NT with minors. Your partner explains it as Blackwood, and you realize he is right. Your partner bids 5Di and your opponent asks what it means. What do you say? And if I ask the same question over and over, it's because you don't answer it! > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 21 09:55:45 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:55:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS In-Reply-To: References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie><668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net><000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <48D5FE01.8010902@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Let's say that disclosure rules are changed, so that what you must reveal is > not your actual system as you think it is, but what is going on in your > partner's mind. Stephanie, for once and for all, that is NOT what I want. The disclosure rules must remain as they are, the opponents are entitled to the correct system. Only when stating that correct system, the dWS tells you to explain your partner's mindset instead, but I have never said that this would be a correct explanation! > Now disclosing your actual system instead must be illegal -- > it can't be possible to have two equally "acceptable" protocols, a player > being permitted to choose whichever one is more beneficial to his > partnership at a particular time (this is, of course, the situation Herman > says we have now, although I am certain he gave in on this particular issue > months ago. Anyway.) > > So. You must disclose what partner thinks your bid means. But it seems > difficult to require you to know anything except for the system you are > playing. Here are some of the problems that ensue... > I understand where you're going, but in most cases you DO know the answer. After all, partner is not going to pick a system out of the blue. Anyway, there is no use discussing hypotheticals as long as we haven't settled the simple case. > Let us suppose that Hal knows the system thoroughly. This is not necessary, > but makes for an easier discussion at this time. Hal is playing with Dave. > Let us use the term AS for "alert status" -- meaning whether a call is > alertable, announcable, or neither. > > Hal makes a call and Dave either alerts or doesn't; whichever one Hal is not > expecting. After Dave makes a call, Hal is asked what it means. > > How is Hal supposed to know? Perhaps he doesn't know what meaning his own > bid would have been if it had a different AS than the one he thought, or > perhaps he knows several meanings. Perhaps, thinks he, Dave knows the > system, but simply got the AS wrong. But he will have provided MI (and, > incidentally, UI), if he doesn't read Dave's mind successfully. > > Suppose Dave offers an explanation to Hal's call. "Trump asking". This is > not in the agreed system, and Hal has no idea what it means. When he is now > asked about Dave's bid, what should he say? "Answer to trump asking?" Here, > unlike the above, he cannot fall back on an explanation based on the agreed > system, because this time he KNOWS that Dave has got it wrong. Should he > refuse to answer the question? > > Now suppose Dave thinks that Hal's bid is something else entirely from the > agreed system, but it is a bid with the same AS. Now Hal has no reason to > expect that Dave has deviated from the system, but will still be found > guilty of giving MI (and, incidentally, UI), if he doesn't describe the > system that is in Dave's head. > > This is one of the practical reasons that the dWS is impossible. > I can assure you that I have thought these things through and it does not make the dWS impossible. And the same applies to the MS, anyway. What do you explain if you have no idea what your system is? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > Herman. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 21 10:38:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:38:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .................. > You are sitting at a table. > You have just bid 4NT with minors. > Your partner explains it as Blackwood, and you realize he is right. > Your partner bids 5Di and your opponent asks what it means. > What do you say? > > And if I ask the same question over and over, it's because you don't > answer it! Rather against my better wisdom I shall for once enter this thread and give the (only) answer that complies with the laws both literally and as they apparently are intended: You answer that it is preference for Diamonds. Then when the auction is completed (with three passes in a row) if you become declarer or dummy you immediately call the director and explain that your explanation of the 5Di bid was wrong. Your knowledge that you made a misbid with your 4NT bid is the result of UI received from your partner. Therefore you are not allowed to make any use of this knowledge during the auction. Sven From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Sun Sep 21 12:05:04 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:05:04 +1200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D3E4B3.5000805@skynet.be> Message-ID: If it is on one's system card, can you not simply suggest to the opponents to refer to your system card? This surely takes the guess work and potential MI from you "Guessing" which is the real systematic agreement. Martin Oyston ============= Robert, you have no problem whatsoever. If Blackwood is the correct systemic meaning, then 5Di shows 1 ace both in partner's version AND in the real system. So both the dWS and the MS will demand that you answer simply "1 ace". And both schools will also demand that you pass on what you should interpret as diamond preference. This is not a problem. The real problem arises when you don't know which of the two systems is the true one. It might even be on your SC, but we're not yet in the clarification period so you'll have to make a choice. Robert Frick wrote: > I bid 4NT. My partner explains this as Blackwood. I meant it for the > minors, but partner is right, our system defines it as Blackwood. > > Now the opponents ask me to explain his 5D bid. What do I say? > > This is, believe it or not, a genuine question. But I think it relates to > the previous discussion, where "for the minors" was the correct > partnership understanding. Many blmlers argued that that 5D should be > explained as a preference for the minors, even though I knew from > partner's explanation that he meant it as a Blackwood response. One > argument for this was that I could not use partner's unexpected > explanation of my bid (UI) to explain partner's bid. If so, in this new > situation I have to describe his bid as showing preference to diamonds. > > Another argument was that somewhere in laws 20, 40, and 75 was the rule > that I had to explain the auction with the bids meaning what they should > mean given our correct partnership understanding. This leads to the > opposite answer, I describe his bid as a Blackwood response. > > And I am guessing you are in trouble now if you wanted to use both of > those reasons. Meanwhile, I am not as happy with my "avoid UI" approach. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Sep 21 12:07:06 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:07:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> Message-ID: <48D61CCA.4070001@skynet.be> Sven, you are deluded. Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .................. >> You are sitting at a table. >> You have just bid 4NT with minors. >> Your partner explains it as Blackwood, and you realize he is right. >> Your partner bids 5Di and your opponent asks what it means. >> What do you say? >> >> And if I ask the same question over and over, it's because you don't >> answer it! > > Rather against my better wisdom I shall for once enter this thread and give > the (only) answer that complies with the laws both literally and as they > apparently are intended: > > You answer that it is preference for Diamonds. > It is this crazyness that I had not yet expected that makes me even more convinced that something needs to be done. > Then when the auction is completed (with three passes in a row) You think it will get there? You're even more than deluded, you're fast asleep. What is 4NT? Blackwood? How many aces does 5di show? Diamond preference. You think you get the time to pass even for a first time? DIRECTOR! > if you > become declarer or dummy you immediately call the director and explain that > your explanation of the 5Di bid was wrong. > > Your knowledge that you made a misbid with your 4NT bid is the result of UI > received from your partner. Therefore you are not allowed to make any use of > this knowledge during the auction. > Read Law 16 again. Where does it say that in answering questions about your system you are required to disregard UI? Nowhere. So, while you know that 5Di shows 1 ace, you deliberately answer "diamond preference". You are LYING to your opponents. Permit me to be as strong as you are about me. This is too crazy for words. People who insist on telling the truth when something is not true are now insisting on lying when the truth is true. And if you don't understand that sentence, you have not yet understood the basic problem here. > Sven > Herman. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 21 12:56:33 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:56:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D61CCA.4070001@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> <48D61CCA.4070001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c91bd8$b5d8cce0$218a66a0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > You answer that it is preference for Diamonds. > > > > It is this crazyness that I had not yet expected that makes me even more > convinced that something needs to be done. > > > Then when the auction is completed (with three passes in a row) > > You think it will get there? You're even more than deluded, you're fast > asleep. > > What is 4NT? Blackwood? > How many aces does 5di show? Diamond preference. > You think you get the time to pass even for a first time? > DIRECTOR! Of course I shall expect that, but I may not take this initiative at this time. Once the Director is at the table everything is cleared up according to laws. Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 21 14:26:52 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:26:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48D63D8C.5090106@skynet.be> Martin Oyston wrote: > If it is on one's system card, can you not simply suggest to the opponents > to refer to your system card? > This surely takes the guess work and potential MI from you "Guessing" which > is the real systematic agreement. > True, but that too reveals to the opponents that there is the possibility of a mistake. Which, IMO, is "indicating in any manner that a mistake has taken place". And since you do know what system partner is playing (he just told you) the consistent answer can be given, clearly, and with no indication whatsoever. Herman. > Martin Oyston > ============= > Robert, you have no problem whatsoever. > If Blackwood is the correct systemic meaning, then 5Di shows 1 ace both > in partner's version AND in the real system. > So both the dWS and the MS will demand that you answer simply "1 ace". > And both schools will also demand that you pass on what you should > interpret as diamond preference. > > This is not a problem. > > The real problem arises when you don't know which of the two systems is > the true one. It might even be on your SC, but we're not yet in the > clarification period so you'll have to make a choice. > > Robert Frick wrote: >> I bid 4NT. My partner explains this as Blackwood. I meant it for the >> minors, but partner is right, our system defines it as Blackwood. >> >> Now the opponents ask me to explain his 5D bid. What do I say? >> >> This is, believe it or not, a genuine question. But I think it relates to > >> the previous discussion, where "for the minors" was the correct >> partnership understanding. Many blmlers argued that that 5D should be >> explained as a preference for the minors, even though I knew from >> partner's explanation that he meant it as a Blackwood response. One >> argument for this was that I could not use partner's unexpected >> explanation of my bid (UI) to explain partner's bid. If so, in this new >> situation I have to describe his bid as showing preference to diamonds. >> >> Another argument was that somewhere in laws 20, 40, and 75 was the rule >> that I had to explain the auction with the bids meaning what they should >> mean given our correct partnership understanding. This leads to the >> opposite answer, I describe his bid as a Blackwood response. >> >> And I am guessing you are in trouble now if you wanted to use both of >> those reasons. Meanwhile, I am not as happy with my "avoid UI" approach. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sun Sep 21 14:31:08 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:31:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000501c91bd8$b5d8cce0$218a66a0$@no> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> <48D61CCA.4070001@skynet.be> <000501c91bd8$b5d8cce0$218a66a0$@no> Message-ID: <48D63E8C.6010801@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >>> You answer that it is preference for Diamonds. >>> >> It is this crazyness that I had not yet expected that makes me even more >> convinced that something needs to be done. >> >>> Then when the auction is completed (with three passes in a row) >> You think it will get there? You're even more than deluded, you're fast >> asleep. >> >> What is 4NT? Blackwood? >> How many aces does 5di show? Diamond preference. >> You think you get the time to pass even for a first time? >> DIRECTOR! > > Of course I shall expect that, but I may not take this initiative at this > time. > > Once the Director is at the table everything is cleared up according to > laws. > Yes, except one: L20F5a. Which you have broken. Not that that matters, go right ahead. But don't say it's not true. In fact Sven, you can do whatever you want, everything will simply translate into "we are having a misunderstanding". Something which L20F5a forbids you from doing. Are you really happy with the situation if they don't ask anything? Or are you also wishing you could get around L20F5a and reveal the misunderstanding. Then you are even more masochistic than I believed. Maybe you would rather have L20F5a turned around? Go ahead and ask the WBF to do that. But then you are asking for a greater law change than I am (in fact I am not asking for a law change, it is only you lot that think the laws don't allow dWS). And then tell me how you are going to solve the problem of a player not wishing to reveal the misunderstanding. > Sven > Herman. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 21 15:41:01 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:41:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D63E8C.6010801@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> <48D61CCA.4070001@skynet.be> <000501c91bd8$b5d8cce0$218a66a0$@no> <48D63E8C.6010801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c91bef$b0106d10$10314730$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > >> What is 4NT? Blackwood? > >> How many aces does 5di show? Diamond preference. > >> You think you get the time to pass even for a first time? > >> DIRECTOR! > > > > Of course I shall expect that, but I may not take this initiative at this > > time. > > > > Once the Director is at the table everything is cleared up according to > > laws. > > > > Yes, except one: L20F5a. Which you have broken. Please explain to me exactly how I have violated L20F5a. I have given precisely the information I am required to give, not less nor more. In this case that information includes my honest description of my partnership understanding as it was until I received UI to the effect that my understanding was wrong. We have as far as I can remember clear statements on behalf of WBFLC that correctly answering questions from opponents is not "indicating" misinformation as prohibited in L20F5a. You are of course aware of the principle that a player who through receiving UI becomes aware of his own mistake on partnership understandings may not alter this (mistaken) understanding during the auction in progress? > Not that that matters, go right ahead. But don't say it's not true. Well, I believe i just said that, and I stand with my statement. > In fact Sven, you can do whatever you want, everything will simply > translate into "we are having a misunderstanding". Something which > L20F5a forbids you from doing. > > Are you really happy with the situation if they don't ask anything? Or > are you also wishing you could get around L20F5a and reveal the > misunderstanding. Then you are even more masochistic than I believed. No I am never happy with situations like this. And if misinformation from my side is not revealed earlier I shall at the proper time be very careful to inform opponents on this misinformation. I shall also rely upon the director to take any appropriate corrective actions. > > Maybe you would rather have L20F5a turned around? Go ahead and ask the > WBF to do that. But then you are asking for a greater law change than I > am (in fact I am not asking for a law change, it is only you lot that > think the laws don't allow dWS). This is simply plain nonsense. > And then tell me how you are going to solve the problem of a player not > wishing to reveal the misunderstanding. If such intentional concealment of understanding is established I shall hit him with the strongest possible disciplinary action. Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 21 18:45:45 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:45:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000701c91bef$b0106d10$10314730$@no> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> <48D61CCA.4070001@skynet.be> <000501c91bd8$b5d8cce0$218a66a0$@no> <48D63E8C.6010801@skynet.be> <000701c91bef$b0106d10$10314730$@no> Message-ID: <48D67A39.3000306@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ........... >>>> What is 4NT? Blackwood? >>>> How many aces does 5di show? Diamond preference. >>>> You think you get the time to pass even for a first time? >>>> DIRECTOR! >>> Of course I shall expect that, but I may not take this initiative at > this >>> time. >>> >>> Once the Director is at the table everything is cleared up according to >>> laws. >>> >> Yes, except one: L20F5a. Which you have broken. > > Please explain to me exactly how I have violated L20F5a. > By "indicating in any manner that a mistake has been made" and by "correcting the error during the auction". > I have given precisely the information I am required to give, not less nor > more. NO: the real system is Blackwood, so 5Di shows 1 ace, not diamond preference. You have not given the information you were required to give. > In this case that information includes my honest description of my > partnership understanding as it was until I received UI to the effect that > my understanding was wrong. > Which is wrong information, just as it would be if partner had not explained "Blackwood", or if you had not heard that. It is MI. And you knew it. > We have as far as I can remember clear statements on behalf of WBFLC that > correctly answering questions from opponents is not "indicating" > misinformation as prohibited in L20F5a. > No, we have Grattan stating it is not an infraction. I interpret that that it is acceptable. If you believe that a sentence which would break this law in the absence of the question does not break it with the question, then you are simply wrong. The breaking may be "acceptable", but you cannot turn something that is red into something that is blakc. > You are of course aware of the principle that a player who through receiving > UI becomes aware of his own mistake on partnership understandings may not > alter this (mistaken) understanding during the auction in progress? > Yes, but that is because L16 tells him not to. L16 tells him not to use the UI to chose a bid or a call. I am surprised that you still, after the 87 times I've told you this, insist that L16 bans more things than only calls and plays. Anyway, just tell me where I go wrong if I say "1 ace". Read me L16 in such a way that you can prove to me that I did something wrong. >> Not that that matters, go right ahead. But don't say it's not true. > > Well, I believe i just said that, and I stand with my statement. > >> In fact Sven, you can do whatever you want, everything will simply >> translate into "we are having a misunderstanding". Something which >> L20F5a forbids you from doing. >> >> Are you really happy with the situation if they don't ask anything? Or >> are you also wishing you could get around L20F5a and reveal the >> misunderstanding. Then you are even more masochistic than I believed. > > No I am never happy with situations like this. And if misinformation from my > side is not revealed earlier I shall at the proper time be very careful to > inform opponents on this misinformation. I shall also rely upon the director > to take any appropriate corrective actions. > But the point here is that you go beyond your duties - there is no law that makes you reveal the misunderstanding (in this case not even the MI laws that you so gladly use in the other case). There is even a law that bans you from revealing the misunderstanding. And there are at least two good reasons not to reveal the misunderstanding. So why would you do it? Masochism! And I am honest: go right ahead - be masochistic! But don't use your masochism as a standard and don't tell me off for not doing the same! >> Maybe you would rather have L20F5a turned around? Go ahead and ask the >> WBF to do that. But then you are asking for a greater law change than I >> am (in fact I am not asking for a law change, it is only you lot that >> think the laws don't allow dWS). > > This is simply plain nonsense. > No it's not. You are advocating that in a case in which there is no reason whatsoever to reveal a misunderstanding, you would do so anyway. >> And then tell me how you are going to solve the problem of a player not >> wishing to reveal the misunderstanding. > > If such intentional concealment of understanding is established I shall hit > him with the strongest possible disciplinary action. > Not intentional concealment of understanding, intentional concealment of MISunderstanding. In this case, the true understandings are correctly given, by me as the player - it is you who conceals the true meaning of 5Di (1 ace). > Sven > Herman. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Sep 21 18:58:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:58:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> Message-ID: HDW: > > you have completely misunderstood. > You are sitting at a table. > You have just bid 4NT with minors. > Your partner explains it as Blackwood, and you realize he is right. > Your partner bids 5Di and your opponent asks what it means. > What do you say? I say "diamond preference". I am not permitted to "realise he is right" due to partner's having woken me up with his explanation. > > And if I ask the same question over and over, it's because you don't > answer it! I have answered this way many times before. And if you have missed those times, well, I have answered it now. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Sep 21 19:57:07 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:57:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> To summarize (and to get this back on track): I bid 4NT for the minors (a misbid, 4NT is systemically Blackwood). Partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, which is the right explanation (or so I believe). Partner bids 5D, showing some number of aces. Opponent asks about 5D. I have to explain this as some number of aces (as this is the correct explanation as per system, if my memory at last serves me correctly, it looks like it did not do so when I selcted my 4NT call), then continue to call as if partner had shown diamond preference, as his explanation is UI to me. Thereafter the TD will have to find out what our system is (MI/misbid issue). Best regards Matthias From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 21 20:47:41 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:47:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D67A39.3000306@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> <48D61CCA.4070001@skynet.be> <000501c91bd8$b5d8cce0$218a66a0$@no> <48D63E8C.6010801@skynet.be> <000701c91bef$b0106d10$10314730$@no> <48D67A39.3000306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c91c1a$871dbbd0$95593370$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > > We have as far as I can remember clear statements on behalf of WBFLC that > > correctly answering questions from opponents is not "indicating" > > misinformation as prohibited in L20F5a. > > > > No, we have Grattan stating it is not an infraction. My experience is that Grattan is extremely careful with his statements and in particular makes it quite clear when they are of his personal opinion rather than representing WBFLC. This is quite understandable given his position with WBFLC. When he stated that an explanation of partnership understanding given as required by Law 20F1 shall not be considered an indication that partner has given incorrect information as forbidden by Law 20F5(a) I took that as an official statement on behalf of WBFLC, and I still do. > I interpret that that it is acceptable. Confirming my understanding above. > If you believe that a sentence which would break this law in the absence > of the question does not break it with the question, then you are simply wrong. No, this is where _you_ reveal your own ignorance of the difference between solicited and unsolicited information. Correctly answering a question is solicited information required by Law 20F1. Giving the information without being asked is unsolicited and forbidden by Law 20F5(a). ............... > > No I am never happy with situations like this. And if misinformation from my > > side is not revealed earlier I shall at the proper time be very careful to > > inform opponents on this misinformation. I shall also rely upon the director > > to take any appropriate corrective actions. > > > > But the point here is that you go beyond your duties - there is no law > that makes you reveal the misunderstanding (in this case not even the MI > laws that you so gladly use in the other case). There is even a law that > bans you from revealing the misunderstanding. And there are at least two > good reasons not to reveal the misunderstanding. So why would you do it? > Masochism! Laws 20F4 and 20F5(b) both use the word "must". > > If such intentional concealment of understanding is established I shall hit > > him with the strongest possible disciplinary action. > > > > Not intentional concealment of understanding, intentional concealment of > MISunderstanding. In this case, the true understandings are correctly > given, by me as the player - it is you who conceals the true meaning of > 5Di (1 ace). The player's own misunderstanding. I am not concealing any information; I reveal it, but at the proper time, and make every allowance for properly assess possible damage, all circumstances taken into account. What you advocate is disgusting, so much more because it is difficult to prove: You bid 4NT believing that it shows both minors. Then you are awakened by your partner that it is standard Blackwood. When you now describe his answer as Ace-showing you use this UI to conceal your mistake. Technically this is like claiming misbid (which is legal) instead of admitting misinformation (which can give cause for redress to opponents). The information that your call showed both minors and was not interested in Aces is now concealed from them, information to which they are fully entitled so long as you yourself believed that to be your understanding. You will hopefully see the legal situation better by considering how it would have developed using screens. Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 21 20:56:26 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:56:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000201c91c1b$c2b11650$481342f0$@no> On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus > To summarize (and to get this back on track): > > I bid 4NT for the minors (a misbid, 4NT is systemically Blackwood). > Partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, which is the right explanation (or so > I believe). > Partner bids 5D, showing some number of aces. > Opponent asks about 5D. > I have to explain this as some number of aces (as this is the correct > explanation as per system, if my memory at last serves me correctly, it > looks like it did not do so when I selcted my 4NT call), then continue > to call as if partner had shown diamond preference, as his explanation > is UI to me. Thereafter the TD will have to find out what our system is > (MI/misbid issue). It is easier to see what you should do if you consider the situation as with screens in use for the duration of the auction. In that case you would not know how your partner explained your 4NT bid and you would explain his 5Di as preferring diamonds (and continue your auction based upon this assumption). You should do the same now, but unless opponents react upon the obvious discrepancy in your and your partner's calls and explanations and call the director you MUST yourself call the director at the proper time. Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 21 21:04:40 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:04:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D69AC8.9050100@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW: >> you have completely misunderstood. >> You are sitting at a table. >> You have just bid 4NT with minors. >> Your partner explains it as Blackwood, and you realize he is right. >> Your partner bids 5Di and your opponent asks what it means. >> What do you say? > > I say "diamond preference". I am not permitted to "realise he is right" due > to partner's having woken me up with his explanation. YES YOU ARE, Stephanie. You are using shorthand, and you are believing the shorthand rather than the full text. I am not permitted to "realise he is right". NO: L16 tells you you are not permitted to use that information in selecting, from among logical alternatives, a call or play that may be suggested by the UI. But you are not restricted, by L16 or anything else, from hearing the explanation and basing other actions on it. After all, you should remember that L16 actually tells you to take in the UI and act upon it. How else are you going to avoid making the call that was suggested? You need the information in order to determine which call is the one that is suggested, and then you need to check whether there is some other call that might be a logical alternative. Similarly, during the clarification period, you are required by law to correct any misinformation. How can you do so without "using the UI". So Stephanie, please forget this argument. L16 does not restrict you in saying whatever you want to opponents - only your calls (and plays) are restricted. >> And if I ask the same question over and over, it's because you don't >> answer it! > > I have answered this way many times before. And if you have missed those > times, well, I have answered it now. > Well, you certainly had not answered it before. You have now, and it's the same -wrong- answer as Sven. Anyone else wish to confess they belong to the SSS (the Stephanie-Sven-School)? May I remind everyone that the question here is this: you reallize after hearing partner's explanation (Blackwood) that he's right about that, so 5Di is, in your common system as well as in his, indeed 1 ace. By saying "diamond preference" when the true systemic meaning is "1 ace", Stephanie and Sven are actually LYING to opponents. (I don't mind that, as you know - but they jumped to my throat when I did that) > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 21 21:07:04 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:07:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > To summarize (and to get this back on track): > > I bid 4NT for the minors (a misbid, 4NT is systemically Blackwood). > Partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, which is the right explanation (or so > I believe). > Partner bids 5D, showing some number of aces. > Opponent asks about 5D. > I have to explain this as some number of aces (as this is the correct > explanation as per system, if my memory at last serves me correctly, it > looks like it did not do so when I selcted my 4NT call), then continue > to call as if partner had shown diamond preference, as his explanation > is UI to me. Thereafter the TD will have to find out what our system is > (MI/misbid issue). > This is the answer I was expecting - I had not dared to realize there was any other answer possible. Please note that the answer is directly opposite from that by Stephanie and Sven, meaning we now clearly have three schools, the dWS, the SSS (Stephanie-Sven-school) and the MS (no Matthias, not yet the Matthias-school) Anyone care to join either of these two new schools - or to tell either Sven and Stephanie or Matthias who has it wrong? > > Best regards > Matthias > Herman. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 21:33:36 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:33:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> In all cases that I know of, both dWS and most MS (I had thought it would be all until Sven and Stephanie chimed in) agree that giving less MI and less UI is best if you can do both simultaneously. But that thinking is just a rule of thumb. Anyway, I believe that almost the whole world, including the WBFLC, agree with Herman and Matthias on this one issue: If you subsequently discover in any way, including hearing your partner's explanations, what your partnership understandings are though you had it wrong at first, then you should henceforth correctly explain your agreements, and even call the director to explain you earlier alert-explanation error if there was one, but you should still bid according to your original misunderstanding. (There is a theoretical chance that later AI may inarguably clarify the situation for you and let you off the hook, but it better be crystal clear.) Jerry Fusselman From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 21 21:56:13 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:56:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000101c91c1a$871dbbd0$95593370$@no> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> <48D61CCA.4070001@skynet.be> <000501c91bd8$b5d8cce0$218a66a0$@no> <48D63E8C.6010801@skynet.be> <000701c91bef$b0106d10$10314730$@no> <48D67A39.3000306@skynet.be> <000101c91c1a$871dbbd0$95593370$@no> Message-ID: <48D6A6DD.8000505@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > >> If you believe that a sentence which would break this law in the absence >> of the question does not break it with the question, then you are simply > wrong. > > No, this is where _you_ reveal your own ignorance of the difference between > solicited and unsolicited information. Correctly answering a question is > solicited information required by Law 20F1. Giving the information without > being asked is unsolicited and forbidden by Law 20F5(a). > Oh Sven, I do understand the difference. But L20F5a talks of no exceptions. It even adds "in any manner". So while I agree that there might be a difference in the treatment following the breaking of L20F5a - different treatment as to whether the information was solicited or not, the fact than L20F5a is broken remains a fact. After all, L20F5a does not speak of any punishment for the infraction. So it is very clearly up to the director to choose what punishment there shall be, and it is clear to me and everyone that someone who speaks out of turn must be harshly treated, while someone who (mistakenly IMO) believes it is OK to break L20F5a when a question is asked needs not to be punished at all. Now you may say that it is not important whether an action that carries no penalty be called an infraction or not, and I would agree with you. Until the time when you start saying that since breaking L20F5a is not an infraction, it becomes wrong to follow it in order to avoid taking another infraction. Then I stand up and ask that your actions be counted as infractions. > ............... > >>> No I am never happy with situations like this. And if misinformation > from my >>> side is not revealed earlier I shall at the proper time be very careful > to >>> inform opponents on this misinformation. I shall also rely upon the > director >>> to take any appropriate corrective actions. >>> >> But the point here is that you go beyond your duties - there is no law >> that makes you reveal the misunderstanding (in this case not even the MI >> laws that you so gladly use in the other case). There is even a law that >> bans you from revealing the misunderstanding. And there are at least two >> good reasons not to reveal the misunderstanding. So why would you do it? >> Masochism! > > Laws 20F4 and 20F5(b) both use the word "must". > With L20F4 you have a small point. L20F5(b) talks about actions later on in time - I have always said the dWS must call the TD during the clarification period. >>> If such intentional concealment of understanding is established I shall > hit >>> him with the strongest possible disciplinary action. >>> >> Not intentional concealment of understanding, intentional concealment of >> MISunderstanding. In this case, the true understandings are correctly >> given, by me as the player - it is you who conceals the true meaning of >> 5Di (1 ace). > > The player's own misunderstanding. > Well no, both players'. > I am not concealing any information; I reveal it, but at the proper time, > and make every allowance for properly assess possible damage, all > circumstances taken into account. > Yes, in your first actions you are concealing the true systemic meaning of 5Di. > What you advocate is disgusting, so much more because it is difficult to > prove: You bid 4NT believing that it shows both minors. Then you are > awakened by your partner that it is standard Blackwood. When you now > describe his answer as Ace-showing you use this UI to conceal your mistake. Said 88 times now: using UI is only prohibited when making calls. It will be very clear that I will not be using the UI to change my calls. That is easily checked afterwards. And when I call the TD during the clarification period (or at the end of the hand) he'll have the same task as any TD - seeing what is the true system. There is no hiding and your calling it disgusting means simply that you have not yet, despite 10 years of trying, understood anything. Id on't know why I bother. > Technically this is like claiming misbid (which is legal) instead of > admitting misinformation (which can give cause for redress to opponents). Maybe it is, but then I'm not advocating claiming misbid, am I. I am advocating hiding the misunderstanding for the moment and calling the TD at the correct time. Sven, try and imagine this whole story with and without the question "what is 5Di?". Do you not see that what I do is exactly the same thing as what you'd do without any question? If you call these actions disgusting, then you should do the same when no question is asked. So again, I'll give you a hypothetical: You bid 4NT, holding minors. LHO asks what it is, and partner replies "Blackwood". Partner bids 5Di. RHO takes your system card, looks at the corner with the slam cnventions, notices "RKCB" (or whatever) and nodds. Do you tell him 4NT was not Blackwood after all? Please answer this one. > The information that your call showed both minors and was not interested in > Aces is now concealed from them, information to which they are fully > entitled so long as you yourself believed that to be your understanding. > Yes, they are entitled to it - but they don't get it, not without a secojnd question and a MS supporter in the hotseat. And the laws and WBFLC are happy with that! > You will hopefully see the legal situation better by considering how it > would have developed using screens. > Yes, so would you - consider the situation of your screenmate - he will receive the answers "minors" and "diamond preference"; the other opponent will hear "Blackwood" and "1 ace". Neither will know there has been a misunderstanding. Under dWS, both opponents will get the same information that one guy has behind screens, and they will not know there was a misunderstanding. Only under MS will they know there was a misunderstanding, and then only if they ask the second question, not when they don't. > Sven > Herman. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 21 22:19:55 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:19:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > In all cases that I know of, both dWS and most MS (I had thought it > would be all until Sven and Stephanie chimed in) agree that giving > less MI and less UI is best if you can do both simultaneously. But > that thinking is just a rule of thumb. > > Anyway, I believe that almost the whole world, including the WBFLC, > agree with Herman and Matthias on this one issue: If you subsequently > discover in any way, including hearing your partner's explanations, > what your partnership understandings are though you had it wrong at > first, then you should henceforth correctly explain your agreements, > and even call the director to explain you earlier alert-explanation > error if there was one, but you should still bid according to your > original misunderstanding. (There is a theoretical chance that later > AI may inarguably clarify the situation for you and let you off the > hook, but it better be crystal clear.) Jerry is here opening the door for an interesting possibility: Immediately I hear partner's explanation that my 4NT bid is Blackwood and thus realize that I have made a mistake I must call the Director as specified in Law 20F4. This could make sense, and must indeed be the correct law if we end up with the result that I am not required by Law 16 to disregard UI for any other purpose than selecting my calls and plays. In that case the events must develop something like the following: Me: 4NT LHO to partner: "please explain" Partner to LHO: "Blackwood" Partner: 5Di RHO to me: "please explain" Me: "Director" Director: "How can I help you?" Me: "I just became aware from UI received that I have accidentally made a call conflicting with our partnership understanding and therefore cannot give opponents correct information on this understanding without using the UI". But there is more than this to the question: What do I do if I am sure that partner remembers wrong and that I remember correct? What do I do if I am almost, but not completely sure that I remember correct? In all three alternatives I believe we all agree that I must continue my auction as if I remembered correct, even in the case when I realize I indeed was wrong. The question is really for each alternative what explanation I must give opponents in response to a request for an explanation of the 5Di bid? I hope there is no disagreement that if I am completely sure that my partner is wrong I must answer "diamond preference" and in proper time inform opponents that my partner was wrong? What if I am almost sure that partner is wrong? Do we really want different rules depending on how sure you are about your partnership understandings? Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 21 22:24:48 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:24:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D6A6DD.8000505@skynet.be> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> <48D61CCA.4070001@skynet.be> <000501c91bd8$b5d8cce0$218a66a0$@no> <48D63E8C.6010801@skynet.be> <000701c91bef$b0106d10$10314730$@no> <48D67A39.3000306@skynet.be> <000101c91c1a$871dbbd0$95593370$@no> <48D6A6DD.8000505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c91c28$17f0b3d0$47d21b70$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> If you believe that a sentence which would break this law in the absence > >> of the question does not break it with the question, then you are simply > > wrong. > > > > No, this is where _you_ reveal your own ignorance of the difference between > > solicited and unsolicited information. Correctly answering a question is > > solicited information required by Law 20F1. Giving the information without > > being asked is unsolicited and forbidden by Law 20F5(a). > > > > Oh Sven, I do understand the difference. > But L20F5a talks of no exceptions. It even adds "in any manner". Here we are, circle closed: Although we have a statement on behalf of WBFLC that "in any manner" does NOT include responses required by law to opponents' questions you pull that rabbit from the hat again. Only it isn't a rabbit, it is a mistake. BYE Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 00:41:16 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:41:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> Message-ID: <48D6CD8C.3080505@skynet.be> Hello Sven, you are asking all the right questions. Now try to find the right responses. Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > >> In all cases that I know of, both dWS and most MS (I had thought it >> would be all until Sven and Stephanie chimed in) agree that giving >> less MI and less UI is best if you can do both simultaneously. But >> that thinking is just a rule of thumb. >> >> Anyway, I believe that almost the whole world, including the WBFLC, >> agree with Herman and Matthias on this one issue: If you subsequently >> discover in any way, including hearing your partner's explanations, >> what your partnership understandings are though you had it wrong at >> first, then you should henceforth correctly explain your agreements, >> and even call the director to explain you earlier alert-explanation >> error if there was one, but you should still bid according to your >> original misunderstanding. (There is a theoretical chance that later >> AI may inarguably clarify the situation for you and let you off the >> hook, but it better be crystal clear.) > > Jerry is here opening the door for an interesting possibility: > > Immediately I hear partner's explanation that my 4NT bid is Blackwood and > thus realize that I have made a mistake I must call the Director as > specified in Law 20F4. Ehm, no. L20F4 deals with realizing that you made a mistake in explaining, not in bidding. > This could make sense, and must indeed be the correct > law if we end up with the result that I am not required by Law 16 to > disregard UI for any other purpose than selecting my calls and plays. > OK. You are talking as a possible alternative set of laws. OK. I'll play along with that. > In that case the events must develop something like the following: > Me: 4NT > LHO to partner: "please explain" > Partner to LHO: "Blackwood" > Partner: 5Di > RHO to me: "please explain" > Me: "Director" NO. This is not what you were saying earlier. It is 2 lines higher that you are supposed to call the TD - when you realize you made a mistake. It could be before or after the 5Di bid. After seems better to me. But putting it after the question "please explain" makes room again for the biggest problem the MS must face: that the outcome is different when a question is asked or not. Please get that into your mind! If you are happy with the way the game is played now, with players keeping quiet about their partner's misexplanations, then you must also be happy with dWS principles. If you want to change the way the game is played, then you must make the change both with and without the follow-up questions. > Director: "How can I help you?" > Me: "I just became aware from UI received that I have accidentally made a > call conflicting with our partnership understanding and therefore cannot > give opponents correct information on this understanding without using the > UI". > Now why would you say all that? Isn't it just enough to say "my 4NT was not intended as Blackwood"? Does that not give the TD and the opponents all the information they need? > > But there is more than this to the question: > > What do I do if I am sure that partner remembers wrong and that I remember > correct? > Well, it's up to you - you're making up the rules here! But I fail to see why it should be any different. You seem intent on letting the opponents know about the misunderstanding in almost every situation - including one that it seems impossible to do in. So just say here too "my 4NT was not Blackwood". When you have said that you intended it as Minors, and that he intended it as Blackwood, what else do they want to know? It certainly does not matter any more which of the two systems is the true partnership understanding ... > What do I do if I am almost, but not completely sure that I remember > correct? > Aha, there's the rub. But again, Sven, you have no problem. The SSS is clearly going to tell about the misunderstanding in all three cases. I have no problem either. It's just the poor MS that has a problem here. > In all three alternatives I believe we all agree that I must continue my > auction as if I remembered correct, Of course - at least that one we are unanimous about. > even in the case when I realize I indeed > was wrong. The question is really for each alternative what explanation I > must give opponents in response to a request for an explanation of the 5Di > bid? > Yes, and you should realize that there are only two possibilities: "1 ace", and anything else. Whatever you actually say, the TD is going to get called immediately, and lots of things will be said, but in the end they will know: - that you have a misunderstanding - that you intended 4NT as asking for the minors (well, maybe this will not get cleared up every single time, but there are usually not more than two possible meanings) - that he wanted to show 1 ace with 5Di. So basically you only need to choose between these two options : "1 ace" and "there has been a misunderstanding, but he has 1 ace". > I hope there is no disagreement that if I am completely sure that my partner > is wrong I must answer "diamond preference" and in proper time inform > opponents that my partner was wrong? > Of course there is disagreement about that - that is what the dws is all about. Besides, where do you get that "in proper time" from? The mistake is cleared up at once, and the TD will be called straight away, if for no other reason than that HE will have to abide by L20F4. > What if I am almost sure that partner is wrong? > > Do we really want different rules depending on how sure you are about your > partnership understandings? > And there's the good question - do we want different rules depending on how certain we are? Why not simply answer "1 ace" in all three cases? Does that not solve this problem? And don't tell me that's not in the laws. You have been trying to convince me of that for ages, and you have not succeeded. The game works perfectly fine under dWS, and it solves this problem you just seem to have discovered. I'll grant you the accolade of having discovered it yourself, despite the fact that I've been saying this for 10 years. > Sven > Herman. From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 22 01:56:32 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:56:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com><48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be><000501c91a3e$e9b975f0$bd2c61d0$@com> Message-ID: <5D95D90529934BBD88F65F43A34F95EF@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Law Book should be complete > Probst > >> We can only suppose that the extraneaous 6 is the one in the 14 card >> hand. This is NO basis for assuming that it IS the extraneous card. > > This fact was given by the OP. You mean Amos is psychic? He's a genius by his own admission, but he's not a God :) John > > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 22 02:00:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:00:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matthias vs Sven [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> Message-ID: "When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into their service!" John Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1852 Matthias Berghaus: >>To summarize (and to get this back on track): >> >>I bid 4NT for the minors (a misbid, 4NT is systemically Blackwood). >>Partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, which is the right explanation >>(or so I believe). >>Partner bids 5D, showing some number of aces. >>Opponent asks about 5D. >>I have to explain this as some number of aces (as this is the >>correct explanation as per system, Law 20F, Law 40 Matthias Berghaus: >>if my memory at last serves me correctly, it looks like it did not >>do so when I selected my 4NT call), then continue to call as if >>partner had shown diamond preference, as his explanation is UI to >>me. Law 75A Matthias Berghaus: >>Thereafter the TD will have to find out what our system is (MI/ >>misbid issue). Sven Pran: >It is easier to see what you should do if you consider the >situation as with screens in use for the duration of the auction. Richard Hills: Apples compared to oranges. It is easier to see if one quotes Laws. Sven Pran: >...you MUST yourself call the director at the proper time. Richard Hills quoting Laws: Agreed. The proper time to correct your own misexplanation, because the word "explanation" is missing from Law 16A3, is defined by Law 20F4 as "immediately". Sven Pran asked: >... >What do I do if I am sure that partner remembers wrong and that I >remember correct? > >What do I do if I am almost, but not completely sure that I remember >correct? >... >What if I am almost sure that partner is wrong? > >Do we really want different rules depending on how sure you are >about your partnership understandings? Richard Hills: No, there is one simple rule: "...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience...", Law 40B6(a). Unintentionally disobeying Law 40B6(a) is a minor "shall" crime. Intentionally disobeying Law 40B6(a), because of one's constructed theory based on tortured facts, is a major "must not" crime. Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a Law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 22 02:01:30 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:01:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <85B0C40104A44D748602A519AD0927DB@mamoslaptop> <23828E4E61ED4C82AA74EAC62CBE30A7@JOHN> <000b01c91994$ff2133b0$fd639b10$@com><48D28658.1090705@ulb.ac.be><000501c91a3e$e9b975f0$bd2c61d0$@com> <5D95D90529934BBD88F65F43A34F95EF@JOHN> Message-ID: Probst >> >>> We can only suppose that the extraneaous 6 is the one in the 14 card >>> hand. This is NO basis for assuming that it IS the extraneous card. Rohan >> This fact was given by the OP. Probst > You mean Amos is psychic? He's a genius by his own admission, but he's > not a God :) John This was the problem as it was presented. In any case, the director involved will always have a hand record to check. It is also, to be fair, statistically rather more likely that the person who has 14 cards while everyone else has 13 is the one who holds the interloper. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 22 03:59:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:59:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] There is nothing like a Dane [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jens Brix Christiansen >* It is a little easier to get a verdict of no logical >alternative in the EBU than in the DBF. The difference >in style is not tremendous, but it is definitely there. Richard Hills: I think part of the problem is that the EBU White Book, clause 16.6, defines a verdict of no logical alternative as "such call is evident". A TD's quest should not be to determine whether a particular call is "evident" (defined by the Pocket Oxford Dictionary as "obvious, manifest"); the quest should rather be whether another call would be seriously considered by a significant proportion, and then selected by some. That is, my point is that the language in which the EBU White Book is framed can subconsciously bias EBU TDs towards the wrong methodology and consequently the wrong outcome. * * * EBU Appeals Casebook 2007, appeal number four [discussed on blml in the "Lord Mansfield" thread] Final summary by editor [David Stevenson]: >>Some think Green, some think Amber, some think that >>holding the appeal was terrible. Take your pick! It is >>***certainly not the first time an appeal has gone >>ahead when a pair does not know about it.*** >>The organisers are often in a quandary where they >>appear damned if they do, damned if they don't. Should >>they really explain to a pair with a legitimate appeal >>that it will never be heard once the opponents have >>left? Jens Brix Christiansen: >* In the DBF we have regulations to the effect that an >appeal normally will not be heard directly at the venue >if one of the parties has left the venue after the end >of normal play in bona fide ignorance of the appeal. >Instead we settle the appeal afterwards in an offsite >committee (which will be the regulating authority's >committee for event at the national level) where both >parties are heard via email. The EBU regulations place >less emphasis on the contestants' right to be heard. >The EBU approach comes as a surprise to me. Richard Hills: It seems to me that David Stevenson's defence of the EBU approach is based on a false dichotomy - either have an unjust appeal, or have no appeal at all - when the Danish approach offers a just 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 Sep 22 05:30:40 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:30:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809190030s78ec25bawe469b3e12c1fe8cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [big snip] >the ACBL regulation seems to make a statement that misbid is >a useful term. Definitions: "Psychic call (commonly 'psych[e]' or 'psychic') - a _deliberate_ and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length." Richard Hills: Given the Definition above, and assuming that the ACBL has not bothered to define "misbid", if I was an ACBL Director I would use Law 81B1 to define -> "Mistaken call (commonly 'misbid') - an _unintentional_ and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length." Jerry Fusselman: >Also note that balance of probabilities, which you used, is >not what ACBL uses for MI cases. Richard Hills: The ACBL regulation requiring a "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof on the putative offending side ("guilty until proved innocent") for a particular disputed fact of misbid or misinformation was presumably formulated when the 1997 Lawbook's version of Law 85 was relevant. And the 1997 Law 85 on disputed facts merely required that the Director be "satisfied" that the disputed facts were resolved, so a supplementary ACBL regulation requiring "beyond reasonable doubt" to be the criterion for "satisfied" would seem to be a legal regulation under the 1997 Lawbook. But the 2007 Law 85A1 specifically requires "balance of probabilities", so an ACBL regulation instead requiring "guilty until proved innocent" seems to me now contradictory to Law, not supplementary to Law. Law 80B2(f): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." Best wishes Richard James Hills 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 Sep 22 07:04:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:04:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matthias vs Sven [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into their service!" John Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1852 Sven Pran asserted: >What you advocate is disgusting, Richard Hills quibbles: Sven's "you" was initially singular, but "you" can also be plural. So the original reference to Herman De Wael is now expanded to include David Burn, Matthias Berghaus and myself. And while it might be relevant to consider whether a possible Law is "disgusting" when _designing_ the 2018 Lawbook, the adjective "disgusting" is a meaningless noise when _applying_ the 2007 Lawbook. Sven Pran asserted: >so much more because it is difficult to prove: You bid 4NT >believing that it shows both minors. Then you are awakened by >your partner that it is standard Blackwood. When you now >describe his answer as Ace-showing you use this UI to conceal >your mistake. Richard Hills quibbles: (a) You describe your methods accurately, as required by Law. (b) The opponents have no entitlement to necessarily know that you are having a misunderstanding. (A WBF LC minute confirms this.) (c) You are _not_ using "this UI to conceal your mistake" as Hills, De Wael, Berghaus and Burn unanimously agree that you must follow Law 75A and _continue bidding_ as if 5D shows diamond preference, while simultaneously _explaining_ 5D as one ace. Sven Pran asserted: >Technically this is like claiming misbid (which is legal) instead >of admitting misinformation (which can give cause for redress to >opponents). Richard Hills quibbles: Yes, if Sven Pran is technically deliberately giving MI, and the other side is technically not breaking any Law, then ..... What's the problem? Sven Pran asserted: >The information that your call showed both minors and was not >interested in Aces is now concealed from them, information to >which they are fully entitled Richard Hills quibbles: The opponents are only entitled to know your pre-existing mutual partnership understandings (either explicit or implicit), not what you were interested in. Sven Pran asserted: >so long as you yourself believed that to be your understanding. Richard Hills quibbles: There is not any Law stating, "explain your former false beliefs". Nor is there a Law stating, "explain your current false beliefs". The contrary is stated in the second and fourth sentences of Law 75C: "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." "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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 22 08:28:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:28:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lone Wolff book [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan, discussing Law 13F: >>...In any case, the director involved will always have a >>hand record to check... Richard Hills quibbles: Always? Not in an ACBL Swiss teams. Then, as David Burn noted earlier, the Director would have to assess whether Law 1 and Law 6 applies (the shuffle and deal was made with 53 cards), or whether Law 13F applies (the surplus card was incorrectly introduced _after_ a correct shuffle and deal). Jeff Easterson, discussing Bobby Wolff's historical research technique: [big snip] >I don't doubt that much of the book is accurate but there >ought to be a bit more precision and detail when making >accusations. Claims should be documented. Ciao, JE Richard Hills quibbles: Bobby Wolff claimed that the format of an ACBL Swiss teams, with no hand records, gave an incentive for Steve Sion to infract Law 6 by stacking a deck. When stating facts of which he has first-hand knowledge, Bobby Wolff seems to be reasonably accurate, as his recounting of Steve Sion's earlier pencil signalling corresponds with the account in The Bridge World. We blml nerds and uber-nerds may object to Bobby Wolff's lack of footnotes citing Law 74C5 (when he discusses "clocking") or citing Law 74C8 (when he discusses "copping"). But the general bridge public may be further encouraged to adopt Active Ethics by this book, thus continuing a trend set by Bobby Wolff's seminal articles about "Crypto" and "Telltale". Of particular interest is Bobby Wolff's conversion a la Saint Augustine ("make me pure, but not yet") from an inactively ethical youth. Also of interest is three cases recounted of former cheats choosing to rehabilitate themselves as now worthy members of the bridge community. 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 Sep 22 09:09:10 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:09:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matthias vs Sven [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48D74496.5020408@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > No, there is one simple rule: "...a player shall disclose all special > information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or > partnership experience...", Law 40B6(a). Unintentionally disobeying > Law 40B6(a) is a minor "shall" crime. Intentionally disobeying Law > 40B6(a), because of one's constructed theory based on tortured facts, > is a major "must not" crime. > > Law 72B1: > > "A player must not infringe a Law intentionally, even if there is a > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." > All this is only true if it is based on the extremely tortured facts that L20F5a are not broken. Don't you realize, Richard, that this whole construction of yours can work both ways? And that the only reason you accept one and not the other tortured construction is because Grattan said so? > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 09:11:27 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:11:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matthias vs Sven [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48D7451F.9090302@skynet.be> Richard is firmly in the MS. I am very happy to see that some common sense prevails. I thought I was losing my mind when the first two answers were Sven's and Stephanie's. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > "When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they > torture facts into their service!" John Mackay, Extraordinary > Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1852 > > Sven Pran asserted: > >> What you advocate is disgusting, > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Sven's "you" was initially singular, but "you" can also be > plural. So the original reference to Herman De Wael is now > expanded to include David Burn, Matthias Berghaus and myself. > > And while it might be relevant to consider whether a possible Law > is "disgusting" when _designing_ the 2018 Lawbook, the adjective > "disgusting" is a meaningless noise when _applying_ the 2007 > Lawbook. > > Sven Pran asserted: > >> so much more because it is difficult to prove: You bid 4NT >> believing that it shows both minors. Then you are awakened by >> your partner that it is standard Blackwood. When you now >> describe his answer as Ace-showing you use this UI to conceal >> your mistake. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > (a) You describe your methods accurately, as required by Law. > > (b) The opponents have no entitlement to necessarily know that you > are having a misunderstanding. (A WBF LC minute confirms this.) > > (c) You are _not_ using "this UI to conceal your mistake" as > Hills, De Wael, Berghaus and Burn unanimously agree that you must > follow Law 75A and _continue bidding_ as if 5D shows diamond > preference, while simultaneously _explaining_ 5D as one ace. > > Sven Pran asserted: > >> Technically this is like claiming misbid (which is legal) instead >> of admitting misinformation (which can give cause for redress to >> opponents). > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Yes, if Sven Pran is technically deliberately giving MI, and the > other side is technically not breaking any Law, then ..... > > What's the problem? > > Sven Pran asserted: > >> The information that your call showed both minors and was not >> interested in Aces is now concealed from them, information to >> which they are fully entitled > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > The opponents are only entitled to know your pre-existing mutual > partnership understandings (either explicit or implicit), not what > you were interested in. > > Sven Pran asserted: > >> so long as you yourself believed that to be your understanding. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > There is not any Law stating, "explain your former false beliefs". > Nor is there a Law stating, "explain your current false beliefs". > > The contrary is stated in the second and fourth sentences of Law 75C: > > "Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an > accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim > to an accurate description of the North-South hands." > "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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 09:21:28 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:21:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 21/09/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > To summarize (and to get this back on track): > > > > I bid 4NT for the minors (a misbid, 4NT is systemically Blackwood). > > Partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, which is the right explanation (or so > > I believe). > > Partner bids 5D, showing some number of aces. > > Opponent asks about 5D. > > I have to explain this as some number of aces (as this is the correct > > explanation as per system, if my memory at last serves me correctly, it > > looks like it did not do so when I selcted my 4NT call), then continue > > to call as if partner had shown diamond preference, as his explanation > > is UI to me. Thereafter the TD will have to find out what our system is > > (MI/misbid issue). > > > > This is the answer I was expecting - I had not dared to realize there > was any other answer possible. > Please note that the answer is directly opposite from that by Stephanie > and Sven, meaning we now clearly have three schools, the dWS, the SSS > (Stephanie-Sven-school) and the MS (no Matthias, not yet the > Matthias-school) > > Anyone care to join either of these two new schools - or to tell either > Sven and Stephanie or Matthias who has it wrong? I'm rather astonished by the replies here by Stephanie and Sven. Of course, when you KNOW that 4NT=Blackwood is your systemic agreement, you have to explaing the 5D response as the systemic number of aces shown. It's just as clear that this knowledge is UI to you - you bid 4NT under the misconseption that is showed the minors. You have to keep bidding as if that's the correct partnership understanding. That is, if your intention when you bid 4NT was to pass partner's preference, that's what you've got to do now. If your intention was to raise the preference to slam, that is also what you've got to do now. And if you had a borderline decision between passing and raising, and you now know that you're off two aces (from partner's BW response), the UI tells you to pass, but now you have to bid the slam. > > > > > Best regards > > Matthias > > > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 19 16:14:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:14:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] 2007 Appeals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48D3B3AE.4020203@ulb.ac.be> David Stevenson a ?crit : > Hi all > > Thanks everyone. The appeals books are completed, and can be > downloaded from > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm Two comments already. I'll look at the other cases at a more convenient time. On case 1, Richard tells us the ruling of 6S+1 is rather generous, yet gives a weighted score of 20% 7S=, 60% 6S+1, 20% 4S+3. This is sensible, but I don't think it would be less generous to the NOS ; it would usually result in a very similar score ; so what do you mean ? On case 3, Heather tells us she would always have bid 3S. Alas, this isn't the right argument : what's important is whether other players would have bid it, i.e. whether there are any LAs. It's often the case that a bid one would always have made becomes disallowed because of the BIT (in some circumstances, when there are screens, this might be avoided by telling your screenmate you're always going to do so-and-so, e.g. remove partner's double, whetever the tempo). Best regards Alain From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Sep 19 21:04:58 2008 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:04:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete Message-ID: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> It's along time since I subscribed to BLML, although I have regularly looked at the archives. I'm a National TD for the EBU, a member of the EBL panel and I direct often at a range of local, regional, national and junior events. I probalby am as active a practical TD as any in England. I am a member of the EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee (may God forgive me) Currently i have a bad back which makes me grumpy and bad-tempered (well even more grumpy and bad-tempered than usual) The 2007 Law Book fills me with horror and despair. BLML fills me with horror and despair times a thousand. The EBU has 25,000 members or so. I guess less than 20 or so of those understand the DwS debate and only maybe two of these care. Not one of them cheats by passing messages to team mates by sorting or not sorting their cards, but more than a thousand are pissed off by Law 7C. After 1997, when attention was drawn to the fabulous Law Books deficiencies, we were often told that towards the end of his life the immortal Edgar Kaplan (well ok not so immortal) was secretive and not good at sharing - What's the excuse ths time? Law 27 was an expletive deleted unmitigated disaster - we were promised appendices with examples but so far ...... Even after the rewrite of Law 27 and Max's paper to the EBL, the average Club or Regional Director is very unsure of how to proceed. I could go on (rant deleted) I recently ran a training course for aspiring TDs So Law 13F Clearly Law Book1997 was defective. No mention of surplus cards. Grattan put this in his little notebook and so a new Law was born. It has three sentences. The scenario I composed for our TD course was of course naive, I foolishly asked a question without enough thought and so was caught in the embarassing position of not knowing what the answer to my own question was. I humbly suggest that those of you who have confidently answered haven't really read the Law and worked your way through. F. Surplus Card Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue unaffected. If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded. The first sentence is very clear. Even I can do that (well ok I admit it will be easy if 52 have blue backs and 1 a red back but think about situations where its not so clear). Move on. The auction and play continue unaffected. That really doesn't work too well does it? In my scenario, the six of Spades was removed from the quitted tricks , but???? What next should they go on with 8,8,8,9 cards? or whatever? How is this normal? In a draft version the Law had this addition These bits are in a draft verson but have been deleted Law 67B1 applies*. * If the card removed won the trick and is not replaced with a card winning the trick the Director awards an artificial adjusted score and may penalize an offender with an incorrect number of cards. Not so surprised they deleted this - why an artificial adjusted score? and why not just apply Law 67? But without the reference to Law 67 can the TD really apply the defective trick approach? Max Bavin has suggested to me that this is not an option. Law 13F offers us one and only one option. If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded. I have no idea what this means. Should I rule as if the surplus card wasn't there? Should I rule as if there has been a defective trick? Artificial? Adjusted? What is sure is the Law makers don't know either...... and that makes me mad. They have been messing about for ten years and frankly I see no progress, just more mess and confusion. My friends in the local clubs don't see that the Law Book has any relevance to the game they play. I'd like to persuade them that they are wrong. Sadly I cannot Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080919/2fba1390/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 22 10:12:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:12:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D6CD8C.3080505@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> <48D6CD8C.3080505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c91c8a$f73acbe0$e5b063a0$@no> Without bothering about the entire post: My opinion is that according to the laws a player must always when requested disclose what he (legally) thinks are their partnership understandings and nothing else. ("Legally" implies that he may not modify his own understanding during the auction if he learns from UI received that this understanding was incorrect.) If his response to a request for explanation reveals that partner (allegedly) has previously given misinformation then so be it. Such revelation (in response to a legal request) is according to a statement on behalf of WBFLC NOT a violation of law 20F5(a). Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 22. september 2008 00:41 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > > Hello Sven, > > you are asking all the right questions. > Now try to find the right responses. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > > > >> In all cases that I know of, both dWS and most MS (I had thought it > >> would be all until Sven and Stephanie chimed in) agree that giving > >> less MI and less UI is best if you can do both simultaneously. But > >> that thinking is just a rule of thumb. > >> > >> Anyway, I believe that almost the whole world, including the WBFLC, > >> agree with Herman and Matthias on this one issue: If you subsequently > >> discover in any way, including hearing your partner's explanations, > >> what your partnership understandings are though you had it wrong at > >> first, then you should henceforth correctly explain your agreements, > >> and even call the director to explain you earlier alert-explanation > >> error if there was one, but you should still bid according to your > >> original misunderstanding. (There is a theoretical chance that later > >> AI may inarguably clarify the situation for you and let you off the > >> hook, but it better be crystal clear.) > > > > Jerry is here opening the door for an interesting possibility: > > > > Immediately I hear partner's explanation that my 4NT bid is Blackwood and > > thus realize that I have made a mistake I must call the Director as > > specified in Law 20F4. > > Ehm, no. > L20F4 deals with realizing that you made a mistake in explaining, not in > bidding. > > > This could make sense, and must indeed be the correct > > law if we end up with the result that I am not required by Law 16 to > > disregard UI for any other purpose than selecting my calls and plays. > > > > OK. You are talking as a possible alternative set of laws. > OK. I'll play along with that. > > > In that case the events must develop something like the following: > > Me: 4NT > > LHO to partner: "please explain" > > Partner to LHO: "Blackwood" > > Partner: 5Di > > RHO to me: "please explain" > > Me: "Director" > > NO. This is not what you were saying earlier. It is 2 lines higher that > you are supposed to call the TD - when you realize you made a mistake. > It could be before or after the 5Di bid. After seems better to me. > But putting it after the question "please explain" makes room again for > the biggest problem the MS must face: that the outcome is different when > a question is asked or not. Please get that into your mind! If you are > happy with the way the game is played now, with players keeping quiet > about their partner's misexplanations, then you must also be happy with > dWS principles. If you want to change the way the game is played, then > you must make the change both with and without the follow-up questions. > > > Director: "How can I help you?" > > Me: "I just became aware from UI received that I have accidentally made a > > call conflicting with our partnership understanding and therefore cannot > > give opponents correct information on this understanding without using the > > UI". > > > > Now why would you say all that? Isn't it just enough to say "my 4NT was > not intended as Blackwood"? Does that not give the TD and the opponents > all the information they need? > > > > > But there is more than this to the question: > > > > What do I do if I am sure that partner remembers wrong and that I remember > > correct? > > > > Well, it's up to you - you're making up the rules here! > But I fail to see why it should be any different. You seem intent on > letting the opponents know about the misunderstanding in almost every > situation - including one that it seems impossible to do in. So just say > here too "my 4NT was not Blackwood". When you have said that you > intended it as Minors, and that he intended it as Blackwood, what else > do they want to know? It certainly does not matter any more which of the > two systems is the true partnership understanding ... > > > What do I do if I am almost, but not completely sure that I remember > > correct? > > > > Aha, there's the rub. > But again, Sven, you have no problem. The SSS is clearly going to tell > about the misunderstanding in all three cases. > I have no problem either. > It's just the poor MS that has a problem here. > > > In all three alternatives I believe we all agree that I must continue my > > auction as if I remembered correct, > > Of course - at least that one we are unanimous about. > > > even in the case when I realize I indeed > > was wrong. The question is really for each alternative what explanation I > > must give opponents in response to a request for an explanation of the 5Di > > bid? > > > > Yes, and you should realize that there are only two possibilities: "1 > ace", and anything else. Whatever you actually say, the TD is going to > get called immediately, and lots of things will be said, but in the end > they will know: > - that you have a misunderstanding > - that you intended 4NT as asking for the minors (well, maybe this will > not get cleared up every single time, but there are usually not more > than two possible meanings) > - that he wanted to show 1 ace with 5Di. > > So basically you only need to choose between these two options : "1 ace" > and "there has been a misunderstanding, but he has 1 ace". > > > I hope there is no disagreement that if I am completely sure that my partner > > is wrong I must answer "diamond preference" and in proper time inform > > opponents that my partner was wrong? > > > > Of course there is disagreement about that - that is what the dws is all > about. > Besides, where do you get that "in proper time" from? The mistake is > cleared up at once, and the TD will be called straight away, if for no > other reason than that HE will have to abide by L20F4. > > > What if I am almost sure that partner is wrong? > > > > Do we really want different rules depending on how sure you are about your > > partnership understandings? > > > > And there's the good question - do we want different rules depending on > how certain we are? Why not simply answer "1 ace" in all three cases? > Does that not solve this problem? > > And don't tell me that's not in the laws. You have been trying to > convince me of that for ages, and you have not succeeded. The game works > perfectly fine under dWS, and it solves this problem you just seem to > have discovered. I'll grant you the accolade of having discovered it > yourself, despite the fact that I've been saying this for 10 years. > > > Sven > > > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 10:59:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:59:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> Harals is also a standard MS adept. Which means the MS can keep its name of Majority School (with 3 declared members vs 2 and 1). Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 21/09/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> To summarize (and to get this back on track): >>> >>> I bid 4NT for the minors (a misbid, 4NT is systemically Blackwood). >>> Partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, which is the right explanation (or so >>> I believe). >>> Partner bids 5D, showing some number of aces. >>> Opponent asks about 5D. >>> I have to explain this as some number of aces (as this is the correct >>> explanation as per system, if my memory at last serves me correctly, it >>> looks like it did not do so when I selcted my 4NT call), then continue >>> to call as if partner had shown diamond preference, as his explanation >>> is UI to me. Thereafter the TD will have to find out what our system is >>> (MI/misbid issue). >>> >> This is the answer I was expecting - I had not dared to realize there >> was any other answer possible. >> Please note that the answer is directly opposite from that by Stephanie >> and Sven, meaning we now clearly have three schools, the dWS, the SSS >> (Stephanie-Sven-school) and the MS (no Matthias, not yet the >> Matthias-school) >> >> Anyone care to join either of these two new schools - or to tell either >> Sven and Stephanie or Matthias who has it wrong? > > I'm rather astonished by the replies here by Stephanie and Sven. > Of course, when you KNOW that 4NT=Blackwood is your systemic > agreement, you have to explaing the 5D response as the systemic number > of aces shown. > > It's just as clear that this knowledge is UI to you - you bid 4NT > under the misconseption that is showed the minors. You have to keep > bidding as if that's the correct partnership understanding. That is, > if your intention when you bid 4NT was to pass partner's preference, > that's what you've got to do now. If your intention was to raise the > preference to slam, that is also what you've got to do now. And if you > had a borderline decision between passing and raising, and you now > know that you're off two aces (from partner's BW response), the UI > tells you to pass, but now you have to bid the slam. >>> Best regards >>> Matthias >>> >> Herman. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 11:02:55 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:02:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <48D75F3F.1040904@skynet.be> Nice little rant, Mike, I enjoyed it. And I sympathize. And you are absolutely right! Herman. Mike Amos wrote: > It's along time since I subscribed to BLML, although I have regularly > looked at the archives. > > I'm a National TD for the EBU, a member of the EBL panel and I direct > often at a range of local, regional, national and junior events. I > probalby am as active a practical TD as any in England. > > I am a member of the EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee (may God forgive me) > > Currently i have a bad back which makes me grumpy and bad-tempered (well > even more grumpy and bad-tempered than usual) > > The 2007 Law Book fills me with horror and despair. BLML fills me with > horror and despair times a thousand. > > The EBU has 25,000 members or so. I guess less than 20 or so of those > understand the DwS debate and only maybe two of these care. Not one of > them cheats by passing messages to team mates by sorting or not sorting > their cards, but more than a thousand are pissed off by Law 7C. > > After 1997, when attention was drawn to the fabulous Law Books > deficiencies, we were often told that towards the end of his life the > immortal Edgar Kaplan (well ok not so immortal) was secretive and not > good at sharing - What's the excuse ths time? Law 27 was an expletive > deleted unmitigated disaster - we were promised appendices with examples > but so far ...... Even after the rewrite of Law 27 and Max's paper to > the EBL, the average Club or Regional Director is very unsure of how to > proceed. > > I could go on (rant deleted) > I recently ran a training course for aspiring TDs > > So Law 13F > > Clearly Law Book1997 was defective. No mention of surplus cards. > Grattan put this in his little notebook and so a new Law was born. It > has three sentences. The scenario I composed for our TD course was of > course naive, I foolishly asked a question without enough thought and so > was caught in the embarassing position of not knowing what the answer to > my own question was. I humbly suggest that those of you who have > confidently answered haven't really read the Law and worked your way > through. > > F. Surplus Card > > Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if > > found. The auction and play continue unaffected. If such > > a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an > > adjusted score may be awarded. > > The first sentence is very clear. Even I can do that (well ok I admit > it will be easy if 52 have blue backs and 1 a red back but think about > situations where its not so clear). Move on. *The auction and play > continue unaffected. *That really doesn't work too well does it? In my > scenario, the six of Spades was removed from the quitted tricks , > but???? What next should they go on with 8,8,8,9 cards? or whatever? > How is this normal? In a draft version the Law had this addition > > These bits are in a draft verson but have been deleted > > Law 67B1 applies*. > > * If the card removed won the trick and is not replaced with a card > winning the trick the Director awards an artificial adjusted score and > may penalize an offender with an incorrect number of cards. > > Not so surprised they deleted this - why an artificial adjusted score? > and why not just apply Law 67? > > But without the reference to Law 67 can the TD really apply the > defective trick approach? Max Bavin has suggested to me that this is > not an option. Law 13F offers us one and only one option. > > If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an > > adjusted score may be awarded. > > I have no idea what this means. Should I rule as if the surplus card > wasn't there? Should I rule as if there has been a defective trick? > Artificial? Adjusted? What is sure is the Law makers don't know > either...... and that makes me mad. They have been messing about for > ten years and frankly I see no progress, just more mess and confusion. > > My friends in the local clubs don't see that the Law Book has any > relevance to the game they play. I'd like to persuade them that they > are wrong. Sadly I cannot > > Mike > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 22 11:33:14 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:33:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <001601c91c96$59c14400$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <48D76649.8000100@NTLworld.com> [Final summary by editor [David Stevenson]] ***certainly not the first time an appeal has gone ahead when a pair does not know about it.*** The organisers are often in a quandary where they appear damned if they do, damned if they don't. Should they really explain to a pair with a legitimate appeal that it will never be heard once the opponents have left? [Jens Brix Christiansen] In the DBF we have regulations to the effect that an appeal normally will not be heard directly at the venue if one of the parties has left the venue after the end of normal play in bona fide ignorance of the appeal. Instead we settle the appeal afterwards in an offsite committee (which will be the regulating authority's committee for event at the national level) where both parties are heard via email. The EBU regulations place less emphasis on the contestants' right to be heard. The EBU approach comes as a surprise to me. [Richard Hills] It seems to me that David Stevenson's defence of the EBU approach is based on a false dichotomy - either have an unjust appeal, or have no appeal at all - when the Danish approach offers a just alternative. [Nige1] The result of an appeal may directly or indirectly affect who wins an event, so the EBU approach seems more practical. It does assume that there has already been a ruling by a director. *With that proviso*, in the EBU, there should be less problem if one side does not attend the appeal because the director will have already completed a preliminary report on the facts as reported by both sides. The committee can rely mostly on that report. I suppose the committee must take into account new arguments but it should treat new "facts" with a pinch of salt. Perhaps the commmittee should appoint somebody as a "devil's advocate" to represent the absent side. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 22 11:39:13 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:39:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > Harals is also a standard MS adept. Which means the MS can keep its name of Majority School (with 3 declared members vs 2 and 1). > +=+ Oh, and I had believed the Majority was Silent - to include the WBFLC and others. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 22 11:45:34 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:45:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> Message-ID: <000001c91c97$f67b87a0$e37296e0$@com> [SP] You are sitting at a table. You have just bid 4NT with minors. Your partner explains it as Blackwood, and you realize he is right. Your partner bids 5Di and your opponent asks what it means. What do you say? And if I ask the same question over and over, it's because you don't answer it! Rather against my better wisdom I shall for once enter this thread and give the (only) answer that complies with the laws both literally and as they apparently are intended: You answer that it is preference for Diamonds. [DALB] No, you don't. You answer that it shows one ace, because that is what it shows according to your methods, and that is what the opponents are entitled to know. You then pass it, because you are not allowed to be reminded by partner's reply to your question that 4NT was Blackwood. You see, partner's answer to your question is not an indication to you at all. Not in any manner. David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 22 11:49:57 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:49:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> <48D75F3F.1040904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003101c91c98$97b5ca90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Law Book should be complete > Nice little rant, Mike, I enjoyed it. > And I sympathize. > And you are absolutely right! > Herman. > > Mike Amos wrote: >> It's along time since I subscribed to BLML, although I have regularly >> looked at the archives. >> >> I'm a National TD for the EBU, a member of the EBL panel and I direct >> often at a range of local, regional, national and junior events. I >> probalby am as active a practical TD as any in England. >> >> I am a member of the EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee (may God forgive me) >> >> Currently i have a bad back which makes me grumpy and bad-tempered (well >> even more grumpy and bad-tempered than usual) >> >> The 2007 Law Book fills me with horror and despair. BLML fills me with >> horror and despair times a thousand. >> >> The EBU has 25,000 members or so. I guess less than 20 or so of those >> understand the DwS debate and only maybe two of these care. Not one of >> them cheats by passing messages to team mates by sorting or not sorting >> their cards, but more than a thousand are pissed off by Law 7C. >> >> After 1997, when attention was drawn to the fabulous Law Books >> deficiencies, we were often told that towards the end of his life the >> immortal Edgar Kaplan (well ok not so immortal) was secretive and not >> good at sharing - What's the excuse ths time? Law 27 was an expletive >> deleted unmitigated disaster - we were promised appendices with examples >> but so far ...... Even after the rewrite of Law 27 and Max's paper to >> the EBL, the average Club or Regional Director is very unsure of how to >> proceed. >> >> I could go on (rant deleted) >> I recently ran a training course for aspiring TDs >> >> So Law 13F >> >> Clearly Law Book1997 was defective. No mention of surplus cards. >> Grattan put this in his little notebook and so a new Law was born. It >> has three sentences. The scenario I composed for our TD course was of >> course naive, I foolishly asked a question without enough thought and so >> was caught in the embarassing position of not knowing what the answer to >> my own question was. I humbly suggest that those of you who have >> confidently answered haven't really read the Law and worked your way >> through. >> >> F. Surplus Card >> >> Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if >> >> found. The auction and play continue unaffected. If such >> >> a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an >> >> adjusted score may be awarded. >> >> The first sentence is very clear. Even I can do that (well ok I admit >> it will be easy if 52 have blue backs and 1 a red back but think about >> situations where its not so clear). Move on. *The auction and play >> continue unaffected. *That really doesn't work too well does it? In my >> scenario, the six of Spades was removed from the quitted tricks , >> but???? What next should they go on with 8,8,8,9 cards? or whatever? >> How is this normal? In a draft version the Law had this addition >> >> These bits are in a draft verson but have been deleted >> >> Law 67B1 applies*. >> >> * If the card removed won the trick and is not replaced with a card >> winning the trick the Director awards an artificial adjusted score and >> may penalize an offender with an incorrect number of cards. >> >> Not so surprised they deleted this - why an artificial adjusted score? >> and why not just apply Law 67? >> >> But without the reference to Law 67 can the TD really apply the >> defective trick approach? Max Bavin has suggested to me that this is >> not an option. Law 13F offers us one and only one option. >> >> If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an >> >> adjusted score may be awarded. >> >> I have no idea what this means. Should I rule as if the surplus card >> wasn't there? Should I rule as if there has been a defective trick? >> Artificial? Adjusted? What is sure is the Law makers don't know >> either...... and that makes me mad. They have been messing about for >> ten years and frankly I see no progress, just more mess and confusion. >> >> My friends in the local clubs don't see that the Law Book has any >> relevance to the game they play. I'd like to persuade them that they >> are wrong. Sadly I cannot >> >> Mike >> +=+ It was obviously our great loss that Mike was not among the individuals his Federation invited to peruse the draft laws when NBOs were invited to express their opinions in 2006. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 12:51:44 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:51:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000001c91c97$f67b87a0$e37296e0$@com> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> <000001c91c97$f67b87a0$e37296e0$@com> Message-ID: <48D778C0.5030607@skynet.be> David is also a firm member of the MS David Burn wrote: > [SP] > > You are sitting at a table. > You have just bid 4NT with minors. > Your partner explains it as Blackwood, and you realize he is right. > Your partner bids 5Di and your opponent asks what it means. > What do you say? > > And if I ask the same question over and over, it's because you don't answer > it! > > Rather against my better wisdom I shall for once enter this thread and give > the (only) answer that complies with the laws both literally and as they > apparently are intended: > > You answer that it is preference for Diamonds. > > [DALB] > > No, you don't. You answer that it shows one ace, because that is what it > shows according to your methods, and that is what the opponents are entitled > to know. You then pass it, because you are not allowed to be reminded by > partner's reply to your question that 4NT was Blackwood. You see, partner's > answer to your question is not an indication to you at all. Not in any > manner. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 12:58:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:58:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> Harals is also a standard MS adept. > Which means the MS can keep its name of Majority School > (with 3 declared members vs 2 and 1). > +=+ Oh, and I had believed the Majority was Silent - to > include the WBFLC and others. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I was only counting since the last split and the creation of a third school. I shall now count Grattan as member nr 5 of the MS. As for the inclusion of the WBFLC in that list, Please show me minutes of reunion of the WBFLC where they decided to officially accept the MS as the only valid answer to this dilemma. I know of you and Ton, but none of the others have communicated their preference to me, nor do I know if they read blml. And please Grattan, if you decide to lower the tone of the WBFLC and decide to put this minor problem on their loaded agenda, do me the favour of inviting me, or at least to present a paper to this austere body, telling them why they should resist enshrining the MS into firmer Law than is the case at the moment. Just to give you a little foretaste of the sort of problems you are facing, remember Sven's very sensible remark of yesterday: Do we really want a system in which the rules are different according to the level of certainty that a player has about his own system? The SSS addresses that concern, as does the dWS - the MS has that problem in spades! > > _______________________________________________ Herman. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 22 13:37:34 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:37:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > I was only counting since the last split and the creation of a third > school. Herman, what third school? The law on the matter is clear. A differing opinion does not automatically found a new school, so there has been no "split". I can see no need to put BLMLers into different schools. Often enough people who hold the same view on law X hold different views on law Y. Best regards Matthias From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 22 14:51:19 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:51:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be><002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c91cb1$ff847630$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > Grattan wrote: >>> Harals is also a standard MS adept. >> Which means the MS can keep its name of Majority School >> (with 3 declared members vs 2 and 1). >> +=+ Oh, and I had believed the Majority was Silent - to >> include the WBFLC and others. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > I was only counting since the last split and the creation of a third > school. I shall now count Grattan as member nr 5 of the MS. > > As for the inclusion of the WBFLC in that list, > Please show me minutes of reunion of the WBFLC where they decided to > officially accept the MS as the only valid answer to this dilemma. > I know of you and Ton, but none of the others have communicated their > preference to me, nor do I know if they read blml. > > And please Grattan, if you decide to lower the tone of the WBFLC and > decide to put this minor problem on their loaded agenda, do me the > favour of inviting me, or at least to present a paper to this austere > body, telling them why they should resist enshrining the MS into firmer > Law than is the case at the moment. > > Just to give you a little foretaste of the sort of problems you are > facing, remember Sven's very sensible remark of yesterday: > > Do we really want a system in which the rules are different according to > the level of certainty that a player has about his own system? > The SSS addresses that concern, as does the dWS - the MS has that > problem in spades! > +=+ I must try to find temperate words with which to respond to your remarks, Herman. Frankly I think you should continue to live on in your small blind world. In Beijing the proposal for an appendix to the laws is to be discussed; from that discussion anything may ensue and it may be unwise to make predictions. If Law 20 is discussed I simply do not know whether the same attitude to your arguments will emerge as on the last occasion I brought them up in the WBFLC - i.e. that the committee has not the slightest interest in discussing them. And, equally frankly, I believe the committee would not thank me for inflicting on it the tedium of experiencing your opinions at length. Several of its members read what is written here. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 22 15:11:35 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:11:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: How's my double whisky doing? :) Why don't we just read what the Law says and do it. 13F is an island entire of itself, and couldn't be more explicit (Well it could, but it's easily good enough). My only concern is that maybe Law 1(DALB's favourite Law) over-rides it. The first and obvious point is that we are not playing bridge. "Bridge is played with a deck of fifty two (52) cards. ... " It even tells us what they are. If you play a card game with 53 cards it *can't* be bridge. Now the Laws in various places tell us what to do when we don't have enough cards. "... make a search ..." ""deemed ... continuously". Great we have a rule which means we *can* play bridge with 51 cards, and we will probably conlude that if we didn't play the missing card when we were required to then we revoked. ... and we can fight our way to the end of a hand and get a bridge result. The laws tell us what to do when the 52 cards are incorrectly distributed. That's ok, it's still bridge (Vide Law 1) The Laws tell us what to do if we have too many cards. Remember _*We are not playing bridge*_. Ok, we do what 13F say. We remove one instance of the offending card. Under some circumstances we may be able to get a bridge result; well, actually a result that looks like a bridge result from playing a game only vaguely related to the game defined by "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007" (Vide Law 1) and rather mischievously scooped up in Law 13F. We may not look anywhere else and so if we can't arrange to find a bridge score (such as when both instances of the card have been played - It's now so grossly NOT bridge we're going to have to give up] we consult 13F and it tells us we may award an adjusted score. I guess if we can't decide what the adjusted score should be, we could invoke Law 1 and execute various bastinado opportunities for failing to follow 7B2. A more interesting variant of this problem arises when we have 2 S6's and no S9. Again we're not playing bridge; 13F tells us to remove the surplus card and now we have a deficient deck, but we can't go to Law 14, or 67, or anywhwere. 13F is completely clear. John ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Amos To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Law Book should be complete It's along time since I subscribed to BLML, although I have regularly looked at the archives. I'm a National TD for the EBU, a member of the EBL panel and I direct often at a range of local, regional, national and junior events. I probalby am as active a practical TD as any in England. I am a member of the EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee (may God forgive me) Currently i have a bad back which makes me grumpy and bad-tempered (well even more grumpy and bad-tempered than usual) The 2007 Law Book fills me with horror and despair. BLML fills me with horror and despair times a thousand. The EBU has 25,000 members or so. I guess less than 20 or so of those understand the DwS debate and only maybe two of these care. Not one of them cheats by passing messages to team mates by sorting or not sorting their cards, but more than a thousand are pissed off by Law 7C. After 1997, when attention was drawn to the fabulous Law Books deficiencies, we were often told that towards the end of his life the immortal Edgar Kaplan (well ok not so immortal) was secretive and not good at sharing - What's the excuse ths time? Law 27 was an expletive deleted unmitigated disaster - we were promised appendices with examples but so far ...... Even after the rewrite of Law 27 and Max's paper to the EBL, the average Club or Regional Director is very unsure of how to proceed. I could go on (rant deleted) I recently ran a training course for aspiring TDs So Law 13F Clearly Law Book1997 was defective. No mention of surplus cards. Grattan put this in his little notebook and so a new Law was born. It has three sentences. The scenario I composed for our TD course was of course naive, I foolishly asked a question without enough thought and so was caught in the embarassing position of not knowing what the answer to my own question was. I humbly suggest that those of you who have confidently answered haven't really read the Law and worked your way through. F. Surplus Card Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue unaffected. If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded. The first sentence is very clear. Even I can do that (well ok I admit it will be easy if 52 have blue backs and 1 a red back but think about situations where its not so clear). Move on. The auction and play continue unaffected. That really doesn't work too well does it? In my scenario, the six of Spades was removed from the quitted tricks , but???? What next should they go on with 8,8,8,9 cards? or whatever? How is this normal? In a draft version the Law had this addition These bits are in a draft verson but have been deleted Law 67B1 applies*. * If the card removed won the trick and is not replaced with a card winning the trick the Director awards an artificial adjusted score and may penalize an offender with an incorrect number of cards. Not so surprised they deleted this - why an artificial adjusted score? and why not just apply Law 67? But without the reference to Law 67 can the TD really apply the defective trick approach? Max Bavin has suggested to me that this is not an option. Law 13F offers us one and only one option. If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded. I have no idea what this means. Should I rule as if the surplus card wasn't there? Should I rule as if there has been a defective trick? Artificial? Adjusted? What is sure is the Law makers don't know either...... and that makes me mad. They have been messing about for ten years and frankly I see no progress, just more mess and confusion. My friends in the local clubs don't see that the Law Book has any relevance to the game they play. I'd like to persuade them that they are wrong. Sadly I cannot Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20080922/09ebd5e9/attachment-0001.htm From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 15:27:02 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:27:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> Surely Matthias, you have realized that the answer Sven and Stephanie are currently giving to the second question consitutes a marked difference to the answer the five of you are giving. If I chose to call that a third school that is my business. Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> I was only counting since the last split and the creation of a third >> school. > > Herman, > > what third school? > The law on the matter is clear. A differing opinion does not > automatically found a new school, so there has been no "split". I can > see no need to put BLMLers into different schools. Often enough people > who hold the same view on law X hold different views on law Y. > > Best regards > Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 22 15:55:43 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:55:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48D7A3DF.1030004@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Surely Matthias, you have realized that the answer Sven and Stephanie > are currently giving to the second question consitutes a marked > difference to the answer the five of you are giving. If I chose to call > that a third school that is my business. You can choose to call it whatever you want, Herman, I have no problem with that. I just expressed my opinion that there is no need to do so (and that I can even envision detrimental effects by putting BLMLers into categories), which is my business. And yes, I noticed. Under that criterion there are as many schools on BLML as BLMLers, as everyone disagreed with someone else at least once. You go on calling it different schools, I go on calling it impractical, everyone is happy. Best regards Matthias From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Sep 22 16:12:01 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:12:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <001a01c91cbd$303a8cf0$2401a8c0@p41600> Recently both my two local clubs had a card problem. They use bar-coded packs for dealing m/cs. Both purchase entirely independantly of each other and at different times. When replacing aging packs, both clubs had the same problem. Quite a few new packs had 51 red + 1 blue and vice-versa. They were always D K&Q. Occasionally when trying to correct this, some hands ended up with 2 Ks or 2 Qs. 'Twas great fun for a while... ln[b] ****************************************** If you don't keep up the payments to your exorcist you may be repossessed. ****************************************** How's my double whisky doing? :) Why don't we just read what the Law says and do it. 13F is an island entire of itself, and couldn't be more explicit (Well it could, but it's easily good enough). My only concern is that maybe Law 1(DALB's favourite Law) over-rides it. The first and obvious point is that we are not playing bridge. "Bridge is played with a deck of fifty two (52) cards. ... " It even tells us what they are. If you play a card game with 53 cards it *can't* be bridge. Now the Laws in various places tell us what to do when we don't have enough cards. "... make a search ..." ""deemed ... continuously". Great we have a rule which means we *can* play bridge with 51 cards, and we will probably conlude that if we didn't play the missing card when we were required to then we revoked. ... and we can fight our way to the end of a hand and get a bridge result. The laws tell us what to do when the 52 cards are incorrectly distributed. That's ok, it's still bridge (Vide Law 1) The Laws tell us what to do if we have too many cards. Remember _*We are not playing bridge*_. Ok, we do what 13F say. We remove one instance of the offending card. Under some circumstances we may be able to get a bridge result; well, actually a result that looks like a bridge result from playing a game only vaguely related to the game defined by "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007" (Vide Law 1) and rather mischievously scooped up in Law 13F. We may not look anywhere else and so if we can't arrange to find a bridge score (such as when both instances of the card have been played - It's now so grossly NOT bridge we're going to have to give up] we consult 13F and it tells us we may award an adjusted score. I guess if we can't decide what the adjusted score should be, we could invoke Law 1 and execute various bastinado opportunities for failing to follow 7B2. A more interesting variant of this problem arises when we have 2 S6's and no S9. Again we're not playing bridge; 13F tells us to remove the surplus card and now we have a deficient deck, but we can't go to Law 14, or 67, or anywhwere. 13F is completely clear. John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080922/dc03bc62/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 22 16:47:57 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:47:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Revisiting the dWS In-Reply-To: References: <004101c91797$ebdab7d0$7cad9b51@stefanie><668A467D-9E5A-4173-9D90-6EC3599BBA3B@starpower.net><000f01c9184b$13624170$e55c9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <4F813B05-E2A3-4E60-BB04-58EB6A89BE37@starpower.net> On Sep 20, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > EL: >>>> If we are to adopt dWS principles in a >>>> consistent and sensible way, I believe we're going to need to >>>> rewrite >>>> all of the laws that touch on disclosure, and much of the laws that >>>> touch on UI. > > SR: > Probably, yes. And making the creation of UI an offense will be >>> difficult, >>> because a player does create a BIT because he has to think. > > EW: >> I don't see the connection between a dWS-like approach to disclosure >> and making the creation of UI an offense; I'm a bit curious where >> Stefanie is going with this. > > Well, I might not be on the right track here; the issue confuses me > a bit. > It raises some impossible, it seems to me, questions. > > Let's say that disclosure rules are changed, so that what you must > reveal is > not your actual system as you think it is, but what is going on in > your > partner's mind. Now disclosing your actual system instead must be > illegal -- > it can't be possible to have two equally "acceptable" protocols, a > player > being permitted to choose whichever one is more beneficial to his > partnership at a particular time (this is, of course, the situation > Herman > says we have now, although I am certain he gave in on this > particular issue > months ago. Anyway.) Disclosing your actual system wouldn't be illegal, but would be "extraneous". In a dWS-like world, your opponents would have no entitlement to information about your actual system. Of course, 99% of the time the info they were entitled to would be identical, but whether it is or isn't wouldn't matter. > So. You must disclose what partner thinks your bid means. But it seems > difficult to require you to know anything except for the system you > are > playing. Here are some of the problems that ensue... That can't be right. You cannot "disclose what partner thinks your bid means" unless you are psychic. You can only disclose what *you think* partner thinks your bid means. If that were the information to which the opponents were to be entitled, there would be no such thing as misinformation, since your own judgment as to what you are thinking is by definition incontrovertable. Alternatively, if we wanted the opponents to be entitled to know what partner thinks your bid means, we would want to develop a protocol by which partner provides the information; again, that would leave no possibility of MI. But Stefanie adds an extra level of complexity here, and completely reverses the normal disclosure process. Why "you must disclose what you think partner thinks your bid means"; why not "you must disclose what you think partner's bid means"? Thus not, "what partner thinks your bid means", but rather "what partner thinks his bid means". If the issue is whether or not you should be required to second-guess partner's thinking, it's a lot more straightforward to guess what he intended with his bid rather than what he thinks you intended with yours, and there's no reason to complicate matters by introducing a protocol requiring disclosure of the latter. > Let us suppose that Hal knows the system thoroughly. This is not > necessary, > but makes for an easier discussion at this time. Hal is playing > with Dave. > Let us use the term AS for "alert status" -- meaning whether a call is > alertable, announcable, or neither. > > Hal makes a call and Dave either alerts or doesn't; whichever one > Hal is not > expecting. After Dave makes a call, Hal is asked what it means. > > How is Hal supposed to know? Perhaps he doesn't know what meaning > his own > bid would have been if it had a different AS than the one he > thought, or > perhaps he knows several meanings. Perhaps, thinks he, Dave knows the > system, but simply got the AS wrong. But he will have provided MI > (and, > incidentally, UI), if he doesn't read Dave's mind successfully. > > Suppose Dave offers an explanation to Hal's call. "Trump asking". > This is > not in the agreed system, and Hal has no idea what it means. When > he is now > asked about Dave's bid, what should he say? "Answer to trump > asking?" Here, > unlike the above, he cannot fall back on an explanation based on > the agreed > system, because this time he KNOWS that Dave has got it wrong. > Should he > refuse to answer the question? > > Now suppose Dave thinks that Hal's bid is something else entirely > from the > agreed system, but it is a bid with the same AS. Now Hal has no > reason to > expect that Dave has deviated from the system, but will still be found > guilty of giving MI (and, incidentally, UI), if he doesn't describe > the > system that is in Dave's head. See above. If the opponents are entitled to know what Hal thinks Dave's bid means, then Hal must work out what he thinks Dave's bid means and tell them. He cannot have given MI, and whether or not what he describes constitutes a "deviation from system" has nothing to do with any of it. To work out the disclosable information, a player will normally rely on nothing more than his knowledge of his actual agreements (and will be right 99+% of the time), but, as here, he may have additional information which is UI under current law. That remains problematic, as it is now, when a player required to take the UI into account for disclosure purposes but ignore it for selecting his subsequent actions discloses one meaning but acts in accordance with another. But in an "and now for something completely different" disclosure protocol we might want to at least consider making that additional information no longer UI. If nothing else, the result would be a system that works intuitively. Novice players unfamiliar with the intricacies of disclosure don't ask, "What does your partner's bid mean according to your partnership agreements?," they ask, "What do you take partner's bid to mean?" In Herman's version of dWS, they're entitled to the answer to the former but get the answer to the latter. In what I would consider a workable, sensible and consistent version of dWS, they would be entitled to the latter and would get it. > This is one of the practical reasons that the dWS is impossible. What is "impossible" for practical reasons, IMO, is any scheme in which the opponents are theoretically entitled to one thing but the player doing the disclosure is required (or permitted) to provide something else. As long as we think in terms of preserving the actual partnership agreement as the legal object of disclosure a dWS- like scheme will remain "impossible"; reasonable possible approaches will, I predict, require thinking outside of that particular box. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 22 17:07:01 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:07:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:11:35 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > How's my double whisky doing? :) Why don't we just read what the Law > says and do it. 13F is an island entire of itself, and couldn't be more > explicit (Well it could, but it's easily good enough). My only concern > is that maybe Law 1(DALB's favourite Law) over-rides it. The first and > obvious point is that we are not playing bridge. "Bridge is played with > a deck of fifty two (52) cards. ... " It even tells us what they are. If > you play a card game with 53 cards it *can't* be bridge. > > Now the Laws in various places tell us what to do when we don't have > enough cards. "... make a search ..." ""deemed ... continuously". Great > we have a rule which means we *can* play bridge with 51 cards, and we > will probably conlude that if we didn't play the missing card when we > were required to then we revoked. ... and we can fight our way to the > end of a hand and get a bridge result. > > The laws tell us what to do when the 52 cards are incorrectly > distributed. That's ok, it's still bridge (Vide Law 1) > > The Laws tell us what to do if we have too many cards. Remember _*We are > not playing bridge*_. Ok, we do what 13F say. We remove one instance of > the offending card. Under some circumstances we may be able to get a > bridge result; well, actually a result that looks like a bridge result > from playing a game only vaguely related to the game defined by "The > Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007" (Vide Law 1) and rather mischievously > scooped up in Law 13F. We may not look anywhere else and so if we can't > arrange to find a bridge score (such as when both instances of the card > have been played - It's now so grossly NOT bridge we're going to have to > give up] we consult 13F and it tells us we may award an adjusted score. > I guess if we can't decide what the adjusted score should be, we could > invoke Law 1 and execute various bastinado opportunities for failing to > follow 7B2. > > A more interesting variant of this problem arises when we have 2 S6's > and no S9. Again we're not playing bridge; 13F tells us to remove the > surplus card and now we have a deficient deck, but we can't go to Law > 14, or 67, or anywhwere. 13F is completely clear. John 1. Law 13F does not say that we should go to Law 67 if the surplus card is removed from a quitted trick. But it also does not say we cannot or should not. To me, a logical interpretation is that we remove the surplus card and then deal with the situation as described in the laws. Which means going to Law 67 when the surplus card is removed from a quitted trick. (I know, the reference to Law 67 was deleted -- but are we supposed to rule on the basis of that?) 2. IMO, a surplus card should be dealt with in the same way as a missing card. That's logical to me. I can't see any problems. The player with the missing/surplus card is the OS. THe missin card is presumed to have belonged to the hand all of the time, and the surplus card is presumed to have never been in the hand. I admit, there should be something about removing the surplus card can change ownership of the quitted trick, and adjustments may need to be made whenever the surplus card is led to a trick or wins a trick. 3. I happen to think that Law 67 was unnecessarily made more punitive. But the player with the extra card is still the offending side, and I personally don't find any problems equity-wise with moving to Law 67 when applicable. It ends up usually being a one-trick penalty for playing a surplus card to a quitted trick (with exceptions, e.g., 12th trick, dummy, etc.) with multiple laws to cover rectification if one trick is not enough. Mike Amos did not complain about having to apply Law 67 in this situation. In a way, his complaint is about being told not to apply Law 67 in this situation. 4. If there is any reason concerning equity or logic why Law 67 should not be invoked, I would very much like to hear it (or be reminded of it). Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 22 17:35:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:35:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> Message-ID: <0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> On Sep 21, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > >> In all cases that I know of, both dWS and most MS (I had thought it >> would be all until Sven and Stephanie chimed in) agree that giving >> less MI and less UI is best if you can do both simultaneously. But >> that thinking is just a rule of thumb. >> >> Anyway, I believe that almost the whole world, including the WBFLC, >> agree with Herman and Matthias on this one issue: If you >> subsequently >> discover in any way, including hearing your partner's explanations, >> what your partnership understandings are though you had it wrong at >> first, then you should henceforth correctly explain your agreements, >> and even call the director to explain you earlier alert-explanation >> error if there was one, but you should still bid according to your >> original misunderstanding. (There is a theoretical chance that later >> AI may inarguably clarify the situation for you and let you off the >> hook, but it better be crystal clear.) > > Jerry is here opening the door for an interesting possibility: > > Immediately I hear partner's explanation that my 4NT bid is > Blackwood and > thus realize that I have made a mistake I must call the Director as > specified in Law 20F4. This could make sense, and must indeed be > the correct > law if we end up with the result that I am not required by Law 16 to > disregard UI for any other purpose than selecting my calls and plays. > > In that case the events must develop something like the following: > Me: 4NT > LHO to partner: "please explain" > Partner to LHO: "Blackwood" > Partner: 5Di > RHO to me: "please explain" > Me: "Director" > Director: "How can I help you?" > Me: "I just became aware from UI received that I have accidentally > made a > call conflicting with our partnership understanding and therefore > cannot > give opponents correct information on this understanding without > using the > UI". > > But there is more than this to the question: > > What do I do if I am sure that partner remembers wrong and that I > remember > correct? > > What do I do if I am almost, but not completely sure that I remember > correct? > > In all three alternatives I believe we all agree that I must > continue my > auction as if I remembered correct, even in the case when I realize > I indeed > was wrong. The question is really for each alternative what > explanation I > must give opponents in response to a request for an explanation of > the 5Di > bid? > > I hope there is no disagreement that if I am completely sure that > my partner > is wrong I must answer "diamond preference" and in proper time inform > opponents that my partner was wrong? > > What if I am almost sure that partner is wrong? > > Do we really want different rules depending on how sure you are > about your > partnership understandings? One would think not. Ugly, isn't it? It's bad enough to be required to disclose something you do not know for certain, but even worse to be required to act differently depending on your estimate of the probability of being correct! Yet how can you be absolutely, positively, 100% certain of your agreements when you know your version of the truth disagrees with partner's? If we were to ignore current law, wipe the slate clean, and develop a new approach to disclosure (and thus a new protocol) from scratch, we might ask ourselves how we could eliminate MI altogether. It's really very easy: just select as the object of disclosure (i.e. the information to which the opponents are entitled) something that it is definitionally impossible to be uncertain of. The intuitive appeal of a dWS-like system is that if your opponents were to be entitled to know what you thought partner's bid meant, you could tell them without any possibility of being wrong or misinforming them. That is one possbility, but at least three others have been mentioned in passing. Of course, any such scheme will present its own problems (the most obvious approaches might put us back to "ask at your own risk", which is what the current protocols were developed to eliminate, but perhaps in the 21st century we could avoid this using technology*), but they would need to be weighed against the numerous problems it would solve to eliminate MI from TFLB altogether. * I would expect the leading voices in such a discussion to come from the on-line players, of which I am not one. I am confident that with the techology available to support a variety of alternative approaches to disclosure, the on-line community must at least have thought about some of them, if not actually tried them out. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 22 17:35:01 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:35:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> Message-ID: Results. For reasons explained below, Herman's vote doesn't count. The problem: I bid 4NT. My partner explains this as Blackwood. I meant it for the minors, but partner is right, our system defines it as Blackwood. Now the opponents ask me to explain his 5D bid. What do I say? Sven and Stephanie vote for explaining it as preference for diamonds, arguing that the player cannot use UI to explain it as a Blackwood response. Richard, David Burns, Harold, and Matthias vote for explaining it as a Blackwood response, arguing that Law 20/40/75 requires explaining a bid in terms of the agreed partnership meaning. (I couldn't find any counterarguments for why the UI argument did not apply.) Why Herman's vote didn't count. In the unreversed situation (4NT correctly meant minors), Harold argues that Law 20F5(a) applies and that the UI laws and 20/40/75 do not. So his answer to the reversed situation is unilluminating -- of course he follows Law 20F5(a) The MS is that in the unreversed situation, Law 20F5(a) does not apply, and that the answer has to be "for the minors" because of the UI laws and/or Law 20/40/75. The reversed situation pits the UI laws against Law 20/40/75. So votes are useful/interesting/illuminating only for people who voted the MS way in the first situation. Sorry Herman. It is interesting that their could be a division on this. Perhaps it does not occur often. I am willing to collect more votes or hear problems with my interpretations of people's opinions, and I would be happy to hear logical/rational arguments why either the UI laws do not apply in this reversed situation or why Law 20/40/75 in this situation. Sorry for the overused/excessive/annoying slashes. Bob From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 22 17:59:59 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:59:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <000f01c91ccc$443945c0$ccabd140$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ........... > 4. If there is any reason concerning equity or logic why Law 67 should not > be invoked, I would very much like to hear it (or be reminded of it). Say that West holds 12 cards of his own and in addition a surplus card while North holds 14 cards, namely his own 13 cards plus the card that is missing in West. North failed to count his cards initially. When the situation is discovered West has already played his "surplus" card to a trick. How do you want the ruling? Has West revoked? (The laws must be written to cater for this situation as well) Regards Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Mon Sep 22 18:00:32 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:00:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E2FBD@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Bob writes: > I am willing to collect more votes or hear problems with my > interpretations of people's opinions, and I would be happy to hear > logical/rational arguments why either the UI laws do not apply in this > reversed situation or why Law 20/40/75 in this situation. Sorry for the > overused/excessive/annoying slashes. Arguments for using UI to give the correct explanation of agreements 1. Law 16B refers to UI influencing "calls or plays" not explanations. 2. The EBU Laws and Ethics committee have made this explicit (in the Orange Book, section 3D7): "It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert or explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help in the bidding and play." Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From schoderb at msn.com Mon Sep 22 18:42:48 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:42:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: I very much like what John has written below. AS to Laws 13 and 67 (Frick and others). Is it so hard to understand that Law 13 deals with INCORRECT NUMBER OF CARDS IN THE HAND, and Law 67 deals with A DEFECTIVE TRICK -- incorrect as to the number of cards played to it? Law 67 has to do with CARDS TO A TRICK -- NOT HOW MANY CARDS ARE IN THE HAND. So why would you go there when you are dealing with fixing a trick? I can't help but again draw notice to Edgar's longtime and guiding principle in the use of the Laws. when a law exists that addresses the SPECIFIC irregularity we go to that Law for what to do. When that law finds it necessary to give additional guidance it does so by referencing the appropriate additional place to look for it. All this noise about Law 1, etc., painfully blended into what are for the most simple, direct, and fully covered rectifications so that the game can continue must be fun for those who also look under the bed for ghosts. Kojak (Unable to just "delete" all the time since the BLML diatribes, and flights of fancy seem to be affecting the TDs who erroneously look there for guidance.) > On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:11:35 -0400, John (MadDog) Probst > wrote: > > > How's my double whisky doing? :) Why don't we just read what the Law > > says and do it. 13F is an island entire of itself, and couldn't be more > > explicit (Well it could, but it's easily good enough). My only concern > > is that maybe Law 1(DALB's favourite Law) over-rides it. The first and > > obvious point is that we are not playing bridge. "Bridge is played with > > a deck of fifty two (52) cards. ... " It even tells us what they are. If > > you play a card game with 53 cards it *can't* be bridge. > > > > Now the Laws in various places tell us what to do when we don't have > > enough cards. "... make a search ..." ""deemed ... continuously". Great > > we have a rule which means we *can* play bridge with 51 cards, and we > > will probably conlude that if we didn't play the missing card when we > > were required to then we revoked. ... and we can fight our way to the > > end of a hand and get a bridge result. > > > > The laws tell us what to do when the 52 cards are incorrectly > > distributed. That's ok, it's still bridge (Vide Law 1) > > > > The Laws tell us what to do if we have too many cards. Remember _*We are > > not playing bridge*_. Ok, we do what 13F say. We remove one instance of > > the offending card. Under some circumstances we may be able to get a > > bridge result; well, actually a result that looks like a bridge result > > from playing a game only vaguely related to the game defined by "The > > Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007" (Vide Law 1) and rather mischievously > > scooped up in Law 13F. We may not look anywhere else and so if we can't > > arrange to find a bridge score (such as when both instances of the card > > have been played - It's now so grossly NOT bridge we're going to have to > > give up] we consult 13F and it tells us we may award an adjusted score. > > I guess if we can't decide what the adjusted score should be, we could > > invoke Law 1 and execute various bastinado opportunities for failing to > > follow 7B2. > > > > A more interesting variant of this problem arises when we have 2 S6's > > and no S9. Again we're not playing bridge; 13F tells us to remove the > > surplus card and now we have a deficient deck, but we can't go to Law > > 14, or 67, or anywhwere. 13F is completely clear. John > > 1. Law 13F does not say that we should go to Law 67 if the surplus card is > removed from a quitted trick. But it also does not say we cannot or should > not. To me, a logical interpretation is that we remove the surplus card > and then deal with the situation as described in the laws. Which means > going to Law 67 when the surplus card is removed from a quitted trick. (I > know, the reference to Law 67 was deleted -- but are we supposed to rule > on the basis of that?) > > 2. IMO, a surplus card should be dealt with in the same way as a missing > card. That's logical to me. I can't see any problems. The player with the > missing/surplus card is the OS. THe missin card is presumed to have > belonged to the hand all of the time, and the surplus card is presumed to > have never been in the hand. I admit, there should be something about > removing the surplus card can change ownership of the quitted trick, and > adjustments may need to be made whenever the surplus card is led to a > trick or wins a trick. > > 3. I happen to think that Law 67 was unnecessarily made more punitive. But > the player with the extra card is still the offending side, and I > personally don't find any problems equity-wise with moving to Law 67 when > applicable. It ends up usually being a one-trick penalty for playing a > surplus card to a quitted trick (with exceptions, e.g., 12th trick, dummy, > etc.) with multiple laws to cover rectification if one trick is not > enough. Mike Amos did not complain about having to apply Law 67 in this > situation. In a way, his complaint is about being told not to apply Law 67 > in this situation. > > 4. If there is any reason concerning equity or logic why Law 67 should not > be invoked, I would very much like to hear it (or be reminded of it). > > > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 22 18:52:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:52:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8231CEA6-D28F-49AE-B216-A40BE1085CBA@starpower.net> On Sep 22, 2008, at 3:21 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 21/09/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> To summarize (and to get this back on track): >>> >>> I bid 4NT for the minors (a misbid, 4NT is systemically Blackwood). >>> Partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, which is the right explanation >>> (or so >>> I believe). >>> Partner bids 5D, showing some number of aces. >>> Opponent asks about 5D. >>> I have to explain this as some number of aces (as this is the >>> correct >>> explanation as per system, if my memory at last serves me >>> correctly, it >>> looks like it did not do so when I selcted my 4NT call), then >>> continue >>> to call as if partner had shown diamond preference, as his >>> explanation >>> is UI to me. Thereafter the TD will have to find out what our >>> system is >>> (MI/misbid issue). >> >> This is the answer I was expecting - I had not dared to realize there >> was any other answer possible. >> Please note that the answer is directly opposite from that by >> Stephanie >> and Sven, meaning we now clearly have three schools, the dWS, the SSS >> (Stephanie-Sven-school) and the MS (no Matthias, not yet the >> Matthias-school) >> >> Anyone care to join either of these two new schools - or to tell >> either >> Sven and Stephanie or Matthias who has it wrong? > > I'm rather astonished by the replies here by Stephanie and Sven. > Of course, when you KNOW that 4NT=Blackwood is your systemic > agreement, you have to explaing the 5D response as the systemic number > of aces shown. That's all just fine in theory, but in real life, knowing that you disagree with partner as to your systemic agreement, you cannot "KNOW" which one of you is right; you can at best ASSUME that you know. And if you get to assume, you can assume either way, which means you can assume whichever way is appears to be to your advantage. That's the way Herman's version of the dWS works (he argues that you "get to decide which law to break"), and why it looks so much like cheating to the uninitiated. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to the opponents whether you tell them what you think partner's intention is because you decided it was to your advantage to do so (as Herman would) or because you decided to "know" that it's the correct explanation (as Harald would). This is not a choice that should be left to the player. To be workable and consistent, the law should require you to PRESUME (as opposed to "assume") that either you or your partner are correct. Stefanie and Sven argue that you are currently required to presume that your (original) assumption was correct, which is both a consistent reading of current law and a workable approach. The alternative would mandate a dWS-like approach by requiring you to presume that partner's assumption was correct, and explain accordingly, which is equally workable, but a lot harder to reconcide with current law, Herman's repeated insistence to the contrary notwithstanding. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 22 19:00:03 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:00:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <000f01c91ccc$443945c0$ccabd140$@no> References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> <000f01c91ccc$443945c0$ccabd140$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:59:59 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ........... >> 4. If there is any reason concerning equity or logic why Law 67 should >> not >> be invoked, I would very much like to hear it (or be reminded of it). > > Say that West holds 12 cards of his own and in addition a surplus card > while > North holds 14 cards, namely his own 13 cards plus the card that is > missing > in West. North failed to count his cards initially. > > When the situation is discovered West has already played his "surplus" > card > to a trick. > > How do you want the ruling? Has West revoked? > > (The laws must be written to cater for this situation as well) Hi Sven. The laws cannot be written to explicitly cover every possible event. The book would be too heavy and be impractical read, etc., not to mention the infinite of unimaginable events. IMO, at some point the gaps have to be filled in with a director making wise decisions. So I disagree that this likely-never-to-occur situation has to be covered. In this example, I would remove the surplus card. Now the deal falls into Law 14, except that E-W are not an offending side. So I would ensure that the resulting ruling is equitable for EW. (BTW, I have a webpage against blindly following rules and ignoring equity in unexpected situations -- http://bridge.rfrick.info/tdintro.htm). Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 22 19:05:16 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:05:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <003101c91c98$97b5ca90$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> <48D75F3F.1040904@skynet.be> <003101c91c98$97b5ca90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4D44D07C-68D2-400A-9409-B88CA84BBB24@starpower.net> On Sep 22, 2008, at 5:49 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ It was obviously our great loss that Mike was not among > the individuals his Federation invited to peruse the draft laws > when NBOs were invited to express their opinions in 2006. Probably less of a loss than was suffered on the other side of the Atlantic, where *absolutely nobody* was "among the individuals [their] Federation['s LC] invited to peruse the draft laws..." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 22 19:55:34 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:55:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete (reply to Kojak) In-Reply-To: References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:42:48 -0400, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > I very much like what John has written below. AS to Laws 13 and 67 > (Frick and others). Is it so hard to understand that Law 13 deals with > INCORRECT NUMBER OF CARDS IN THE HAND, and Law 67 deals with A DEFECTIVE > TRICK -- > incorrect as to the number of cards played to it? I am not sure what you are saying. The surplus card is removed, as per Law 13F. When it was already played to a quitted trick, that makes the trick defective. It seems EXCEEDINGLY LOGICAL to use the law about defective tricks to deal with a defective trick. > Law 67 has to do with > CARDS TO A TRICK -- NOT HOW MANY CARDS ARE IN THE HAND. So why would > you go > there when you are dealing with fixing a trick? > > I can't help but again draw notice to Edgar's longtime and guiding > principle > in the use of the Laws. when a law exists that addresses the SPECIFIC > irregularity we go to that Law for what to do. When that law finds it > necessary to give additional guidance it does so by referencing the > appropriate additional place to look for it. My impression was that the laws sometimes told you further laws of possible relevance and sometimes did not. So, to pick a random law, 73C does not tell you where to go when it is violated. I have always assumed that the laws are VERY ACCURATE in telling you when a further seemingly-relevant law should not be applied. Law 27 B1(a), for example, specifically says that 16D does not apply. It would be frightening to think that Law 16D does not apply to, for example, L27B3 replacements. Am I reading the law wrong on this? But I agree, Law 13 should either specifically mention Law 67 or specifically deny that it should be used. > All this noise about Law 1, > etc., painfully blended into what are for the most simple, direct, and > fully > covered rectifications so that the game can continue must be fun for > those > who also look under the bed for ghosts. Mike Amos's asked WTF he supposed to do with a surplus card removed from a defective trick. He was not looking for ghosts. You will notice that perhaps the problem was caused by Max Bevin's advice NOT to go to Law 67. As I said, I am eager to hear any rational reason concerning logic or equity why we should or should not go to Law 67. Bob From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 20:08:01 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:08:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <8231CEA6-D28F-49AE-B216-A40BE1085CBA@starpower.net> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <8231CEA6-D28F-49AE-B216-A40BE1085CBA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48D7DF01.7060103@skynet.be> Eric is a strange one - sometimes he starts an argument that should convince him of the validity of dWS, and then he veers off and comes to the exact opposite conclusion. I think he does not want to believe his own reasoning. Eric Landau wrote: > > That's all just fine in theory, but in real life, knowing that you > disagree with partner as to your systemic agreement, you cannot > "KNOW" which one of you is right; you can at best ASSUME that you > know. Indeed. But that was the third question I was going to ask. In the second question, we assume a player is sufficiently satisfied that his partner has the right system. You've seen it happen to you as well. Your partner explains and you would hit your forehead if L20F5a would permit you. > And if you get to assume, you can assume either way, which > means you can assume whichever way is appears to be to your > advantage. That's the way Herman's version of the dWS works (he > argues that you "get to decide which law to break"), And this is precisely the wrong conclusion. In dWS, you DO NOT get to chose what to do. You MUST explain consistently. Yes, you are giving MI, or not, you don't know that yet - but you do NOT break L20F5a. This is no different than what happens without a follow-up question. When your partner misexplains, you do not need to decide whether that explanation is correct or not, you simply follow L20F5a and remain quiet. The new laws provide for even more standardisation - you are now allowed to check your SC before deciding whether or not to call the TD at the end of the bidding. > and why it looks > so much like cheating to the uninitiated. Does it look like cheating when you remain silent about partner's misexplanation? Why should this bother you even more? > Ultimately, it doesn't > matter to the opponents whether you tell them what you think > partner's intention is because you decided it was to your advantage > to do so (as Herman would) or because you decided to "know" that it's > the correct explanation (as Harald would). > > This is not a choice that should be left to the player. To be > workable and consistent, the law should require you to PRESUME (as > opposed to "assume") that either you or your partner are correct. Well, the dWS tells you to presume (for the moment) that partner is correct, and to explain consistently. Good analysis, incorrect conclusion, Eric. > Stefanie and Sven argue that you are currently required to presume > that your (original) assumption was correct, which is both a > consistent reading of current law and a workable approach. Indeed the SSS has that advantage - it has other disadvantages we don't need to get into, right now. > The > alternative would mandate a dWS-like approach by requiring you to > presume that partner's assumption was correct, and explain > accordingly, which is equally workable, but a lot harder to reconcide > with current law, Herman's repeated insistence to the contrary > notwithstanding. > If you are talking about SSS, which is even further from current law than dWS, then you should also allow talking of dWS. Again Eric, great analysis, why don't you take the logical next step and decide you want to support dWS? If you are worried about current law - you don't need to act on dWS right now (notwithstanding that I tell you there's really nothing wrong with it), but we need more people to understand it before we can convince Grattan not to go ahead with his insistence that the MS is the correct way forward for the WBF. It is not. > > Eric Landau Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 22 20:09:48 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:09:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Results. For reasons explained below, Herman's vote doesn't count. > > The problem: I bid 4NT. My partner explains this as Blackwood. I > meant it > for the > minors, but partner is right, our system defines it as Blackwood. > Now the > opponents ask me to explain his 5D bid. What do I say? > > Sven and Stephanie vote for explaining it as preference for diamonds, > arguing that the player cannot use UI to explain it as a Blackwood > response. I too vote for explaining it as preference for diamonds, but it has nothing to do with using UI. I simply reject out of hand the idea that just because partner said something inconsistent with my own previous thinking, I can now decide that I am 100% right that I was 100% wrong a few seconds ago. Undamaged human brains just don't work that way. > Richard, David Burns, Harold, and Matthias vote for explaining it as a > Blackwood response, arguing that Law 20/40/75 requires explaining a > bid in > terms of the agreed partnership meaning. (I couldn't find any > counterarguments for why the UI argument did not apply.) The problem is that Richard, David, Harold and Matthias get to decide for themselves whether to change their mind about what they thought they knew, and to disclose whichever view they decide to "know". And if the law imposes no presumption, there is no way to second-guess their decision. The only difference between that and what Herman does when he effectively pretends to "know" whichever explanation is to his advantage is the quality of their intentions -- but it can be awfully hard from the outside to tell the difference between choosing between explanations without regard to which is correct and delivering the explanation one has chosen to believe to be correct. > Why Herman's vote didn't count. In the unreversed situation (4NT > correctly > meant minors), Harold argues that Law 20F5(a) applies and that the > UI laws > and 20/40/75 do not. So his answer to the reversed situation is > unilluminating -- of course he follows Law 20F5(a) > > The MS is that in the unreversed situation, Law 20F5(a) does not > apply, > and that the answer has to be "for the minors" because of the UI laws > and/or Law 20/40/75. The reversed situation pits the UI laws > against Law > 20/40/75. So votes are useful/interesting/illuminating only for > people who > voted the MS way in the first situation. Sorry Herman. > > It is interesting that their could be a division on this. Perhaps > it does > not occur often. > > I am willing to collect more votes or hear problems with my > interpretations of people's opinions, and I would be happy to hear > logical/rational arguments why either the UI laws do not apply in this > reversed situation or why Law 20/40/75 in this situation. Sorry for > the > overused/excessive/annoying slashes. We can agree with Richard et al that the law requires you to offer an explanation inconsistent with your previous (and subsequent) bidding any time you are *certain* that that explanation is correct, while at the same time agreeing with me that knowing partner disagrees with your original assumption cannot be in itself sufficient for you to be certain that he is right. So whether you do or don't change your explanation based on UI from partner every time the conditions for doing so are met, you will do so zero times out of zero, and the answer to Robert's question won't matter. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 22 20:36:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:36:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D7DF01.7060103@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <8231CEA6-D28F-49AE-B216-A40BE1085CBA@starpower.net> <48D7DF01.7060103@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sep 22, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric is a strange one - sometimes he starts an argument that should > convince him of the validity of dWS, and then he veers off and > comes to > the exact opposite conclusion. I think he does not want to believe his > own reasoning. Herman confuses himself by conflating several defintions of "validity". AHD: "Validity (n): The state or quality of being valid." "Valid (adj): (1) Well-grounded; sound; supportable... (2) Producing the desired results; efficacious... (3) Legally sound..." I have consistently held the dWS approach to disclosure to be "valid" by definition (1). I have asked for a broader discussion as to whether it is "valid" by definition (2), and maintain an open mind on the subject. I reject any argument that it is valid by definition (3), and have asked that the question of its current legality be permanently banished from what could be an otherwise productive discussion of whether it meets definition (2). I do not believe there is any inconsistency in these positions. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 22 20:39:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:39:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> <000f01c91ccc$443945c0$ccabd140$@no> Message-ID: <000001c91ce2$85274620$8f75d260$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > > Say that West holds 12 cards of his own and in addition a surplus card > > while > > North holds 14 cards, namely his own 13 cards plus the card that is > > missing > > in West. North failed to count his cards initially. > > > > When the situation is discovered West has already played his "surplus" > > card > > to a trick. > > > > How do you want the ruling? Has West revoked? > > > > (The laws must be written to cater for this situation as well) > > Hi Sven. The laws cannot be written to explicitly cover every possible > event. Agreed. But my point is that if you take Law 13F literally and do not go to Law 67 because a trick that apparently was complete when it was played suddenly becomes incomplete then Law 13 covers all alternatives with a surplus card. And Law 13 is a specific law for this situation only and should override any more general law that might happen to seem applicable in the situation. This solution is not unreasonable when you look at it: The only person that has made an error is the one that failed to discover he had been given 14 cards instead of 13. So the only reaction that should be imposed is against this person. The player who in good faith has played the surplus card will most likely be the same person, OK, but if it isn't then he certainly hasn't done anything wrong and should not suffer from any formal error. When (as most likely) it is the same person then he should of course suffer from his failure to count his cards but not from technically having committed a revoke. Regards Sven The book would be too heavy and be impractical read, etc., not to > mention the infinite of unimaginable events. IMO, at some point the gaps > have to be filled in with a director making wise decisions. So I disagree > that this likely-never-to-occur situation has to be covered. > > In this example, I would remove the surplus card. Now the deal falls into > Law 14, except that E-W are not an offending side. So I would ensure that > the resulting ruling is equitable for EW. > > (BTW, I have a webpage against blindly following rules and ignoring equity > in unexpected situations -- http://bridge.rfrick.info/tdintro.htm). > > Bob From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 20:51:30 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:51:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48D7E932.7060802@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Sven and Stephanie vote for explaining it as preference for diamonds, >> arguing that the player cannot use UI to explain it as a Blackwood >> response. > > I too vote for explaining it as preference for diamonds, but it has > nothing to do with using UI. I simply reject out of hand the idea > that just because partner said something inconsistent with my own > previous thinking, I can now decide that I am 100% right that I was > 100% wrong a few seconds ago. Undamaged human brains just don't work > that way. > Shall I put you into the SSS then, Eric? >> Richard, David Burns, Harold, and Matthias vote for explaining it as a >> Blackwood response, arguing that Law 20/40/75 requires explaining a >> bid in >> terms of the agreed partnership meaning. (I couldn't find any >> counterarguments for why the UI argument did not apply.) > > The problem is that Richard, David, Harold and Matthias get to decide > for themselves whether to change their mind about what they thought > they knew, and to disclose whichever view they decide to "know". And > if the law imposes no presumption, there is no way to second-guess > their decision. The law tells us to explain the real system, and we can never be 100% certain about that. The MS position is no different from that. > The only difference between that and what Herman > does when he effectively pretends to "know" whichever explanation is > to his advantage is the quality of their intentions -- Yes, but this is not a decision taken at the table, only off it. If you decide to follow the dWS, you must do it always, and always explain consistently. It's easy, really. Partner has said he interpreted 4NT as Blackwood, and so you explain his 5Di as 1 ace - whether that is the correct systemic explanation or not. > but it can be > awfully hard from the outside to tell the difference between choosing > between explanations without regard to which is correct and > delivering the explanation one has chosen to believe to be correct. > I have not chosen if it is correct or not - I let the TD decide whether 4NT was meant to be Blackwood or not - and absent any evidence, I will accept that both the explanations Blackwood and 1 ace are in fact MI. > > Eric Landau Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 22 20:53:06 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:53:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> <0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............... > > Do we really want different rules depending on how sure you are > > about your > > partnership understandings? > > One would think not. Ugly, isn't it? It's bad enough to be required > to disclose something you do not know for certain, but even worse to > be required to act differently depending on your estimate of the > probability of being correct! Yet how can you be absolutely, > positively, 100% certain of your agreements when you know your > version of the truth disagrees with partner's? That is precisely the reason why I prefer that we should always give the explanation conforming with the understanding the player is required to apply during the auction even when he has discovered from UI that this understanding is wrong. Because opponents now have both that player's and his partner's explanations they are bound to notice the discrepancy and be aware of the misunderstanding. What is more important they are guaranteed to have the correct explanation if one could have been given at all by either player. And finally they have the possibility (with the help of the director) to get resolved which of the explanations (if any) is correct. If this isn't the best possible solution for opponents I don't know what could be. The partnership is usually heading for disaster anyway, but at least opponents cannot afterwards claim they were being misinformed. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 22 21:05:02 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:05:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete (reply to Kojak) In-Reply-To: References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <000201c91ce6$1e0b4280$5a21c780$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ........... > I am not sure what you are saying. The surplus card is removed, as per Law > 13F. When it was already played to a quitted trick, that makes the trick > defective. It seems EXCEEDINGLY LOGICAL to use the law about defective > tricks to deal with a defective trick. Only one small, but in my opinion important objection: Law 67 deals with a trick that is defective because a player has failed to contribute a card to that trick. When Law 13F has been applied because of a surplus card that has already been played the trick becomes defective not from a failure of that player to contribute a card to the trick but from the removal of a card that had been played to that trick by the player in good faith. There is a difference (as the boy and girl said when looking at each other). Regards Sven From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 22 21:34:46 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:34:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 08:11 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [blml] The Law Book should be complete > How's my double whisky doing? :) Why don't we just read what the Law says > and do it. 13F is an island entire of itself, and couldn't be more > explicit (Well it could, but it's easily good enough). My only concern is > that maybe Law 1(DALB's favourite Law) over-rides it. The first and > obvious point is that we are not playing bridge. "Bridge is played with a > deck of fifty two (52) cards. ... " It even tells us what they are. If you > play a card game with 53 cards it *can't* be bridge. > > Now the Laws in various places tell us what to do when we don't have > enough cards. "... make a search ..." ""deemed ... continuously". Great > we have a rule which means we *can* play bridge with 51 cards, and we will > probably conlude that if we didn't play the missing card when we were > required to then we revoked. ... and we can fight our way to the end of a > hand and get a bridge result. > > The laws tell us what to do when the 52 cards are incorrectly distributed. > That's ok, it's still bridge (Vide Law 1) > > The Laws tell us what to do if we have too many cards. Remember _*We are > not playing bridge*_. Ok, we do what 13F say. We remove one instance of > the offending card. Under some circumstances we may be able to get a > bridge result; well, actually a result that looks like a bridge result > from playing a game only vaguely related to the game defined by "The Laws > of Duplicate Bridge 2007" (Vide Law 1) and rather mischievously scooped up > in Law 13F. We may not look anywhere else and so if we can't arrange to > find a bridge score (such as when both instances of the card have been > played - It's now so grossly NOT bridge we're going to have to give up] we > consult 13F and it tells us we may award an adjusted score. I guess if we > can't decide what the adjusted score should be, we could invoke Law 1 and > execute various bastinado opportunities for failing to follow 7B2. > > A more interesting variant of this problem arises when we have 2 S6's and > no S9. Again we're not playing bridge; 13F tells us to remove the surplus > card and now we have a deficient deck, but we can't go to Law 14, or 67, > or anywhwere. 13F is completely clear. John Earlier this year an event occurred for which I have been waiting some 15 years to witness if for no other reason than I was curious to see how it can be done [and having devised an appropriate mechanism for dealing with it]. To wit, LHO played the SQ to a trick and as the trick was becoming complete conversation erupted that seemed to relate to one or more players playing or not playing to a trick, LHO then took a card from hand and placed it among played cards and returned the SQ to hand all rather natural like. Later in the hand the SQ materialized again as part of a trick. Here there weren't too many cards or too few cards [notice it is by the number of cards that the law prescribes what to do]. The problem of course was that there were wrong cards. The sensible thing to do is to first make the cards right [it necessarily being important to ascertain how they became wrong] and then prosecute any offenses that occurred consequent the original play of the SQ. regards roger pewick > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike Amos > To: blml at amsterdamned.org > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 8:04 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] The Law Book should be complete > > > It's along time since I subscribed to BLML, although I have regularly > looked at the archives. > > I'm a National TD for the EBU, a member of the EBL panel and I direct > often at a range of local, regional, national and junior events. I > probalby am as active a practical TD as any in England. > > I am a member of the EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee (may God forgive me) > > Currently i have a bad back which makes me grumpy and bad-tempered (well > even more grumpy and bad-tempered than usual) > > The 2007 Law Book fills me with horror and despair. BLML fills me with > horror and despair times a thousand. > > The EBU has 25,000 members or so. I guess less than 20 or so of those > understand the DwS debate and only maybe two of these care. Not one of > them cheats by passing messages to team mates by sorting or not sorting > their cards, but more than a thousand are pissed off by Law 7C. > > After 1997, when attention was drawn to the fabulous Law Books > deficiencies, we were often told that towards the end of his life the > immortal Edgar Kaplan (well ok not so immortal) was secretive and not good > at sharing - What's the excuse ths time? Law 27 was an expletive deleted > unmitigated disaster - we were promised appendices with examples but so > far ...... Even after the rewrite of Law 27 and Max's paper to the EBL, > the average Club or Regional Director is very unsure of how to proceed. > > I could go on (rant deleted) > I recently ran a training course for aspiring TDs > > So Law 13F > > Clearly Law Book1997 was defective. No mention of surplus cards. > Grattan put this in his little notebook and so a new Law was born. It has > three sentences. The scenario I composed for our TD course was of course > naive, I foolishly asked a question without enough thought and so was > caught in the embarassing position of not knowing what the answer to my > own question was. I humbly suggest that those of you who have confidently > answered haven't really read the Law and worked your way through. > > F. Surplus Card > Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if > > found. The auction and play continue unaffected. If such > > a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an > > adjusted score may be awarded. > > The first sentence is very clear. Even I can do that (well ok I admit it > will be easy if 52 have blue backs and 1 a red back but think about > situations where its not so clear). Move on. The auction and play > continue unaffected. That really doesn't work too well does it? In my > scenario, the six of Spades was removed from the quitted tricks , but???? > What next should they go on with 8,8,8,9 cards? or whatever? How is this > normal? In a draft version the Law had this addition > > These bits are in a draft verson but have been deleted > > Law 67B1 applies*. > > * If the card removed won the trick and is not replaced with a card > winning the trick the Director awards an artificial adjusted score and may > penalize an offender with an incorrect number of cards. > > Not so surprised they deleted this - why an artificial adjusted score? > and why not just apply Law 67? > > But without the reference to Law 67 can the TD really apply the defective > trick approach? Max Bavin has suggested to me that this is not an option. > Law 13F offers us one and only one option. > > If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an > > adjusted score may be awarded. > > I have no idea what this means. Should I rule as if the surplus card > wasn't there? Should I rule as if there has been a defective trick? > Artificial? Adjusted? What is sure is the Law makers don't know > either...... and that makes me mad. They have been messing about for ten > years and frankly I see no progress, just more mess and confusion. > > My friends in the local clubs don't see that the Law Book has any > relevance to the game they play. I'd like to persuade them that they are > wrong. Sadly I cannot > > Mike From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 22 22:05:33 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:05:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop><48D75F3F.1040904@skynet.be><003101c91c98$97b5ca90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <4D44D07C-68D2-400A-9409-B88CA84BBB24@starpower.net> Message-ID: <004d01c91cee$c6ceb700$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The Law Book should be complete > On Sep 22, 2008, at 5:49 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ It was obviously our great loss that Mike was not among >> the individuals his Federation invited to peruse the draft laws >> when NBOs were invited to express their opinions in 2006. > > Probably less of a loss than was suffered on the other side of the > Atlantic, where *absolutely nobody* was "among the individuals > [their] Federation['s LC] invited to peruse the draft laws..." > > > Eric Landau < +=+ I feel much more able to criticize the Federation to which I pay subscriptions than any other. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 22 22:18:24 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:18:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Look not upwards. Message-ID: <00b101c91cf8$6467a130$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no><0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no> Message-ID: <00b201c91cf8$64bfd350$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > If this isn't the best possible solution for opponents I don't know what could be. The partnership is usually heading for disaster anyway, but at least opponents cannot afterwards claim they were being misinformed. > +=+ I wonder, Sven, if anyone has reminded you of the Venice Cup appeal in Perth in which North proceeded to 6H when South had shown a void and enquired about keycards. North had replied with a bid that showed one or four and South had put her into her final contract. Upon enquiry North explained to her screenmate, on lead, that she had shown 1 or 4 keycards. However, it subsequently transpired that the bid North had selected to show her holding actually showed zero or three key cards and East claimed damage, on the grounds that if she had been told the correct meaning of the bid (rather than the meaning North had intended to convey) she would have led her singleton to partner's Ace and a ruff. The appeal succeeded, Edgar Kaplan explaining to the AC that East was entitled to correct information systemically. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 22 23:44:01 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:44:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> <0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no> Message-ID: <48D811A1.6070907@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > That is precisely the reason why I prefer that we should always give the > explanation conforming with the understanding the player is required to > apply during the auction even when he has discovered from UI that this > understanding is wrong. Because opponents now have both that player's and > his partner's explanations they are bound to notice the discrepancy and be > aware of the misunderstanding. What is more important they are guaranteed to > have the correct explanation if one could have been given at all by either > player. And finally they have the possibility (with the help of the > director) to get resolved which of the explanations (if any) is correct. > > If this isn't the best possible solution for opponents I don't know what > could be. The partnership is usually heading for disaster anyway, but at > least opponents cannot afterwards claim they were being misinformed. > Very true, Sven, but how do you reconcile this with L20F5a? If there is no second question, the misinformation will not be corrected, and the misunderstanding will not be revealed. The opponents will be worse off than in the situation you describe above. Yet the lawmakers accepted this situation. You wish to go further against the misunderstanders - even when that is you. Now do you see why I call you masochistic? Trust me, Sven, I am not against your wishes here - they are the second most consistent around. But you should continue your consistence and work for the total turning around of L20F5a. OK? > Regards Sven > Herman. From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 23 00:55:44 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:55:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <00b201c91cf8$64bfd350$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no><0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no> <00b201c91cf8$64bfd350$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601c91d06$587e20c0$097a6240$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan ................. > If this isn't the best possible solution for opponents I don't > know what could be. The partnership is usually heading for > disaster anyway, but at least opponents cannot afterwards > claim they were being misinformed. > > > +=+ I wonder, Sven, if anyone has reminded you of the > Venice Cup appeal in Perth in which North proceeded > to 6H when South had shown a void and enquired about > keycards. North had replied with a bid that showed one > or four and South had put her into her final contract. > Upon enquiry North explained to her screenmate, > on lead, that she had shown 1 or 4 keycards. However, > it subsequently transpired that the bid North had selected > to show her holding actually showed zero or three key > cards and East claimed damage, on the grounds that if > she had been told the correct meaning of the bid (rather > than the meaning North had intended to convey) she > would have led her singleton to partner's Ace and a ruff. > The appeal succeeded, Edgar Kaplan explaining to the AC > that East was entitled to correct information systemically. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The short answer is NO, it has not been mentioned (at least not that I have noticed). I find this case interesting and do indeed agree with the AC.. (However, I am a bit puzzled: North actually held a keycard MORE than she systemically showed?) The funny fact is that this could never have become a case without screens in use so it is not very relevant for the ongoing discussion related to dWs? Without screens the auction would have been the same, but both East and West would now have been given the correct systemic explanation zero or three key cards (by South) and North would have bit her tongue for her misbid (but hopefully not shown any reaction). This is not the first case I have seen with differing information given on the two sides of a screen, and I certainly don't believe it will be the last. My immediate reaction is that maybe during the clarification period presumed declarer and dummy should exchange the information they have given to opponents so that any misinformation either of them has given to opponents can be rectified as prescribed in Law 20F5(b)? I don't think that we in Norway have any such rule in our regulations on the use of screens, I wonder if any RA has? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 23 01:01:44 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:01:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D811A1.6070907@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> <0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no> <48D811A1.6070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c91d07$2f1b61b0$8d522510$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 22. september 2008 23:44 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > That is precisely the reason why I prefer that we should always give the > > explanation conforming with the understanding the player is required to > > apply during the auction even when he has discovered from UI that this > > understanding is wrong. Because opponents now have both that player's and > > his partner's explanations they are bound to notice the discrepancy and be > > aware of the misunderstanding. What is more important they are guaranteed to > > have the correct explanation if one could have been given at all by either > > player. And finally they have the possibility (with the help of the > > director) to get resolved which of the explanations (if any) is correct. > > > > If this isn't the best possible solution for opponents I don't know what > > could be. The partnership is usually heading for disaster anyway, but at > > least opponents cannot afterwards claim they were being misinformed. > > > > Very true, Sven, but how do you reconcile this with L20F5a? > If there is no second question, the misinformation will not be > corrected, and the misunderstanding will not be revealed. Sure it will, unless the players are cheats, and I don't consider cheats at all. The relevant law in your last situation is L20F5(b), not L20F5(a). > The opponents will be worse off than in the situation you describe above. Not with fair play. Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 23 01:06:46 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:06:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <4D44D07C-68D2-400A-9409-B88CA84BBB24@starpower.net> References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> <48D75F3F.1040904@skynet.be> <003101c91c98$97b5ca90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <4D44D07C-68D2-400A-9409-B88CA84BBB24@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48D82506.5000904@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Probably less of a loss than was suffered on the other side of the Atlantic, where *absolutely nobody* was "among the individuals [their] Federation['s LC] invited to peruse the draft laws..." [Nige1] Either Grattan or Eric is telling porkies; but in any case I reckon that more *players* should have been allowed to make constructive criticisms. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 23 01:14:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:14:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matthias vs Sven [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D74496.5020408@skynet.be> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: [big snip] >We can agree with Richard et al that the law requires >you to offer an explanation inconsistent with your >previous (and subsequent) bidding any time you are >*certain* that that explanation is correct, while at >the same time agreeing with me that knowing partner >disagrees with your original assumption cannot be in >itself sufficient for you to be certain that he is >right. [snip] Richard Hills disagrees: Two answers. (1) The practical answer. When partner unexpectedly alerts or fails to alert, or gives an unexpected explanation, almost always that is a sufficient memory jogger for you to correctly decide whether: (a) partner is right (and you have misbid and misexplained), Law 20F4 and Law 75A applies, or (b) you are right (and partner has misexplained), Law 20F5 and Law 75A applies. (2) The theoretical answer. You are required by Law to describe partner's call correctly. You are not required by Law to be _certain_ that you are describing partner's call correctly. But you are required by Law not to _intentionally_ misdescribe partner's call. Since a Director would apply the Law 85A1 "balance of probabilities" criterion when assessing whether you have infracted Law 72B1 "infringe a law intentionally", it seems to me that "balance of probabilities" rather than "certain" is the correct criterion for your Law 20F4 correction. 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 Sep 23 01:26:47 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:26:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: <48D82506.5000904@NTLworld.com> References: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> <48D75F3F.1040904@skynet.be> <003101c91c98$97b5ca90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <4D44D07C-68D2-400A-9409-B88CA84BBB24@starpower.net> <48D82506.5000904@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48D829B7.7010602@t-online.de> Guthrie schrieb: > [Eric Landau] > Probably less of a loss than was suffered on the other side of the > Atlantic, where *absolutely nobody* was "among the individuals > [their] Federation['s LC] invited to peruse the draft laws..." > > [Nige1] > Either Grattan or Eric is telling porkies; but in any case I reckon that > more *players* should have been allowed to make constructive criticisms. > I have no reliable information about that matter, but I fail to see where Grattan and Eric contradict each other, Grattan being a member of the EBU and Eric living in ACBL-land.... Best regards Matthias From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 23 02:02:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:02:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D82506.5000904@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>>Probably less of a loss than was suffered on the other side >>>of the Atlantic, where *absolutely nobody* was "among the >>>individuals [their] Federation['s LC] invited to peruse the >>>draft laws..." Nigel Guthrie: >>Either Grattan or Eric is telling porkies; but in any case I >>reckon that more *players* should have been allowed to make >>constructive criticisms. Matthias Berghaus: >I have no reliable information about that matter, but I fail >to see where Grattan and Eric contradict each other, Grattan >being a member of the EBU and Eric living in ACBL-land.... Richard Hills: Eric presumably considers members of the ACBL Laws Commission as absolute nobodies. :-) Nigel presumably considers ACBL LC member Adam Wildavsky as not a *player*, despite Adam winning a bronze medal in the Bermuda Bowl. :-) Indeed, as mentioned in an earlier thread, the Chairman of the Laws Drafting Committee, John Wignall, is still a *player* of note, and in his salad days John almost qualified for the semi-finals of the 1983 Bermuda Bowl. 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 Sep 23 02:58:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:58:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matthias vs Sven [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote: >Without bothering about the entire post: Richard Hills notes: This posting by Sven originally appeared as a response to a Herman De Wael posting on one of the endless dWS threads. Since, in my opinion, the debate on the De Wael interpretation of the 1997 Law 75D2 / 2007 Law 20F5(a) has been more than adequately explored on blml over the past half- dozen years (Grattan Endicott used the word "tedium"), I have taken the liberty of transferring Sven's comment to this thread and snipping its second paragraph, which was relevant only to the De Wael School (apologies to Sven for any perceived breaches of blml netiquette). Sven Pran discussed 1997 Law 75D1 / 2007 Law 20F4: >My opinion is that according to the laws a player >must always when requested disclose what he >(legally) thinks are their partnership >understandings and nothing else. ("Legally" >implies that he may not modify his own >understanding during the auction if he learns from >UI received that this understanding was >incorrect.) [snip] 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: In my opinion, Sven's interpretation of "legal" may well have been correct under the 1997 Lawbook, since the 1997 Law 16 was much less specific on what unauthorised information was, and under what circumstances extraneous information could or could not be used. But under the 2007 Law 16 it is not good enough for Sven to simply state "implies". The 2007 Law 16A3 and the 2007 Law 16B1(a) specifically refer only to "call or play", so I cannot see how that "implies" that those Laws actually mean "call or play or explanation". 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 Sep 23 03:43:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:43:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6A9A1C4C015A4398AB36864D003B0EB1@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: Mike Amos, EBU L&EC member: >The 2007 Law Book fills me with horror and despair. Richard Hills, quibbler: There is a cynical observation about politicians and elections, "Why vote? It only encourages them." But I always vote, because in my opinion there is always a choice between "bad" and "worse". And because Australia has compulsory voting. :-) Likewise, the 2007 Lawbook fills me with less horror and despair than the 1997 Lawbook did. For example, the 2007 Law 40 is a vast improvement on the 1997 Law 40, and I like the consolidation of the 1997 Laws 12, 88 and 89 into one place as the 2007 Law 12. Mike Amos, EBU L&EC member: >BLML fills me with horror and despair times a >thousand. Richard Hills, quibbler: Some ambiguities in the 1997 Lawbook were identified by blml debate, so fixed in the 2007 Lawbook (notably the new 2007 Law 65B3). Mike Amos, EBU L&EC member: >The EBU has 25,000 members or so. I guess less than >20 or so of those understand the DwS debate and only >maybe two of these care. Richard Hills, quibbler: But on the broader question, "Is an unintentional hesitation an irregularity?", thousand of bridge players across the world are confused (including some members of the ACBL Laws Commission). So the broader topic of UI might usefully be dealt with in the mooted 2008 Appendix to the 2007 Lawbook Mike Amos, EBU L&EC member: >Not one of them cheats by passing messages to team >mates by sorting or not sorting their cards, but more >than a thousand are pissed off by Law 7C. Richard Hills, quibbler: While some Canberra Bridge Club and South Canberra Bridge Club colleagues have asked me about the reason for Law 7C, any complaints they might have had were stillborn when they were told it was to prevent any _unintentional_ transfer of UI to the adjacent table (not necessarily team-mates). When the cards have been stuffed in play order back into the slot, it is often quite easy to deduce if your long suit was the trump suit at the previous table. 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 grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 23 04:06:49 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:06:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] What does a break in tempo demonstrably suggest? Message-ID: Las Vegas NABC+ case 4: W N E S 1H P 2D P 3D P 3H 3S 4C P 4D P 4H P 4S P 4NT P ..5H This slow 5H bid shows something, but what? I can think of several meanings: Choosing to suppress a trump queen with a bad hand to avoid forcing to slam with 5S. Two keycards and a void he decided not to show. Not sure whether there are five or six keycards on this auction, and holding the DK and either one or two others. (Probably the actual situation.) Two of six keycards and only one of the trump queens, not sure which one should be shown. Two of six keycards and extra length in diamonds, concerned about bidding 5S because the final contract could be 6H. Two keycards and minimum values, choosing not to suppress one. (This could also be the actual situation.) Three keycards and suppressing one with minimum values. The TD and AC need to determine what it demonstrably suggests in order to make a ruling, and the appeals write-up doesn't indicate that they did. The actual South hand (T 853 AK643 KQ43) suggests passing over bidding 6D or 6H, but several of the other explanations suggest bidding over passing. That said, the AC ruling appears to be correct because North ruled out the DK issue. North said that he passed 5H because he expected to lose two tricks despite South's two aces. (At least, I think that is what he said; he could have also expected to lose a spade and a heart because he placed South with DAK and no SA.) If you bid Blackwood and partner shows all the key cards, you are supposed to go to slam. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Sep 23 05:17:48 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:17:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Key points in casebooks Message-ID: By putting a ruling in a casebook, a ruling principle can be publicized, and hopefully players can be educated about the principles involved. At other times, the ruling sets a precedent which may be good or bad. There are cases of both types in Las Vegas. Weak players often ask questions about the auction when the auction appears to be over, rather than when it is actually over. This is a bad practice, and in both NABC+ Case 10 and non-NABC+ Case 10, players lost cases because of it. The defender not on opening lead asked about an artificial call (one unexpected alert, and one Blackwood response) before the final passes, partner led the suit, and the TD and AC disallowed the good result from the lead. The wording in NABC+ Case 10 was deservedly strong: "The committee seriously considered an additional procedural penalty (PP) against West [should be East], who asked the worst kind of question at the least appropriate time." East should have asked the question after West put his lead face down. In non-NABC+ Case 19, a precedent seems to have been established, and I have seen one previous case, I think back in 1995. "While it may not have been much more tha ten seconds, which is the length of time she is supposed to wait after a skip bid, in actual practice nobody hesitates at all after the auction 1NT - 3NT. Any BIT at all, therefore, constitutes UI for partner." The claimed hesitation of 20 seconds is unusually long on this auction, and a ruling based on the hesitation being too long would be reasonable. But a 10-second hesitation is allowed by the regulations, and I believe it is dangerous to create a precedent that such a hesitation still passes UI (or MI if it is done without anything to think about). From adam at tameware.com Tue Sep 23 06:50:15 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:50:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48CF7621.9020305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <694eadd40809222150o646ae219r7abd3fcc705ac1c1@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:09 PM, wrote: > Another error made by the AC was deciding the issue from scratch. > > WBF Code of Practice, "Inclination of Committee", 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." The AC may have erred, but not in that respect. The WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees is not in effect in the ACBL. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Sep 23 07:48:41 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:48:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000001c91c97$f67b87a0$e37296e0$@com> References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> <000001c91c97$f67b87a0$e37296e0$@com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080923153926.03f12008@mail.optusnet.com.au> >[DALB] > >No, you don't. You answer that it shows one ace, because that is what it >shows according to your methods, and that is what the opponents are entitled >to know. You then pass it, because you are not allowed to be reminded by >partner's reply to your question that 4NT was Blackwood. You see, partner's >answer to your question is not an indication to you at all. Not in any >manner. > >David Burn >London, England Thanks David for this simple and exactly correct answer. I have taken the liberty of clipping it into my copy of the law book, along with Grattan's comments on L20F. I see that once again it will be unlikely for the WBFLC to lower themselves to placing a minute on record about the correct reading of this law, however it would be of immense benefit to mug punters. L75 is a model which can be understood even by me, as it was in 2007. Our own NA, I believe, have enough trouble getting a cogent interpretation of L27 out to its TDs and I have seen nothing to indicate that they see any problem with L20F. It would be great if Beijing produces a couple of nice examples of L27 in action. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 23 08:49:25 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:49:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matthias vs Sven [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48D74496.5020408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c91d48$86ba31d0$942e9570$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ............. > (2) The theoretical answer. You are required by Law to > describe partner's call correctly. You are not > required by Law to be _certain_ that you are describing > partner's call correctly. But you are required by Law > not to _intentionally_ misdescribe partner's call. Just to make that clear and to avoid possible misunderstanding of law: A player is specifically required (Law 75C) to describe his partner's call correctly according to their partnership understandings even if he "knows" that this is an incorrect description of the actual hand. It doesn't matter how he "knows"; opponents are entitled to get a description of partnership understanding, not of the partner's hand. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 23 09:01:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:01:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tony Musgrove (was dWS) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn: No, you don't. You answer that it shows one ace, because that is what it shows according to your methods, and that is what the opponents are entitled to know. You then pass it, because you are not allowed to be reminded by partner's reply to your question that 4NT was Blackwood. You see, partner's answer to your question is not an indication to you at all. Not in any manner. Tony Musgrove: Thanks David for this simple and exactly correct answer. I have taken the liberty of clipping it into my copy of the law book, Richard Hills: Simple, but not quite exactly correct. There is a nuance from Harald Skj?ran: .....That is, if your intention when you bid 4NT was to pass partner's preference, that's what you've got to do now. If your intention was to raise the preference to slam, that is also what you've got to do now. And if you had a borderline decision between passing and raising, and you now know that you're off two aces (from partner's BW response), the UI tells you to pass, but now you have to bid the slam. Tony Musgrove: along with Grattan's comments on L20F. I see that once again it will be unlikely for the WBFLC to lower themselves to placing a minute on record about the correct reading of this law, however it would be of immense benefit to mug punters. L75 is a model which can be understood even by me, as it was in 2007. Richard Hills: Perhaps the now-obsolete Commentary on the 1987 Lawbook could be used as a template or indicative example for the design of the 2008 Appendix to the 2007 Lawbook. Tony Musgrove: Our own NA, I believe, have enough trouble getting a cogent interpretation of L27 out to its TDs and I have seen nothing to indicate that they see any problem with L20F. It would be great if Beijing produces a couple of nice examples of L27 in action. Richard Hills: There are various Zonal interpretations of Law 27 on various webpages, but a uniform world-wide interpretation of Law 27 (with examples) in an Appendix would be desirable, especially if that Appendix could be incorporated into future hard-copy reprints of the Lawbook. Indeed, when I was a Chess Director many moons ago, side-by-side for each Law of Chess was an official italicised commentary on that 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Sep 23 09:13:07 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:13:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tony Musgrove (was dWS) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080923171132.03f12008@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 05:01 PM 23/09/2008, you wrote: >David Burn: > >No, you don't. You answer that it shows one ace, because that is >what it shows according to your methods, and that is what the >opponents are entitled to know. You then pass it, because you are >not allowed to be reminded by partner's reply to your question >that 4NT was Blackwood. You see, partner's answer to your >question is not an indication to you at all. Not in any manner. > >Tony Musgrove: > >Thanks David for this simple and exactly correct answer. I have >taken the liberty of clipping it into my copy of the law book, > >Richard Hills: > >Simple, but not quite exactly correct. There is a nuance from > >Harald Skj?ran: > >.....That is, if your intention when you bid 4NT was to pass >partner's preference, that's what you've got to do now. If your >intention was to raise the preference to slam, that is also what >you've got to do now. And if you had a borderline decision between >passing and raising, and you now know that you're off two aces >(from partner's BW response), the UI tells you to pass, but now >you have to bid the slam. Duly noted thanks. Of theoretical interest only for me. I have enough problems working out how many Key cards I have, let alone how many partner is showing Cheers, Tony From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 23 09:35:46 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:35:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000701c91d07$2f1b61b0$8d522510$@no> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> <0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no> <48D811A1.6070907@skynet.be> <000701c91d07$2f1b61b0$8d522510$@no> Message-ID: <48D89C52.9050700@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >> Very true, Sven, but how do you reconcile this with L20F5a? >> If there is no second question, the misinformation will not be >> corrected, and the misunderstanding will not be revealed. > > Sure it will, unless the players are cheats, and I don't consider cheats at > all. > NO Sven, it won't, not during the auction! And yes, you're right, it will, during the clarification period, but ALSO under dWS. As soon as you stop having all these misconceptions about dWS, you'll probably see better. But of course I've been saying all this for ten years already, and do they listen ...? Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 23 10:17:32 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:17:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Your message to blml awaits moderator approval Message-ID: <003701c91d54$d84f64f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:05 AM Subject: Your message to blml awaits moderator approval > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Message has a suspicious header > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > notification of the moderator's decision. From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 23 10:27:28 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:27:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D89C52.9050700@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> <0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no> <48D811A1.6070907@skynet.be> <000701c91d07$2f1b61b0$8d522510$@no> <48D89C52.9050700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c91d56$37306040$a59120c0$@no> Why do you so often delete the most important part of my post when quoting? I also wrote: The relevant law in your last situation is L20F5(b), not L20F5(a). Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 23. september 2008 09:36 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > > Sven Pran wrote: > >>> > >> Very true, Sven, but how do you reconcile this with L20F5a? > >> If there is no second question, the misinformation will not be > >> corrected, and the misunderstanding will not be revealed. > > > > Sure it will, unless the players are cheats, and I don't consider cheats at > > all. > > > > NO Sven, it won't, not during the auction! > And yes, you're right, it will, during the clarification period, but > ALSO under dWS. > > As soon as you stop having all these misconceptions about dWS, you'll > probably see better. > But of course I've been saying all this for ten years already, and do > they listen ...? > > Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 23 10:05:28 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:05:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no><0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no><00b201c91cf8$64bfd350$0202a8c0@Mildred> <000601c91d06$587e20c0$097a6240$@no> Message-ID: <002401c91d53$264b9b30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 11:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > My immediate reaction is that maybe during the clarification period presumed declarer and dummy should exchange the information they have given to opponents so that any misinformation either of them has given to opponents can be rectified as prescribed in Law 20F5(b)? > I don't think that we in Norway have any such rule in our regulations on the use of screens, I wonder if any RA has? > +=+ I attach a copy of the screen regulations that will apply in Beijing next month. Comparison of information given on either side of the screen is not permitted until play has ended. A player whose action may be affected may be found to have been given correct information. If incorrect information has been given on the other side of the screen it cannot be alleged to have affected the bridge result unless it has caused the screenmate on that side of the screen to go astray. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: WBF - screen regulations - as posted.txt Url: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080923/920a0179/attachment.txt From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 23 11:06:49 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:06:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> <0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no> <48D811A1.6070907@skynet.be><000701c91d07$2f1b61b0$8d522510$@no> <48D89C52.9050700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007201c91d5d$b398a820$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > > As soon as you stop having all these misconceptions about dWS, you'll > probably see better. > But of course I've been saying all this for ten years already, and do > they listen ...? > +=+ They have listened to Herman, interminably it seems. What 'they' have not done is to agree with him. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 23 11:20:36 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:20:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie><48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be><48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be><48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be><002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de><48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> Message-ID: <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > We can agree with Richard et al that the law requires you to offer an explanation inconsistent with your previous (and subsequent) bidding any time you are *certain* that that explanation is correct, while at the same time agreeing with me that knowing partner disagrees with your original assumption cannot be in itself sufficient for you to be certain that he is right. So whether you do or don't change your explanation based on UI from partner every time the conditions for doing so are met, you will do so zero times out of zero, and the answer to Robert's question won't matter. > +=+ The law does not care a damn what you believe. It is concerned only to know whether you have given opponent correct information as to your partnership understanding or not. Your responsibility is to give that information. If you have not given it you have infracted. David Burn has explained the requirement accurately. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Sep 23 11:42:45 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:42:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <48D89C52.9050700@skynet.be> Message-ID: As soon as you stop having all these misconceptions about dWS, you'll probably see better. But of course I've been saying all this for ten years already, and do they listen ...? Herman. No, ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Sep 23 12:16:31 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:16:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <002401c91d53$264b9b30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: > My immediate reaction is that maybe during the clarification period presumed declarer and dummy should exchange the information they have given to opponents so that any misinformation either of them has given to opponents can be rectified as prescribed in Law 20F5(b)? ton: We have just introduced this regulation in the Dutch federation. Reason: It sounds good and follows the laws as close as possible. I think that more nbo's have created this regulation. ton > I don't think that we in Norway have any such rule in our regulations on the use of screens, I wonder if any RA has? > +=+ I attach a copy of the screen regulations that will apply in Beijing next month. Comparison of information given on either side of the screen is not permitted until play has ended. A player whose action may be affected may be found to have been given correct information. If incorrect information has been given on the other side of the screen it cannot be alleged to have affected the bridge result unless it has caused the screenmate on that side of the screen to go astray. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 23 12:23:24 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:23:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48CF7621.9020305@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40809222150o646ae219r7abd3fcc705ac1c1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002a01c91d66$6b82be50$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:09 PM, wrote: >> Another error made by the AC was deciding the issue from scratch. >> >> WBF Code of Practice, "Inclination of Committee", 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." > > The AC may have erred, but not in that respect. The WBF Code of > Practice for Appeals Committees is not in effect in the ACBL. > +=+ Ironically, that paragraph was inserted in the CoP upon the strong urging of the then WBF CTD, Mr. William Schoder. From this side of the Atlantic it appears to be soundly based upon the laws of the game and common rules of evidence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 23 12:36:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:36:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] What does a break in tempo demonstrably suggest? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48D8C6B0.7060000@ulb.ac.be> David Grabiner a ?crit : > Las Vegas NABC+ case 4: > > W N E S > 1H P 2D > P 3D P 3H > 3S 4C P 4D > P 4H P 4S > P 4NT P ..5H > > This slow 5H bid shows something, but what? I can think of several meanings: > > > I had a similar case not long ago. The opopnents asked me why partner had hesitated ... I told them their question was strange, because I could only answer it if we had occult convention. The case was still another than those listed by David : partner had a 1-card additional length in our suit, but this made up only 9, so she didn't know whether to show it (OK for bidding 6) or not (OK in case I was looking for 7). > That said, the AC ruling appears to be correct because North ruled out the DK > issue. North said that he passed 5H because he expected to lose two tricks > despite South's two aces. (At least, I think that is what he said; he could > have also expected to lose a spade and a heart because he placed South with DAK > and no SA.) If you bid Blackwood and partner shows all the key cards, you are > supposed to go to slam. > AG : this isn't necessarily true. Refer to the celebrated case where one member of the lue Team (was it Belladona ?) asked for Aces, then stopped at 5 on hearing partner had all aces ; he said he would have bid slam if partner had said one ace was lacking. Their system puts strong emphasis on aces in early bidding, so that, given a specific range, "all aces" would have meant there were many holes on the side, while "one ace lacking" would have meant everything else is strongly covered. This deal is related in "/L'aristocratie du bridge". / Best regards Alain/ / From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 23 13:26:58 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:26:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Make a ruling: The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly explains this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that means. I explain this assuming a correct partnership understanding of all bids in the auction -- as showing a preference for diamonds. I do this because you the director have persuaded me of the wisdom of this action. (Or maybe it is the pp you threatened me with.) The opponents call you, the director. They want to know how many aces my partner has. I refuse to tell them. They say: "We asked him what his partner's bid really meant and he refused to tell us. We asked him what his partner's bid means if 4NT is Blackwood and he STILL wouldn't tell us." I answer: "I did tell them what my partner's bid meant. While we have many agreements about Blackwood, we have no agreement about what Blackwood responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood. If I make a weak 2D bid, I do not have to answer questions about what my partner's bid would mean if my 2D is a mini-Roman or some other convention I don't even know. How do you rule? (It doesn't make sense to give an opinion if you just want to claim I first should have described partner's bid in terms of number of aces instead of a diamond preference.) If you look at my card, which I am guessing is inppropriately proactive as director, it says Roman Key Card Blackwood with 1430. We play the 4NT is Blackwood over any 3 level pre-empt and over an opening 2D, and we have agreed on the responses in this situation. So I can make a very good guess about partner's intended meaning. And, extra credit, does it change things if I am in ACBL-land? From their conditions of contest: All players have an obligation to disclose their agreements according to the procedures established by ACBL. When asked, a full explanation of the agreement must be provided. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information -- all relevant disclosures should be given automatically. The proper way to ask for information is "Please Explain". From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 23 13:53:19 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:53:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000601c91d56$37306040$a59120c0$@no> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0809211233n254c7360wa405c751a80e8e0b@mail.gmail.com> <000301c91c27$69b5bc70$3d213550$@no> <0BD41344-9B68-4A2D-BA0E-EE7C38C770DC@starpower.net> <000101c91ce4$7368a990$5a39fcb0$@no> <48D811A1.6070907@skynet.be> <000701c91d07$2f1b61b0$8d522510$@no> <48D89C52.9050700@skynet.be> <000601c91d56$37306040$a59120c0$@no> Message-ID: <48D8D8AF.9040304@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Why do you so often delete the most important part of my post when quoting? > > I also wrote: The relevant law in your last situation is L20F5(b), not > L20F5(a). > Because the part I was answering to was not correct. And yes, I did understand you were talking about L20F5b. And see, that is where your misconception was about. L20F5b speaks of a totally different point in time, after the final pass or even later, after the play of the hand. At that time, both you and I will correct misinformations. You seem to be under the impression that I would not correct misinformations then. I would, and have been stating that for over 10 years already. But we were talking before that time. You (as SSS) seem to want to have the misunderstanding clarified as soon as the second question is asked. We do not agree on that. You criticize me for not clarifying the situation - but since I clarify the situation at the appropriate time, you could only be criticizing me for not clarifying between the second question and and the clarification period (or later). To that I answer that in most bidding sequences in which a misunderstanding has taken place, such a clarification is also absent (during the period you and I are having our discussion about) because without a second question, I'm sure you'll feel bound by L20F5a into keeping quiet. Am I right so far? Then please tell me why my system is so bad if it's exactly the same system you use when no second question is asked. > Sven > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 23 13:56:48 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:56:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> I sure hope most of you give the same answer to this one, or I'll have to start another school for the remainder. Please answer it though - I'm interested to see if there is yet another thing I thought no-one could disagree upon. Robert Frick wrote: > Make a ruling: > > The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly > explains this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that means. > > I explain this assuming a correct partnership understanding of all bids in > the auction -- as showing a preference for diamonds. I do this because you > the director have persuaded me of the wisdom of this action. (Or maybe it > is the pp you threatened me with.) > > The opponents call you, the director. They want to know how many aces my > partner has. I refuse to tell them. > > They say: "We asked him what his partner's bid really meant and he refused > to tell us. We asked him what his partner's bid means if 4NT is Blackwood > and he STILL wouldn't tell us." > > I answer: "I did tell them what my partner's bid meant. While we have many > agreements about Blackwood, we have no agreement about what Blackwood > responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood. If I make a weak 2D bid, I do > not have to answer questions about what my partner's bid would mean if my > 2D is a mini-Roman or some other convention I don't even know. > > How do you rule? (It doesn't make sense to give an opinion if you just > want to claim I first should have described partner's bid in terms of > number of aces instead of a diamond preference.) > > If you look at my card, which I am guessing is inppropriately proactive as > director, it says Roman Key Card Blackwood with 1430. > > We play the 4NT is Blackwood over any 3 level pre-empt and over an opening > 2D, and we have agreed on the responses in this situation. So I can make a > very good guess about partner's intended meaning. > > And, extra credit, does it change things if I am in ACBL-land? From their > conditions of contest: > > All players have an obligation to disclose their agreements according to > the procedures established by ACBL. When asked, a full explanation of the > agreement must be provided. Stating the common or popular name of the > convention is not sufficient. The opponents need not ask exactly the > "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. > Opponents need only indicate the desire for information -- all relevant > disclosures should be given automatically. The proper way to ask for > information is "Please Explain". > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 23 14:09:06 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:09:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48D8DC62.10706@NTLworld.com> [Richard] Eric presumably considers members of the ACBL Laws Commission as absolute nobodies. :-) Nigel presumably considers ACBL LC member Adam Wildavsky as not a *player*, despite Adam winning a bronze medal in the Bermuda Bowl. :-) Indeed, as mentioned in an earlier thread, the Chairman of the Laws Drafting Committee, John Wignall, is still a *player* of note, and in his salad days John almost qualified for the semi-finals of the 1983 Bermuda Bowl. [Nigel] We were told that NBOs consulted their members widely. That does not seem to have been the case. I feel that NBOs should have tried to ascertain the views of ordinary players, as well as of senior officials. Admittedly, most officials and directors are players but their agenda is subtly different from that of ordinary players, especially as far as laws are concerned :) An obvious example: directors seem to revel in discussing the subtleties of L27, dwS and the many other legal anomalies, ad nauseam. I have not polled players but I feel that, as a group, they would prefer vital clarifications to made, in place, in the law-book. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 23 14:46:48 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:46:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> [RF] The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly explains this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that means. [DALB] It means that he prefers diamonds to clubs, and this is the answer you give. It does not show any number of aces, so if the opponents want to know how many aces your partner has, you tell them that you do not know. Once more: the opponents are entitled to a correct explanation of the partnership method, not to a correct description of the partnership's hands. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 23 14:48:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:48:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48D8E597.4070709@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > Make a ruling: > > The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly > explains this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that means. > > I explain this assuming a correct partnership understanding of all bids in > the auction -- as showing a preference for diamonds. I do this because you > the director have persuaded me of the wisdom of this action. (Or maybe it > is the pp you threatened me with.) > > The opponents call you, the director. They want to know how many aces my > partner has. I refuse to tell them. > > They say: "We asked him what his partner's bid really meant and he refused > to tell us. We asked him what his partner's bid means if 4NT is Blackwood > and he STILL wouldn't tell us." > AG : I think there is no problem with this one, provided one follows rules of propositional logic. I'll suggest, away from the table, that you answer : "if 4NT is Blackwood in this sequence, 5D shows 3 billion aces". This is perfectly correct. /Ex falso quodlibet/ : any implication whose first member is false is a true sentence. If pigs fly etc. There is a famous exercise to show that, starting from 2 + 2 = 5, one can prove that Robert Frick is His Holiness the Pope. If you have any sense of humour, you'll comply with my suggestion. If they have, they'll understand how silly their demand was. BTW, they could always look at your CC. Best regards Alain From schoderb at msn.com Tue Sep 23 15:36:17 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:36:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 8 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48CF7621.9020305@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40809222150o646ae219r7abd3fcc705ac1c1@mail.gmail.com> References: <48CF7621.9020305@ulb.ac.be> <694eadd40809222150o646ae219r7abd3fcc705ac1c1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: True, the CoP is not in effect in the ACBL, but the Laws of Duplicate Bridge are, and have been for as long as I can remember. Law 92A clearly states "....may appeal FOR REVIEW OF ANY RULING made at his table BY THE DIRECTOR......" (my caps for stress). The ACBL departs from that raison d'etre for Appeals Committees, substituting instead that the TD ruling no longer exists when the AC starts its deliberations and the case is heard 'from scratch'. In my opinion it does make it easy for some AC members to feel the ego satisfaction of making rulings on their own. It is just another example where certain individuals do what they want to, regardless of the Laws. Some even write books about it snidely denigrating those who apply the Laws by questioning their impartiality while revealing their own personal bigotry. It seems to me that the ACBL does indeed continue to "err" by ignoring a Law provision which they have "promulgated in the Western Hemisphere", effective 8 September 2008. The WBF gets it right even without the CoP's expectations. Kojak From: "Adam Wildavsky" > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:09 PM, wrote: > > Another error made by the AC was deciding the issue from scratch. > > > > WBF Code of Practice, "Inclination of Committee", 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." > > The AC may have erred, but not in that respect. The WBF Code of > Practice for Appeals Committees is not in effect in the ACBL. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 23 15:46:32 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:46:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <707B173E-2FEA-4DD0-9269-46134C9A4DF8@starpower.net> On Sep 22, 2008, at 8:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >>>> Probably less of a loss than was suffered on the other side >>>> of the Atlantic, where *absolutely nobody* was "among the >>>> individuals [their] Federation['s LC] invited to peruse the >>>> draft laws..." > > Nigel Guthrie: > >>> Either Grattan or Eric is telling porkies; but in any case I >>> reckon that more *players* should have been allowed to make >>> constructive criticisms. > > Matthias Berghaus: > >> I have no reliable information about that matter, but I fail >> to see where Grattan and Eric contradict each other, Grattan >> being a member of the EBU and Eric living in ACBL-land.... > > Richard Hills: > > Eric presumably considers members of the ACBL Laws Commission > as absolute nobodies. :-) > > Nigel presumably considers ACBL LC member Adam Wildavsky as > not a *player*, despite Adam winning a bronze medal in the > Bermuda Bowl. :-) Indeed, as mentioned in an earlier thread, > the Chairman of the Laws Drafting Committee, John Wignall, is > still a *player* of note, and in his salad days John almost > qualified for the semi-finals of the 1983 Bermuda Bowl. Eric has nothing but respect for the individuals who sit on the ACBLLC. But their review of the new lawbook was, AFAICT, conducted entirely behind closed doors. I know of no outsider who was consulted on, or even allowed to see, the draft that was given to the LC. Two of the ACBL's (six) top-rated directors are personal friends; I know for a fact that they weren't even aware that there *was* a draft of the new lawbook until I passed on the one that was distributed to BLML. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 23 16:06:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:06:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Matthias vs Sven In-Reply-To: <000501c91d48$86ba31d0$942e9570$@no> References: <48D74496.5020408@skynet.be> <000501c91d48$86ba31d0$942e9570$@no> Message-ID: On Sep 23, 2008, at 2:49 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >> (2) The theoretical answer. You are required by Law to >> describe partner's call correctly. You are not >> required by Law to be _certain_ that you are describing >> partner's call correctly. But you are required by Law >> not to _intentionally_ misdescribe partner's call. > > Just to make that clear and to avoid possible misunderstanding of law: > > A player is specifically required (Law 75C) to describe his > partner's call > correctly according to their partnership understandings even if he > "knows" > that this is an incorrect description of the actual hand. > > It doesn't matter how he "knows"; opponents are entitled to get a > description of partnership understanding, not of the partner's hand. Sven has reiterated my comments, to which Richard dissented. A player has, up to some point in the auction, bid according to what he thought was the partnership agreement. Then he receives extraneous information from partner that contradicts his earlier assumption. Should he now describe his partner's call as the EI has suggested, even though that description would be inconsistent with his own (previous and subsequent) bidding? We are in agreement that he must do so when he "'knows'" that his original assumption is wrong and partner's is correct. But much of the time he will not know; he will be in doubt as to the correct systemic agreement. In that position, should he (a) stick to his original assumption for disclosure purposes, or (b) make a "balance of probabilities" judgment (which might come down to little more than a guess in close situations) as to who is right, and disclose accordingly? Richard argues for (b). I lean towards (a), but await further enlightenment from the ongoing discussion. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 23 16:25:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:25:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie><48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be><48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be><48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be><002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de><48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <921DFA61-C669-46B4-A3A4-F1FE88E5A5C4@starpower.net> On Sep 23, 2008, at 5:20 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > We can agree with Richard et al that the law requires you > to offer an explanation inconsistent with your previous (and > subsequent) bidding any time you are *certain* that that > explanation is correct, while at the same time agreeing with > me that knowing partner disagrees with your original assumption > cannot be in itself sufficient for you to be certain that he is right. > So whether you do or don't change your explanation based on > UI from partner every time the conditions for doing so are met, > you will do so zero times out of zero, and the answer to Robert's > question won't matter. > > +=+ The law does not care a damn what you believe. It is > concerned only to know whether you have given opponent > correct information as to your partnership understanding or > not. Your responsibility is to give that information. If you have > not given it you have infracted. > David Burn has explained the requirement accurately. Of course; that is not the issue at all. The question being asked is what an actual player, at the table in real life, is supposed to do when he has two possible explanations to offer, the one he has based his prior bidding on and the one suggested by extraneous information from partner, and no definitive idea as to which one is the actual, correct partnership understanding. Does the law offer any guideline as to how he should choose between them, or does he just get to decide on his own using criteria of his own choosing? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 23 16:28:34 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:28:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> Message-ID: <48D8FD12.2000901@NTLworld.com> [RF] The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly explains this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that means. I explain this assuming a correct partnership understanding of all bids in the auction -- as showing a preference for diamonds. I do this because you the director have persuaded me of the wisdom of this action. (Or maybe it is the pp you threatened me with.) The opponents call you, the director. They want to know how many aces my partner has. I refuse to tell them. They say: "We asked him what his partner's bid really meant and he refused to tell us. We asked him what his partner's bid means if 4NT is Blackwood and he STILL wouldn't tell us." [DALB] It means that he prefers diamonds to clubs, and this is the answer you give. It does not show any number of aces, so if the opponents want to know how many aces your partner has, you tell them that you do not know. Once more: the opponents are entitled to a correct explanation of the partnership method, not to a correct description of the partnership's hands. [AG] I think there is no problem with this one, provided one follows rules of propositional logic. I'll suggest, away from the table, that you answer : "if 4NT is Blackwood in this sequence, 5D shows 3 billion aces". This is perfectly correct. /Ex falso quodlibet/ : any implication whose first member is false is a true sentence. If pigs fly etc. There is a famous exercise to show that, starting from 2 + 2 = 5, one can prove that Robert Frick is His Holiness the Pope. [Nigel] Another paradigm illustrating the chasm between the verdict of top directors and the gut reaction of the average player :) Your partnership agreement is that 4N asks for a minors but partner explains it as Blackwood. You know the intricacies of your *default* partnership agreements about Blackwood responses *in other contexts*. There are many varieties of Blackwood, and opponents may be familiar with none of them. Opponents ask "What woud 5D mean if 4NT were Blackwood?" In your partnerhsip, would a Blackwood 5D show 1 ace? 1 or 3 keycards? or something else? Naive players would hope for honest disclosure; rather than "3 billion aces" or the usual prevarication about General Knowledge or whatever. I feel they are right in justice (if not in law). From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 23 16:37:11 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:37:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> On Sep 23, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Make a ruling: > > The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly > explains this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that > means. > > I explain this assuming a correct partnership understanding of all > bids in > the auction -- as showing a preference for diamonds. I do this > because you > the director have persuaded me of the wisdom of this action. (Or > maybe it > is the pp you threatened me with.) > > The opponents call you, the director. They want to know how many > aces my > partner has. I refuse to tell them. > > They say: "We asked him what his partner's bid really meant and he > refused > to tell us. We asked him what his partner's bid means if 4NT is > Blackwood > and he STILL wouldn't tell us." > > I answer: "I did tell them what my partner's bid meant. While we > have many > agreements about Blackwood, we have no agreement about what Blackwood > responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood. If I make a weak 2D bid, > I do > not have to answer questions about what my partner's bid would mean > if my > 2D is a mini-Roman or some other convention I don't even know. > > How do you rule? (It doesn't make sense to give an opinion if you just > want to claim I first should have described partner's bid in terms of > number of aces instead of a diamond preference.) > > If you look at my card, which I am guessing is inppropriately > proactive as > director, it says Roman Key Card Blackwood with 1430. > > We play the 4NT is Blackwood over any 3 level pre-empt and over an > opening > 2D, and we have agreed on the responses in this situation. So I can > make a > very good guess about partner's intended meaning. > > And, extra credit, does it change things if I am in ACBL-land? From > their > conditions of contest: > > All players have an obligation to disclose their agreements > according to > the procedures established by ACBL. When asked, a full explanation > of the > agreement must be provided. Stating the common or popular name of the > convention is not sufficient. The opponents need not ask exactly the > "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. > Opponents need only indicate the desire for information -- all > relevant > disclosures should be given automatically. The proper way to ask for > information is "Please Explain". "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents..." [L40A1(b)]. Your opponents are entitled to knowledge of your Blackwood responses whether or not you have used Blackwood at their table. "We have no agreement about what Blackwood responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood" is egregious wise- assery at best, and verges on C&E-committee-bait. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Sep 23 17:12:44 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:12:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48D9076C.60603@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents..." [L40A1(b)]. Your opponents are entitled to knowledge of your Blackwood responses whether or not you have used Blackwood at their table. "We have no agreement about what Blackwood responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood" is egregious wise- assery at best, and verges on C&E-committee-bait. [Nige1] I go further. Consider another case, you hold S:Axx H:xxx D:xxx C:xxxx Partner opens 4D. You alert, When asked, you reveal your partnership agreement [A] "A completely solid 7-8 card spade suit". Obviously something has gone wrong but an experienced partnership has a far better chance of determining which particular wheel has fallen off. For example ... [B] Your previous agreement was Solid or *semisolid* spades. [C] Your previous agreement was Solid *hearts*. [C] Your previous agreement was "pre-empt in *either major*". [D] Your previous agreement wad "Natural long diamonds". [E] Partner never forgets an agreement but loves to psyche. [F] Partner never forgets an agreement but is prone to mis-sorting his black suits. Whichever of these obtains, it gives you a different advantage over opponents. IMO the director should take this into account when assessing damage. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Sep 23 17:12:35 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:12:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48D90763.5090208@t-online.de> Eric Landau schrieb: > On Sep 23, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Make a ruling: >> >> The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly >> explains this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that >> means. >> > > "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership > understandings to opponents..." [L40A1(b)]. Your opponents are > entitled to knowledge of your Blackwood responses whether or not you > have used Blackwood at their table. "We have no agreement about what > Blackwood responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood" is egregious wise- > assery at best, and verges on C&E-committee-bait. > > No. "Making available before commencing to play against them", meaning convention cards and the like. The applicable law here is 20F1, which gives opps a right to ask about alternative calls, not to the meanings of responses to calls that were never made. Of course the may consult the system card. If they don't think of that, hard luck. If no CC is available there has been a violation of L40A1(b), so now I would order them to tell opps the Blackwood responses, since by infracting L40 they made it impossible for their opps to find out for themselves. Hard luck the other way. Best regards Matthias From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 23 17:49:16 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:49:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie><48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be><48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be><48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be><002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be><48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de><48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be><969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net><007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <921DFA61-C669-46B4-A3A4-F1FE88E5A5C4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001901c91d94$0fb4eb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > On Sep 23, 2008, at 5:20 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> From: "Eric Landau" >> >> We can agree with Richard et al that the law requires you >> to offer an explanation inconsistent with your previous (and >> subsequent) bidding any time you are *certain* that that >> explanation is correct, while at the same time agreeing with >> me that knowing partner disagrees with your original assumption >> cannot be in itself sufficient for you to be certain that he is right. >> So whether you do or don't change your explanation based on >> UI from partner every time the conditions for doing so are met, >> you will do so zero times out of zero, and the answer to Robert's >> question won't matter. >> >> +=+ The law does not care a damn what you believe. It is >> concerned only to know whether you have given opponent >> correct information as to your partnership understanding or >> not. Your responsibility is to give that information. If you have >> not given it you have infracted. >> David Burn has explained the requirement accurately. > > Of course; that is not the issue at all. The question being asked is > what an actual player, at the table in real life, is supposed to do > when he has two possible explanations to offer, the one he has based > his prior bidding on and the one suggested by extraneous information > from partner, and no definitive idea as to which one is the actual, > correct partnership understanding. Does the law offer any guideline > as to how he should choose between them, or does he just get to > decide on his own using criteria of his own choosing? > +=+ The Law requires him to know his system. Always allowing that there is a partnership agreement to disclose, it simply provides that if, for whatever reason, in response to enquiry he fails to explain correctly the partnership understanding as to the meaning of partner's call, he is guilty of an infraction. If he gets it wrong, too bad - he has failed in his duty to opponent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 23 18:45:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:45:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48D90763.5090208@t-online.de> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D90763.5090208@t-online.de> Message-ID: <5FAA6E86-3889-4B90-9FDE-DA8879105E1C@starpower.net> On Sep 23, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Eric Landau schrieb: > > On Sep 23, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Make a ruling: >>> >>> The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly >>> explains this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that >>> means. >> >> "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership >> understandings to opponents..." [L40A1(b)]. Your opponents are >> entitled to knowledge of your Blackwood responses whether or not you >> have used Blackwood at their table. "We have no agreement about what >> Blackwood responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood" is egregious >> wise- >> assery at best, and verges on C&E-committee-bait. > > No. "Making available before commencing to play against them", meaning > convention cards and the like. > > The applicable law here is 20F1, which gives opps a right to ask about > alternative calls, not to the meanings of responses to calls that were > never made. Of course the may consult the system card. If they don't > think of that, hard luck. If no CC is available there has been a > violation of L40A1(b), so now I would order them to tell opps the > Blackwood responses, since by infracting L40 they made it > impossible for > their opps to find out for themselves. Hard luck the other way. L40A1(b) in full: "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done." The first sentence is absolute, and the second sentence does not modify it. In general, though, it is impractical to require that all potentially useful information be literally made available in advance of play. So the RA, as is well-precedented in practice, may specify that "the manner in which this shall be done" includes supplying in advance only such information as it believes is likely to prove useful, permitting the disclosure of the rest of it to be deferred until such time as the specific information is desired and requested. But that merely "specifies the manner"; it does not change the opponents' entitlement to knowledge of all of one's partnership understandings, whether or not they are used on a particular deal. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 23 19:06:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:06:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <001901c91d94$0fb4eb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie><48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be><48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be><48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be><002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be><48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de><48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be><969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net><007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <921DFA61-C669-46B4-A3A4-F1FE88E5A5C4@starpower.net> <001901c91d94$0fb4eb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sep 23, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Sep 23, 2008, at 5:20 AM, Grattan wrote: >> >>> From: "Eric Landau" >>> >>> We can agree with Richard et al that the law requires you >>> to offer an explanation inconsistent with your previous (and >>> subsequent) bidding any time you are *certain* that that >>> explanation is correct, while at the same time agreeing with >>> me that knowing partner disagrees with your original assumption >>> cannot be in itself sufficient for you to be certain that he is >>> right. >>> So whether you do or don't change your explanation based on >>> UI from partner every time the conditions for doing so are met, >>> you will do so zero times out of zero, and the answer to Robert's >>> question won't matter. >>> >>> +=+ The law does not care a damn what you believe. It is >>> concerned only to know whether you have given opponent >>> correct information as to your partnership understanding or >>> not. Your responsibility is to give that information. If you have >>> not given it you have infracted. >>> David Burn has explained the requirement accurately. >> >> Of course; that is not the issue at all. The question being asked is >> what an actual player, at the table in real life, is supposed to do >> when he has two possible explanations to offer, the one he has based >> his prior bidding on and the one suggested by extraneous information >> from partner, and no definitive idea as to which one is the actual, >> correct partnership understanding. Does the law offer any guideline >> as to how he should choose between them, or does he just get to >> decide on his own using criteria of his own choosing? > > +=+ The Law requires him to know his system. It does? Since when? Not only am I unable to find any such thing in the laws, not only have there been numerous discussions in this forum in which the opposite was consensually assumed and not contradicted, not only would it mean that practically every player in every club in the world was in violation of the law every time he sat down at the bridge table, but it is trivially proven false by reductio ad absurdum: If the Law required a player to know his system, a systemic misbid would be a violation, presumably subject to redress for damage, which it patently is not. > Always allowing > that there is a partnership agreement to disclose, it simply provides > that if, for whatever reason, in response to enquiry he fails to > explain > correctly the partnership understanding as to the meaning of partner's > call, he is guilty of an infraction. If he gets it wrong, too bad - > he has > failed in his duty to opponent. We know that. It is nothing more than a simple paraphrase of Grattan's previous comment (above). It has nothing to add to the matter at hand. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 23 19:02:21 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:02:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <5FAA6E86-3889-4B90-9FDE-DA8879105E1C@starpower.net> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D90763.5090208@t-online.de> <5FAA6E86-3889-4B90-9FDE-DA8879105E1C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000f01c91d9e$25d69d30$7183d790$@com> [EL] L40A1(b) in full: "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done." The first sentence is absolute, and the second sentence does not modify it. [DALB] Yes, but the first sentence does not say "all of its partnership understandings", and the second sentence may well be considered to imply that the RA specifies which understandings should be disclosed in advance of play (as for example by designing a convention card, or by imposing a requirement to lodge a system file in advance). Were it not so, I could require the opponents to tell me their entire bidding system before a two-board round against them began. Would the Director permit the 24-board session to last a couple of days, as I did this against each pair of opponents in turn? I don't have any particular problem with the notion that a player should be compelled to tell the opponents what a 5D response to Blackwood means even if Blackwood has not actually been used in an auction. But I am not sure that this is the Law - in fact, I am fairly sure that it is not. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 23 22:31:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:31:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000f01c91d9e$25d69d30$7183d790$@com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D90763.5090208@t-online.de> <5FAA6E86-3889-4B90-9FDE-DA8879105E1C@starpower.net> <000f01c91d9e$25d69d30$7183d790$@com> Message-ID: <6DC02C8D-E677-457D-B76E-88BFEC2FD842@starpower.net> On Sep 23, 2008, at 1:02 PM, David Burn wrote: > [EL] > > L40A1(b) in full: "Each partnership has a duty to make available its > partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play > against them. > The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall > be done." > The first sentence is absolute, and the second sentence does not > modify it. > > [DALB] > > Yes, but the first sentence does not say "all of its partnership > understandings", and the second sentence may well be considered to > imply > that the RA specifies which understandings should be disclosed in > advance of > play (as for example by designing a convention card, or by imposing a > requirement to lodge a system file in advance). I don't see that one's granted rights under the law can be abrogated by "the manner in which" they are exercised. I can see where, as a practical matter, the RA can, and should, specify what must be disclosed literally "before commencing play" and what may be disclosed only at need (which would mean that players must be, in effect, prepared to disclose in advance, but may not need to actually do so). But I'm not convinced that they can legally decide that "the manner in which this shall be done" is "not at all". > Were it not so, I could > require the opponents to tell me their entire bidding system before a > two-board round against them began. Would the Director permit the > 24-board > session to last a couple of days, as I did this against each pair of > opponents in turn? All rights may be limited by constraints against abuse, and you may be prohibited from exercising them arbitarily without legitimate reason ("Fire!" in a crowded theater, and all that). But *if* you have a legitimate need for advance disclosure of some aspect of your opponents' system of which the RA has not required disclosure via CC, pre-alert, pre-filing, or whatever (say, for example, to ascertain what sort of defenses you might choose to use), ISTM that L40A1(b) gives you the right to obtain it. That doesn't mean you can get away with requiring them to detail their entire bidding system for no particular reason, just to be difficult. The right of a player to obtain a full and complete review, including alerts, when it is his turn to call, is undeniably granted by L20B, but if a player were to insist on exercising that particular right every time it was his turn to call in every auction, I would not hesitate to throw him out of the game, nor, I suspect, would David. > I don't have any particular problem with the notion that a player > should be > compelled to tell the opponents what a 5D response to Blackwood > means even > if Blackwood has not actually been used in an auction. But I am not > sure > that this is the Law - in fact, I am fairly sure that it is not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 23 22:35:38 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:35:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie><48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be><48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be><48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be><002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be><48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de><48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be><969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net><007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred><921DFA61-C669-46B4-A3A4-F1FE88E5A5C4@starpower.net><001901c91d94$0fb4eb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000b01c91dbb$f2a4db70$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed >> >> +=+ The Law requires him to know his system. > > It does? Since when? Not only am I unable to find any such thing in > the laws, not only have there been numerous discussions in this forum > in which the opposite was consensually assumed and not contradicted, > not only would it mean that practically every player in every club in > the world was in violation of the law every time he sat down at the > bridge table, but it is trivially proven false by reductio ad > absurdum: If the Law required a player to know his system, a > systemic misbid would be a violation, presumably subject to redress > for damage, which it patently is not. > +=+ Not in so many words, I agree, but it is absolute in its demand that when opponent asks he must be given correct information in regard to the partnership agreement - even if the player does not know what it is. It has no sympathy for your player who can't decide whether the actual understanding is what he thinks it is or what he thinks partner thinks it is. It just demands that an answer shall be given which shall state the partnership understanding correctly. And if the player gets it wrong it is quite simply an infraction (which may or may not damage opponent). +=+ > > We know that. It is nothing more than a simple paraphrase of > Grattan's previous comment (above). It has nothing to add to the > matter at hand. > +=+ The 'matter in hand' does not call for anything further to be added. The Law has no concern with that but only with whether, when the player decides what to say, his answer satisfies the requirement that he must state the partnership agreement correctly. The Law has no responsibility for the player's uncertainty and allows him no margin for it. Either he explains the agreement correctly or he is in breach of the law. He must not expect any kind of sympathy if he does not know what his partnership's methods are. And indeed, one can go on repeating this truth forever. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 23 22:41:51 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:41:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D90763.5090208@t-online.de><5FAA6E86-3889-4B90-9FDE-DA8879105E1C@starpower.net> <000f01c91d9e$25d69d30$7183d790$@com> Message-ID: <001201c91dbc$fd1aa9d0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning I don't have any particular problem with the notion that a player should be compelled to tell the opponents what a 5D response to Blackwood means even if Blackwood has not actually been used in an auction. But I am not sure that this is the Law - in fact, I am fairly sure that it is not. > +=+ Law 40B6(b) may enter into it. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 24 00:39:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:39:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Matthias vs Sven [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >A player has, up to some point in the auction, bid according to >what he thought was the partnership agreement. Then he receives >extraneous information from partner that contradicts his earlier >assumption. Should he now describe his partner's call as the EI >has suggested, even though that description would be >inconsistent with his own (previous and subsequent) bidding? > >We are in agreement that he must do so when he "'knows'" that >his original assumption is wrong and partner's is correct. Richard Hills: Yes, Eric and I (and Matthias et al) are in agreement on this point. I am not sure whether Sven has modified his original position, or whether Sven still disagrees. Eric Landau: >But much of the time he will not know; he will be in doubt as to >the correct systemic agreement. In that position, should he... Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The law does not care a damn what you believe. It is >>concerned only to know whether you have given opponent correct >>information as to your partnership understanding or not. Your >>responsibility is to give that information. If you have not >>given it you have infracted. Richard Hills: Yes, Grattan's primary point about Laws 20, 40 and 75 is correct. However, there is a secondary point now under discussion about Law 72B1; what is an intentional infringement of Law? Eric Landau: >...(a) stick to his original assumption for disclosure purposes, >or (b) make a "balance of probabilities" judgment (which might >come down to little more than a guess in close situations) as to >who is right, and disclose accordingly? > >Richard argues for (b). I lean towards (a), but await further >enlightenment from the ongoing discussion. Richard Hills: The Rabbi's Rule is, "When the king is singleton offside, play the ace." Likewise, I argue for neither (a) nor (b) in providing disclosure, but for Grattan's Rule, "When you have a pre-existing explicit or implicit mutual partnership understanding, accurately disclose it." But on the question of _intentional_ failure to disclose, as TD I would be more impressed with a person giving an odds-on (b) explanation than with another person giving an odds-against (a) explanation, so as a TD I might apply a procedural penalty to the (a) explainer. Law 40C3(b): "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 24 04:25:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:25:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D8DC62.10706@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asserted: >We were told that NBOs consulted their members widely. >That does not seem to have been the case. I feel that >NBOs should have tried to ascertain the views of >ordinary players, as well as of senior officials. Richard Hills quibbles: Ordinary players had a habit of infracting a particular part of the 1997 Law 20. So the views of ordinary players were satisfied by legalising their habit via the new 2007 Law 20F3: "Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply." Nigel Guthrie asserted: >Admittedly, most officials and directors are players >but their agenda is subtly different from that of >ordinary players, especially as far as laws are >concerned :) > >An obvious example: directors seem to revel in >discussing the subtleties of L27, dwS and the many >other legal anomalies, ad nauseam. I have not polled >players but I feel that, as a group, they would prefer >vital clarifications to made, in place, in the law-book. Richard Hills quibbles: Self-selected pedantic nerds and uber-nerds on blml are not representative of the group "directors". Nor is a particularly prolific blml nerd necessarily accurate when he asserts that his eponymous anomaly exists. Indeed, ordinary directors are more interested in the bread-and-butter Laws. Attached is the agenda for a Directors Seminar to be held in Melbourne on the weekend of 8th - 9th November 2008. 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 Joint Workshop Seminar Australian Bridge Teachers and Director Associations Director's Schedule Venue:- Victorian Bridge Association Address:131 Poath Road, Murrumbeena 3163 Phone: (03) 9530 9006 Cost:- $45 for both days - includes lunch each day $25 for single day - includes Lunch Subsidy available for those living over 100kms Accommodation suggestions available Saturday 8th November 2008 Morning Laws 10:00am Arie Geursen - CTD NZCBA Law 27 Insufficient Bid Law - Application - What limitations on a new call 11:00am Sean Mullamphy - CTD ABF Laws 17 - 22, The Auction Period including review and explanation of Calls 12:00 noon Laurie Kelso - DIC - VBA Law 12 & The Appeals process - with workgroups 1:30pm Lunch Afternoon Laws 2:00pm Matthew McManus (DIC NSWBA) Laws 40 and 75 Partnership Understandings and Agreements, with workgroups. Workshops on Scoring Programmes 3:00pm ASE8 & Bridgemates - John McIlrath - TD & Manager N S Bridge New ABF Online Scoring System - Geoff Schaller Dealer 4 - Australian Dealing machine - Sean Mullamphy Sunday 9th November 2008 Morning Laws 10:00am Simon Edler Carding errors - Penalty Cards, missing cards, plays out of turn, etc 11:00am Matthew McManus Laws 61 - 67 The Revokes, Tricks and their arrangement, inspection and defective Laws 41 - 47 Following through the correct procedures from commencement of play, Dummy's Rights and Limitations to Cards Played and their Retraction as well as calling for cards from dummy. 12:00 noon Lunch Afternoon 1:00pm Arie Geursen Laws 68 - 71 - Claims and Concessions inc workgroups 2:00pm Laurie Kelso, Sean Mullamphy Mat McManus & Arie Geursen Law 16 Unauthorised Information with workgroup discussions 3:00pm All - General discussion - Question and answers - Farewell - thanks -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Sep 24 07:28:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:28:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D3B3AE.4020203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, page 192: "We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. 'Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like 'gene'. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to 'memory', or to the French word m?me. It should be pronounced to rhyme with 'cream'." Imps Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 3D (1) 4NT(2) Pass 5D (3) Pass 5NT(4) Pass ? (1) Pre-emptive with diamonds (2) Keycard Blackwood in spades (3) One or four keycards, not a preference to play in 5D (4) Guaranteeing that all five keycards are held You, West, hold: QT542 KQ Q9 AK65 What call do you make? How often do you make it? 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 Sep 24 08:02:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:02:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48D9076C.60603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >[E] Partner never forgets an agreement but loves to psyche. Richard Hills: Clause [E] is a contradiction in terms. One cannot be aware that partner loves to psyche. As soon as that awareness develops the psyche fails the Law 40C1 criterion "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents", so metamorphoses into a Concealed Partnership Understanding (CPU) pseudo-psyche. Nigel Guthrie: >[F] Partner never forgets an agreement but is prone to mis- >sorting his black suits. Richard Hills: I am not sure whether mechanical errors such as missorting and revokes can be defined as Law 40A1(a) "methods adopted by a partnership". Nigel Guthrie: >Whichever of these obtains, it gives you a different >advantage over opponents. IMO the director should take this >into account when assessing damage. Richard Hills: No, the first thing that the Director should assess is whether there has been a CPU (either explicit or implicit) infraction. No infraction, no damage. But Nigel is of course correct that _if_ an MI infraction has occurred, _then_ the nature of an accurate statement of partnership understanding may determine whether or by how much the opponents are damaged Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 08:06:33 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:06:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48D3B3AE.4020203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 24/09/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, page 192: > > "We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys > the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of > imitation. 'Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I > want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like 'gene'. I hope > my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate > mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could > alternatively be thought of as being related to 'memory', > or to the French word m?me. It should be pronounced to > rhyme with 'cream'." > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S 3D (1) 4NT(2) Pass > 5D (3) Pass 5NT(4) Pass > ? > > (1) Pre-emptive with diamonds > (2) Keycard Blackwood in spades > (3) One or four keycards, not a preference to play in 5D > (4) Guaranteeing that all five keycards are held > > You, West, hold: > > QT542 > KQ > Q9 > AK65 > You don't specify this, but I expect that 5NT also guarantees the possession of the trump queen or ten trumps combined, as partner didn't ask for the trump queen with 5H. Thus we've got no losers in trumps nor the red suits (I can discard a diamond on partner's heart ace). > What call do you make? 7S, partner doesn't bid 4NT lacking a control in a side suit. Partner is known to hold a singleton club. > How often do you make it? Whenever I play with a partner I know I can trust. That is, I might do something else in an indivisual facing an unknown partner or someone I know I can't trust. -- 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 sater at xs4all.nl Wed Sep 24 08:29:32 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:29:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48D3B3AE.4020203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003301c91e0e$e8287230$b8795690$@nl> [RH] Imps Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 3D (1) 4NT(2) Pass 5D (3) Pass 5NT(4) Pass ? (1) Pre-emptive with diamonds (2) Keycard Blackwood in spades (3) One or four keycards, not a preference to play in 5D (4) Guaranteeing that all five keycards are held You, West, hold: QT542 KQ Q9 AK65 What call do you make? How often do you make it? [HvS] As usual I will answer as if I play without specific agreements. To start with, I have a reasonably good hand, although both the queen of S and D look without value. Partner should have 5S, he did not enquire for the Q. Still my hand is too good to sign off, and absent specific agreements I will bid features up the line. I will bid 6C, and if PD bids 6D I will bid 6H. I can only do this once, absent interesting irregularities. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 24 09:21:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:21:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003301c91e0e$e8287230$b8795690$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >...absent specific agreements I will bid >features up the line. I will bid 6C... Richard Hills: Indeed, as will become apparent later, one of the aspects of this thread is what would have happened in the absence of super- scientific expert agreements. But is not bidding features up the line just such an ambiguous super-scientific expert idea, when a non-expert partner may believe that 6C shows zero side kings? On the other hand, it is difficult for a non-expert partner to misinterpret Harald Skj?ran's recommended call of 7S. :-) 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 Wed Sep 24 11:07:36 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:07:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <006b01c91e25$1d7993e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:28 AM Subject: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, page 192: "We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. 'Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like 'gene'. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to 'memory', or to the French word m?me. It should be pronounced to rhyme with 'cream'." Imps Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 3D (1) 4NT(2) Pass 5D (3) Pass 5NT(4) Pass ? (1) Pre-emptive with diamonds (2) Keycard Blackwood in spades (3) One or four keycards, not a preference to play in 5D (4) Guaranteeing that all five keycards are held You, West, hold: QT542 KQ Q9 AK65 What call do you make? How often do you make it? +=+ I am thinking that the big risk here is duplication of shape. I have need of a bid that enquires about the disribution of the hand - or at least about partner's club holding - or one that tells him I have losers in clubs. Without having developed sophisticated methods of that degree I have a problem (but in fact at the height of my playing career 6C by me would have communicated the location of my problem). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 11:14:03 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:14:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> Message-ID: <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [RF] > > The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly explains > this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that means. > > [DALB] > > It means that he prefers diamonds to clubs, and this is the answer you give. > It does not show any number of aces, so if the opponents want to know how > many aces your partner has, you tell them that you do not know. Once more: > the opponents are entitled to a correct explanation of the partnership > method, not to a correct description of the partnership's hands. > David, you have told us this so many times it would be really silly of Bob's to ask the question again. It was the next seven questions I wanted you to be answering. When they press on, do you reaveal how many aces your partner has? After all, you know it - he just told you by first saying that 4NT was (IHO) Blackwood, and then bidding 5Di. > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 11:16:27 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:16:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48D8E597.4070709@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8E597.4070709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48DA056B.4090305@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > BTW, they could always look at your CC. > BZZZZ - wrong answer. They are entitled to some information, and they are allowed to ask for those pieces of information. The question which is put here is whether you believe they are entitled to this information. I have stated 20 times already that they are, and I have never heard any objections. Why then are you all so reluctant to for once stick your neck out and agree with something. Especially when the question came from someone non-Herman. > Best regards > > Alain > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 11:18:45 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:18:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48DA05F5.4000901@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > >> [E] Partner never forgets an agreement but loves to psyche. > > Richard Hills: > > Clause [E] is a contradiction in terms. One cannot be aware > that partner loves to psyche. As soon as that awareness > develops the psyche fails the Law 40C1 criterion "partner > has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have > the opponents", so metamorphoses into a Concealed > Partnership Understanding (CPU) pseudo-psyche. > BZZZ Wrong. You are allowed to know that partner loves to psyche. That does not mean he has done the same psyche more than once. And even if he has, you are still allowed to know that he has. So there is no contradiction in terms here. Herman. (and of course the things you know -and some more- are information the opponents are entitled to) From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 11:21:30 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:21:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000f01c91d9e$25d69d30$7183d790$@com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D90763.5090208@t-online.de> <5FAA6E86-3889-4B90-9FDE-DA8879105E1C@starpower.net> <000f01c91d9e$25d69d30$7183d790$@com> Message-ID: <48DA069A.8030703@skynet.be> OK David, thank you. David Burn wrote: > > I don't have any particular problem with the notion that a player should be > compelled to tell the opponents what a 5D response to Blackwood means even > if Blackwood has not actually been used in an auction. But I am not sure > that this is the Law - in fact, I am fairly sure that it is not. > So tell me why not. And I don't mean that a pair must necessarily have agreements over conventions they don't actually play - but if they do play this convention? Or if they have in the recent past? > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 24 11:27:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:27:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48DA0815.1030808@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership > understandings to opponents..." [L40A1(b)]. Your opponents are > entitled to knowledge of your Blackwood responses whether or not you > have used Blackwood at their table. "We have no agreement about what > Blackwood responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood" is egregious wise- > assery at best, and verges on C&E-committee-bait. > AG : what about : "we use 30-41 when a major is agreed, 41-30 when a minor is, and no BW when no suit is agreed" ? This is my agreement in two partnerships. Opponents won't be able to know how many aces partner has in this sequence. BTW, I don't know either. In fact, we need to know what trums are, and we don't. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 24 11:29:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:29:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48D9076C.60603@NTLworld.com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D9076C.60603@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48DA0880.1090306@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Eric Landau] > "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership > understandings to opponents..." [L40A1(b)]. Your opponents are > entitled to knowledge of your Blackwood responses whether or not you > have used Blackwood at their table. "We have no agreement about what > Blackwood responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood" is egregious wise- > assery at best, and verges on C&E-committee-bait. > > [Nige1] > I go further. Consider another case, you hold > S:Axx H:xxx D:xxx C:xxxx > Partner opens 4D. You alert, When asked, you reveal your partnership > agreement > [A] "A completely solid 7-8 card spade suit". > > Obviously something has gone wrong but an experienced partnership has a > far better chance of determining which particular wheel has fallen off. > > For example ... > [B] Your previous agreement was Solid or *semisolid* spades. > [C] Your previous agreement was Solid *hearts*. > [C] Your previous agreement was "pre-empt in *either major*". > [D] Your previous agreement wad "Natural long diamonds". > [E] Partner never forgets an agreement but loves to psyche. > [F] Partner never forgets an agreement but is prone to mis-sorting > his black suits. > > Don't remember (G) : *you* missorted your suits. In fact, this would be my first reaction in such a case. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 11:53:45 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:53:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <001901c91d94$0fb4eb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie><48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be><48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be><48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be><002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be><48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de><48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be><969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net><007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <921DFA61-C669-46B4-A3A4-F1FE88E5A5C4@starpower.net> <001901c91d94$0fb4eb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DA0E29.5050906@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" >> Does the law offer any guideline >> as to how he should choose between them, or does he just get to >> decide on his own using criteria of his own choosing? >> > +=+ The Law requires him to know his system. Always allowing > that there is a partnership agreement to disclose, it simply provides > that if, for whatever reason, in response to enquiry he fails to explain > correctly the partnership understanding as to the meaning of partner's > call, he is guilty of an infraction. If he gets it wrong, too bad - he has > failed in his duty to opponent. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If I may be so bold as to interpret Grattan's writings, I think Grattan agrees that the player may decide upon criteria of his own choosing. If he is uncertain as to whether system A or B is "on", a player has no obligation to reveal his doubts, or to reveal what the other possibility is. He should simply select (of his own choosing) one of the two systems, explain it as if it were the absolute truth, and wait for the Director to decide. If he has chosen A when the Director rules that the true system is B (or even C), then he has "failed in his duty to his opponent" and any resulting damage will be rectified. Does that answer your question Eric? Did I interpret correctly, Grattan? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 11:56:30 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:56:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Matthias vs Sven [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48DA0ECE.2030901@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > But on the question of _intentional_ failure to disclose, as TD I > would be more impressed with a person giving an odds-on (b) > explanation than with another person giving an odds-against (a) > explanation, so as a TD I might apply a procedural penalty to the > (a) explainer. > And how do you decide what is odds-on and odds-against? Can you honestly say you believe wha players tell you? "I was almost convinced it was system A!". Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 24 11:49:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:49:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48DA0D13.7080008@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S 3D (1) 4NT(2) Pass > 5D (3) Pass 5NT(4) Pass > ? > > (1) Pre-emptive with diamonds > (2) Keycard Blackwood in spades > (3) One or four keycards, not a preference to play in 5D > (4) Guaranteeing that all five keycards are held > > You, West, hold: > > QT542 > KQ > Q9 > AK65 > > What call do you make? > How often do you make it? > > AG : I make my regular answer to 5NT : 6C (CK ; partner can ask for some other king by naming the suit). Yes, I know it's possible to bid 7S (not 7NT : partner might hold a strange hand and be counting on ruffs). In fact, I'd bid 7S if partner was prone to forget our agreements over 5NT or if I feared a trance from partner. I don't understand the second question. I'd say about thrice a year, but perhaps you meant something else. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 24 12:21:22 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:21:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001701c91e32$000d4ec0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Nigel Guthrie asserted: > >>We were told that NBOs consulted their members widely. >>That does not seem to have been the case. I feel that >>NBOs should have tried to ascertain the views of >>ordinary players, as well as of senior officials. > +=+ It was never my belief that "NBOs consulted their members widely". The invitation extended to NBOs (and to Zones and the Portland Club) was to consult the circle of those who might have something to contribute to the laws. From such evidence as returned to me it appeared that experience of the process varied widely in different parts of the world, and I did not/do not think it appropriate for the drafting subcommittee to pass comment on the judgement of the NBOs etc. as to whom they should involve. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Sep 24 13:23:28 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:23:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c91e32$000d4ec0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <001701c91e32$000d4ec0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DA2330.1030708@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] The invitation extended to NBOs (and to Zones and the Portland Club) was to consult the circle of those who might have something to contribute to the laws. From such evidence as returned to me it appeared that experience of the process varied widely in different parts of the world, and I did not/do not think it appropriate for the drafting subcommittee to pass comment on the judgement of the NBOs etc. as to whom they should involve. [Nige1] OK, the WBFLC was happy to accept that only a handful of senior officials were deemed worth consultation by some NBOs. It seems that none of the rest of us had anything to contribute. The WBFLC may have needed NBO final approval, but I feel it would have avoided some anomalies by seeking constructive criticism of drafts from a wider readership (which it would have been free to ignore if it upset NBO top brass). From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 24 13:32:05 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:32:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> [HdW] When they press on, do you reveal how many aces your partner has? After all, you know it [DALB] No, Herman, you don't know it. You see, when your opponents started asking questions and your partner started giving answers, you immediately turned your hearing aid off. You did not hear your partner say that 4NT was Blackwood. That was not an indication to you in any manner of anything at all. David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 24 13:32:38 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:32:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA0815.1030808@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48DA0815.1030808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:27:49 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership >> understandings to opponents..." [L40A1(b)]. Your opponents are >> entitled to knowledge of your Blackwood responses whether or not you >> have used Blackwood at their table. "We have no agreement about what >> Blackwood responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood" is egregious wise- >> assery at best, and verges on C&E-committee-bait. >> > AG : what about : "we use 30-41 when a major is agreed, 41-30 when a > minor is, and no BW when no suit is agreed" ? > This is my agreement in two partnerships. > Opponents won't be able to know how many aces partner has in this > sequence. BTW, I don't know either. In fact, we need to know what trums > are, and we don't. That would make the problem uninteresting. I tried to make the example so that it is very likely partner forgot that an immediate jump to Blackwood was not on over a weak two in the majors. You have an agreement of what partner's bid would mean over a pre-empt on the three level, and that is most likely how partner is bidding. In other words, you know how many aces partner has. At least here in ACBL-land, no one puts their responses to a non-suit Blackwood on their convention card. So the opponents can't find out anything useful looking at the card. From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 24 13:53:35 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:53:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be><000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0D42EAB23ABC45769FB540B4745781AC@JOHN> > It was the next seven questions I wanted you to be answering. > > When they press on, do you reaveal how many aces your partner has? After > all, you know it - he just told you by first saying that 4NT was (IHO) > Blackwood, and then bidding 5Di. "over 4NT bkwd, 5D would show x Aces". Easy enough. wtp? John > From john at asimere.com Wed Sep 24 13:58:58 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:58:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <006b01c91e25$1d7993e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <871C3713682D41C995D71A5EEB2D0504@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:28 AM Subject: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, page 192: "We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. 'Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like 'gene'. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to 'memory', or to the French word m?me. It should be pronounced to rhyme with 'cream'." Imps Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 3D (1) 4NT(2) Pass 5D (3) Pass 5NT(4) Pass ? (1) Pre-emptive with diamonds (2) Keycard Blackwood in spades (3) One or four keycards, not a preference to play in 5D (4) Guaranteeing that all five keycards are held You, West, hold: QT542 KQ Q9 AK65 What call do you make? How often do you make it? >+=+ I am thinking that the big risk here is duplication of shape. I have need of a bid that enquires about the disribution of the hand - or at least about partner's club holding - or one that tells him I have losers in clubs. Without having developed sophisticated methods of that degree I have a problem (but in fact at the height of my playing career 6C by me would have communicated the location of my problem). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 7C p/c seems to cover most bases. John _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 24 14:13:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:13:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48DA0815.1030808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48DA2EDF.6090401@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > At least here in ACBL-land, no one puts their responses to a non-suit > Blackwood on their convention card. So the opponents can't find out > anything useful looking at the card. > > In my country, nearly nobody uses BW when there is no suit agreed, whence one can't answer the question. Because the only plausible answer would be "either one Ace or the king of trumps". Then they ask you what trumps are, and you answer that you don't know. Is that more efficient than the gioven example ? What, by the way, if he thought to himself "that's minors, no, not BW, not BW" and mechanically answered "BW" to your quesiton, so that his 5D *is* preference ? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 24 14:12:40 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:12:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie><48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be><48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be><48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be><002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be><48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de><48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be><969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net><007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <921DFA61-C669-46B4-A3A4-F1FE88E5A5C4@starpower.net><001901c91d94$0fb4eb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DA0E29.5050906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003301c91e3f$3064dfe0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed > Grattan wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Landau" >>> Does the law offer any guideline >>> as to how he should choose between them, or does he just get to >>> decide on his own using criteria of his own choosing? >>> >> +=+ The Law requires him to know his system. Always allowing >> that there is a partnership agreement to disclose, it simply provides >> that if, for whatever reason, in response to enquiry he fails to explain >> correctly the partnership understanding as to the meaning of partner's >> call, he is guilty of an infraction. If he gets it wrong, too bad - he >> has >> failed in his duty to opponent. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > If I may be so bold as to interpret Grattan's writings, I think Grattan > agrees that the player may decide upon criteria of his own choosing. > > If he is uncertain as to whether system A or B is "on", a player has no > obligation to reveal his doubts, or to reveal what the other possibility > is. > He should simply select (of his own choosing) one of the two systems, > explain it as if it were the absolute truth, and wait for the Director > to decide. If he has chosen A when the Director rules that the true > system is B (or even C), then he has "failed in his duty to his > opponent" and any resulting damage will be rectified. > > Does that answer your question Eric? > Did I interpret correctly, Grattan? > > Herman. > +=+ A civil question indeed! Herman invites me to step down from my seat and contemplate the problem through the eyes of the player. As far as it goes I agree the player may make up his mind what he believes to be the correct information to give in answer to the enquiry. If it turns out to be incorrect and opponents are damaged they will be entitled to redress. He must not tell them something he believes not to be the correct partnership understanding. However, subject to the regime and the desires of the RA, there is one other possible path to explore. If the player is in doubt as to what he should do he may wish to ask the Director to explain to him his 'rights and responsibilities' (see Law 81C2). The Director, who will bear in mind the proper principles that David Burn has enunciated with great clarity, may find the means to avoid damage to the opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 14:14:13 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:14:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> Message-ID: <48DA2F15.9070001@skynet.be> No David, you did hear it! David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > When they press on, do you reveal how many aces your partner has? After all, > you know it > > [DALB] > > No, Herman, you don't know it. You see, when your opponents started asking > questions and your partner started giving answers, you immediately turned > your hearing aid off. You did not hear your partner say that 4NT was > Blackwood. That was not an indication to you in any manner of anything at > all. > No David, there is no requirement in the laws to turn your hearing aid off. In fact, there are two requirements that say you must turn your hearing aid up! One: in order to know which of the LA is suggested, since you are no longer allowed to choose that one; Two: in order to know if you need to correct any misexplanation that may have been given. But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you. "If 4NT were interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". Do you believe you must answer that question or not? > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 24 12:18:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:18:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48CFF7B7.4010903@skynet.be> <001101c917ea$3fbe1de0$bf3a59a0$@com> <48D02273.3040408@skynet.be> <48CFBAC8.6070805@t-online.de> <48D04EE4.80704@skynet.be> <48D0D216.4050709@t-online.de> <48D16268.2080002@skynet.be> <48D0EE36.8040908@t-online.de> <48D18FB9.1030809@skynet.be> <48D25922.6020408@ulb.ac.be> <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be><000301c91bc5$798c60c0$6ca52240$@no> <000001c91c97$f67b87a0$e37296e0$@com> Message-ID: <7C544AB4B9974EE8B0C095CA2D945D75@stefanie> > [SP] > > You answer that it is preference for Diamonds. > > [DALB] > > No, you don't. You answer that it shows one ace, because that is what it > shows according to your methods, and that is what the opponents are > entitled > to know. You then pass it, because you are not allowed to be reminded by > partner's reply to your question that 4NT was Blackwood. You see, > partner's > answer to your question is not an indication to you at all. Not in any > manner. I know that this is correct in theory, but I am worried about the practice. 30 seconds ago you didn't know what your agreement was, and now that partner has piped up, you know for sure? On the rare occasions that this sort of thing has happened to my regular partner and me, we would still be discussing the meaning of the sequence in the bar after the session. I think that the danger of changing your explanation is that you might be changing from giving correct information to giving MI rather than the other way round. Obviously, if you thought you were playing system X and look up, DALB style, to notice that you are playing with a partner who adamantly refuses to play X, then you can change your explanation. I think that in most cases, though, you will not be 100% certain, and are in danger of drifting over to the dark side. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 24 12:34:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:34:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed References: <48D63D8C.5090106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <733F6392F9724B9A8454DF1CA466378F@stefanie> > Martin Oyston wrote: >> If it is on one's system card, can you not simply suggest to the >> opponents >> to refer to your system card? >> This surely takes the guess work and potential MI from you "Guessing" >> which >> is the real systematic agreement. >> HdW > True, but that too reveals to the opponents that there is the > possibility of a mistake. Which, IMO, is "indicating in any manner that > a mistake has taken place". So, the meaning of the bid over which there was a misunderstanding is on the convention card. Now we have no problem, because we can show the opponents the card and transmit no MI, no UI. The dWS should be satisfied. Not so fast! This seemingly blameless procedure is no good either, because now the opponents are in a position to know that you are having a disagreement. This is one of the things that makes the dWS so repugnant to most right-thinking people. If it were just a matter of trying not to give UI (and, arguably, be helpful to the opponents) one could understand it even if one disagreed with it; but in a case like this we can see that it's all about our score. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 14:15:59 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:15:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA0815.1030808@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48DA0815.1030808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48DA2F7F.5070006@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership >> understandings to opponents..." [L40A1(b)]. Your opponents are >> entitled to knowledge of your Blackwood responses whether or not you >> have used Blackwood at their table. "We have no agreement about what >> Blackwood responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood" is egregious wise- >> assery at best, and verges on C&E-committee-bait. >> > AG : what about : "we use 30-41 when a major is agreed, 41-30 when a > minor is, and no BW when no suit is agreed" ? > This is my agreement in two partnerships. > Opponents won't be able to know how many aces partner has in this > sequence. BTW, I don't know either. In fact, we need to know what trums > are, and we don't. > Well, we could do. And you are quite allowed to state "I'm not certain about which trump suit we have set". And even allow them to ask your partner that. > Best regards > > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 24 14:29:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:29:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA2F15.9070001@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> <48DA2F15.9070001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48DA32B7.2010909@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you. "If 4NT > were interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". > AG : are such questions legitimate ? Say there are screens, and an opponent asks you that. Are you compelled to answer ? Partner opens 1S. You answer 2C, explained as Stayman (???). He answers 2S. Do you have to explain what 2S would have meant if 2C was Stayman over 1S ? Do you have any idea ? And what's the difference here ? BW applies in this sequence no more and no less than Stayman over a 1S opening. IMOBO, the fact that the meaning of partner's bid is easier to guess in this case is irrelevant, because you're compelled to explain information you get through system, not what you get by sheer logic. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 24 15:17:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:17:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <000b01c91dbb$f2a4db70$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be><000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com><48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be><67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie><48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be><48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de><48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be><48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be><002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be><48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de><48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be><969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net><007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred><921DFA61-C669-46B4-A3A4-F1FE88E5A5C4@starpower.net><001901c91d94$0fb4eb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> <000b01c91dbb$f2a4db70$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <627C6847-DBF3-48B9-B642-B1AEEADDE6E0@starpower.net> On Sep 23, 2008, at 4:35 PM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >>> +=+ The Law requires him to know his system. >> >> It does? Since when? Not only am I unable to find any such thing in >> the laws, not only have there been numerous discussions in this forum >> in which the opposite was consensually assumed and not contradicted, >> not only would it mean that practically every player in every club in >> the world was in violation of the law every time he sat down at the >> bridge table, but it is trivially proven false by reductio ad >> absurdum: If the Law required a player to know his system, a >> systemic misbid would be a violation, presumably subject to redress >> for damage, which it patently is not. > > +=+ Not in so many words, I agree, but it is absolute in its demand > that when opponent asks he must be given correct information in > regard to the partnership agreement - even if the player does not > know what it is. It has no sympathy for your player who can't > decide whether the actual understanding is what he thinks it is or > what he thinks partner thinks it is. It just demands that an answer > shall be given which shall state the partnership understanding > correctly. And if the player gets it wrong it is quite simply an > infraction (which may or may not damage opponent). +=+ > >> We know that. It is nothing more than a simple paraphrase of >> Grattan's previous comment (above). It has nothing to add to the >> matter at hand. > > +=+ The 'matter in hand' does not call for anything further to be > added. The Law has no concern with that but only with whether, > when the player decides what to say, his answer satisfies the > requirement that he must state the partnership agreement correctly. > The Law has no responsibility for the player's uncertainty and > allows him no margin for it. Either he explains the agreement > correctly or he is in breach of the law. He must not expect any > kind of sympathy if he does not know what his partnership's > methods are. > And indeed, one can go on repeating this truth forever. Point taken and accepted. But "the 'matter in hand'" -- what the player at the table in this situation ought to do -- is far from resolved. Grattan makes a convincing case that we cannot look to TFLB for an answer, but that hardly means that there is nothing further to be added. We have other tools besides the lawbook that can be brought to bear, such as logic, experience, and good old- fashioned common sense. Whether we sympathize with the guy or not, there he is, sitting at the table unable to provide his opponents with the defintive and certain answer the Law requires him to give. How is he to decide what to say? So *the Law* just doesn't help him. That doesn't mean *we* can't. Can we? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 24 15:19:33 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:19:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: I tried to construct this so that I know the intended meaning of my partners 5Di response -- I can be fairly confident partner treated it like a jump to 4NT over an opening 3 pre-empt. What if the opponents ask exactly the right question -- "What would his 5Di bid mean if the the auction started with 3Sp instead of 2Sp?" I am rereading and rereading Law 20F1 and I can't decide for sure. I think the answer is yes -- "They are entitled to know ... about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." In the problem as given, they didn't ask this question, and in practice they are unlikely to. But in ACBL-land, we currently have as conditions of contest: --- The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information -- all relevant disclosures should be given automatically. The proper way to ask for information is "Please Explain". ----- So I think that means that as soon as the opponents ask for an explanation of partner's 5Di bid, I have to indicate how many aces it shows. (I don't know the obligations outside of ACBL-land.) The MS position, as I understand it, is that I have an ethical obligation to also reveal to the opponents that partner has misunderstood my bid. So to follow that, I would add that explanation too, ending up with something like "If my 4NT bid was for the minors, that shows a preference for diamonds; if my 4NT bid was Blackwood, that shows 1 ace." I think this follows the MS ideal of explaining relevant partnership agreements, it just explains both of them instead of trying to choose. This answer applies only to ACBL-land. Without the CoC, I don't know explainer's obligations to volunteer information the opponents are entitled to. > Make a ruling: > > The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly > explains this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that > means. > > I explain this assuming a correct partnership understanding of all bids > in > the auction -- as showing a preference for diamonds. I do this because > you > the director have persuaded me of the wisdom of this action. (Or maybe it > is the pp you threatened me with.) > > The opponents call you, the director. They want to know how many aces my > partner has. I refuse to tell them. > > They say: "We asked him what his partner's bid really meant and he > refused > to tell us. We asked him what his partner's bid means if 4NT is Blackwood > and he STILL wouldn't tell us." > > I answer: "I did tell them what my partner's bid meant. While we have > many > agreements about Blackwood, we have no agreement about what Blackwood > responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood. If I make a weak 2D bid, I do > not have to answer questions about what my partner's bid would mean if my > 2D is a mini-Roman or some other convention I don't even know. > > How do you rule? (It doesn't make sense to give an opinion if you just > want to claim I first should have described partner's bid in terms of > number of aces instead of a diamond preference.) > > If you look at my card, which I am guessing is inppropriately proactive > as > director, it says Roman Key Card Blackwood with 1430. > > We play the 4NT is Blackwood over any 3 level pre-empt and over an > opening > 2D, and we have agreed on the responses in this situation. So I can make > a > very good guess about partner's intended meaning. > > And, extra credit, does it change things if I am in ACBL-land? From their > conditions of contest: > > All players have an obligation to disclose their agreements according to > the procedures established by ACBL. When asked, a full explanation of the > agreement must be provided. Stating the common or popular name of the > convention is not sufficient. The opponents need not ask exactly the > "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. > Opponents need only indicate the desire for information -- all relevant > disclosures should be given automatically. The proper way to ask for > information is "Please Explain". > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 24 15:52:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:52:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <544CB354-DC26-4B67-A819-9AC2FC6C79A9@starpower.net> On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > David Burn wrote: >> [RF] >> >> The opponent opens 2S, weak. I jump to 4NT. My partner incorrectly >> explains >> this as Blackwood. He bids 5D. The opponents ask what that means. >> >> [DALB] >> >> It means that he prefers diamonds to clubs, and this is the answer >> you give. >> It does not show any number of aces, so if the opponents want to >> know how >> many aces your partner has, you tell them that you do not know. >> Once more: >> the opponents are entitled to a correct explanation of the >> partnership >> method, not to a correct description of the partnership's hands. > > David, you have told us this so many times it would be really silly of > Bob's to ask the question again. > > It was the next seven questions I wanted you to be answering. > > When they press on, do you reaveal how many aces your partner has? > After > all, you know it - he just told you by first saying that 4NT was (IHO) > Blackwood, and then bidding 5Di. From a legal perspective, this has nothing to do with the dWS issue. Herman's "you know it -- he just told you" is nonsense in this context. Here is the question: You bid 4NT for the minors, and partner bids 5D, showing a diamond preference. The opponents (who may or may not have inquired about the actual 4NT or 5D bids; it doesn't matter) now ask you what 5D would have meant in reply to an ace-asking 4NT bid. You could have answered that question before anyone looked at their cards, so this has nothing whatsoever to do with any table action. Are you obligated to answer, or may you refuse? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 24 15:57:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:57:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA0815.1030808@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48DA0815.1030808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6D06DC41-315A-4719-A80B-63038122B8EB@starpower.net> On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:27 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership >> understandings to opponents..." [L40A1(b)]. Your opponents are >> entitled to knowledge of your Blackwood responses whether or not you >> have used Blackwood at their table. "We have no agreement about what >> Blackwood responses mean when 4NT is not Blackwood" is egregious >> wise- >> assery at best, and verges on C&E-committee-bait. > > AG : what about : "we use 30-41 when a major is agreed, 41-30 when a > minor is, and no BW when no suit is agreed" ? > This is my agreement in two partnerships. > Opponents won't be able to know how many aces partner has in this > sequence. BTW, I don't know either. In fact, we need to know what > trums > are, and we don't. I have no problem with that; if those are your agreed Blackwood responses, then those are your agreed Blackwood responses. It may not be exactly the answer the opponents were hoping for, but it's the answer they're entitled to, it's far from useless, and it's not at all the same thing as refusing to answer their question. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 16:05:41 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:05:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented reversed In-Reply-To: <733F6392F9724B9A8454DF1CA466378F@stefanie> References: <48D63D8C.5090106@skynet.be> <733F6392F9724B9A8454DF1CA466378F@stefanie> Message-ID: <48DA4935.8060000@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Martin Oyston wrote: >>> If it is on one's system card, can you not simply suggest to the >>> opponents >>> to refer to your system card? >>> This surely takes the guess work and potential MI from you "Guessing" >>> which >>> is the real systematic agreement. >>> > HdW > >> True, but that too reveals to the opponents that there is the >> possibility of a mistake. Which, IMO, is "indicating in any manner that >> a mistake has taken place". > > So, the meaning of the bid over which there was a misunderstanding is on the > convention card. Now we have no problem, because we can show the opponents > the card and transmit no MI, no UI. The dWS should be satisfied. > Not really. > Not so fast! This seemingly blameless procedure is no good either, because > now the opponents are in a position to know that you are having a > disagreement. Indeed, showing the SC is no better than shouting "you silly bastard" to partner. > This is one of the things that makes the dWS so repugnant to > most right-thinking people. This sentence is a) deliberately hurtful b) totally superfluous c) probably wrong - it may be repugnant to you, young lady, but not to me - am I not right-thinking? > If it were just a matter of trying not to give > UI (and, arguably, be helpful to the opponents) one could understand it even > if one disagreed with it; > but in a case like this we can see that it's all > about our score. > What "case like this"? And of course it is about our score. Isn't everything? What is so bad about thinking about one's score - of course not when doing something illegal, but it's just that legality we are discussing. You can NOT use the argument that it's better for me as proof that it's illegal - that way books about squeezes are also illegal. And you've done this before, and I've told you off before. Stop doing this, it's not nice. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > Herman. PS: Stephanie: just imagine the exact same bidding sequence, with an opponent who takes your system card and looks up the Blackwood responses. Do you butt in and say "you're looking in the wrong place, 4NT was not Blackwood"? If you do, you're masochistic and breaking L20F5a. If you don't, stop calling my actions repugnant - they are exactly as "wrong" as this example. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 16:09:40 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:09:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA32B7.2010909@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> <48DA2F15.9070001@skynet.be> <48DA32B7.2010909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48DA4A24.8040409@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you. "If 4NT >> were interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". >> > AG : are such questions legitimate ? Say there are screens, and an > opponent asks you that. Are you compelled to answer ? > > Partner opens 1S. You answer 2C, explained as Stayman (???). He answers > 2S. > Do you have to explain what 2S would have meant if 2C was Stayman over 1S ? > Do you have any idea ? > > And what's the difference here ? BW applies in this sequence no more and > no less than Stayman over a 1S opening. > IMOBO, the fact that the meaning of partner's bid is easier to guess in > this case is irrelevant, because you're compelled to explain information > you get through system, not what you get by sheer logic. > Alain, logical error. It is not because you can devise situations in which you do not know the answer that the situations in which you do know the answer become different. In all my cases I have started by saying: B replies that it's system B, which is a system A knows quite well. If A does not know the system B, then we are in a totally different situation. A player cannot play dWS in such a situation and is forced to practice MS. As to the legality of the question, let me give an alternate example: Someone jumps to 5Cl, without asking for Blackwood. Surely it is interesting for me to know how many aces 5Di would show, in order to know what response the player was scared of. > Best regards > > Alain > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 16:11:44 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:11:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA2EDF.6090401@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48DA0815.1030808@ulb.ac.be> <48DA2EDF.6090401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48DA4AA0.1010304@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> At least here in ACBL-land, no one puts their responses to a non-suit >> Blackwood on their convention card. So the opponents can't find out >> anything useful looking at the card. >> >> > In my country, nearly nobody uses BW when there is no suit agreed, > whence one can't answer the question. Ehm, I'm in your country, am I not? Well, today still - not sure about tomorrow here of course. :) > Because the only plausible answer would be "either one Ace or the king > of trumps". Then they ask you what trumps are, and you answer that you > don't know. Is that more efficient than the gioven example ? > > What, by the way, if he thought to himself "that's minors, no, not BW, > not BW" and mechanically answered "BW" to your quesiton, so that his 5D > *is* preference ? > And did not hear himself explain? and/or correct when they ask about aces? Let's stick to the simple stories, they are difficult enough. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 16:16:44 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:16:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DA4BCC.1030705@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > I tried to construct this so that I know the intended meaning of my > partners 5Di response -- I can be fairly confident partner treated it like > a jump to 4NT over an opening 3 pre-empt. > > What if the opponents ask exactly the right question -- "What would his > 5Di bid mean if the the auction started with 3Sp instead of 2Sp?" I am > rereading and rereading Law 20F1 and I can't decide for sure. I think the > answer is yes -- "They are entitled to know ... about relevant inferences > from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership > understanding." > > In the problem as given, they didn't ask this question, and in practice > they are unlikely to. But in ACBL-land, we currently have as conditions of > contest: > > --- > The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request for > information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire > for information -- all relevant disclosures should be given automatically. > The proper way to ask for information is "Please Explain". > ----- > > So I think that means that as soon as the opponents ask for an explanation > of partner's 5Di bid, I have to indicate how many aces it shows. (I don't > know the obligations outside of ACBL-land.) > > The MS position, as I understand it, is that I have an ethical obligation > to also reveal to the opponents that partner has misunderstood my bid. So > to follow that, I would add that explanation too, ending up with something > like "If my 4NT bid was for the minors, that shows a preference for > diamonds; if my 4NT bid was Blackwood, that shows 1 ace." I think this > follows the MS ideal of explaining relevant partnership agreements, it > just explains both of them instead of trying to choose. > > This answer applies only to ACBL-land. Without the CoC, I don't know > explainer's obligations to volunteer information the opponents are > entitled to. > I am quite certain the laws in themselves have enough words to say that every piece of relevant information must be shared, even if not specifically asked for. The number of aces shown, when it is clear that that is what was shown, is certainly relevant. Anyway, the opponents will ask a third question if you don't answer the second one, rest assured. Herman. From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Sep 24 16:26:22 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:26:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com><48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> Message-ID: <067a01c91e51$8536b8b0$fb8f0453@mala15b1d381fb> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > [HdW] > > When they press on, do you reveal how many aces your partner has? After > all, > you know it > > [DALB] > > No, Herman, you don't know it. You see, when your opponents started asking > questions and your partner started giving answers, you immediately turned > your hearing aid off. Then why does such thing as "unauthorized information" exist at all? If all you need is to "turn your hearing aid off", figuratively or otherwise. You do know how many aces partner has no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you don't. You know he has one ace because you did hear partner say that 4NT is Blackwood. We are not able to erase things from our memories at will. We do register partner's hesitations, partner's explanations at the table etc.That's why we have the notion of unauthorized information in the first place. Your argument is built on a false premise that we can throw things away from our memory at a whim. "Director - I really have no idea how many aces partner has because I no longer remember what my partner responded to opponents' question. One ace? Oh, that's interesting, I was wondering about that myself" This argument is really no better "but I would always pull this double, fast or slow!". Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kredyt Hipoteczny w Banku Millennium - zdobywca Zlotego Lauru Klienta! Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1f15 From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 24 16:32:55 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:32:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <544CB354-DC26-4B67-A819-9AC2FC6C79A9@starpower.net> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <544CB354-DC26-4B67-A819-9AC2FC6C79A9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48DA4F97.9010605@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > Here is the question: You bid 4NT for the minors, and partner bids > 5D, showing a diamond preference. The opponents (who may or may not > have inquired about the actual 4NT or 5D bids; it doesn't matter) now > ask you what 5D would have meant in reply to an ace-asking 4NT bid. > You could have answered that question before anyone looked at their > cards, so this has nothing whatsoever to do with any table action. > Are you obligated to answer, or may you refuse? > AG : may I re-state the question ? Hoping that I don't change its substance. Opponents are allowed, during the bidding, to enquire about bids that were made. They are allowed to enquire about bids that weren't made, but could have been made at some moment of the deal (with all due UI considerations). Question : are they allowed to enquire about bids that could have been made on some other deal ? Another interesting example : pass 1H 2C 2D 2C was alerted and explained as "Jacoby". Since there is no such convention that goes 1H-2C, I might suspect that the player mixed names and wanted to say "Drury".(or simply his tongue slipped). Am I allowed to ask "what would the 2D bid mean if 2C was Drury ?" Since this panel's tendency is to consider that the bid's meaning, rather than partner's actual hand, is the only information to which one is entitled, what specific consideration do you use to make an exception in this case ? (notice that, as is known to regular blml readers, I'd wish that the latter distinguo didn't exist, but let's put aside wishes for the time being) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 24 16:50:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:50:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA4A24.8040409@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> <48DA2F15.9070001@skynet.be> <48DA32B7.2010909@ulb.ac.be> <48DA4A24.8040409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48DA53BC.30206@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>> But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you. "If 4NT >>> were interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". >>> >>> >> AG : are such questions legitimate ? Say there are screens, and an >> opponent asks you that. Are you compelled to answer ? >> >> Partner opens 1S. You answer 2C, explained as Stayman (???). He answers >> 2S. >> Do you have to explain what 2S would have meant if 2C was Stayman over 1S ? >> Do you have any idea ? >> >> And what's the difference here ? BW applies in this sequence no more and >> no less than Stayman over a 1S opening. >> IMOBO, the fact that the meaning of partner's bid is easier to guess in >> this case is irrelevant, because you're compelled to explain information >> you get through system, not what you get by sheer logic. >> >> > > Alain, logical error. > It is not because you can devise situations in which you do not know the > answer that the situations in which you do know the answer become different > I'm sorry, I do not know the meaning of a 5D answer to 4NT in this sequence, because such a response can't be made in our system.. They want to know what this bid means when it does exist. And that's the reason for my question : during the deal, am I allowed to ask about the meaning of some bid in some sequence that didn't happen and couldn't happen on this deal ? In fact, that should be the only quesiton. > In all my cases I have started by saying: B replies that it's system B, > which is a system A knows quite well. > If A does not know the system B, then we are in a totally different > situation. A player cannot play dWS in such a situation and is forced to > practice MS. > > As to the legality of the question, let me give an alternate example: > > Someone jumps to 5Cl, without asking for Blackwood. Surely it is > interesting for me to know how many aces 5Di would show, in order to > know what response the player was scared of. > > AG : yes, that's explicitly said. (NB : perhaps partner just didn't think about slam) But this is a different situation altogether : they enquire about a bid that could have been made, on this deal, within the system. Which is not the case of 5D in the deal under scrutiny. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 24 17:01:12 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:01:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <067a01c91e51$8536b8b0$fb8f0453@mala15b1d381fb> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com><48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> <067a01c91e51$8536b8b0$fb8f0453@mala15b1d381fb> Message-ID: <000a01c91e56$65a39590$30eac0b0$@com> [KC] Then why does such thing as "unauthorized information" exist at all? [DALB] Because players do not always remember their system, or play in an unvarying tempo without mannerism. However, the legal position is quite clear. Even though you may have unauthorised information (the creation of which is not an infraction) you may not base calls or plays on it. This has nothing to do with your duty to explain your methods to the opponents. The question of whether your explanation is based on unauthorised information or not is completely irrelevant. In the example given, you must explain 5D as one ace (because that is your system) but you must continue to bid and play as if 5D was minor-suit preference (because you are not allowed to know that it was not). As I have remarked, this requires a degree of mental agility on your part amounting almost to schizophrenia, but this cannot be helped - it is the Law. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 24 18:26:09 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:26:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA2F15.9070001@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> <48DA2F15.9070001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c91e62$41298c40$c37ca4c0$@com> [HdW] No David, there is no requirement in the laws to turn your hearing aid off. In fact, there are two requirements that say you must turn your hearing aid up! [DALB] You persist in appearing to misunderstand something that I am sure you actually understand quite well, and about which the legal position is clear. For the purposes of selecting your own calls or plays, you must not use unauthorised information. It is true that you must process such information in order to decide whether a call or play is suggested by it, but this is to say no more than that you must (in effect) call or play as if you had not received the information. But for the purposes of explaining your methods to your opponents, it is completely irrelevant whether you have come by information by authorised means or not. Your duty is simply to explain your methods correctly. When so doing appears to bring you into conflict with Law 20F5a, you must nevertheless give correct explanations. In such cases, the unauthorised information you have received is not considered to be an indication that a mistake has been made. [HdW] But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you "If 4NT were interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". Do you believe you must answer that question or not? [DALB] I am not sure. Per Law 20F, no. Per Law 40A, possibly. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Sep 24 19:28:21 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:28:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA4F97.9010605@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <544CB354-DC26-4B67-A819-9AC2FC6C79A9@starpower.net> <48DA4F97.9010605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <58DC728F-A9B1-4F7D-AB4A-E0F2C409CD7C@starpower.net> On Sep 24, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Here is the question: You bid 4NT for the minors, and partner bids >> 5D, showing a diamond preference. The opponents (who may or may not >> have inquired about the actual 4NT or 5D bids; it doesn't matter) now >> ask you what 5D would have meant in reply to an ace-asking 4NT bid. >> You could have answered that question before anyone looked at their >> cards, so this has nothing whatsoever to do with any table action. >> Are you obligated to answer, or may you refuse? > > AG : may I re-state the question ? Hoping that I don't change its > substance. > > Opponents are allowed, during the bidding, to enquire about bids that > were made. > They are allowed to enquire about bids that weren't made, but could > have > been made at some moment of the deal (with all due UI considerations). > Question : are they allowed to enquire about bids that could have been > made on some other deal ? > > Another interesting example : > > pass 1H > 2C 2D > > 2C was alerted and explained as "Jacoby". Since there is no such > convention that goes 1H-2C, I might suspect that the player mixed > names > and wanted to say "Drury".(or simply his tongue slipped). > Am I allowed to ask "what would the 2D bid mean if 2C was Drury ?" > > Since this panel's tendency is to consider that the bid's meaning, > rather than partner's actual hand, is the only information to which > one > is entitled, what specific consideration do you use to make an > exception > in this case ? > > (notice that, as is known to regular blml readers, I'd wish that the > latter distinguo didn't exist, but let's put aside wishes for the time > being) I just can't relate to Alain's example. ISTM that in reply to a request for an explanation of your methods, you are obligated to explain your methods, not merely to inform your opponents as to whom they were named after. (The ACBL does have a formal guideline to this effect, but it is true everywhere, isn't it?) So if 2C was alerted and explained as "Jacoby", your next question, before any inquiry about alternative meanings, would presumably be along the lines of, "What's that?" I read L40A1(b) as entitling the opponents to any information about your partnership understandings that you could have provided them with "before commencing play against them". In my example, that means you must answer their question; in Alain's, I don't know. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Wed Sep 24 19:28:58 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:28:58 EDT Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning Message-ID: [EL] L40A1(b) in full: "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done." The first sentence is absolute, and the second sentence does not modify it. [DALB] Yes, but the first sentence does not say "all of its partnership understandings" [paul lamford] And I was told off the other day when I looked at two of my cards before opening 1NT. I referred the TD to 7A2 which states: "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards." I counted all 13, and the Law does not say "inspect the faces of all of his cards". The TD said that was implied, and I must confess that on reflection I think he was right. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Sep 24 19:58:19 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:58:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <001101c91e62$41298c40$c37ca4c0$@com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> <48DA2F15.9070001@skynet.be> <001101c91e62$41298c40$c37ca4c0$@com> Message-ID: <48DA7FBB.4080901@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > No David, there is no requirement in the laws to turn your hearing aid off. > In fact, there are two requirements that say you must turn your hearing aid > up! > > [DALB] > > You persist in appearing to misunderstand something that I am sure you > actually understand quite well, and about which the legal position is clear. > David, you persist in ascribing to me things I have never said, while writing things that are so manifestly untrue as to really warrant correction. Let's recapitulate: > For the purposes of selecting your own calls or plays, you must not use > unauthorised information. No disagreement there. > It is true that you must process such information > in order to decide whether a call or play is suggested by it, I thank you for agreeing with me. > but this is to > say no more than that you must (in effect) call or play as if you had not > received the information. > You know that this is inaccurate - you are not allowed to make the call you would have absent the information, if that call was suggested over another logical alternative by that information. But I do believe you know that. > But for the purposes of explaining your methods to your opponents, it is > completely irrelevant whether you have come by information by authorised > means or not. Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. You should not be addressing this to me, but rather to Sven and Stephanie. > Your duty is simply to explain your methods correctly. When so > doing appears to bring you into conflict with Law 20F5a, you must > nevertheless give correct explanations. In such cases, the unauthorised > information you have received is not considered to be an indication that a > mistake has been made. > > [HdW] > > But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you "If 4NT were > interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". > > Do you believe you must answer that question or not? > > [DALB] > > I am not sure. Per Law 20F, no. Per Law 40A, possibly. > Why not for the first? Answering this without additions is exactly what L20F5a tells you to do! > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Sep 24 21:47:05 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:47:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: Message-ID: <002201c91e7e$54c85ee0$2401a8c0@p41600> Dear G*d, does this have ANYTHING to do with this wonderful game that I have been playing for 35 yrs?? ****************************************** If you don't keep up the payments to your exorcist you may be repossessed. ****************************************** > L40A1(b) in full: "Each partnership has a duty to make available its > partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. > The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done." > The first sentence is absolute, and the second sentence does not modify it. > > [DALB] > > Yes, but the first sentence does not say "all of its partnership > understandings" > > [paul lamford] And I was told off the other day when I looked at two of my > cards before opening 1NT. I referred the TD to 7A2 which states: > > "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; > after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards." > > I counted all 13, and the Law does not say "inspect the faces of all of his > cards". The TD said that was implied, and I must confess that on reflection I > think he was right. From bobpark at connecttime.net Wed Sep 24 22:43:42 2008 From: bobpark at connecttime.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:43:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> Message-ID: <48DAA67E.5020208@connecttime.net> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > When they press on, do you reveal how many aces your partner has? After all, > you know it > > [DALB] > > No, Herman, you don't know it. You see, when your opponents started asking > questions and your partner started giving answers, you immediately turned > your hearing aid off. You did not hear your partner say that 4NT was > Blackwood. That was not an indication to you in any manner of anything at > all. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > So...if your opponent tells you that partner said your 4NT bid was Blackwood, does that make it authorized information? Bob Park Gisonia, Pennsylvania From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 25 02:25:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:25:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sew watt due ewe meme? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003301c91e0e$e8287230$b8795690$@nl> Message-ID: EBU Appeals Casebook 2007: http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm Alain Gottcheiner, erstwhile casebook panellist: >On case 1, Richard tells us the ruling of 6S+1 is rather >generous, yet gives a weighted score of 20% 7S=, 60% 6S+1, >20% 4S+3. This is sensible, but I don't think it would be >less generous to the NOS ; it would usually result in a >very similar score ; > >so what do you mean ? Richard Hills, erstwhile casebook panellist: What happened at the table in EBU case #1 was that the auction actually proceeded -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 3D(1) 4S All pass (1) East asked and was told it was intermediate 11-15. But North-South were playing weak jump overcalls, and North did in fact hold a weak jump overcall. East pessimistically held: AK93 A874 AT Q97 So, even after the MI, East's signoff was an erroneous underbid. But was it sufficiently erroneous to deny East-West redress? The Director ruled that the table result of East-West +710 would stand, on the grounds that the MI did not cause damage. Heather Dhondy, casebook panellist, concurred: "I agree with the TD. Whatever the meaning of the 3D, bidding 4S is getting nowhere near to describing your hand hence East was the engineer of her own bad result." Alain Gottcheiner, casebook panellist, differed: "...Considerations about the players' level are secondary. Everybody bids - or looks for - slams less freely when they know an opponent holds opening bid values and an easy lead (at least DKQ and an Ace or other re-entry)." Richard Hills, erstwhile casebook panellist: Or an even easier lead of the ace of clubs followed by the king of clubs. The AC determined that East-West were less- than-expert players. If so, East may have lacked the tools to check for West holding a second round club control. Paul Lamford, casebook panellist, observed: "...I have never been sure how bad bids have to be to fall into the 'wild or gambling' category, but I prefer the AC decision. [E/W +1460] In a sense, she is being penalised, because the AC decided that someone who bids 4S in this auction would not reach the cold 7S. with correct explanation. I concur." Richard Hills, erstwhile casebook panellist: I do not concur. If it was the conservative underbidding East player who had the final decision between a conservative 6S and an optimistic 7S, then Paul would have a point. But in the plausible constructed auction at the start of this thread it was the _West_ player with the final decision, and West may well be a Pollyanna optimist when holding: QT542 KQ Q9 AK65 Note: The AC erred in merely assessing that East-West were non-experts. The AC should also have assessed whether the East-West methods permitted them to confidently bid (or indeed accidentally stumble into) this cold grand slam. 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 Sep 25 02:28:55 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:28:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <002201c91e7e$54c85ee0$2401a8c0@p41600> References: <002201c91e7e$54c85ee0$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <000001c91ea5$b220f030$1662d090$@com> [PL] I counted all 13, and the Law does not say "inspect the faces of all of his cards". The TD said that was implied, and I must confess that on reflection I think he was right. [DALB] Whereas it is practical for a player to look at all his cards before he makes a call, it is not practical for a partnership to make available all of their understandings to the opponents prior to play. Indeed, were this actually a requirement, it is likely that the results of every bridge tournament ever held would need to be annulled, because almost none of the participants was playing in accordance with the Laws. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 25 02:29:10 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:29:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA7FBB.4080901@skynet.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> <48DA2F15.9070001@skynet.be> <001101c91e62$41298c40$c37ca4c0$@com> <48DA7FBB.4080901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> [HdW] But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you "If 4NT were interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". Do you believe you must answer that question or not? [DALB] I am not sure. Per Law 20F, no. Per Law 40A, possibly. [HdW] Why not for the first? Answering this without additions is exactly what L20F5a tells you to do! [DALB] Nonsense. No one has given a mistaken explanation of anything. In the given example: I have bid 4NT believing it showed minors. Partner has correctly explained it as Blackwood and shown one ace. I have correctly explained his response as showing one ace (but then continued to bid as if it showed diamond preference). Provided I have acted without betraying the true position by some mannerism, the opponents do not even know that I believed 4NT showed minors (knowledge to which they are not entitled). What has Law 20F5a to do with any of this? David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 25 03:47:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:47:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Grattan Endicott (was dWS) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003301c91e3f$3064dfe0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: +=+ A civil question indeed! Herman invites me to step down from my seat and contemplate the problem through the eyes of the player. As far as it goes I agree the player may make up his mind what he believes to be the correct information to give in answer to the enquiry. If it turns out to be incorrect and opponents are damaged they will be entitled to redress. He must not tell them something he believes not to be the correct partnership understanding. However, subject to the regime and the desires of the RA, there is one other possible path to explore. If the player is in doubt as to what he should do he may wish to ask the Director to explain to him his 'rights and responsibilities' (see Law 81C2). The Director, who will bear in mind the proper principles that David Burn has enunciated with great clarity, may find the means to avoid damage to the opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: When a player remembers that a partnership understanding exists, but cannot remember with any degree of confidence what it is, the desires of the ABF regime are that Aussie Directors should apply the third sentence of Law 20F1: "Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." So an Aussie TD temporarily ejects the forgetful player from the table, then invites his partner to explain her own call. Of course she has to explain her call in accordance with their mutual partnership understanding, not explain her call in accordance with her own cards. (In a similar situation, when I was explaining my own 2C rebid behind screens, I correctly informed my screen-mate that my 2C call was "Undiscussed".) 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 Thu Sep 25 04:33:43 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:33:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <002201c91e7e$54c85ee0$2401a8c0@p41600> <000001c91ea5$b220f030$1662d090$@com> Message-ID: <667BD0685C27408B851EFF537889962D@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > [PL] > > I counted all 13, and the Law does not say "inspect the faces of all of > his > cards". The TD said that was implied, and I must confess that on > reflection > I > think he was right. > > [DALB] > > Whereas it is practical for a player to look at all his cards before he > makes a call, it is not practical for a partnership to make available all > of > their understandings to the opponents prior to play. Indeed, were this > actually a requirement, it is likely that the results of every bridge > tournament ever held would need to be annulled, because almost none of the > participants would have been; tsk David. [was] playing in accordance with the Laws. If someone asks me if we play Stayman after my auction has started 1S P 2S I will tell them the answer. I just don't understand WHY you don't want to answer this question guys. You know what's going on; they know what's going on; they're entitled to profit from your lunatic methods that lead to forgetting the system; and you're not. Just answer the feckin question :) John > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Sep 25 06:47:26 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:47:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: question about that second meaning Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080925144539.01e20ce8@mail.optusnet.com.au> >From: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:33:43 +0100 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 >X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original >X-BeenThere: blml at amsterdamned.org >X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >List-Id: Bridge Laws Mailing List >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org >X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 >X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on > toybox.amsterdamned.org >X-Spam-Level: **** >X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.2 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK > autolearn=no version=3.2.4 >Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning >X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 >X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on toybox.amsterdamned.org) >X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.5.523 [270.7.1/1687] >X-Antispam: NO; Spamcatcher 4.1.11. Score 2 > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" >To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:28 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > > > > [PL] > > > > I counted all 13, and the Law does not say "inspect the faces of all of > > his > > cards". The TD said that was implied, and I must confess that on > > reflection > > I > > think he was right. > > > > [DALB] > > > > Whereas it is practical for a player to look at all his cards before he > > makes a call, it is not practical for a partnership to make available all > > of > > their understandings to the opponents prior to play. Indeed, were this > > actually a requirement, it is likely that the results of every bridge > > tournament ever held would need to be annulled, because almost none of the > > participants > >would have been; tsk David. > >[was] playing in accordance with the Laws. > >If someone asks me if we play Stayman after my auction has started 1S P 2S I >will tell them the answer. I just don't understand WHY you don't want to >answer this question guys. You know what's going on; they know what's going >on; they're entitled to profit from your lunatic methods that lead to >forgetting the system; and you're not. Just answer the feckin question :) >John Right on. Part of the fun of bridge is working out what you are, or are not allowed to bid, as you crash and burn. Nothing like ending up in the only making 4:2 fit at the 6 level, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 25 08:15:54 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:15:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> Message-ID: <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > [HdW] > > But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you "If 4NT were > interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". > > Do you believe you must answer that question or not? > > [DALB] > > I am not sure. Per Law 20F, no. Per Law 40A, possibly. > +=+ "He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." (Law 20F1) Is it not the case that 4NT Blackwood was not available? Ergo, in consequence were responses to 4NT Blackwood also not available? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 25 08:51:17 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:51:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: question about that second meaning References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080925144539.01e20ce8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <004401c91edb$3a6be370$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:47 AM Subject: [blml] Fwd: Re: question about that second meaning > [was] playing in accordance with the Laws. >> If someone asks me if we play Stayman after my auction has started 1S P 2S I will tell them the answer. I just don't understand WHY you don't want to answer this question guys. You know what's going on; they know what's going on; they're entitled to profit from your lunatic methods that lead to forgetting the system; and you're not. Just answer the feckin question :) John > Right on. Part of the fun of bridge is working out what you are, or are not allowed to bid, as you crash and burn. Nothing like ending up in the only making 4:2 fit at the 6 level, Tony (Sydney) > +=+ I do not recall that the Laws ban gratuitous remarks, extraneous information. They say what information opponent is entitled to, they make provision where the remark/information conveys UI to partner, they make provision where the remark/information misinforms an opponent, misleading comment is mentioned in Law 73D2 and 73F. If a player opts to give information to an opponent in reply to a specific question, albeit the opponent may not be entitled to that information I do not see how he can then claim to be damaged by it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 25 08:55:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:55:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40809130804g21853f98m62a3ec8ef350e987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Welsh Appeals 2007, case 4 Director's comments, first paragraph: "It is always preferable to be called at the time of the infraction. It is easier then to get the facts agreed, and the rights of all players can be protected by the TD. Players who wait until after the hand has been played are in a position to know if any likely adjustment by the TD would be in their favour." Jens Brix Christiansen, casebook panellist: "Just a nitpicking comment: The director is recommending that he be called at the time of the infraction, not at the end of the hand. Instead of _infraction_, he should probably have written _break in tempo or other instance of UI_. The slow double is, of course, not an infraction; the possible infraction is South's subsequent action, and the 2007 laws (Law 16B3) make it clear that the TD should be called after the end of play when the issue is a possible infraction of this sort." David Stevenson, casebook editor: "...But the main point, so it seems to me, is the fact that the TD was not called at the time. It is all very well for Richard H to quote an irrelevant bit of Law from the wrong Law book :-), but if he has to quote it, perhaps he should have also quoted 2007 Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed). The point is that the unauthorised information was disputed. If players leave it to the end of the hand to establish whether a BIT happened, then they must expect to be ruled against." Richard H, erstwhile casebook panellist: Law 16B2 states "...he _may_ announce...". The Introduction states, "Established usage has been retained in regard to 'may' do (failure to do it is not wrong)...". So if the putative non-offending side has done nothing wrong, why "then they _must_ expect to be ruled against"? Fortunately, although the Director (and David Stevenson) hold views consistent with those held by Edgar Kaplan in the 1960s, the outcome of the ruling and appeal did not depend on automatically assuming that the putative offending side were truthful when denying a hesitation. In upholding the TD's ruling, Appeals Committee Chairman David Burn wrote: " " 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 Thu Sep 25 09:43:08 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:43:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> References: <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> <48DA2F15.9070001@skynet.be> <001101c91e62$41298c40$c37ca4c0$@com> <48DA7FBB.4080901@skynet.be> <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> Message-ID: <48DB410C.6030609@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you "If 4NT were > interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". > > Do you believe you must answer that question or not? > > [DALB] > > I am not sure. Per Law 20F, no. Per Law 40A, possibly. > > [HdW] > > Why not for the first? Answering this without additions is exactly what > L20F5a tells you to do! > > [DALB] > > Nonsense. No one has given a mistaken explanation of anything. In the given > example: I have bid 4NT believing it showed minors. Partner has correctly > explained it as Blackwood and shown one ace. I have correctly explained his > response as showing one ace (but then continued to bid as if it showed > diamond preference). Provided I have acted without betraying the true > position by some mannerism, the opponents do not even know that I believed > 4NT showed minors (knowledge to which they are not entitled). What has Law > 20F5a to do with any of this? > You are in the wrong sub-thread, David. Of course if 4NT is really Blackwood, you must answer 1 ace. But we were asking the question if partner is wrong, and 4NT is really minors, do you still have to say 5Di showed one ace? (in your/MS case - only as a additional explanation) That was the question here. So if you are asking what L20F5a has to do with it - everything! So what's it going to be: are they entitled to know partner has shown 1 ace - or not? > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 25 09:47:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:47:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> > +=+ "He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about > relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and > about inferences from the choice of action where these are > matters of partnership understanding." (Law 20F1) > Is it not the case that 4NT Blackwood was not available? > Ergo, in consequence were responses to 4NT Blackwood > also not available? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I agree if this pair never play Blackwood, and never have. But this is a misunderstanding, so there is usually some form of common understanding present. Let's assume that this pair is actually playing Blackwood - even if not in this sequence. Do you believe the opponents are entitled to know what type of responses are being played? Grattan, you cite L20F1 - but is not L40A1b even more encompassing? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 25 09:51:35 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:51:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DAA67E.5020208@connecttime.net> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D8D980.6080809@skynet.be> <000001c91d7a$73d67560$5b836020$@com> <48DA04DB.6000205@skynet.be> <000001c91e39$2c6908e0$853b1aa0$@com> <48DAA67E.5020208@connecttime.net> Message-ID: <48DB4307.5040500@skynet.be> Robert Park wrote: > David Burn wrote: >> [HdW] >> >> When they press on, do you reveal how many aces your partner has? After all, >> you know it >> >> [DALB] >> >> No, Herman, you don't know it. You see, when your opponents started asking >> questions and your partner started giving answers, you immediately turned >> your hearing aid off. You did not hear your partner say that 4NT was >> Blackwood. That was not an indication to you in any manner of anything at >> all. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >> >> >> > > So...if your opponent tells you that partner said your 4NT bid was > Blackwood, does that make it authorized information? > No Robert, not at all. David was saying you are not allowed to listen to it - and he is wrong about that. You are required by law to listen to it, so that you can do the appropriate actions. You are not allowed to base calls and plays about it though = it is unauthorized information. How come so many readers here mix these two up? You are all working from a shorthand version of the laws "you are not allowed to act upon UI". True if used as shorthand for "not allowed to base calls and plays", but wrong if used to "prove" that some other actions are also forbidden. RTFLB. (that was long ago!) > Bob Park > Gisonia, Pennsylvania > Anyway, welcome to the list Bob! Do you have any cats? (I'll explain that one to the newbies some other time) Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 25 10:28:34 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:28:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > Grattan, you cite L20F1 - but is not L40A1b even more encompassing? > +=+ 40A1(b) deals with information that shall be made available to opponents "before commencing play against them". Law 20F deals with information to be given in response to a request during the auction and after the final pass of the auction. They apply at different periods in time. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 25 11:10:14 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:10:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002b01c91eee$a20cb000$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > Let's assume that this pair is actually playing Blackwood - even if not in this sequence. Do you believe the opponents are entitled to know what type of responses are being played? > +=+ Entitled? No. That is to say subject to regulation they should be informed in the material supplied beforehand under Law 40A1(b) and they may examine the SC as the law allows, but they are not entitled in bridge law to receive (demand) the information in response to a request under Law 20F during the auction since Blackwood and its responses are not available in this sequence. Such information is gratuitous, volunteered, if given in the latter situation. It is not unknown for information volunteered to rebound on the giver. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Sep 25 11:54:14 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:54:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DA0880.1090306@ulb.ac.be> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D9076C.60603@NTLworld.com> <48DA0880.1090306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48DB5FC6.5000401@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] I go further. Consider another case, you hold S:Axx H:xxx D:xxx C:xxxx Partner opens 4D. You alert, When asked, you reveal your partnership agreement [A] "A completely solid 7-8 card spade suit". Obviously something has gone wrong but an experienced partnership has a far better chance of determining which particular wheel has fallen off. For example ... [B] Your previous agreement was Solid or *semisolid* spades. [C] Your previous agreement was Solid *hearts*. [C] Your previous agreement was "pre-empt in *either major*". [D] Your previous agreement wad "Natural long diamonds". [E] Partner never forgets an agreement but loves to psyche. [F] Partner never forgets an agreement but is prone to mis-sorting his black suits. Whichever of these obtains, it gives you a different advantage over opponents. IMO the director should take this into account when assessing damage. [Alain Gottcheiner] Don't remember (G) : *you* missorted your suits. In fact, this would be my first reaction in such a case. [Nigel] Amusing stuff, Alain. When I asked this question about ten years ago, on RGB, I got no relevant answer, so I'm grateful for a reply of any kind. Later, I asked a director and he said that partner's mistake is obvious from your own hand. Hence, although you should explain your current agreement you are free to deduce partner's probable mistake and take compensating action. Nobody seems to agree with my argument that your deduction depends on *default* or *previous* *understandings* of which opponents may be unaware. Hence, in principle, you have an advantage. I accept that this kind of concern is of more interest to players than directors because it is not explicitly covered by the law-book. The more I read BLML, the more I feel that Bobby Wolff had a point. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 25 12:22:51 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:22:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DB5FC6.5000401@NTLworld.com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D9076C.60603@NTLworld.com> <48DA0880.1090306@ulb.ac.be> <48DB5FC6.5000401@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48DB667B.3080502@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > Later, I asked a director and he said that partner's mistake is obvious > from your own hand. Hence, although you should explain your current > agreement you are free to deduce partner's probable mistake and take > compensating action. AG : I prefer this, too. It avoids transmitting UI should you misguess. After all, there is still another explanation : he decided to show a solid suit but hadn't one in his hand. He's allowed to do so (L40A), but isn't allowed the information that your hand makes this visible (L73B1). > Nobody seems to agree with my argument that your deduction depends on > *default* or *previous* *understandings* of which opponents may be > unaware. Hence, in principle, you have an advantage. AG : cases where you are at an advantage because you see your hand are frequent ; for example, if the bidding goes 1D - 1NT (either natural or weak with long clubs) - 2H (nonforcing), you can usually deduce partner's hand type, while they can't. I don't think that "partner used the former agreement" is the most plausible explanation for the cognitive discrepancy ; accordingly, the advantage you mention is thin. Advantage frrom knowing partner, in such a case, could only come if partner has already forgotten this very bid or a similar one. The only way out of this seems to be penalizing for convention disruption on any convention that you've already forgotten in the past, but how do we set to register this ? Best regards Alain PS : he who has never scored a near-top for playing in 4D-3 in a 2-4 "fit", while the field plays in 4SX-2 in a 7-1, because he thought his 4D opening was Namyats doesn't know what "lucky" maens. I do. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 25 13:37:02 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:37:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004801c91f03$0aaf66c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 7:55 AM Subject: [blml] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Welsh Appeals 2007, case 4 > > Director's comments, first paragraph: > > "It is always preferable to be called at the time of the > infraction. It is easier then to get the facts agreed, and > the rights of all players can be protected by the TD. Players > who wait until after the hand has been played are in a > position to know if any likely adjustment by the TD would be > in their favour." > > Jens Brix Christiansen, casebook panellist: > > "Just a nitpicking comment: The director is recommending that > he be called at the time of the infraction, not at the end of > the hand. Instead of _infraction_, he should probably have > written _break in tempo or other instance of UI_. The slow > double is, of course, not an infraction; the possible > infraction is South's subsequent action, and the 2007 laws > (Law 16B3) make it clear that the TD should be called after > the end of play when the issue is a possible infraction of > this sort." > > David Stevenson, casebook editor: > > "...But the main point, so it seems to me, is the fact that > the TD was not called at the time. It is all very well for > Richard H to quote an irrelevant bit of Law from the wrong > Law book :-), but if he has to quote it, perhaps he should > have also quoted 2007 Law 16B2: > > When a player considers that an opponent has made such > information available and that damage could well result > he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating > Authority (which may require that the Director be > called), that he reserves the right to summon the > Director later (the opponents should summon the Director > immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized > information might have been conveyed). > > The point is that the unauthorised information was disputed. > If players leave it to the end of the hand to establish > whether a BIT happened, then they must expect to be ruled > against." > > Richard H, erstwhile casebook panellist: > > Law 16B2 states "...he _may_ announce...". The Introduction > states, "Established usage has been retained in regard to > 'may' do (failure to do it is not wrong)...". > > So if the putative non-offending side has done nothing > wrong, why "then they _must_ expect to be ruled against"? > > Fortunately, although the Director (and David Stevenson) > hold views consistent with those held by Edgar Kaplan in the > 1960s, the outcome of the ruling and appeal did not depend > on automatically assuming that the putative offending side > were truthful when denying a hesitation. In upholding the > TD's ruling, Appeals Committee Chairman David Burn wrote: > > " " < +=+ I am not sure what David Burn wrote. However, it is pertinent to look at the Law. This says that a player who considers an opponent has made UI available to his partner, and that damage may well result from it, may announce that he is reserving his right to summon the Director later. If he does make such an announcement an opponent should summon the Director immediately if he disputes that UI was made available. The RA is empowered to prohibit this procedure (and may require the Director to be summoned at once). In the absence of such a regulation the player who defers raising the matter until, say, the end of the hand is acting as the law allows. "A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism" (CoP), but this does not apply to an opponent who disputes the suggestion that there is UI - he should call the Director as soon as he is aware that it is being suggested. A player who believes an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by UI should summon the Director when play ends. It is not an infraction, however, if he calls the Director sooner or later than this. The RA has no power to change this part of the law. The DSC was clear that the desirable time to summon the Director for this reason is at the end of the play, but it was equally concerned that the issue as to use of UI should not be affected if he refers it to the Director at some other time. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 25 13:43:01 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:43:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DB5FC6.5000401@NTLworld.com> References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D9076C.60603@NTLworld.com> <48DA0880.1090306@ulb.ac.be> <48DB5FC6.5000401@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Is this a good example? I ask my partner if we can play Bergen raises over take-out doubles. (We already play them with no competition.) He says no. A month later we have this auction: 1S X 3C(1) 3D P P 3S(2) (1) Alerted. Before bidding 3D, opponent asks for explanation. Explained as weak-jump shift. First thought to myself after he makes his bid: "That better not be a Bergen raise." (2) It was a Bergen raise. Opponents ask for an explanation. The radical MS position, I believe, is that I am not required to explain that his bid is a Bergen raise. The opponents otherwise probably did not know that we play Bergen raises; they might not have even known what a Bergen raise is. It also helps to know the chances of my partner completely forgetting our discussion (which happen to be very high). So I know it's almost certainly a Bergen raise. On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:54:14 -0400, Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > I go further. Consider another case, you hold > S:Axx H:xxx D:xxx C:xxxx > Partner opens 4D. You alert, When asked, you reveal your partnership > agreement > [A] "A completely solid 7-8 card spade suit". > Obviously something has gone wrong but an experienced partnership has a > far better chance of determining which particular wheel has fallen off. > For example ... > [B] Your previous agreement was Solid or *semisolid* spades. > [C] Your previous agreement was Solid *hearts*. > [C] Your previous agreement was "pre-empt in *either major*". > [D] Your previous agreement wad "Natural long diamonds". > [E] Partner never forgets an agreement but loves to psyche. > [F] Partner never forgets an agreement but is prone to mis-sorting > his black suits. > Whichever of these obtains, it gives you a different advantage over > opponents. IMO the director should take this into account when assessing > damage. > [Alain Gottcheiner] > Don't remember (G) : *you* missorted your suits. In fact, this would be > my first reaction in such a case. > [Nigel] > Amusing stuff, Alain. > > When I asked this question about ten years ago, on RGB, I got no > relevant answer, so I'm grateful for a reply of any kind. > > Later, I asked a director and he said that partner's mistake is obvious > from your own hand. Hence, although you should explain your current > agreement you are free to deduce partner's probable mistake and take > compensating action. > > Nobody seems to agree with my argument that your deduction depends on > *default* or *previous* *understandings* of which opponents may be > unaware. Hence, in principle, you have an advantage. > > I accept that this kind of concern is of more interest to players than > directors because it is not explicitly covered by the law-book. > > The more I read BLML, the more I feel that Bobby Wolff had a point. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 25 13:50:10 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:50:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:15:54 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Half the failures in life arise from pulling in > one's horse as he is leaping." > [J. & A. Hare] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:29 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > > >> [HdW] >> >> But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you "If 4NT were >> interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". >> >> Do you believe you must answer that question or not? >> >> [DALB] >> >> I am not sure. Per Law 20F, no. Per Law 40A, possibly. >> > +=+ "He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about > relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and > about inferences from the choice of action where these are > matters of partnership understanding." (Law 20F1) > Is it not the case that 4NT Blackwood was not available? > Ergo, in consequence were responses to 4NT Blackwood > also not available? I am thinking that "relevant inferences from the choice of action" might hold. Partner choose 5Di rather than 5C or 5H. Giving your whole system (and/or your implicit partnership understandings), you know how many aces he has. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 25 14:07:41 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:07:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c91f03$0aaf66c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <004801c91f03$0aaf66c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000e01c91f07$50423c40$f0c6b4c0$@com> [GE] I am not sure what David Burn wrote. [DALB] David Burn didn't write anything. For this he was castigated by David Stevenson, who observed that: "The TD asked the AC to write comments on the form but they did not." This is untrue. At the time we heard the appeal, there was no appeal form. The AC (who were all players in the tournament) communicated its decision to the TD, who later created an appeal form that the AC never actually saw. The TD's "excellent and well-explained ruling" bore a remarkable similarity to the decision communicated to him by the AC, no doubt coincidentally. Quite why David Stevenson took it upon himself to publish a wholly inaccurate account of what took place is unclear to me; of course I would have completed the appeal form had there been one. David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 25 14:26:05 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:26:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan, you cite L20F1 - but is not L40A1b even > more encompassing? > +=+ 40A1(b) deals with information that shall be made > available to opponents "before commencing play against > them". Law 20F deals with information to be given in > response to a request during the auction and after the > final pass of the auction. They apply at different periods > in time. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I realize that, but surely if a piece of information should have been available at an earlier time, people can ask about it at some later time? Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 25 14:52:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:52:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D9076C.60603@NTLworld.com> <48DA0880.1090306@ulb.ac.be> <48DB5FC6.5000401@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48DB89A9.2090202@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > Is this a good example? I ask my partner if we can play Bergen raises over > take-out doubles. (We already play them with no competition.) He says no. > A month later we have this auction: > > 1S X 3C(1) 3D > P P 3S(2) > > (1) Alerted. Before bidding 3D, opponent asks for explanation. Explained > as weak-jump shift. First thought to myself after he makes his bid: "That > better not be a Bergen raise." > > (2) It was a Bergen raise. Opponents ask for an explanation. > > The radical MS position, I believe, is that I am not required to explain > that his bid is a Bergen raise. The opponents otherwise probably did not > know that we play Bergen raises; they might not have even known what a > Bergen raise is. > AG : when your partner insisted that he wouldn't play Bergen raises, I think the probability that he's just done one is quite low. I could explain opponents : "I guess a wheel has come loose, I don't know which". It might just as well be that he was making a fit-jump. And there is a logical meaning for partner's 3S ; e.g. Qx - xxx - x - KJ10xxxx. Thinking otherwise would be creating MI. Don't take this example as MS vs dWS. The difference between dWS and MS doesn't lie in such cases ; standard dWS only says you could compound MI to avoid UI, not create it out of nothing Notice that, in bidding more, he didn't use UI from my exlpanation, because both Bergen and FJ are forcing to 3S. However, if my pass over 3D after [Bergen or FJ] is encouraging (as it is in classical works), then "bending backwards" compels him to bid 4S on the slightest excuse. > So I know it's almost certainly a Bergen raise. > AG : do you ? IMOCO, any sentence beginning with "I'm almost sure he was wrong and had ..." is akin to insulting partner. I can offer a recent case : E S W N 1D 2C* 2H** 3H p 4C * 5+ clubs and 4+ hearts ** stopper-showing Do you think South has hearts or not ? Do you decide he forgot his system ? If that's your guess, don't tell it, just in case you'd be wrong. W : /now, does he have 'em or doesn't he ? /N :/ he has. If he hasn't, I pick a new partner/ [turning at the kibitzer, one of our teammates] /And I'm in a position to do it/. We're still playing together ;-) Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 25 15:21:17 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:21:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 7:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Half the failures in life arise from pulling in > one's horse as he is leaping." > [J. & A. Hare] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:29 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > > >> [HdW] >> >> But even that does not matter. Your opponents will tell you "If 4NT were >> interpreted as Blackwood, what style of responses would you use?". >> >> Do you believe you must answer that question or not? >> >> [DALB] >> >> I am not sure. Per Law 20F, no. Per Law 40A, possibly. >> > +=+ "He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about > relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and > about inferences from the choice of action where these are > matters of partnership understanding." (Law 20F1) > Is it not the case that 4NT Blackwood was not available? > Ergo, in consequence were responses to 4NT Blackwood > also not available? More complex than that Grattan; because there must be NO routes to bkwd at all, since the non-use of bkwd is relevant, and the choice to use an auction which leads to a non bkwd 4NT is relevant. Maybe this is because 5D, No Ace would be inconvenient, but i darn well want to know. It's not just calls made, but calls that could have been but were not made too. That it's perfectly clear to the world (excepting a well known school) you're having a systemic meltdown doesn't mean you're entitleed to duck the general pricniple that ALL your methods are AI. 40B2c means you should have the method on your SC; and if you haven't I'm nonetheless entitled. There are no restrictions on WHERE I look on the SC, so you'd better tell me what 5D in response to 4NT is in ALL its gory detail. It IS valid to say 4N is NOT bkwd with no suit agreed, as long as you also say 4130 over minors; 3041 over majors, preference over UNT; signoff over quant raise etc. If I don't protect myself some a***ole in AC will tell me I could have protected myself, and my defence to that is that the a***oles I was playing against wouldn't tell me what I needed to know. John > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 25 15:44:46 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:44:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D9076C.60603@NTLworld.com> <48DA0880.1090306@ulb.ac.be> <48DB5FC6.5000401@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <66823F01-FBDD-4A8D-B90B-35C39A1FD6BA@starpower.net> On Sep 25, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Is this a good example? I ask my partner if we can play Bergen > raises over > take-out doubles. (We already play them with no competition.) He > says no. > A month later we have this auction: > > 1S X 3C(1) 3D > P P 3S(2) > > (1) Alerted. Before bidding 3D, opponent asks for explanation. > Explained > as weak-jump shift. First thought to myself after he makes his bid: > "That > better not be a Bergen raise." > > (2) It was a Bergen raise. Opponents ask for an explanation. > > The radical MS position, I believe, is that I am not required to > explain > that his bid is a Bergen raise. The opponents otherwise probably > did not > know that we play Bergen raises; they might not have even known what a > Bergen raise is. > > It also helps to know the chances of my partner completely > forgetting our > discussion (which happen to be very high). > > So I know it's almost certainly a Bergen raise. The ACBL's (non-radical MS?) position is that in reply to an opponent's inquiry, no matter how phrased, one should try to be as helpful as possible, and should provide whatever information might be relevant to the subject of the inquiry. You should explain that the bid is undefined in your methods. You should explain that until recently your partnership played Bergen raises and, if needed, explain what that is. You should not "explain that his bid is a Bergen raise". Your obligation is to provide the opponents with the information you will use yourself to evaluate the possibilities as to what partner may have intended with his 3S call. Once you have done that, you are entitled to draw your own conclusions, and the opponents are entitled to draw theirs. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 25 15:46:17 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:46:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <48D272E3.30302@skynet.be> <000001c91aa3$b5c640b0$2152c210$@com> <48D4BC42.7080309@skynet.be> <67D2DA8A13EE4EF48E290DC4DB78451E@stefanie> <48D5FD0C.4090503@skynet.be> <48D68AF3.7030508@t-online.de> <48D69B58.8090108@skynet.be> <48D75E86.7000105@skynet.be> <002901c91c97$b39781a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48D77A6A.9000609@skynet.be> <48D7837E.4010105@t-online.de> <48D79D26.7000302@skynet.be> <969C7ABE-A891-41D8-BA6E-8FE79A7AB800@starpower.net> <007301c91d5d$b3db5670$0202a8c0@Mildred> <043D4040-47F6-4F0A-A62B-9FF08D7B9043@starpower.net> <48D9076C.60603@NTLworld.com> <48DA0880.1090306@ulb.ac.be> <48DB5FC6.5000401@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <48DB9629.3050108@t-online.de> Robert Frick schrieb: > Is this a good example? I ask my partner if we can play Bergen raises over > take-out doubles. (We already play them with no competition.) He says no. > A month later we have this auction: > > 1S X 3C(1) 3D > P P 3S(2) > > (1) Alerted. Before bidding 3D, opponent asks for explanation. Explained > as weak-jump shift. First thought to myself after he makes his bid: "That > better not be a Bergen raise." > > (2) It was a Bergen raise. Opponents ask for an explanation. Ever bid that way with Qxx, x, xx, QJ10xxxx? Oh, it may be Bergen, but it may also be what you explained after the first question, and now he bids some spade fragment in competition. Doesn't look unusual to me. > > The radical MS position, I believe, is that I am not required to explain > that his bid is a Bergen raise. The "radical" MS position here is that you agreed not to play Bergen, that you play Bergen without competition, and that partner is/is not prone to forget things like this (aka partnership experience). Now those people to your right and left can check their club and spade holdings and try to find out what your partneris doing, with all the information you got. > The opponents otherwise probably did not > know that we play Bergen raises; they might not have even known what a > Bergen raise is. So we tell them, if need be. The name of a convention is not an adequate explanation. > > It also helps to know the chances of my partner completely forgetting our > discussion (which happen to be very high). So you tell them that, too. > > So I know it's almost certainly a Bergen raise. > You be the judge of that, I do not know your partner. If it is _that_ likely I would have a talk with the TD, who would probably send my partner to the bar, while I explain the intricacies of our "agreements" .... From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 25 15:49:08 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:49:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <667BD0685C27408B851EFF537889962D@JOHN> References: <002201c91e7e$54c85ee0$2401a8c0@p41600> <000001c91ea5$b220f030$1662d090$@com> <667BD0685C27408B851EFF537889962D@JOHN> Message-ID: <47F4363E-E239-4156-A167-32E8F3821CCC@starpower.net> On Sep 24, 2008, at 10:33 PM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: > From: "David Burn" > >> [PL] >> >> I counted all 13, and the Law does not say "inspect the faces of >> all of >> his >> cards". The TD said that was implied, and I must confess that on >> reflection >> I >> think he was right. >> >> [DALB] >> >> Whereas it is practical for a player to look at all his cards >> before he >> makes a call, it is not practical for a partnership to make >> available all >> of >> their understandings to the opponents prior to play. Indeed, were >> this >> actually a requirement, it is likely that the results of every bridge >> tournament ever held would need to be annulled, because almost >> none of the >> participants > > would have been; tsk David. > > [was] playing in accordance with the Laws. > > If someone asks me if we play Stayman after my auction has started > 1S P 2S I > will tell them the answer. I just don't understand WHY you don't > want to > answer this question guys. You know what's going on; they know > what's going > on; they're entitled to profit from your lunatic methods that lead to > forgetting the system; and you're not. Just answer the feckin > question :) The voice of reason speaks... Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Sep 25 16:03:52 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:03:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48DB9A48.6020402@NTLworld.com> [Nigel Guthrie] [snip] [E] Partner never forgets an agreement but loves to psyche. [Richard Hills] Clause [E] is a contradiction in terms. One cannot be aware that partner loves to psyche. As soon as that awareness develops the psyche fails the Law 40C1 criterion "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents", so metamorphoses into a Concealed Partnership Understanding (CPU) pseudo-psyche. [Nige1] In skeins of previous threads, John Probst and Tim West-Meadess argue that from your hand it is obvious that partner's call is a *psyche*. Nobody supported my quibbles: [1] Statistically, it is twice as likely that an opponent is at it. [2] Surely partner can *mis-sort* his hand or bid according to a *previous* agreement. These explanations may be more likely with another partner. If you compensate accordingly, each accords you a *different* advantage over opponents. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Sep 25 16:20:16 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:20:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48DB9E20.30904@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Grattan wrote: >> >> Grattan, you cite L20F1 - but is not L40A1b even >> more encompassing? >> +=+ 40A1(b) deals with information that shall be made >> available to opponents "before commencing play against >> them". Law 20F deals with information to be given in >> response to a request during the auction and after the >> final pass of the auction. They apply at different periods >> in time. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > I realize that, but surely if a piece of information should have been > available at an earlier time, people can ask about it at some later time? > > Herman. > If it is available they can look. If the RA thinks it should not be on the SC, too bad. If it should be there, but they have no SC I would (as TD) order them to make the information availabe, then fill in a SC. As a player I would tell them (in the presence of the TD) that I am willing to tell them what 5D would show if 4NT were Blackwood, but that they use that information at their own risk, as 4NT was not Blackwood (if they already found out that it wasn't, else I talk to the TD alone, who might well send partner away from the table). Ever had a somewhat insecure partner who (holding a bad hand) supressed an ace just in case 4NT was for the minors, not Blackwood? "Well, yes, I thought it is Blackwood, erm... but... what if... I mean, maybe it was for the minors all the time, so I thought...." If I tell them "He has one ace", and he hasn't, and they subsequently defend on that basis (remember, he is declarer), guess who will be ruled against for MI? Telling them "what partner has" is a dangerous thing. Only last weekend my partner made a negative double (which "guarantees" 4 hearts or a strong hand) on 652, later redoubling 2H for business on minimum values with that holding (no, it was no SOS, he wanted them to run, which they didn't). All this in a national championship, not some club tournament or informal rubber. Best regards Matthias From Gampas at aol.com Thu Sep 25 16:50:00 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:50:00 EDT Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning Message-ID: In a message dated 25/09/2008 10:10:35 GMT Standard Time, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: Entitled? No. That is to say subject to regulation they should be informed in the material supplied beforehand under Law 40A1(b) and they may examine the SC as the law allows, but they are not entitled in bridge law to receive (demand) the information in response to a request under Law 20F during the auction [paul lamford] Me, arriving at the table a bit late. "We play strong NT and five card majors." Looks at hand as dealer and passes. "And you?" Rude opponent: "Sorry, Law 20F only allows you to ask about bids that have actually been made during the auction. And you have now passed so the auction has begun. You will have to consult our convention card. If I give this information it may rebound on me." From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 25 17:06:38 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:06:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> [HdW] I realize that, but surely if a piece of information should have been available at an earlier time, people can ask about it at some later time? [DALB] This is a reasonable argument. Carried to its absurd conclusion, however, it means that if the auction proceeds 1S-pass-2S and an opponent asks me whether we play Stayman, I am obliged to answer him. Contrary to what the possessor of the voice of reason believes, I do not think that this is the case. A consistent and practical application of Laws 20 and 40 taken together seems to me to be: the RA specifies what partnership understandings are to be disclosed prior to play, and in what level of detail. During play, the opponents may ask only about those partnership understandings relevant to the deal in progress, or about understandings that have been disclosed prior to play in accordance with regulation. If Blackwood has not been used, it is difficult to envisage a circumstance in which partnership understandings related to Blackwood are relevant, but it is not impossible. Since it does not matter to me what "sub-thread" of the dWS discussion I am in, I will say here that if I have bid 4NT for the minors and partner has incorrectly explained it as Blackwood, then I will answer "diamond preference" to the question "what did 5D mean?" (because that is what it means, and my explanation is not an indication per L20F5a). If the opponents ask "what would it have meant if 4NT were Blackwood?" I will ask the Director to determine whether or not this is relevant to the deal in progress. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Thu Sep 25 17:11:40 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:11:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > In a message dated 25/09/2008 10:10:35 GMT Standard Time, > grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: > > Entitled? No. That is to say subject to regulation they should > be informed in the material supplied beforehand under Law 40A1(b) > and they may examine the SC as the law allows, but they are not > entitled in bridge law to receive (demand) the information in response > to a request under Law 20F during the auction > > [paul lamford] > Me, arriving at the table a bit late. "We play strong NT and five card > majors." Looks at hand as dealer and passes. "And you?" > > Rude opponent: "Sorry, Law 20F only allows you to ask about bids that have > actually been made during the auction. And you have now passed so the > auction > has begun. You will have to consult our convention card. If I give this > information it may rebound on me." Me: "Director" "My opponent quite rightly points out [tells story above] and that we are in the auction period. May I ask you to advise my opponent that I have asked you to apply 81C5 if necessary and that it would be ok for him to tell me his basic method". John > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 25 17:47:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:47:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> Message-ID: <17D6FB14-E620-4502-9626-9ADDFFA27FC6@starpower.net> On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:06 AM, David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > I realize that, but surely if a piece of information should have been > available at an earlier time, people can ask about it at some later > time? > > [DALB] > > This is a reasonable argument. Carried to its absurd conclusion, > however, it > means that if the auction proceeds 1S-pass-2S and an opponent asks me > whether we play Stayman, I am obliged to answer him. Contrary to > what the > possessor of the voice of reason believes, I do not think that this > is the > case. > > A consistent and practical application of Laws 20 and 40 taken > together > seems to me to be: the RA specifies what partnership understandings > are to > be disclosed prior to play, and in what level of detail. During > play, the > opponents may ask only about those partnership understandings > relevant to > the deal in progress, or about understandings that have been > disclosed prior > to play in accordance with regulation. If Blackwood has not been > used, it is > difficult to envisage a circumstance in which partnership > understandings > related to Blackwood are relevant, but it is not impossible. > > Since it does not matter to me what "sub-thread" of the dWS > discussion I am > in, I will say here that if I have bid 4NT for the minors and > partner has > incorrectly explained it as Blackwood, then I will answer "diamond > preference" to the question "what did 5D mean?" (because that is > what it > means, and my explanation is not an indication per L20F5a). If the > opponents > ask "what would it have meant if 4NT were Blackwood?" I will ask the > Director to determine whether or not this is relevant to the deal in > progress. Sounds reasonable to me. If I were the director, I would challenge the asker to tell me why he wanted to know about Stayman. If he had a valid "bridge reason" I would require you to answer the question. If he cannot tell me why he wants to know, I would warn him that he may be held in violation of L74B4 (asking "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent") if he persists. As I see it, this does not abrogate the opponent's right to be informed about your Stayman agreement; all rights are subject to constraints against abuse (consider my previous analogy to the right to obtain a review of the auction). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 25 18:05:10 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:05:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DB9E20.30904@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <48DB9E20.30904@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48DBB6B6.9020806@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> >> I realize that, but surely if a piece of information should have been >> available at an earlier time, people can ask about it at some later time? >> >> Herman. >> > > If it is available they can look. So you might as well tell them. > If the RA thinks it should not be on > the SC, too bad. Do you think the lawmakers deliberately left a hole in what should be disclosable? Something which you "know", but is not on a list of things that "ought" to be on a SC? And still not disclosable? > If it should be there, but they have no SC I would (as > TD) order them to make the information availabe, then fill in a SC. So why not simply ask them to tell them? > As a > player I would tell them (in the presence of the TD) that I am willing > to tell them what 5D would show if 4NT were Blackwood, I am glad to see that you would. Now why are you, as a blml reader, telling me that you could see circumstances under which the information would not be entitled to opponents? Maybe because you don't want to give any ammunition to the dWS? Bad reason, I should think. > but that they use > that information at their own risk, as 4NT was not Blackwood (if they > already found out that it wasn't, else I talk to the TD alone, who might > well send partner away from the table). > Sorry Matthias, but partner told them he thought 4NT was Blackwood, and he bid 5Di. Opponents are well aware that he might not have the number of aces 5Di shows, and they know they are facing some risk in believing the number - but do you really count that as an argument not to tell them if you are playing 1430 or 3014? > Ever had a somewhat insecure partner who (holding a bad hand) supressed > an ace just in case 4NT was for the minors, not Blackwood? > "Well, yes, I thought it is Blackwood, erm... but... what if... I mean, > maybe it was for the minors all the time, so I thought...." > Yes, I had those. Is that a reason not to tell the opponents how many aces he shows? > If I tell them "He has one ace", and he hasn't, and they subsequently > defend on that basis (remember, he is declarer), guess who will be ruled > against for MI? > Why? If he comes up with a sensible story as to why he lied an ace? And of course if that sensible story is coupled with an absent SC, you may still be ruled against - but that changes nothing to the question of whether or not you are required to answer, does it? After all, the same can happen when 4NT is in fact Blackwood. Bad argument for this discussion then. > Telling them "what partner has" is a dangerous thing. Only last weekend > my partner made a negative double (which "guarantees" 4 hearts or a > strong hand) on 652, later redoubling 2H for business on minimum values > with that holding (no, it was no SOS, he wanted them to run, which they > didn't). All this in a national championship, not some club tournament > or informal rubber. > I am not asking you to tell them what partner has, but only what partner has shown in a system that he himself has already told them he was playing. > Best regards > Matthias > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Sep 25 18:10:42 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:10:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> Message-ID: <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > I realize that, but surely if a piece of information should have been > available at an earlier time, people can ask about it at some later time? > > [DALB] > > This is a reasonable argument. Carried to its absurd conclusion, however, it > means that if the auction proceeds 1S-pass-2S and an opponent asks me > whether we play Stayman, I am obliged to answer him. Contrary to what the > possessor of the voice of reason believes, I do not think that this is the > case. > Well, I think it is. If he asks you that and you call me, I will tell him that he should not waste time with useless questions. If he persists and tells me the question is useful to him (I don't even want to know the reason) then I'll order you to answer. I will monitor the table and stand ready to slap him with penalties for time wasting, but he is entitled to all the information he believes he needs. And BTW - I am certain that some of our more creative readers (Alain, Richard, ?) will come up with a plausible reason why they want to know if you play Stayman or not. > A consistent and practical application of Laws 20 and 40 taken together > seems to me to be: the RA specifies what partnership understandings are to > be disclosed prior to play, and in what level of detail. During play, the > opponents may ask only about those partnership understandings relevant to > the deal in progress, or about understandings that have been disclosed prior > to play in accordance with regulation. If Blackwood has not been used, it is > difficult to envisage a circumstance in which partnership understandings > related to Blackwood are relevant, but it is not impossible. > No, certainly not, I have given a reason already - one which may not apply to the cases in question - but that is not the discussion here. > Since it does not matter to me what "sub-thread" of the dWS discussion I am > in, I will say here that if I have bid 4NT for the minors and partner has > incorrectly explained it as Blackwood, then I will answer "diamond > preference" to the question "what did 5D mean?" (because that is what it > means, and my explanation is not an indication per L20F5a). no, per the Grattan interpretation of L20F5a - but I digress. > If the opponents > ask "what would it have meant if 4NT were Blackwood?" I will ask the > Director to determine whether or not this is relevant to the deal in > progress. > David, you ARE the director here - I am asking you. And it is very relevant to this deal - partner has stated he thought 4NT was Blackwood, so there is probably a very high correlation between his 5Di bid and the number of aces he has. > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 25 18:19:39 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:19:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to try a summary-so-far. The basic problem: My 4NT is agreed to be for the minors, partner explains it as Blackwood, and the opponents ask for an explanation of partner's 5Di bid. A very common answer in blml was to describe 5 Di as showing a preference for Diamonds. The reasons for this opinion differ (as do the reasons for desribing 5Di as showing one ace). One reason, which I will call pseudo-MS, is that the explaner cannot use UI from partner's explanation (Stefanie, Sven). When 4NT was actually supposed to be Blackwood and I am woken up by partner's explanation, Stepanie and Sven still explain 5Di as being for the minors. The other reason is Laws 20, 40, and 75 require me to provide the agreement assuming all bids have been correctly understood. In other words, according to our agreement, 5Di is supposed to be preference for the minors. This "camp" will use partner's explanation (UI or not) to produce the proper explanation. The problem is deciding on the opponent's right for information. If I know how many aces partner probably has, then we have agreements that will reveal this information to the opponents. How easily can the opponents access this information? 1. Not at all. 2. If they ask exactly the right question. If they say "how many aces does his bid show?", I answer that it doesn't show aces. If they ask how many aces his bid would show if my bid was Blackwood?", I answer that it isn't Blackwood and we have no agreements about how many aces a bid shows over a Blackwood that isn't Blackwood. I decided to call these first two positions "radical MS". To me, they seem most true to the MS principles. But apparently most blmler's will not take MS this far. 3. If they ask how many aces he has, I tell them. But I don't volunteer this information just because they ask me to explain his 5Di bid. 4. Might as well volunteer the information right from the start. This of course stops being the MS position and becomes a third answer to the original problem -- tell the opponents both meanings when they first ask. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Sep 25 22:10:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:10:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <92F22713-56ED-4599-BC77-00C73F8002B5@starpower.net> On Sep 25, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The problem is deciding on the opponent's right for information. If > I know > how many aces partner probably has, then we have agreements that will > reveal this information to the opponents. How easily can the opponents > access this information? > > 1. Not at all. > > 2. If they ask exactly the right question. If they say "how many > aces does > his bid show?", I answer that it doesn't show aces. If they ask how > many > aces his bid would show if my bid was Blackwood?", I answer that it > isn't > Blackwood and we have no agreements about how many aces a bid shows > over a > Blackwood that isn't Blackwood. I decided to call these first two > positions "radical MS". To me, they seem most true to the MS > principles. > But apparently most blmler's will not take MS this far. > > 3. If they ask how many aces he has, I tell them. But I don't > volunteer > this information just because they ask me to explain his 5Di bid. > > 4. Might as well volunteer the information right from the start. > This of > course stops being the MS position and becomes a third answer to the > original problem -- tell the opponents both meanings when they > first ask. #3. But I will be careful not to say "He has one ace", but rather, because BLML has made me hyper-sensitive to the legalities involved, I will say, "If he were responding to Blackwood, he would be showing one ace." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 26 03:55:19 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:55:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004801c91f03$0aaf66c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: 2007 Law 16B2: "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed)." EBU Orange Book clauses 2A3 and 2A4: 2A3 Although there are circumstances under Law 16 where a player may 'reserve his rights', it is usually better to call the TD, but see 2 A 4. This assumes there is a nonplaying TD to be called. In the case of a playing TD, or no TD (as in a match played privately), a player may have no choice but to reserve his rights. 2A4 In practice there are occasions where failure to call the TD is often not fatal. If the four players at the table agree that there was a hesitation, and all four are experienced and know their rights, then leaving it to the end of play to see if there is any potential damage does not matter very much. EBU Guide to the 2007 Laws: Changes affecting players http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/2007laws/players.htm "...You are still required to agree a hesitation, for example, when it happens and the TD should be summoned if there is any disagreement. The new laws state that the best time to claim actual damage is at the end of the hand (e.g. rather than on sight of dummy)..." Richard Hills: My understanding of the conditional option to Reserve Rights is that a Regulating Authority may over-rule that option and require the Director to be summoned immediately. I do not see a power for a Regulating Authority to _require_ agreement on a hesitation when it happens, rather than draw attention to a hesitation at the end of play (if necessary). EBU Orange Book clause 2A4 seems particularly silly. Whether players are experienced or non-expert, none of them have _rights_ because of an opponent's hesitation. Only if the hesitator's partner chooses a demonstrably suggested logical alternative do they then have _rights_, but these _rights_ are the same at the end of play as they are during play. And, to expand David Burn's earlier point about "practical" applications of Law, if every EBU player obeyed Orange Book clause 2A3, summoning the TD whenever a hesitation occurred, then the player/TD ratio at EBU events would have to be 1:1. :-) 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 Sep 26 07:29:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:29:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] What mall do you cake? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps Dlr: East Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 3H Pass 4NT(1) X 5C (2) X (3) 5H ? (1) Keycard Blackwood in hearts, not both minors (2) Promising one keycard, not preference for clubs (3) Preference for clubs, not promising one keycard You, North, hold: A842 A KT82 AKT5 What mall do you cake? 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 Fri Sep 26 10:42:01 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:42:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <004801c91f03$0aaf66c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <000e01c91f07$50423c40$f0c6b4c0$@com> Message-ID: <004601c91fb3$e16ffe30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [GE] > > I am not sure what David Burn wrote. > > [DALB] > > David Burn didn't write anything. For this he was castigated by David > Stevenson, who observed that: > > "The TD asked the AC to write comments on the form but they did not." > > This is untrue. At the time we heard the appeal, there was no appeal form. > The AC (who were all players in the tournament) communicated its decision > to > the TD, who later created an appeal form that the AC never actually saw. > The > TD's "excellent and well-explained ruling" bore a remarkable similarity to > the decision communicated to him by the AC, no doubt coincidentally. Quite > why David Stevenson took it upon himself to publish a wholly inaccurate > account of what took place is unclear to me; of course I would have > completed the appeal form had there been one. > +=+ How desirable it is always to hear the other side. In musing upon the problem I vaguely wonder whether the AC could have obtained a blank form (or a piece of notepaper) and put on it the Director's ruling and the AC's comments. But at best this is wisdom after the event. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 26 11:23:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:23:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > David, you ARE the director here - I am asking you. > And it is very relevant to this deal - partner has stated he thought 4NT > was Blackwood, so there is probably a very high correlation between his > 5Di bid and the number of aces he has. > AG : indeed. But that's not the point here. The point is : assuming I know what 5D would mean in other bidding where 4NT is BW, are they allowed to know : a) the meaning of partner's bid b) what partner has c) the meaning of any bid in our system If a), I don't answer. If b), I do. If c), I do, but I don't think there are enough arguments supporting this interpretation. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 26 11:31:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:31:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48DCAC0E.3040104@ulb.ac.be> > > 3. If they ask how many aces he has, I tell them. But I don't volunteer > this information just because they ask me to explain his 5Di bid. > AG : the problem is that you can't know how many aces he has, only how many he shows. Just imagine that partner's error wasn't about the system, but about the bidding. He wanted to open 1H, decided that he hadn't enough and passed. But he's working on the false belief that he opened (don't ask me why ; such things happen) and is now answering that he owns the HK. Will there be any AC to free you of MI charges ? Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 26 12:34:30 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:34:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <008101c91fc3$78a12400$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > EBU Orange Book clause 2A4 seems particularly silly. Whether > players are experienced or non-expert, none of them have > _rights_ because of an opponent's hesitation. Only if the > hesitator's partner chooses a demonstrably suggested logical > alternative do they then have _rights_, but these _rights_ > are the same at the end of play as they are during play. > +=+ Except that is, the rights under Law 16B2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 26 12:37:54 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:37:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <008e01c91fc3$fe784b30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning The point is : assuming I know what 5D would mean in other bidding where 4NT is BW, are they allowed to know : a) the meaning of partner's bid b) what partner has c) the meaning of any bid in our system +=+ There is of course a gulf of meaning between 'allowed' and 'entitled' ~ G ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 26 12:53:31 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:53:31 EDT Subject: [blml] What mall do you cake? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 26/09/2008 06:30:23 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: Imps Dlr: East Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 3H Pass 4NT(1) X 5C (2) X (3) 5H ? (1) Keycard Blackwood in hearts, not both minors (2) Promising one keycard, not preference for clubs (3) Preference for clubs, not promising one keycard You, North, hold: A842 A KT82 AKT5 What mall do you cake? [paul lamford] 5NT: Hake out of tarts. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 26 13:11:20 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:11:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <008e01c91fc3$fe784b30$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <008e01c91fc3$fe784b30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DCC358.30001@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Half the failures in life arise from pulling in > one's horse as he is leaping." > [J. & A. Hare] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:23 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > > > The point is : assuming I know what 5D would mean in other bidding where > 4NT is BW, are they allowed to know : > a) the meaning of partner's bid > b) what partner has > c) the meaning of any bid in our system > > +=+ There is of course a gulf of meaning between 'allowed' and 'entitled' > I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker and I don't see the difference. Nor does my Harraps' English -> French. What I meant is : "do the Laws, as written, give them the right to know" From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 26 13:17:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:17:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] What mall do you cake? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48DCC4D8.7060708@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 26/09/2008 06:30:23 GMT Standard Time, > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 3H Pass > 4NT(1) X 5C (2) X (3) > 5H ? > > (1) Keycard Blackwood in hearts, not both minors > (2) Promising one keycard, not preference for clubs > (3) Preference for clubs, not promising one keycard > > You, North, hold: > > A842 > A > KT82 > AKT5 > > What mall do you cake? > > [paul lamford] 5NT: Hake out of tarts. > > AG : I always said Englishmen and their cousins had a strange sense of cooking. I think 5NT would be "lick your spam", whence less in clubs ; I prefer raising partner's clubs. I'll bid only 6, paying to their shenanigans if needed. It might well be that he hasn't any fart to huff. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 26 13:41:25 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:41:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DCC358.30001@ulb.ac.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <008e01c91fc3$fe784b30$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DCC358.30001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000b01c91fcc$cf24e1a0$6d6ea4e0$@com> [GE] There is of course a gulf of meaning between 'allowed' and 'entitled' [AG] I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker and I don't see the difference. Nor does my Harraps' English -> French. [DALB] In this context, it means that if I as your opponent tell you that I have one ace, you are allowed to know that I have one ace. But you are not entitled to know that I have one ace - that is, you cannot ask me how many aces I have and expect me to tell you. By contrast, if I as your partner say "I have one ace", you are neither entitled nor allowed to know that I have one ace (even though you know it). You are entitled to bid Blackwood to ask me how many aces I have, and you are allowed to know that I have one ace when I bid 5D. But if you do not bid Blackwood, you are neither allowed nor entitled to know how many aces I have (even though you may know it, because you know that I think you have bid Blackwood). David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 26 13:47:04 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:47:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DCAC0E.3040104@ulb.ac.be> References: <48DCAC0E.3040104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48DCCBB8.4080000@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> 3. If they ask how many aces he has, I tell them. But I don't volunteer >> this information just because they ask me to explain his 5Di bid. >> > AG : the problem is that you can't know how many aces he has, only how > many he shows. > Of course. > Just imagine that partner's error wasn't about the system, but about the > bidding. > He wanted to open 1H, decided that he hadn't enough and passed. But he's > working on the false belief that he opened (don't ask me why ; such > things happen) and is now answering that he owns the HK. > Will there be any AC to free you of MI charges ? > Of course. This problem can happen without any dWS problems as well, and we can deal with it. Why do you need to make things complicated if even the simple cases cause months and months of discussion? What does your problem bring to the dWS question - even if it were that this problem were easier to solve under MS than dWS - but it isn't! > Best regards > > Alain > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Sep 26 13:47:54 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:47:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48DCCBEA.5060405@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> David, you ARE the director here - I am asking you. >> And it is very relevant to this deal - partner has stated he thought 4NT >> was Blackwood, so there is probably a very high correlation between his >> 5Di bid and the number of aces he has. >> > AG : indeed. But that's not the point here. > > The point is : assuming I know what 5D would mean in other bidding where > 4NT is BW, are they allowed to know : > a) the meaning of partner's bid > b) what partner has > c) the meaning of any bid in our system > > If a), I don't answer. If b), I do. If c), I do, but I don't think there > are enough arguments supporting this interpretation. > L40A. Herman. > Best regards > > Alain > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 26 14:02:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:02:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DCCBB8.4080000@skynet.be> References: <48DCAC0E.3040104@ulb.ac.be> <48DCCBB8.4080000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48DCCF4B.5090703@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> 3. If they ask how many aces he has, I tell them. But I don't volunteer >>> this information just because they ask me to explain his 5Di bid. >>> >>> >> AG : the problem is that you can't know how many aces he has, only how >> many he shows. >> >> > > Of course. > > >> Just imagine that partner's error wasn't about the system, but about the >> bidding. >> He wanted to open 1H, decided that he hadn't enough and passed. But he's >> working on the false belief that he opened (don't ask me why ; such >> things happen) and is now answering that he owns the HK. >> Will there be any AC to free you of MI charges ? >> >> > > Of course. > This problem can happen without any dWS problems as well, and we can > deal with it. > Why do you need to make things complicated if even the simple cases > cause months and months of discussion? > What does your problem bring to the dWS question - even if it were that > this problem were easier to solve under MS than dWS - but it isn't! > AG : there are other things in life than dWS and MS. My point is : if you try to guess what partner meant (even if that guess seems fairly easy, like in the 5D case), and it's not in the system, you're giving MI. This could lead to penalties and adjustments. And half-hearted dWSists like YT won't dare do this here, becasue it's *new* UI Especially (but not only) if partner's bid matches the system, but not your explanation. The 3C (possibly Bergen) case is onr such good case ; as I have pointed out, and I'm not alone, the bidding is coherent with partner having long Clubs and a Spade fragment, so why tell anythng else ? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Sep 26 14:22:47 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:22:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] What mall do you cake? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48DCD417.4090608@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Imps > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 3H Pass > 4NT(1) X 5C (2) X (3) > 5H ? > > (1) Keycard Blackwood in hearts, not both minors > (2) Promising one keycard, not preference for clubs > (3) Preference for clubs, not promising one keycard > > You, North, hold: > > A842 > A > KT82 > AKT5 > > What mall do you cake? > How should I know? I have no idea what my own bidding means, let alone partner`s. Now, playing something sensible X would be take-out of hearts, and partner's double would invite 6C. In that case I my bid is 6C, invitation for 7, whereas 5NT is a Lebensohl-type device to accept the invitation, but nothing more. Richard, without wanting to sound to critical, I find this type of "problem" extremely difficult. No idea what these bids mean (except 3H and 4NT, which mean long hearts in a weak hand and finding out at what level to defend, respectively), no idea who my partner or my opps are, or how my next bid would be taken by partner. I submit that it is not realistically posible to give an answer in a vacuum. I understand that it is impossible to give all relevant information to someone who does not know the folks at the table, but a bit more information would be appreciated. Best regards Matthias From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 26 15:38:24 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:38:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000b01c91fcc$cf24e1a0$6d6ea4e0$@com> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <008e01c91fc3$fe784b30$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DCC358.30001@ulb.ac.be> <000b01c91fcc$cf24e1a0$6d6ea4e0$@com> Message-ID: On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:41:25 -0400, David Burn wrote: > [GE] > > There is of course a gulf of meaning between 'allowed' and 'entitled' > > [AG] > > I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker and I don't see the > difference. > Nor does my Harraps' English -> French. > > [DALB] > > In this context, it means that if I as your opponent tell you that I have > one ace, you are allowed to know that I have one ace. But you are not > entitled to know that I have one ace - that is, you cannot ask me how > many > aces I have and expect me to tell you. > > By contrast, if I as your partner say "I have one ace", you are neither > entitled nor allowed to know that I have one ace (even though you know > it). > You are entitled to bid Blackwood to ask me how many aces I have, and you > are allowed to know that I have one ace when I bid 5D. But if you do not > bid > Blackwood, you are neither allowed nor entitled to know how many aces I > have > (even though you may know it, because you know that I think you have bid > Blackwood). Hi David. Suppose the opponents ask "What if the opening bid had been 3Sp and you bid 4NT, what would 5Di mean?" Are they entitled to a correct answer to that? You and your partner have agreed that 4NT is Blackwood on this sequence, and you have agreed on the meaning of the 5Di response in that sequence. Reminder "They are entitled to know about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are a matter of partnership understanding." Also "relevant calls not made" could be interpreted to include relevant calls you made. The reason I ask is this. The extreme MS position is that the opponents are not entitled to that information no matter what they ask. I had guessed no one would take this position. Another is that they are entitled to that information only if they ask exactly the right question (which seems unlikely that they will think to do). Does one of these fit your position? From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 26 16:18:21 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:18:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 16B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: snipping > > 2A4 In practice there are occasions where failure to call > the TD is often not fatal. If the four players at the table > agree that there was a hesitation, and all four are > experienced and know their rights, then leaving it to the > end of play to see if there is any potential damage does > not matter very much. Richard Hills writes: > EBU Orange Book clause 2A4 seems particularly silly. Whether > players are experienced or non-expert, none of them have > _rights_ because of an opponent's hesitation. Only if the > hesitator's partner chooses a demonstrably suggested logical > alternative do they then have _rights_, but these _rights_ > are the same at the end of play as they are during play. > > And, to expand David Burn's earlier point about "practical" > applications of Law, if every EBU player obeyed Orange Book > clause 2A3, summoning the TD whenever a hesitation occurred, > then the player/TD ratio at EBU events would have to be 1:1. I don't know the resolution to the practicality issue -- I am certainly glad the players don't call me every time there is a hesitation. But I have a lot of trouble ruling against a hesitation when the hesitator doesn't know any of the rules concerning hesitations. So I think "rights" should be rewritten/interpreted as "rights and responsibilities". Call the director when the opponents don't know all of their responsibilities following a hesitation. Or else you are less likely to receive a favorable ruling. Also, sometimes I come to the table and the player doesn't even know what the hesitation suggests, even though I and the opponents do. In particular, the "it shows extra stuff" interpretation is not obvious. Bob From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Sep 26 00:20:57 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:20:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lone Wolff book [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <3DA2928B5D7C40B9AB53B4CAD2906461@stefanie> > Stefanie Rohan, discussing Law 13F: > >>>...In any case, the director involved will always have a >>>hand record to check... > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Always? Not in an ACBL Swiss teams. The problem in such a case may well have a completely different solution. They are not playing duplicate bridge, so should not look for an answer in the duplicate bridge lawbook. > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Bobby Wolff claimed that the format of an ACBL Swiss > teams, with no hand records, gave an incentive for Steve > Sion to infract Law 6 by stacking a deck. Running an event under this format, I would believe that *every* player had an incentive to do that. All you have to do is carry an extra S6 to add to your hand when a hand looks like it will turn out very badly. I realise that the ACBL run events on a larger scale than we in England do. But why is not to possible to have the same proportion of people manning the duplicate machines? Do the punters not complain about converting to Victory Points when every team plays a different set of hands? (Silly question, really, when they seemingly don't complain about taking a two-winner movement and randomly choosing an "overall" winner. ACBL members seem a very compliant lot). Stefanie Rohan London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 26 18:20:20 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:20:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > David, you ARE the director here - I am asking you. > And it is very relevant to this deal - partner has stated he thought 4NT > was Blackwood, so there is probably a very high correlation between his > 5Di bid and the number of aces he has. > AG : indeed. But that's not the point here. The point is : assuming I know what 5D would mean in other bidding where 4NT is BW, are they allowed to know : a) the meaning of partner's bid b) what partner has c) the meaning of any bid in our system If a), I don't answer. If b), I do. If c), I do, but I don't think there are enough arguments supporting this interpretation. +=+ The position is quite clear in law. From the start of the auction to the end of the play what you are required to tell him is specified in Law 20F1 and 20F2. That is information to which opponent is 'entitled'. As to what information opponent is 'allowed to know', the law does not restrict what information you may volunteer at your own risk - for example, a claim that it may have misled, indeed misinformed in some circumstances if you misread partner's state of mind. Behind screens, RAs commonly encourage you to be generous with information - which is fair enough, especially if you draw attention to any uncertainties in it. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 26 19:17:28 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:17:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred><48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be><002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred><48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><008e01c91fc3$fe784b30$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DCC358.30001@ulb.ac.be><000b01c91fcc$cf24e1a0$6d6ea4e0$@com> Message-ID: <007201c91ffb$c26cc390$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:41:25 -0400, David Burn > wrote: > >> [GE] >> >> There is of course a gulf of meaning between 'allowed' and 'entitled' >> >> [AG] >> >> I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker and I don't see the >> difference. >> Nor does my Harraps' English -> French. >> >> [DALB] >> >> In this context, it means that if I as your opponent tell you that I have >> one ace, you are allowed to know that I have one ace. But you are not >> entitled to know that I have one ace - that is, you cannot ask me how >> many >> aces I have and expect me to tell you. >> >> By contrast, if I as your partner say "I have one ace", you are neither >> entitled nor allowed to know that I have one ace (even though you know >> it). >> You are entitled to bid Blackwood to ask me how many aces I have, and you >> are allowed to know that I have one ace when I bid 5D. But if you do not >> bid >> Blackwood, you are neither allowed nor entitled to know how many aces I >> have >> (even though you may know it, because you know that I think you have bid >> Blackwood). > > Hi David. Suppose the opponents ask "What if the opening bid had been 3Sp > and you bid 4NT, what would 5Di mean?" Are they entitled to a correct > answer to that? You and your partner have agreed that 4NT is Blackwood on > this sequence, and you have agreed on the meaning of the 5Di response in > that sequence. > > Reminder "They are entitled to know about relevant inferences from the > choice of action where these are a matter of partnership understanding." > Also "relevant calls not made" could be interpreted to include relevant > calls you made. > > The reason I ask is this. The extreme MS position is that the opponents > are not entitled to that information no matter what they ask. I had > guessed no one would take this position. Another is that they are entitled > to that information only if they ask exactly the right question (which > seems unlikely that they will think to do). Does one of these fit your > position? > +=+ Dictionary: allow: let someone have or do something admit as legal or acceptable entitle: to give someone a right to do or receive something.+=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 26 19:26:51 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:26:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be><48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <007c01c91ffd$145fcf20$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning +=+ The position is quite clear in law. From the start of the auction to the end of the play what you are required to tell him is specified in Law 20F1 and 20F2. That is information to which opponent is 'entitled'. As to what information opponent is 'allowed to know', the law does not restrict what information you may volunteer at your own risk - for example, a claim that it may have misled, indeed misinformed in some circumstances if you misread partner's state of mind. Behind screens, RAs commonly encourage you to be generous with information - which is fair enough, especially if you draw attention to any uncertainties in it. ~ G ~ +=+ Behind screens there is no risk of conveying UI to partner via some unguarded remark. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Sep 27 10:01:29 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:01:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >> > AG : indeed. But that's not the point here. > > The point is : assuming I know what 5D would mean in other bidding where > 4NT is BW, are they allowed to know : > a) the meaning of partner's bid > b) what partner has > c) the meaning of any bid in our system > > If a), I don't answer. If b), I do. If c), I do, but I don't think there > are enough arguments supporting this interpretation. > > +=+ The position is quite clear in law. A typical Grattan statement. We're discussing something for seven messages, and then Grattan tells us the law is clear, and then he goes on by not telling us what the law actually says: > From the start of the auction > to the end of the play what you are required to tell him is specified > in Law 20F1 and 20F2. Now tell us, Grattan, if you interpret the phrase: "relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding", as meaning that the choice of 5Di over 5Cl, when made after announcing that the player thought he was replying to Blackwood, gives rise to inferences that must be told. I am flabbergasted to hear that something which ought to be disclosed under L40 need not be answered under L20. That simply cannot be the truth. [semantics of allowed and entitled skipped - Alain used a wrong word, we all know he wants to know what the opponents are entitled to] Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 27 12:39:49 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:39:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > I am flabbergasted to hear that something which ought to be disclosed under L40 need not be answered under L20. > +=+ Then you have not read the law carefully or have misunderstood the language. Each of these laws (20F and 40A1b) specifies the time at which it applies. They are directed at different purposes, general disclosure beforehand in the latter case and relevant disclosure during the auction and the play in the former. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 28 11:50:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:50:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Half the failures in life arise from pulling in > one's horse as he is leaping." > [J. & A. Hare] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 9:01 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > I am flabbergasted to hear that something which ought to > be disclosed under L40 need not be answered under L20. > +=+ Then you have not read the law carefully or have > misunderstood the language. Each of these laws (20F and > 40A1b) specifies the time at which it applies. They are > directed at different purposes, general disclosure beforehand > in the latter case and relevant disclosure during the auction > and the play in the former. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, again a non-answer. I am flabbergasted to hear that something which ought to have been said at the time specified in L40, cannot be asked and have answered at the time specified in L20. That simply cannot be true. Full disclosure must mean that a player has the absolute right to ask whatever he needs at whatever time he is on play. Otherwise there is no FULL disclosure. And yes, I wrote "needs". He cannot go asking about totally irrelevant things, but the Blackwood responses are not irrelevant here. As to who determines what are needs, that is not really the problem, is it? The way I read L20, it lists a number of things to clearly show that one can ask about more than just the calls made. I cannot believe that the list in L20 was put there as a finite list in order to exclude other questions. And anyway - I still believe the question I mean falls within the list of L20 (inferences from the choice of action). I feel this debate is too silly for words. You are merely trying to wriggle out of some argument in favour of the dWS. I doubt whether any one of you, at the table, would actually dare to answer - I'm not telling you what our blackwood responses are. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 28 13:14:01 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:14:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > And yes, I wrote "needs". He cannot go asking about totally irrelevant > things, but the Blackwood responses are not irrelevant here. Oh please, come on and cease this endless discussion about irrelevant issues: >From Law 20F: "He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." So once the answer to 4NT is explained as showing minor preference then obviously Blackwood 4NT was not bid, neither was it available; thus no question about answers to Blackwood is permissible AT THIS TIME. Is that so difficult to understand? (And BTW, this also applies to calls that may become available later in the auction but has not yet been made. Consequently you cannot ask about Lightner before opponents have had their chance to double a slam bid from you) Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 28 13:55:13 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:55:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be><001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > Grattan wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************** >> "Half the failures in life arise from pulling in >> one's horse as he is leaping." >> [J. & A. Hare] >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 9:01 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning >> I am flabbergasted to hear that something which ought to >> be disclosed under L40 need not be answered under L20. >> +=+ Then you have not read the law carefully or have >> misunderstood the language. Each of these laws (20F and >> 40A1b) specifies the time at which it applies. They are >> directed at different purposes, general disclosure beforehand >> in the latter case and relevant disclosure during the auction >> and the play in the former. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Grattan, again a non-answer. > I am flabbergasted to hear that something which ought to have been said > at the time specified in L40, cannot be asked and have answered at the > time specified in L20. > That simply cannot be true. > Full disclosure must mean that a player has the absolute right to ask > whatever he needs at whatever time he is on play. > Otherwise there is no FULL disclosure. > > And yes, I wrote "needs". He cannot go asking about totally irrelevant > things, but the Blackwood responses are not irrelevant here. > As to who determines what are needs, that is not really the problem, is > it? > > The way I read L20, it lists a number of things to clearly show that one > can ask about more than just the calls made. I cannot believe that the > list in L20 was put there as a finite list in order to exclude other > questions. > > And anyway - I still believe the question I mean falls within the list > of L20 (inferences from the choice of action). > > I feel this debate is too silly for words. You are merely trying to > wriggle out of some argument in favour of the dWS. > I doubt whether any one of you, at the table, would actually dare to > answer - I'm not telling you what our blackwood responses are. > ......................................................................................................... +=+ That the debate is too silly for words I have no doubt. However, that the law is clear I have also no doubt and I am not concerned to discuss applications of the law and definitions of what matters fit the categories 1-2-3 below since many sound voices on here are telling you about these, and I feel no need to justify to you in particular the nature of the law. However, to look at 20F1 and identify the elements in its listing of matters that must be disclosed in response to opponent's enquiry, they are: 1. the partnership understanding as to the meaning of the calls actually made. 2. the partnership understanding as to the meaning of any alternative call that were available but not made. 3. any partnership understanding as to inferences to be drawn from the use of the actual calls (in 1 above) instead of available alternative calls (in 2 above). These are explanations that are relevant to the current auction and play. An alternative call is not the same call with another meaning, since partnership understanding does not allow that such call is 'available'; it must be a bid stating a different denomination or a different number of odd tricks, or a pass, double or redouble in place of another call actually made. They are the matters that opponent has a right to be told about. Nothing can be done about the possible risk that in giving this information to opponent UI will be conveyed to partner (and doing so does not in itself constitute an irregularity). Other information may be volunteered but always with the proviso that on occasion it might be adjudged to mislead an opponent.or create UI for partner (a danger which, if foreseen in any instance, would be good reason not to volunteer the information). Finally, I am not concerned to 'wriggle out' of some argument in favour of dWS. Any such argument is dead in the water when we are interpreting the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 28 14:40:08 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:40:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> Message-ID: <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > Is that so difficult to understand? > > Sven > +=+ For Herman it is very difficult Sven because he does not want to accept that under the present laws his pet theory is the non-starter that it is. The rest of the world just has to keep moving along without him. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Sep 28 17:10:15 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:10:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be><001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DF9E57.30102@NTLworld.com> Grattan wrote: +=+ That the debate is too silly for words I have no doubt. However, that the law is clear I have also no doubt and I am not concerned to discuss applications of the law and definitions of what matters fit the categories 1-2-3 below since many sound voices on here are telling you about these, and I feel no need to justify to you in particular the nature of the law. However, to look at 20F1 and identify the elements in its listing of matters that must be disclosed in response to opponent's enquiry, they are: 1. the partnership understanding as to the meaning of the calls actually made. 2. the partnership understanding as to the meaning of any alternative call that were available but not made. 3. any partnership understanding as to inferences to be drawn from the use of the actual calls (in 1 above) instead of available alternative calls (in 2 above). These are explanations that are relevant to the current auction and play. An alternative call is not the same call with another meaning, since partnership understanding does not allow that such call is 'available'; it must be a bid stating a different denomination or a different number of odd tricks, or a pass, double or redouble in place of another call actually made. They are the matters that opponent has a right to be told about. Nothing can be done about the possible risk that in giving this information to opponent UI will be conveyed to partner (and doing so does not in itself constitute an irregularity). Other information may be volunteered but always with the proviso that on occasion it might be adjudged to mislead an opponent.or create UI for partner (a danger which, if foreseen in any instance, would be good reason not to volunteer the information). Finally, I am not concerned to 'wriggle out' of some argument in favour of dWS. Any such argument is dead in the water when we are interpreting the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. [Nige1] One last try ... S:KJT H:xxx D:xxx C:xxxx is your hand. Partner opens 4D wnich you alert and explain as solid spades (You agreed this yesterday with partner). You know a wheel has come off. You are a regular partnership and your agreement for the previous 10 years was that 4D showed solid hearts. Partner is not psych-prone and never mis-sorts his hand, so you deduce that he probably holds solid hearts and compensate accordingly. S:AQxx H- D:Axxx C:AKQJx is the holding of an opponent. He, too guesses, that a wheel has come off but he does not know your *previous* agreement or your partner's psyching, miss-sorting or other propensities so he is relatively poorly placed to recover. He will probably guess that your partner has a diamond pre-empt and hence may bid less effectively. If the director judges that the lack of knowledge of your previous agreement damaged this opponent, should he give redress? From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 28 17:15:15 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:15:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> Message-ID: <48DF9F83.7060908@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > >>From Law 20F: "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." > > So once the answer to 4NT is explained as showing minor preference then > obviously Blackwood 4NT was not bid, neither was it available; thus no > question about answers to Blackwood is permissible AT THIS TIME. > 5Di was a choice of action. Surely we can ask what it means under some system that the bidder was thinking of playing. Too silly for words. > Is that so difficult to understand? > Yes, clearly - is my argument to difficult to understand? > (And BTW, this also applies to calls that may become available later in the > auction but has not yet been made. Consequently you cannot ask about > Lightner before opponents have had their chance to double a slam bid from > you) > Crazy - that way you are not allowed to ask "do you play ...?". Silly. Clearly simply an attempt to give as little arguments as possible for my points of view. I really cannot believe anyone of you would flatly refuse to answer questions like this. > Sven > I agree with one thing - let's stop this silly discussion. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 28 17:18:10 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:18:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Half the failures in life arise from pulling in > one's horse as he is leaping." > [J. & A. Hare] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 12:14 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > > >> Is that so difficult to understand? >> >> Sven >> > +=+ For Herman it is very difficult Sven because he does not > want to accept that under the present laws his pet theory is the > non-starter that it is. The rest of the world just has to keep > moving along without him. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > No Grattan, what is so difficult for me to believe is that you take stances that are clearly destined just to discredit my "non-starter". I cannot believe that eminent people like yourself are so dismissive of full disclosure - and that you would flatly refuse to answer a question by an opponent - a clearly relevant question to which you know the answer. Unbelievable. Let's stop this silly discussion. You have not convinced me, nor, I hope, those sensible enough to see this argument for what it is. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 28 18:44:52 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:44:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:14:01 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ........... >> And yes, I wrote "needs". He cannot go asking about totally irrelevant >> things, but the Blackwood responses are not irrelevant here. > > Oh please, come on and cease this endless discussion about irrelevant > issues: > >> From Law 20F: "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." > > So once the answer to 4NT is explained as showing minor preference then > obviously Blackwood 4NT was not bid, neither was it available; thus no > question about answers to Blackwood is permissible AT THIS TIME. > > Is that so difficult to understand? Yes. Difficult. I can't find any basis in law. When I posed this problem, I imagined that opponents are now on lead. They have to defend against 5Di. They very much want to know how many aces are in declarer's hand. It would be very odd to say that they are entitled to this information now but they weren't entitled to it during the auction. Anyway, the question is if they are entitled to it before leading. You can and have argued that partner's explanation is UI and hence cannot be used in making your own answer. That does not seem to be the majority opinion here on blml. Then your comment "AT THIS TIME" makes more sense. But you will still be using UI from partner if you answered before the opening lead. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 28 19:20:27 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:20:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > I feel this debate is too silly for words. Grattan responded: > +=+ That the debate is too silly for words I have no doubt. I am not sure what either of you mean by "the debate". The fact is, (1) when the partnership agreement is that 4NT is Blackwood, (2) I bid it for the minors, and (3) partner's explanation wakes me up, blmlers split on what to do. Some feel the UI laws apply and some do not. I would like to discuss this. Now return to the original problem, where 4NT is for the minors and partner describes it as Blackwood. The supposed "MS" position is that when asked, I explain partner's bid as preferences for the minors. But there is NO consensus on entitlement if the opponents ask: 1. How many aces does that show, or how many aces would it show if your bid was Blackwood? 2. How many aces would that show if the opening bid was 3S and you bid 4NT? (In the problem, 4NT was Blackwood over 3NT, you had agreed on the meaning of the responses, and that is how you knew what partner's 5Di bid meant.) Is that a silly question to try to answer? Grattan has, apparently, taken the extreme position that the opponents are not entitled to the answer to any of these questions. But most blmlers took different position. Frankly, I cannot see how position #2 is lawful. So I would like to discuss what partnership agreements the opponents are entitled to. I am not debating dWS and I think I don't qualify as a member, especially since my current answer is not dWS. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Sep 28 20:13:39 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:13:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> Robert Frick schrieb: > Now return to the original problem, where 4NT is for the minors and > partner describes it as Blackwood. The supposed "MS" position is that when > asked, I explain partner's bid as preferences for the minors. But there is > NO consensus on entitlement if the opponents ask: That depends on what you would call a consensus. It is not unanimous, no, we all can see that. I would call it a consensus with dissenting votes. We are not about to reach an unanimous opinion, if the last dozens of mails are any indication.... > > 1. How many aces does that show, or how many aces would it show if your > bid was Blackwood? What would that bid mean if it didn't mean what it does? > > 2. How many aces would that show if the opening bid was 3S and you bid > 4NT? (In the problem, 4NT was Blackwood over 3NT, you had agreed on the > meaning of the responses, and that is how you knew what partner's 5Di bid > meant.) I will tell you when next I bid 4NT over 3S. I will even offer to volunteer (at _your_ risk if you want to use that information) what kind of Blackwood responses we play in different situations, all of which do not apply here as 4NT was not Blackwood. I am not an unreasonable man, so I am willing to give an opp who asks for it some information he seems to want, as long as he (and the TD) understands that this is an answer to a hypothetical question. How should I know what mindset partner is in if he can't remember the system? > > Is that a silly question to try to answer? Since the information value of the answer is somewhat debatable... > > Grattan has, apparently, taken the extreme position that the opponents are > not entitled to the answer to any of these questions. But most blmlers > took different position. Frankly, I cannot see how position #2 is lawful. You don't? Well, I can, and so can lots of others. It is not an extreme position either, as it is shared by a lot of people. All EBL TDs on this list, for example, (well, except Herman), who surely would have piped up if they agreed with their esteemed colleague, and that is no small number. > > So I would like to discuss what partnership agreements the opponents are > entitled to. I am not debating dWS and I think I don't qualify as a > member, especially since my current answer is not dWS. Did you read Grattan's previous post? All the things opps are entitled to were listed there. So what if I "know" how many aces partner has (if I really know, which is debatable)? I am not allowed to use that information, so why should opps know, who are not entitled to that information? From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Sep 28 21:31:05 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:31:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > I will even offer to > volunteer (at _your_ risk if you want to use that information) what kind > of Blackwood responses we play in different situations, all of which do > not apply here as 4NT was not Blackwood. I am not an unreasonable man, > so I am willing to give an opp who asks for it some information he seems > to want, as long as he (and the TD) understands that this is an answer > to a hypothetical question. How should I know what mindset partner is in > if he can't remember the system? > Matthias, he said he thought 4NT was Blackwood - you tell me what 5Di means in your version of Blackwood - I will take all the provisos I need, and they are just the same if 4NT had been Blackwood after all. Anyway, I note that you would answer the question. I presume many others would also do so. Why then should we discuss if these questions can be asked. >> Is that a silly question to try to answer? > > Since the information value of the answer is somewhat debatable... > How debatable? At the time he bid 5Di, he was thinking 4NT was Blackwood. Why then should his answer be any different than the Blackwood answers you normally play. OK, I might imagine an answer like "depending on what he thinks is trumps, 5Di shows either ... or ...". But that is just like any normal Blackwood in your system. >> Grattan has, apparently, taken the extreme position that the opponents are >> not entitled to the answer to any of these questions. But most blmlers >> took different position. Frankly, I cannot see how position #2 is lawful. > > You don't? Well, I can, and so can lots of others. It is not an extreme > position either, as it is shared by a lot of people. All EBL TDs on this > list, for example, (well, except Herman), who surely would have piped up > if they agreed with their esteemed colleague, and that is no small number. > I would be extremely surprised if we pulled any EBL director right at this moment (without any advance warning) and he would answer that the question "what would 5Di mean if your partner had thought 4NT was Blackwood" would be "I don't have to tell you". Think about it behind screens. You tell me 4NT is for the minors, but for some reason I want to cover my bases and ask the question above. Do you really think any serious director would start reading L20 and come up with the answer Grattan gave? I doubt it. >> So I would like to discuss what partnership agreements the opponents are >> entitled to. I am not debating dWS and I think I don't qualify as a >> member, especially since my current answer is not dWS. > > Did you read Grattan's previous post? All the things opps are entitled > to were listed there. > So what if I "know" how many aces partner has (if I really know, which > is debatable)? I am not allowed to use that information, so why should > opps know, who are not entitled to that information? > Circular reasoning - we are trying to find out if they are entitled to it or not. I think they are. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 28 21:58:11 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:58:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> Message-ID: The question is whether partner's explanation (alert, etc.) can be used when explaining partner's bid. Herman says yes. Most of the so-called MS says yes. David Burns is an excellent example. But Sven and Stefanie say no. I have been thinking about whether the laws address this issue. Everyone agrees that partner's explanation is UI for making calls and plays. The question is how it could be lawful to use it to explain/alert partner's calls. A second problem is that if I can use UI to explain partner's bids (as apparently is said in the Orange Book), then can I use UI from a spectator to correct my explanation of partner's bid? (For that matter, can I use partner's headshakes to explain his calls?) Law 16B seems to be a promising answer to the first problem, because it restricts itself to calls and plays. But what if, before my opening lead, my partner makes some noise or indication that suggests to me I should ask for a deeper explanation of the bids. Can I now ask? I think we want to answer no, but Law 16B does not apply, because my request for information is not a call or play. Fortunately, there are numerous other laws concerning UI. 73C is that you can't take advantage of any UI from partner. So it rules out using UI from partner to ask for further explanation before leading. Unfortunately, there an ambiguity in Law 73C. If there was no rectification, then it would often be to a player's advantage to revoke, give the wrong explanations of partner's bid, etc. You could think of Law 73C as working on this level, and just this level. But there is rectification. And to ensure equity to the NOS, the rectification is often a penalty to the OS. Therefore, there is no advantage in revoking (assuming you are caught and equity is ensured). So it is to my advantage to give a correct explanation to partner's bid, and according to Law 73B, now I cannot use UI to give a correct explanation (when I benefit from that). It is tempting to be just a little werewolfian and say that Law 73C applies to the first level only. In other words, my explanation to opponents is designed to help them (on the first level). So I can use anything available to help. The problem is, what if a friendly kibitzer gives me UI? Can I use that to give my opponents the correct explanation? Law 75A says that if you bid 2D, partner's explanation doesn't fit your meaning, that information is unauthorized. I take this as statement of a more general principle, that partner's wrong explanations are UI. Law 75A then says "South's responsibility if to ACT as though North had made a strong game try....." (emphasis added). If we assume that the laws carefully distinguish 'calls and plays' from 'actions' (which is needed for Law 16B), then this implies that South must explain as if he had not heard North's explanation. Of course, Law 75 claims to be just an example, so we should find the actual law elsewhere. It refers us to Law 16A. Law 16A starts "a player may use information in the auction or play". Not "during", but "in". And anyway, the relevant law for forbidding the use of UI in Law 16A is Law16A(3), which restricts itself to calls and plays. So the reference to Law 16 doesn't support a general definition of "act", but it doesn't support other things in Law 75 -- it seems to me, to say all explanation are AI, or all correct explanations are AI, but not that all expected explanations are AI. I will stop here for now. Am I missing something? That seems likely to me. Disagreements? Additions? From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 28 23:12:21 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:12:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> Message-ID: <000601c921ae$e5e38890$b1aa99b0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ................. > > From Law 20F: "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." > > > > So once the answer to 4NT is explained as showing minor preference then > > obviously Blackwood 4NT was not bid, neither was it available; thus no > > question about answers to Blackwood is permissible AT THIS TIME. > > > > Is that so difficult to understand? > > Yes. Difficult. I can't find any basis in law. > > When I posed this problem, I imagined that opponents are now on lead. They > have to defend against 5Di. They very much want to know how many aces are > in declarer's hand. It would be very odd to say that they are entitled to > this information now but they weren't entitled to it during the auction. > Anyway, the question is if they are entitled to it before leading. > > You can and have argued that partner's explanation is UI and hence cannot > be used in making your own answer. That does not seem to be the majority > opinion here on blml. Then your comment "AT THIS TIME" makes more sense. > But you will still be using UI from partner if you answered before the > opening lead. No, I don't argue that partner's explanation is UI; I argue that according to our agreements he has shown preference for diamonds and nothing else. AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT OPPONENTS ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW! Now opponents are free to assume from information available to them (not to me!) that partner has actually misbid and shown a particular number of aces, they may even try to determine what number of aces partner has shown in response to what he believed was Blackwood. 1: The 4NT bid was not Blackwood. 2: Blackwood was not an available call in the situation and therefore not an alternative call not made. 3: Even if I (too) were to assume that 4NT was understood as Blackwood I have no idea how many aces partner has shown. Once he erred on the 4NT bid how am I to know what kind of Blackwood he believes that we would have used if we had used Blackwood in this position. Opponents are free to guess - at their own risk. And the legal basis is Law 20F (part of which is quoted above). Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 28 23:19:31 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:19:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DF9E57.30102@NTLworld.com> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be><001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF9E57.30102@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000701c921af$e5d1dfe0$b1759fa0$@no> On Behalf Of Guthrie > Sent: 28. september 2008 17:10 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > > Grattan wrote: > +=+ That the debate is too silly for words I have no doubt. However, > that the law is clear I have also no doubt and I am not concerned to > discuss applications of the law and definitions of what matters fit the > categories 1-2-3 below since many sound voices on here are telling > you about these, and I feel no need to justify to you in particular the > nature of the law. > However, to look at 20F1 and identify the elements in its listing of > matters that must be disclosed in response to opponent's enquiry, > they are: > 1. the partnership understanding as to the meaning of > the calls actually made. > 2. the partnership understanding as to the meaning of > any alternative call that were available but not made. > 3. any partnership understanding as to inferences to be > drawn from the use of the actual calls (in 1 above) instead > of available alternative calls (in 2 above). > > These are explanations that are relevant to the current auction and > play. An alternative call is not the same call with another meaning, > since partnership understanding does not allow that such call is > 'available'; it must be a bid stating a different denomination or a > different number of odd tricks, or a pass, double or redouble in place > of another call actually made. > They are the matters that opponent has a right to be told about. > Nothing can be done about the possible risk that in giving this > information to opponent UI will be conveyed to partner (and doing > so does not in itself constitute an irregularity). Other information may > be volunteered but always with the proviso that on occasion it might > be adjudged to mislead an opponent.or create UI for partner (a > danger which, if foreseen in any instance, would be good reason > not to volunteer the information). > Finally, I am not concerned to 'wriggle out' of some argument in > favour of dWS. Any such argument is dead in the water when we > are interpreting the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > [Nige1] > One last try ... > S:KJT H:xxx D:xxx C:xxxx is your hand. > Partner opens 4D wnich you alert and explain as solid spades (You agreed > this yesterday with partner). You know a wheel has come off. You are a > regular partnership and your agreement for the previous 10 years was > that 4D showed solid hearts. Partner is not psych-prone and never > mis-sorts his hand, so you deduce that he probably holds solid hearts > and compensate accordingly. > > S:AQxx H- D:Axxx C:AKQJx is the holding of an opponent. He, too guesses, > that a wheel has come off but he does not know your *previous* agreement > or your partner's psyching, miss-sorting or other propensities so he is > relatively poorly placed to recover. He will probably guess that your > partner has a diamond pre-empt and hence may bid less effectively. > > If the director judges that the lack of knowledge of your previous > agreement damaged this opponent, should he give redress? I would rule that the player must inform opponents about the current agreement which is solid spades; but he should also inform opponents about his "special partnership experience" that this agreement is brand new; they had just changed their agreements from solid hearts. ( L40B6(a) ). Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Sep 28 23:32:37 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:32:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick .............. > The question is whether partner's explanation (alert, etc.) can be used > when explaining partner's bid. Herman says yes. Most of the so-called MS > says yes. David Burns is an excellent example. But Sven and Stefanie say > no. After reading Grattan's "reminder" a while ago I have "refined" my opinion in the following way: If I am absolutely convinced that partner's explanation was correct (and that I have made a misbid) then I must explain according to partner's explanation. (But I must still continue to call according to my original understanding of our agreements). However, if even after hearing partner's explanation I believe that my own understanding of our agreements is the correct one I must maintain this understanding and explain correspondingly. The real problem arises when I don't know which of the two understandings is correct. I believe in that case the best thing to do is to act as if my own understanding is correct. Regards Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 29 00:44:10 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:44:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> I will even offer to >> volunteer (at _your_ risk if you want to use that information) what kind >> of Blackwood responses we play in different situations, all of which do >> not apply here as 4NT was not Blackwood. I am not an unreasonable man, >> so I am willing to give an opp who asks for it some information he seems >> to want, as long as he (and the TD) understands that this is an answer >> to a hypothetical question. How should I know what mindset partner is in >> if he can't remember the system? >> > > Matthias, he said he thought 4NT was Blackwood - you tell me what 5Di > means in your version of Blackwood - I will take all the provisos I > need, and they are just the same if 4NT had been Blackwood after all. That so? You play 1NT opening 10-12 and natural responses. You never played anything else in all your life. Now I ask you "what would 2H mean if 1NT was 15-17?" What's your answer? You haven't played 15-17, ever? Well, I have not Blackwood in that position, ever. So what do I answer? What would 4C mean if 2S was a two-Suiter? I have no idea. What would 2H mean if 1C was Polish club? I couldn't answer that even though I play Polish club with certain partners, but the meaning of 2H is different from partner to partner. Who is to judge which of these questions I can answer, which I might be able to answer, when do I have some shrewd idea, where do I have no idea at all? It is all very well to discuss something "easy" like Blackwood ( I can assure you that there is nothing easy about Blackwood in most of my partnerships), but what about other calls? What would 5H have meant if 1D were a weak no-trump or at least 5 diamonds? Which questions are reasonable, and which are not? Would you care to propose a regulation for that? What if partner gave a wrong explanation, then made a bid which cannot be explained even if you tried to guess, and made no sense with either interpretation? "4NT?" "Blackwood" pass "6NT" "How many aces?" Will you say "9", or will you say "I have no idea what he is doing"? > > Anyway, I note that you would answer the question. > I presume many others would also do so. > Why then should we discuss if these questions can be asked. We aren't. We are discussing whether they are entitled to an answer. The y can ask anything they like for all I care as long as they observe the laws pertaining to such questions. L20 does not say they may not ask, it only says they are not entitled to an answer to certain questions. > > I would be extremely surprised if we pulled any EBL director right at > this moment (without any advance warning) and he would answer that the > question "what would 5Di mean if your partner had thought 4NT was > Blackwood" would be "I don't have to tell you". Think about it behind > screens. You tell me 4NT is for the minors, but for some reason I want > to cover my bases and ask the question above. Do you really think any > serious director would start reading L20 and come up with the answer > Grattan gave? I doubt it. I don't. You would have to answer the question "what would 4S have meant", but not "what would your bid mean if your partner's bid meant something else", and I am extremely confident that any EBL director who is member of this list would have said so if he disagreed with Grattan. There are quite a lot who read this. Eidt,Sch?ller, Beauvillain, Amos, Probst, Levy, van Staveren, Barker, Marques, O'Boyle, to name only those who I am sure of that they read BLML, my guess is that it is at least the same number again who do not post here, but read most of BLML. >> So what if I "know" how many aces partner has (if I really know, which >> is debatable)? I am not allowed to use that information, so why should >> opps know, who are not entitled to that information? >> > > Circular reasoning - we are trying to find out if they are entitled to > it or not. I think they are. > I gathered as much. If it were as you say, who is to decide which questions you _can_ answer, so you have to? What would 3NT mean if 1NT were 5-5 in two unspecifed suits? What if 1NT promised a 6-card minor? What if 4NT were Blackwood? Wouldn't you be forced to answer any such question, at least if the proposed meaning were legal under the regulation pertaining to the event in question? Is Herman going to decide what a player has to answer and what not? Or do we read L20, see that opps are only entitled to the meaning of alternative calls, not to the meaning of answers to bid that mean something else than they actually do, and be able to play Bridge, at last? > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 29 00:48:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:48:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lone Wolff book [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3DA2928B5D7C40B9AB53B4CAD2906461@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan, discussing Law 13F: >>>...In any case, the director involved will always have a >>>hand record to check... Richard Hills quibbles: >>Always? Not in an ACBL Swiss teams. Stefanie Rohan counter-quibbles: >The problem in such a case may well have a completely >different solution. They are not playing duplicate bridge, >so should not look for an answer in the duplicate bridge >lawbook. George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra" (1898): "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." Law 6F - Duplication of Board "If **required by the conditions of play**, one or more exact copies of each original deal may be made..." Richard Hills counter-counter quibbles: And if only one copy of the original deal is in play, the Lawbook does not require the deal to be described on a hand record. (Although the Conditions of Contest may state such a requirement. Old-timers may remember that curtain cards were used before the introduction of computer dealt boards.) Ergo, although Stefanie and myself may believe that an ACBL Swiss teams is an inferior form of duplicate bridge, it remains a _legal_ form of duplicate bridge with the duplicate bridge lawbook still applying. For a superior Swiss teams - 14 rounds of 20-board matches, with hand records - visit Canberra in January (the Aussie summer). See: http://www.summerfestivalofbridge.com/ 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 Mon Sep 29 01:53:15 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:53:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:44:10 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> I will even offer to >>> volunteer (at _your_ risk if you want to use that information) what >>> kind >>> of Blackwood responses we play in different situations, all of which do >>> not apply here as 4NT was not Blackwood. I am not an unreasonable man, >>> so I am willing to give an opp who asks for it some information he >>> seems >>> to want, as long as he (and the TD) understands that this is an answer >>> to a hypothetical question. How should I know what mindset partner is >>> in >>> if he can't remember the system? >>> >> >> Matthias, he said he thought 4NT was Blackwood - you tell me what 5Di >> means in your version of Blackwood - I will take all the provisos I >> need, and they are just the same if 4NT had been Blackwood after all. > > That so? You play 1NT opening 10-12 and natural responses. You never > played anything else in all your life. Now I ask you "what would 2H mean > if 1NT was 15-17?" What's your answer? You haven't played 15-17, ever? > Well, I have not Blackwood in that position, ever. So what do I answer? > What would 4C mean if 2S was a two-Suiter? I have no idea. What would 2H > mean if 1C was Polish club? I couldn't answer that even though I play > Polish club with certain partners, but the meaning of 2H is different > from partner to partner. Who is to judge which of these questions I can > answer, which I might be able to answer, when do I have some shrewd > idea, where do I have no idea at all? It is all very well to discuss > something "easy" like Blackwood ( I can assure you that there is nothing > easy about Blackwood in most of my partnerships), but what about other > calls? What would 5H have meant if 1D were a weak no-trump or at least 5 > diamonds? Which questions are reasonable, and which are not? Would you > care to propose a regulation for that? > > What if partner gave a wrong explanation, then made a bid which cannot > be explained even if you tried to guess, and made no sense with either > interpretation? "4NT?" "Blackwood" pass "6NT" "How many aces?" Will you > say "9", or will you say "I have no idea what he is doing"? > >> >> Anyway, I note that you would answer the question. >> I presume many others would also do so. >> Why then should we discuss if these questions can be asked. > > We aren't. We are discussing whether they are entitled to an answer. The > y can ask anything they like for all I care as long as they observe the > laws pertaining to such questions. L20 does not say they may not ask, it > only says they are not entitled to an answer to certain questions. > > >> >> I would be extremely surprised if we pulled any EBL director right at >> this moment (without any advance warning) and he would answer that the >> question "what would 5Di mean if your partner had thought 4NT was >> Blackwood" would be "I don't have to tell you". Think about it behind >> screens. You tell me 4NT is for the minors, but for some reason I want >> to cover my bases and ask the question above. Do you really think any >> serious director would start reading L20 and come up with the answer >> Grattan gave? I doubt it. > > I don't. You would have to answer the question "what would 4S have > meant", but not "what would your bid mean if your partner's bid meant > something else", and I am extremely confident that any EBL director who > is member of this list would have said so if he disagreed with Grattan. > There are quite a lot who read this. Eidt,Sch?ller, Beauvillain, Amos, > Probst, Levy, van Staveren, Barker, Marques, O'Boyle, to name only > those who I am sure of that they read BLML, my guess is that it is at > least the same number again who do not post here, but read most of BLML. > > >>> So what if I "know" how many aces partner has (if I really know, which >>> is debatable)? I am not allowed to use that information, so why should >>> opps know, who are not entitled to that information? >>> >> >> Circular reasoning - we are trying to find out if they are entitled to >> it or not. I think they are. >> > > I gathered as much. > > If it were as you say, who is to decide which questions you _can_ > answer, so you have to? What would 3NT mean if 1NT were 5-5 in two > unspecifed suits? What if 1NT promised a 6-card minor? What if 4NT were > Blackwood? Wouldn't you be forced to answer any such question, at least > if the proposed meaning were legal under the regulation pertaining to > the event in question? Is Herman going to decide what a player has to > answer and what not? Or do we read L20, see that opps are only entitled > to the meaning of alternative calls, not to the meaning of answers to > bid that mean something else than they actually do, and be able to play > Bridge, at last? The problem I posed would not be very interesting if in fact you did not know how many aces your partner had. It only gets interesting when their are partnership agreements (or past partnership experience) which gives you a good idea what partner's intended meaning was. The question is if the opponents are entitled to this aspect of your partnership agreement. I will put you down as "no, not even if they ask exactly the right question". Also, the question only comes up when there is a bidding misunderstanding. On the auction 2D P 3NT P P P if the 2Di is correctly explained as a weak two in diamonds, I do not ask the meaning of 3NT over a multi. If the 2D bid is misexplained to me as a multi, then I do want to know the meaning of 3NT over a multi-2D, so I can defend better. It is of course to your advantage not to tell me unless you have to. I am hearing that in Europe I will just be out of luck for not knowing the multi- responses -- even when both you and your partner know what 3NT would mean if 2D was multi. From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 29 04:05:18 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:05:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be><000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1F16606DF32B48589F0774C0D76E80AE@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > David Burn wrote: >> [HdW] >> >> I realize that, but surely if a piece of information should have been >> available at an earlier time, people can ask about it at some later time? >> >> [DALB] >> >> This is a reasonable argument. Carried to its absurd conclusion, however, >> it >> means that if the auction proceeds 1S-pass-2S and an opponent asks me >> whether we play Stayman, I am obliged to answer him. Contrary to what the >> possessor of the voice of reason believes, I do not think that this is >> the >> case. >> > > Well, I think it is. > If he asks you that and you call me, I will tell him that he should not > waste time with useless questions. If he persists and tells me the > question is useful to him (I don't even want to know the reason) then > I'll order you to answer. > I will monitor the table and stand ready to slap him with penalties for > time wasting, but he is entitled to all the information he believes he > needs. > > And BTW - I am certain that some of our more creative readers (Alain, > Richard, ?) will come up with a plausible reason why they want to know > if you play Stayman or not. I was going to follow up with "4 or 5 card" ? since I want to know if you might open 1NT with a 5 card major.and whether you have the kit to find out. > >> A consistent and practical application of Laws 20 and 40 taken together >> seems to me to be: the RA specifies what partnership understandings are >> to >> be disclosed prior to play, and in what level of detail. During play, the >> opponents may ask only about those partnership understandings relevant to >> the deal in progress, or about understandings that have been disclosed >> prior >> to play in accordance with regulation. If Blackwood has not been used, it >> is >> difficult to envisage a circumstance in which partnership understandings >> related to Blackwood are relevant, but it is not impossible. >> > > No, certainly not, I have given a reason already - one which may not > apply to the cases in question - but that is not the discussion here. > >> Since it does not matter to me what "sub-thread" of the dWS discussion I >> am >> in, I will say here that if I have bid 4NT for the minors and partner has >> incorrectly explained it as Blackwood, then I will answer "diamond >> preference" to the question "what did 5D mean?" (because that is what it >> means, and my explanation is not an indication per L20F5a). > > no, per the Grattan interpretation of L20F5a - but I digress. > >> If the opponents >> ask "what would it have meant if 4NT were Blackwood?" I will ask the >> Director to determine whether or not this is relevant to the deal in >> progress. >> > > David, you ARE the director here - I am asking you. > And it is very relevant to this deal - partner has stated he thought 4NT > was Blackwood, so there is probably a very high correlation between his > 5Di bid and the number of aces he has. > >> David Burn >> London, England >> > > Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 29 04:07:55 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:07:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <92F22713-56ED-4599-BC77-00C73F8002B5@starpower.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > On Sep 25, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> The problem is deciding on the opponent's right for information. If >> I know I'm sure this conditional response is correct. "Look you ar***e it's for the minors but we know what's going on, probably; and be it on your own head if you decide that pard HAS decided to give a bkwd response." > > #3. But I will be careful not to say "He has one ace", but rather, > because BLML has made me hyper-sensitive to the legalities involved, > I will say, "If he were responding to Blackwood, he would be showing > one ace." > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Sep 29 04:18:08 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:18:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <008e01c91fc3$fe784b30$0202a8c0@Mildred><48DCC358.30001@ulb.ac.be> <000b01c91fcc$cf24e1a0$6d6ea4e0$@com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > [GE] > > There is of course a gulf of meaning between 'allowed' and 'entitled' > > [AG] > > I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker and I don't see the > difference. > Nor does my Harraps' English -> French. > > [DALB] > > In this context, it means that if I as your opponent tell you that I have > one ace, you are allowed to know that I have one ace. But you are not > entitled to know that I have one ace - that is, you cannot ask me how many > aces I have and expect me to tell you. > > By contrast, if I as your partner say "I have one ace", you are neither > entitled nor allowed to know that I have one ace (even though you know > it). > You are entitled to bid Blackwood to ask me how many aces I have, and you > are allowed to know that I have one ace when I bid 5D. But if you do not > bid > Blackwood, you are neither allowed nor entitled to know how many aces I > have > (even though you may know it, because you know that I think you have bid > Blackwood). I'm minded of the strange case of the dog that didn't bark in the night. It's not only calls selected, but also calls not selected which may be germane. One selects calls based on confidence for the later part of the auction. I often make 2nd best calls when it might cost me 50 pounds to make the best call. What would 4NT have meant if you'd cued their suit and rebid ours (I bet that's blackwood) So why did we NOT go that route. etc etc. I can get the TD to make you tell me david even if you don't have a SC. The probst cheat prospers again :) John > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 04:22:56 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:22:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] the probst cheat Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809281922g3794cb82n6215501a7223ae47@mail.gmail.com> > The probst cheat prospers again :) John What's the probst cheat? I hope I'm not the only reader who does not know. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 04:51:51 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:51:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] "they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809281951w4850062ficbc9bcc1cf02097@mail.gmail.com> Law 75C contains this: "The partnership agreement is as explained ? 2? 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." It seems to me that Law 75C's only purpose is to explain how to determine damage when there is a misbid. But on BLML, the slogan "they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" has been invoked for many other situations. What is the meaning of "they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands"? I seriously want to know. I hope that those who consider it obvious will be able to help without too much bother. I don't imagine that this a deep question, but I hope that someone can enlighten me. Perhaps it is one or more of these: 1. Is it supposed to allow bidding mistakes? 2. Is it supposed to allow a pair to hide aspects of their system that in mishaps can become valuable knowledge to their opponents? 3. Is it an oblique anti-dWS reference? 4. Is it supposed to reassure a player to keep explaining the partnership understandings even when his hand tells him that his partner does not have his bid? 5. Suppose your understanding of your partner's history and tendencies, combined with the auction (but not your hand), makes it clear the kind of hand your partner is trying to convey; in this case, are you allowed to hide this information if it happens that your partner has bid outside of your system notes? 6. Is it supposed to remind you to describe what calls show, and not to use phrases such as "he has..."? Several of the above? Something different? Also, should the phrase be limited to apply only to the narrow purpose of Law 75C, or is valid to extend it to other purposes? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 29 05:26:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:26:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] What mall do you cake? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48DCD417.4090608@t-online.de> Message-ID: Welsh Appeals Casebook 2007, number 4 >>Imps >>Dlr: East >>Vul: None >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- 3H Pass >>4NT(1) X 5C (2) X (3) >>5H ? >> >>(1) Keycard Blackwood in hearts, not both minors >>(2) Promising one keycard, not preference for clubs >>(3) Preference for clubs, not promising one keycard >> >>You, North, hold: >> >>A842 >>A >>KT82 >>AKT5 >> >>What mall do you cake? Matthias Berghaus: >How should I know? I have no idea what my own bidding >means, let alone partner's. Now, playing something >sensible X would be take-out of hearts, and partner's >double would invite 6C. In that case my bid is 6C, >invitation for 7, whereas 5NT is a Lebensohl-type >device to accept the invitation, but nothing more. Richard Hills: 5NT as a lebensohl-type device is something sensible? Matthias Berghaus: >Richard, without wanting to sound too critical, I find >this type of "problem" extremely difficult. No idea >what these bids mean Richard Hills: I suspect that the North-South players concerned may have had no idea what their bids meant (neither explicit nor implicit special partnership understandings), since they may well have never encountered psychic Blackwood before. Matthias Berghaus: >(except 3H and 4NT, which mean long hearts in a weak >hand and finding out at what level to defend, >respectively), no idea who my partner or my opps are, >or how my next bid would be taken by partner. > >I submit that it is not realistically possible to give >an answer in a vacuum. Richard Hills: In the realistic real world, Directors and Appeals Committees have to give rulings all the time about players who have incomplete methods. Players such as myself and Matthias who have complete and consistent methods are as rare as a pure vacuum. Matthias Berghaus: >I understand that it is impossible to give all relevant >information to someone who does not know the folks at >the table, but a bit more information would be >appreciated. Richard Hills: Okay, it seemed that North was a different class of player to those blmlers who unanimously forced to slam. North instead opted for a penalty double of 5H, alleged to be a slooooow penalty double by East-West (disputed by North-South). And after North's penalty double, South remarkably chose to bid his hand a second time by a choice-of-slams 5NT holding: K653 5 A54 Q8763 And a pall was on my mall when, even more remarkably, the Director's ruling was (third paragraph): "...South knew that West had psyched in an attempt to keep N/S out of a slam, and with no bidding space to discover that the slam should be avoided he went for it. It wasn't his partner's (alleged) slow double that persuaded him but the opponents' bidding which pushed him into it. His 5NT bid was based on authorised information as well as any possible UI. West was unlucky in that the slam might reasonably have been expected to go off." Casebook panellist Bob Schwartz: "Keep the money. Give E/W a lecture on sportsmanship. They psyche, opponents read it, and they complain. On second thought - give E/W a lecture on ethics as well but KEEP THE MONEY." Richard Hills: Let them eat cake? Psyching is legal according to the Lawbook. And legal actions are defined as ethical actions (WBF Code of Practice, page 6). So if anyone is eligible for a lecture on the topic of "What are bridge ethics?" it is Bob Schwartz himself. Instead, I concur with Casebook panellist Robin Barker (first paragraph): "The TD did not decide if there was a slow Double but did decide that Pass was not a logical alternative to 5NT. The TD's comments seem close to saying that once one side had psyched, the other side are allowed to get away with a little bit of unauthorised information in order to recover..." 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 Mon Sep 29 05:48:17 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:48:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> [Sven Pran (complete)] After reading Grattan's "reminder" a while ago I have "refined" my opinion in the following way: If I am absolutely convinced that partner's explanation was correct (and that I have made a misbid) then I must explain according to partner's explanation. (But I must still continue to call according to my original understanding of our agreements). However, if even after hearing partner's explanation I believe that my own understanding of our agreements is the correct one I must maintain this understanding and explain correspondingly. The real problem arises when I don't know which of the two understandings is correct. I believe in that case the best thing to do is to act as if my own understanding is correct. [Jerry Fusselman] We were addressing the case where partner's explanation hits you and you are now sure that partner has it right and you were wrong. Since Sven has "refined" his position, it sounds like what Herman calls the SSS is now only the SS. But I have a question for Sven and anyone who agrees with the position he just staked. Let p be your subjective probability that partner is right about your agreements after you hear his explanation. 1 - p is the probability that you are right and partner is wrong. Sven's paragraph 1 above, if I may be so bold as to interpret it, seems to say that if p = 1, then you *must* switch to explaining it partner's way. I agree. Sven's paragraph 2 above says that if p = 0, then you *must* continue to explain it your way. This is what Herman calls MS. In paragraph 3, Sven then mentions the very interesting case where 1 > p > 0. In this case, he says that he believes the "best thing to do" is to keep explaining it his own way, not partner's way. The word "must" is gone, so it seems there is a choice. When p = .99999, does he really think his suggestion is best? Sven's position might be one of the following: A. Any p < 1, even p = .99999999999999, means the best policy is to explain it your own way, even though you are almost certain to be giving MI (as well as UI). And if you have given an explanation that is wrong with probability .999999999999999, don't call the director, because you are not absolutely sure. B. There is some p*, close to 1, such that if p > p*, explain it partner's way. And call the director if your previous explanation is wrong with the same probability. C. If p>1/2, explain it partner's way. (This case could be called p* = 1/2.) My reading of Sven's paragraph 3 is that his position is A, but I would appreciate Sven's answer. I also wish that other MS authorities would answer this question. After all, the p = 0 and p = 1 cases are not the only cases that come up. Personally, I believe they never come up. I seem to remember that Grattan endorsed B and was silent on C, but don't go by my memory! In other words, my question is, what is p* such that a law-abiding player "should" explain the rest of the auction partner's way when p >= p*? I would appreciate a number for p*, as well as the word that I should have used instead of the quoted "should." It might look like I am asking for too much precision, but I don't really mean to. I just want some idea of how to properly handle uncertainty. Mine can be recast as a qualitative question: Is p* closest to 1, .99999999, .999, .9, or .5? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 29 06:57:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:57:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] "they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809281951w4850062ficbc9bcc1cf02097@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >4. Is it supposed to reassure a player to keep explaining >the partnership understandings even when his hand tells him >that his partner does not have his bid? Yes. >5. Suppose your understanding of your partner's history >and tendencies, combined with the auction (but not your >hand), makes it clear the kind of hand your partner is >trying to convey; in this case, are you allowed to hide >this information if it happens that your partner has bid >outside of your system notes? No, partner's "history and tendencies" are classic ways in which _implicit_ partnership understandings may be created. 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 Mon Sep 29 08:27:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:27:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Lurker at the Threshold (was ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus asserted: >.....I am extremely confident that any EBL director who >is a member of this list would have said so if he >disagreed with Grattan. There are quite a lot who read >this. Eidt, Sch?ller, Beauvillain, Amos, Probst, Levy, >van Staveren, Barker, Marques, O'Boyle, to name only >those who I am sure of that they read BLML, my guess is >that it is at least the same number again who do not >post here, but read most of BLML..... Richard Hills quibbles: Firstly, John (MadDog) Probst _has_ taken the opposite position to Grattan, due to John having concerns about the so-called "Probst cheat" having another way to conceal partnership understandings if the Law 20F1 phrase "relevant inferences from the choice of action" is construed narrowly. Secondly, an argument of the nature, "the lurkers support me" is invalid because unprovable. Thirdly, even if 100% of the lurkers supported the Paul Hauff interpretation of Law 77, Hauff's non-reciprocal interpretation of the duplicate scoring rule would still be invalid. Fourthly, if the argument is instead that senior and respected Directors rarely misinterpret Law, the former Chief Director of Australia has misinterpreted Law at least three times to my knowledge (admittedly these all occurred under the ambiguous 1997 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 09:12:14 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:12:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <008e01c91fc3$fe784b30$0202a8c0@Mildred><48DCC358.30001@ulb.ac.be> <000b01c91fcc$cf24e1a0$6d6ea4e0$@com> Message-ID: <48E07FCE.4040102@skynet.be> Thank you John, some sanity prevails. John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > What would 4NT have meant if you'd cued their suit and rebid > ours (I bet that's blackwood) So why did we NOT go that route. etc etc. I > can get the TD to make you tell me david even if you don't have a SC. The > probst cheat prospers again :) John > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 09:14:46 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:14:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> Message-ID: <48E08066.4030305@skynet.be> Sven has "refined" his position - he is joining the MS again. Stephanie - are you staying in the SS? Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > .............. >> The question is whether partner's explanation (alert, etc.) can be used >> when explaining partner's bid. Herman says yes. Most of the so-called MS >> says yes. David Burns is an excellent example. But Sven and Stefanie say >> no. > > After reading Grattan's "reminder" a while ago I have "refined" my opinion > in the following way: > > If I am absolutely convinced that partner's explanation was correct (and > that I have made a misbid) then I must explain according to partner's > explanation. (But I must still continue to call according to my original > understanding of our agreements). > > However, if even after hearing partner's explanation I believe that my own > understanding of our agreements is the correct one I must maintain this > understanding and explain correspondingly. > > The real problem arises when I don't know which of the two understandings is > correct. I believe in that case the best thing to do is to act as if my own > understanding is correct. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 09:16:09 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:16:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48E080B9.9050809@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > We were addressing the case where partner's explanation hits you and > you are now sure that partner has it right and you were wrong. Since > Sven has "refined" his position, it sounds like what Herman calls the > SSS is now only the SS. > I wrote my reply with the same joke before reading yours, Jerry - I grant you the privilege of having coined this name. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 09:29:43 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:29:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000601c921ae$e5e38890$b1aa99b0$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <000601c921ae$e5e38890$b1aa99b0$@no> Message-ID: <48E083E7.9010809@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > No, I don't argue that partner's explanation is UI; I argue that according > to our agreements he has shown preference for diamonds and nothing else. > > AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT OPPONENTS ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW! > > Now opponents are free to assume from information available to them (not to > me!) Yes to you as well. You are not allowed to bid on that information, but the information is there nevertheless. > that partner has actually misbid and shown a particular number of aces, They are indeed free to assume that. Let's assume they do so assume. Whyever should they not? > they may even try to determine what number of aces partner has shown in > response to what he believed was Blackwood. > Indeed, and in order to do that, they need an important piece of information: the kind of Blackwood that you are playing. > 1: The 4NT bid was not Blackwood. No, indeed - but I am writing about a case in which you do employ Blackwood in your partnership. One clearly defined type of Blackwood. If your partner is so far off the rails that he names a convention he has never played with you, that's a totally different story. My cases are about partnerships who do know how many aces 5Di shows. OK? > 2: Blackwood was not an available call in the situation and therefore not an > alternative call not made. No, but 5Cl was an alternative call to 5Di (as was 5He and 5Sp). > 3: Even if I (too) were to assume that 4NT was understood as Blackwood I > have no idea how many aces partner has shown. Very well Sven, but you are still playing one kind of Blackwood, and one kind only. The fact that he does not always have the number of aces he shows is well known to everybody, but it does not mean you are not going to tell them how many he has shown, does it? > Once he erred on the 4NT bid > how am I to know what kind of Blackwood he believes that we would have used > if we had used Blackwood in this position. > But you are using only one kind of Blackwood - so of course you do know it. He thinks it's Blackwood, so he must also think it's the same kind of Blackwood you are always playing. And yes, there are (stupid IMO) people who play different Blackwood over different kinds of trumps. Well, he just told you it was Blackwood in his opinion - is it so difficult to use whatever rules you have to determine which kind of Blackwood he's probably thinking it is? And if you get it wrong, is that a reason not to tell them which you think it is? If you only answer those questions to which you know the answer for certain, then you are silent quite often, I should think. > Opponents are free to guess - at their own risk. > Of course it's at their own risk - but they cannot guess if they are lacking an important piece of information, which you have and should share! > And the legal basis is Law 20F (part of which is quoted above). > And part of which I also quoted: "choices available". It strikes me as particularly odd that people who are so in favour of FULL disclosure (as I know you are) can be thinking that L20 can limit the amount of information that needs to be disclosed. I read L20a as a reminder to people that there are more questions possible and allowed than the simple "what does that show". Extending the range of questions, not putting a limit on them. > Sven > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 09:41:44 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:41:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> I will even offer to >>> volunteer (at _your_ risk if you want to use that information) what kind >>> of Blackwood responses we play in different situations, all of which do >>> not apply here as 4NT was not Blackwood. I am not an unreasonable man, >>> so I am willing to give an opp who asks for it some information he seems >>> to want, as long as he (and the TD) understands that this is an answer >>> to a hypothetical question. How should I know what mindset partner is in >>> if he can't remember the system? >>> >> Matthias, he said he thought 4NT was Blackwood - you tell me what 5Di >> means in your version of Blackwood - I will take all the provisos I >> need, and they are just the same if 4NT had been Blackwood after all. > > That so? You play 1NT opening 10-12 and natural responses. You never > played anything else in all your life. Now I ask you "what would 2H mean > if 1NT was 15-17?" What's your answer? You haven't played 15-17, ever? Indeed - but that is not the case here. These cases are about a partnership naming one convention rather than another one, one convention that they both play. Of course you cannot answer what you don't know - but we're talking about things you DO know, and which you intend to keep hidden nevertheless. > Well, I have not Blackwood in that position, ever. So what do I answer? But that is not the same thing - you do play Blackwood, with this partner, in this partnership, during this tournament. And you know what answers you use. And yet you refuse to tell this. > What would 4C mean if 2S was a two-Suiter? I have no idea. What would 2H > mean if 1C was Polish club? I couldn't answer that even though I play > Polish club with certain partners, but the meaning of 2H is different > from partner to partner. Who is to judge which of these questions I can > answer, which I might be able to answer, when do I have some shrewd > idea, where do I have no idea at all? Again, this is not the case in question. Suppose you start a tournament with some player, thinking you will be playing Natural. You open 1Cl on the first deal and he explains this as Polish. Then he bids 2He. Now it may be the case that you have no idea which kind of 2He this player might be playing, in which case you cannot answer the question, OK; But it might also be that you know which club he belongs to and which kind of Polish Club he is used to playing, and you do have an idea what his 2He means. If you know it - will you still refuse to answer? > It is all very well to discuss > something "easy" like Blackwood ( I can assure you that there is nothing > easy about Blackwood in most of my partnerships), but what about other > calls? What would 5H have meant if 1D were a weak no-trump or at least 5 > diamonds? Which questions are reasonable, and which are not? Would you > care to propose a regulation for that? > Yes - all questions are reasonable! After all, they are concerned with a call actually chosen over another one, no? It's not as if I start asking about Josephine when the bidding is still at the one-level, is it? > What if partner gave a wrong explanation, then made a bid which cannot > be explained even if you tried to guess, and made no sense with either > interpretation? "4NT?" "Blackwood" pass "6NT" "How many aces?" Will you > say "9", or will you say "I have no idea what he is doing"? > But he did not say 6NT, he said 5Di, and you know it's one ace. >> Anyway, I note that you would answer the question. >> I presume many others would also do so. >> Why then should we discuss if these questions can be asked. > > We aren't. We are discussing whether they are entitled to an answer. The > y can ask anything they like for all I care as long as they observe the > laws pertaining to such questions. L20 does not say they may not ask, it > only says they are not entitled to an answer to certain questions. > And you would really refuse to answer something that you do know? > >> I would be extremely surprised if we pulled any EBL director right at >> this moment (without any advance warning) and he would answer that the >> question "what would 5Di mean if your partner had thought 4NT was >> Blackwood" would be "I don't have to tell you". Think about it behind >> screens. You tell me 4NT is for the minors, but for some reason I want >> to cover my bases and ask the question above. Do you really think any >> serious director would start reading L20 and come up with the answer >> Grattan gave? I doubt it. > > I don't. You would have to answer the question "what would 4S have > meant", but not "what would your bid mean if your partner's bid meant > something else", and I am extremely confident that any EBL director who > is member of this list would have said so if he disagreed with Grattan. > There are quite a lot who read this. Eidt,Sch?ller, Beauvillain, Amos, > Probst, Levy, van Staveren, Barker, Marques, O'Boyle, to name only > those who I am sure of that they read BLML, my guess is that it is at > least the same number again who do not post here, but read most of BLML. > > >>> So what if I "know" how many aces partner has (if I really know, which >>> is debatable)? I am not allowed to use that information, so why should >>> opps know, who are not entitled to that information? >>> >> Circular reasoning - we are trying to find out if they are entitled to >> it or not. I think they are. >> > > I gathered as much. > > If it were as you say, who is to decide which questions you _can_ > answer, so you have to? What would 3NT mean if 1NT were 5-5 in two > unspecifed suits? What if 1NT promised a 6-card minor? What if 4NT were > Blackwood? Wouldn't you be forced to answer any such question, at least > if the proposed meaning were legal under the regulation pertaining to > the event in question? And why should such questions not be answered? If you know the answer? Maybe they are having an insight you do not have. And there is still a great difference between those questions and the one we are talking of. 1NT was never even imagined as 5-5. In our example 4NT was explained as Blackwood, so the question gains enormously in relevance. > Is Herman going to decide what a player has to > answer and what not? Or do we read L20, see that opps are only entitled > to the meaning of alternative calls, not to the meaning of answers to > bid that mean something else than they actually do, and be able to play > Bridge, at last? > What is so wrong with answering "1 ace"? You know it, you know it's what he meant, and they are asking about it. I am astonished to see into what corners you are trying to paint yourself rather than admit that players are entitled to a simple answer when they ask a relevant question. Herman. From Gampas at aol.com Mon Sep 29 09:50:12 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:50:12 EDT Subject: [blml] What mall do you cake? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 29/09/2008 04:27:34 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: And after North's penalty double, South remarkably chose to bid his hand a second time by a choice-of-slams 5NT [paul lamford] There was no evidence that double was penalties. As you state, it was unlikely that the partnership would have any agreements whatsoever after psychic Blackwood. Therefore there would have been no implicit agreement or understanding. Finally, the speed of the double, whether slow or not, would not *demonstrably* suggest that a six-level contract was more likely to be successful than passing. There seems to be an assumption that a slow double always suggests defending, but I see no justification for this. This case brought up another interesting aspect. Looking at the North-South hands, South would want to pass the double, as 6C was under 5% to make. It happened to do so, but that is not a basis for adjusting on its own! And I disagree with the interpretation put on the TD's comments that you quoted. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Sep 29 09:51:02 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:51:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 29/09/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >>> I will even offer to > >>> volunteer (at _your_ risk if you want to use that information) what kind > >>> of Blackwood responses we play in different situations, all of which do > >>> not apply here as 4NT was not Blackwood. I am not an unreasonable man, > >>> so I am willing to give an opp who asks for it some information he seems > >>> to want, as long as he (and the TD) understands that this is an answer > >>> to a hypothetical question. How should I know what mindset partner is in > >>> if he can't remember the system? > >>> > >> Matthias, he said he thought 4NT was Blackwood - you tell me what 5Di > >> means in your version of Blackwood - I will take all the provisos I > >> need, and they are just the same if 4NT had been Blackwood after all. > > > > That so? You play 1NT opening 10-12 and natural responses. You never > > played anything else in all your life. Now I ask you "what would 2H mean > > if 1NT was 15-17?" What's your answer? You haven't played 15-17, ever? > > Indeed - but that is not the case here. These cases are about a > partnership naming one convention rather than another one, one > convention that they both play. > Of course you cannot answer what you don't know - but we're talking > about things you DO know, and which you intend to keep hidden nevertheless. > > > Well, I have not Blackwood in that position, ever. So what do I answer? > > But that is not the same thing - you do play Blackwood, with this > partner, in this partnership, during this tournament. And you know what > answers you use. And yet you refuse to tell this. I'd tell the opps that we don't play BW in this posittion and that when 4NT is BW 5D would show 1 or 4 keycards wen clubs is trumps, 0 or 3 keycards if some other suit is trumps and 1 of 4 aces in situations where we ask for aces only. I don't think (actually, I'm pretty sure) they're entitled to this information regarding BW, but I'll volunteer that information anyway. (Maybe the unthinkable happened and I've got the system wrong! lol) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > What would 4C mean if 2S was a two-Suiter? I have no idea. What would 2H > > mean if 1C was Polish club? I couldn't answer that even though I play > > Polish club with certain partners, but the meaning of 2H is different > > from partner to partner. Who is to judge which of these questions I can > > answer, which I might be able to answer, when do I have some shrewd > > idea, where do I have no idea at all? > > Again, this is not the case in question. > Suppose you start a tournament with some player, thinking you will be > playing Natural. You open 1Cl on the first deal and he explains this as > Polish. Then he bids 2He. Now it may be the case that you have no idea > which kind of 2He this player might be playing, in which case you cannot > answer the question, OK; But it might also be that you know which club > he belongs to and which kind of Polish Club he is used to playing, and > you do have an idea what his 2He means. > If you know it - will you still refuse to answer? > > > It is all very well to discuss > > something "easy" like Blackwood ( I can assure you that there is nothing > > easy about Blackwood in most of my partnerships), but what about other > > calls? What would 5H have meant if 1D were a weak no-trump or at least 5 > > diamonds? Which questions are reasonable, and which are not? Would you > > care to propose a regulation for that? > > > > Yes - all questions are reasonable! > After all, they are concerned with a call actually chosen over another > one, no? It's not as if I start asking about Josephine when the bidding > is still at the one-level, is it? > > > What if partner gave a wrong explanation, then made a bid which cannot > > be explained even if you tried to guess, and made no sense with either > > interpretation? "4NT?" "Blackwood" pass "6NT" "How many aces?" Will you > > say "9", or will you say "I have no idea what he is doing"? > > > > But he did not say 6NT, he said 5Di, and you know it's one ace. > > >> Anyway, I note that you would answer the question. > >> I presume many others would also do so. > >> Why then should we discuss if these questions can be asked. > > > > We aren't. We are discussing whether they are entitled to an answer. The > > y can ask anything they like for all I care as long as they observe the > > laws pertaining to such questions. L20 does not say they may not ask, it > > only says they are not entitled to an answer to certain questions. > > > > And you would really refuse to answer something that you do know? > > > > >> I would be extremely surprised if we pulled any EBL director right at > >> this moment (without any advance warning) and he would answer that the > >> question "what would 5Di mean if your partner had thought 4NT was > >> Blackwood" would be "I don't have to tell you". Think about it behind > >> screens. You tell me 4NT is for the minors, but for some reason I want > >> to cover my bases and ask the question above. Do you really think any > >> serious director would start reading L20 and come up with the answer > >> Grattan gave? I doubt it. > > > > I don't. You would have to answer the question "what would 4S have > > meant", but not "what would your bid mean if your partner's bid meant > > something else", and I am extremely confident that any EBL director who > > is member of this list would have said so if he disagreed with Grattan. > > There are quite a lot who read this. Eidt,Sch?ller, Beauvillain, Amos, > > Probst, Levy, van Staveren, Barker, Marques, O'Boyle, to name only > > those who I am sure of that they read BLML, my guess is that it is at > > least the same number again who do not post here, but read most of BLML. > > > > > >>> So what if I "know" how many aces partner has (if I really know, which > >>> is debatable)? I am not allowed to use that information, so why should > >>> opps know, who are not entitled to that information? > >>> > >> Circular reasoning - we are trying to find out if they are entitled to > >> it or not. I think they are. > >> > > > > I gathered as much. > > > > If it were as you say, who is to decide which questions you _can_ > > answer, so you have to? What would 3NT mean if 1NT were 5-5 in two > > unspecifed suits? What if 1NT promised a 6-card minor? What if 4NT were > > Blackwood? Wouldn't you be forced to answer any such question, at least > > if the proposed meaning were legal under the regulation pertaining to > > the event in question? > > And why should such questions not be answered? If you know the answer? > Maybe they are having an insight you do not have. > And there is still a great difference between those questions and the > one we are talking of. 1NT was never even imagined as 5-5. In our > example 4NT was explained as Blackwood, so the question gains enormously > in relevance. > > > Is Herman going to decide what a player has to > > answer and what not? Or do we read L20, see that opps are only entitled > > to the meaning of alternative calls, not to the meaning of answers to > > bid that mean something else than they actually do, and be able to play > > Bridge, at last? > > > > What is so wrong with answering "1 ace"? You know it, you know it's what > he meant, and they are asking about it. > > I am astonished to see into what corners you are trying to paint > yourself rather than admit that players are entitled to a simple answer > when they ask a relevant question. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From bobpark at connecttime.net Mon Sep 29 02:48:34 2008 From: bobpark at connecttime.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:48:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000701c921af$e5d1dfe0$b1759fa0$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be><001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF9E57.30102@NTLworld.com> <000701c921af$e5d1dfe0$b1759fa0$@no> Message-ID: <48E025E2.9070800@connecttime.net> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Guthrie > >> Sent: 28. september 2008 17:10 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning >> >> Grattan wrote: >> +=+ That the debate is too silly for words I have no doubt. However, >> that the law is clear I have also no doubt and I am not concerned to >> discuss applications of the law and definitions of what matters fit the >> categories 1-2-3 below since many sound voices on here are telling >> you about these, and I feel no need to justify to you in particular the >> nature of the law. >> However, to look at 20F1 and identify the elements in its listing of >> matters that must be disclosed in response to opponent's enquiry, >> they are: >> 1. the partnership understanding as to the meaning of >> the calls actually made. >> 2. the partnership understanding as to the meaning of >> any alternative call that were available but not made. >> 3. any partnership understanding as to inferences to be >> drawn from the use of the actual calls (in 1 above) instead >> of available alternative calls (in 2 above). >> >> These are explanations that are relevant to the current auction and >> play. An alternative call is not the same call with another meaning, >> since partnership understanding does not allow that such call is >> 'available'; it must be a bid stating a different denomination or a >> different number of odd tricks, or a pass, double or redouble in place >> of another call actually made. >> They are the matters that opponent has a right to be told about. >> Nothing can be done about the possible risk that in giving this >> information to opponent UI will be conveyed to partner (and doing >> so does not in itself constitute an irregularity). Other information may >> be volunteered but always with the proviso that on occasion it might >> be adjudged to mislead an opponent.or create UI for partner (a >> danger which, if foreseen in any instance, would be good reason >> not to volunteer the information). >> Finally, I am not concerned to 'wriggle out' of some argument in >> favour of dWS. Any such argument is dead in the water when we >> are interpreting the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. >> [Nige1] >> One last try ... >> S:KJT H:xxx D:xxx C:xxxx is your hand. >> Partner opens 4D wnich you alert and explain as solid spades (You agreed >> this yesterday with partner). You know a wheel has come off. You are a >> regular partnership and your agreement for the previous 10 years was >> that 4D showed solid hearts. Partner is not psych-prone and never >> mis-sorts his hand, so you deduce that he probably holds solid hearts >> and compensate accordingly. >> >> S:AQxx H- D:Axxx C:AKQJx is the holding of an opponent. He, too guesses, >> that a wheel has come off but he does not know your *previous* agreement >> or your partner's psyching, miss-sorting or other propensities so he is >> relatively poorly placed to recover. He will probably guess that your >> partner has a diamond pre-empt and hence may bid less effectively. >> >> If the director judges that the lack of knowledge of your previous >> agreement damaged this opponent, should he give redress? >> > > I would rule that the player must inform opponents about the current > agreement which is solid spades; but he should also inform opponents about > his "special partnership experience" that this agreement is brand new; they > had just changed their agreements from solid hearts. ( L40B6(a) ). > > Regards Sven > > > > I don't understand. If South held no top honor in spades, would you have South make the same statement? If not, then why should he make that statement now, when doing so must clearly reveal that he has a top spade...something opponents are not entitled to know? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080928/a47a457a/attachment.htm From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 29 10:34:50 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:34:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] What mall do you cake? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E0932A.8000906@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus: > >> How should I know? I have no idea what my own bidding >> means, let alone partner's. Now, playing something >> sensible X would be take-out of hearts, and partner's >> double would invite 6C. In that case my bid is 6C, >> invitation for 7, whereas 5NT is a Lebensohl-type >> device to accept the invitation, but nothing more. > > Richard Hills: > > 5NT as a lebensohl-type device is something sensible? Oh yes, try it out for yourself. Comes up once in a blue moon, but wins lots of IMPs each time. Might be dangerous at first because it is so rare. There is a certain memory connected to those 5NT bids which works as a reminder for those who share that memory (obviously very few people, in this case only my partner and me are left from that group, so it works _for us_), so it might well be a different story for you. We gave that agreement a name connected to that memory, so it still works even for those who are out of Bridge by now. > I suspect that the North-South players concerned may > have had no idea what their bids meant (neither explicit > nor implicit special partnership understandings), since > they may well have never encountered psychic Blackwood > before. That is the kind of information I would like to have. Of course you are free to present your problems differently, but I think that the value of responses would be much diminished. Of course this is a tempo case, not a psyche case, so I agree with Robin here. Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 29 10:42:17 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:42:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Lurker at the Threshold (was ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E094E9.3070003@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Fourthly, if the argument is instead that senior and > respected Directors rarely misinterpret Law, the argument is that senior directors have had lots of communication on that subject, so they usually share a point of view. If they don't they say so, see some disagreements between Grattan, Ton, Kojak, some others joining in from time to time. Best regards Matthias From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 29 10:48:50 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:48:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E07FCE.4040102@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <008e01c91fc3$fe784b30$0202a8c0@Mildred><48DCC358.30001@ulb.ac.be> <000b01c91fcc$cf24e1a0$6d6ea4e0$@com> <48E07FCE.4040102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E09672.20909@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Thank you John, > some sanity prevails. > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> What would 4NT have meant if you'd cued their suit and rebid >> ours (I bet that's blackwood) So why did we NOT go that route. etc etc. I >> can get the TD to make you tell me david even if you don't have a SC. The >> probst cheat prospers again :) John >> > > Herman. > This is covered by L20. Inference from relevant alternative calls not made. Of course you have to answer that. But you do not have to answer the question what the hypothetical responses to that hypothetical Blackwood would have been (which could even be dangerous, as it might well be keycard). Best regards Matthias From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 29 10:59:11 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:59:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman --------- > [Sven Pran (complete)] > > After reading Grattan's "reminder" a while ago I have "refined" my opinion > in the following way: > > If I am absolutely convinced that partner's explanation was correct (and > that I have made a misbid) then I must explain according to partner's > explanation. (But I must still continue to call according to my original > understanding of our agreements). > > However, if even after hearing partner's explanation I believe that my own > understanding of our agreements is the correct one I must maintain this > understanding and explain correspondingly. > > The real problem arises when I don't know which of the two understandings is > correct. I believe in that case the best thing to do is to act as if my own > understanding is correct. > > [Jerry Fusselman] ................. > In paragraph 3, Sven then mentions the very interesting case where 1 > > p > 0. In this case, he says that he believes the "best thing to do" > is to keep explaining it his own way, not partner's way. The word > "must" is gone, so it seems there is a choice. When p = .99999, does > he really think his suggestion is best? Sven's position might be one > of the following: Forget the p (I know sufficient math to know the implication). Instead of expressing a probability p I have three possibilities: I know that I am right, I know that partner is right or I am not sure who is right. My position is simply this: If I am not sure then it is because there is still a possibility that my own understanding is correct. It doesn't matter whether p is 0.1 0.5 0.9 or 0.999999999 (well hardly the latter). Whenever there is in my mind a real possibility (however small) that I was right all the time the risk is that by changing my explanation to fit partner's UI I actually go from giving correct information to giving incorrect information. This is a risk I don't want to take! What are the consequences of the alternatives? When I maintain my explanations then opponents should understand from the inconsistencies between explanations from me and from my partner that something has gone wrong. If I change my explanations then opponents will receive corresponding explanations from me and from my partner and have no indication that something was wrong until they see my hand. I strongly believe that opponents will possibly be less damaged (and in any case not more damaged) with the first alternative. I suppose this answers your question directed to me below? Regards Sven > A. Any p < 1, even p = .99999999999999, means the best policy is to > explain it your own way, even though you are almost certain to be > giving MI (as well as UI). And if you have given an explanation that > is wrong with probability .999999999999999, don't call the director, > because you are not absolutely sure. > > B. There is some p*, close to 1, such that if p > p*, explain it > partner's way. And call the director if your previous explanation is > wrong with the same probability. > > C. If p>1/2, explain it partner's way. (This case could be called p* = 1/2.) > > My reading of Sven's paragraph 3 is that his position is A, but I > would appreciate Sven's answer. I also wish that other MS authorities > would answer this question. After all, the p = 0 and p = 1 cases are > not the only cases that come up. Personally, I believe they never > come up. I seem to remember that Grattan endorsed B and was silent on > C, but don't go by my memory! > > In other words, my question is, what is p* such that a law-abiding > player "should" explain the rest of the auction partner's way when p > >= p*? I would appreciate a number for p*, as well as the word that I > should have used instead of the quoted "should." > > It might look like I am asking for too much precision, but I don't > really mean to. I just want some idea of how to properly handle > uncertainty. Mine can be recast as a qualitative question: Is p* > closest to 1, .99999999, .999, .9, or .5? > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 29 11:01:44 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:01:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > What is so wrong with answering "1 ace"? You know it, you know it's what > he meant, and they are asking about it. Herman, there in _no_, I repeat: _no_ bid in my system that ask for how many aces out of 4 partner holds. It is always 5, sometimes 6 keycards. Never 4. And now? What would you have me answer? How long would it take before people started asking trick questions all over the place? > > I am astonished to see into what corners you are trying to paint > yourself rather than admit that players are entitled to a simple answer > when they ask a relevant question. They will get a simple answer if they ask a relevant question. They will get no answer if they ask hypothetical questions. Matthias > > Herman. > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 11:18:35 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:18:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E09D6B.4030407@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> >>> Well, I have not Blackwood in that position, ever. So what do I answer? >> But that is not the same thing - you do play Blackwood, with this >> partner, in this partnership, during this tournament. And you know what >> answers you use. And yet you refuse to tell this. > > I'd tell the opps that we don't play BW in this posittion and that > when 4NT is BW 5D would show 1 or 4 keycards wen clubs is trumps, 0 or > 3 keycards if some other suit is trumps and 1 of 4 aces in situations > where we ask for aces only. I don't think (actually, I'm pretty sure) > they're entitled to this information regarding BW, but I'll volunteer > that information anyway. (Maybe the unthinkable happened and I've got > the system wrong! lol) > Harald, that is precisely what I was saying. Now, you would probably also add how you decide what is trumps, and you may even apply that and just give the single Blackwood if it is clear what your partner thought was trumps. And if you had agreed a simpler (and IMO much better (*)) form of Blackwood you would explain the single answer, ok? So the answer Harald gives is: "Yes, I would explain it, but I don't think opponents are entitled to it". If that is not an answer destined to keep me from having arguments in favour of dWS, then I don't know what is. (*) I have never understood the kind of Blackwood Harald is explaining here - 1430 is precisely meant to be useful when clubs are trumps, so why in heaven's name would you want to discard it then - or, to put in reverse, why would you be wanting to play 1430 if diamonds are trumps - what's the utility? Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 29 12:37:13 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:37:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E0AFD9.8090001@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > The question is whether partner's explanation (alert, etc.) can be used > when explaining partner's bid. Herman says yes. Most of the so-called MS > says yes. David Burns is an excellent example. But Sven and Stefanie say > no. > > AG : this classification is interesting in itself. First, let me say that your study is very interesting, and we just need to know whether the distinction between "calls/plas" and "actions" is intentional. If it is, then you may use the information ; if not, you may not. But that's tough to ascertain. Now, you say "most MS exponents say yes". Isn't this a typical dWS reflex : explaining partner's intentions, at the risk of MI, to avoid messing things with UI ? Will they admit it ? And if I'm wrong, if there is a fundamental difference between this attitude and dWS, can somebody please explain, and explain why they would act differently in those two situations ? (not that they're necessarily wrong IMOBO, but my feeling is that any distinction between similar cases must be especially well justified.) Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 29 12:01:21 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:01:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be><001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF9E57.30102@NTLworld.com><000701c921af$e5d1dfe0$b1759fa0$@no> <48E025E2.9070800@connecttime.net> Message-ID: <000801c9221f$cd269c40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <48E0B2D8.8000602@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Welsh Appeals Casebook 2007, number 4 > > >>> Imps >>> Dlr: East >>> Vul: None >>> >>> The bidding has gone: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> --- --- 3H Pass >>> 4NT(1) X 5C (2) X (3) >>> 5H ? >>> >>> (1) Keycard Blackwood in hearts, not both minors >>> (2) Promising one keycard, not preference for clubs >>> (3) Preference for clubs, not promising one keycard >>> >>> You, North, hold: >>> >>> A842 >>> A >>> KT82 >>> AKT5 >>> >>> What mall do you cake? >>> > > And after North's penalty double, South remarkably chose > to bid his hand a second time by a choice-of-slams 5NT > holding: > > K653 > 5 > A54 > Q8763 > > Casebook panellist Robin Barker (first paragraph): > > "The TD did not decide if there was a slow Double but did > decide that Pass was not a logical alternative to 5NT. > The TD's comments seem close to saying that once one side > had psyched, the other side are allowed to get away with > a little bit of unauthorised information in order to > recover..." > AG : I don't agree with that last bit. It is obvious that West has psyched. It can't be based on anything else than heart support, unless he's completely mad. Whence partner can't have doubled on a trump stack. That's AI. Now we must decide whether this AI matches UI, thereby allowing South to bid again (I'd choose 5S), but surely this is less clearcut than Robin says. But I agree that Mr. Schwarz mde a grotesque comment. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 12:54:21 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:54:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> What is so wrong with answering "1 ace"? You know it, you know it's what >> he meant, and they are asking about it. > > Herman, there in _no_, I repeat: _no_ bid in my system that ask for how > many aces out of 4 partner holds. It is always 5, sometimes 6 keycards. > Never 4. And now? What would you have me answer? How long would it take > before people started asking trick questions all over the place? > But then you answer 1 key-card. Do you really think I was talking to you and you alone. You answer whatever your type of Blackwood tells you 5Di shows. Surely that is not so difficult? And what is this about trick questions? There is no trick here. You bid 4NT, that is explained as Blackwood. He bids 5Di. I ask what it shows. You tell me 3 or 0 key-cards. No trick questions. Of course when I know you would reply "4NT is not Blackwood" if that were the case, then I _will_ start asking this all the time, rather than look at your SC. But that's another argument. Anyway: when your partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, that usually means you are playing Blackwood in some sequences, and so in most cases you will know exactly how many aces (or key-cards) he has shown (and in what suit). Would you agree with me that whenever this is the case, and you do know the answer, then you will tell your opponents? Why then do you wish to wriggle out of this obligation? >> I am astonished to see into what corners you are trying to paint >> yourself rather than admit that players are entitled to a simple answer >> when they ask a relevant question. > > They will get a simple answer if they ask a relevant question. They will > get no answer if they ask hypothetical questions. > But they do ask a relevant question. It is only you who make it into an irrelevant one by saying that 4NT was not Blackwood. But since (quite probably) he HAS shown his number of aces, the question is certainly relevant, not hypothetical. > Matthias > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 29 12:54:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:54:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48E0B3F3.10400@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > In paragraph 3, Sven then mentions the very interesting case where 1 > > p > 0. AG : indeed. And in most partnerships (not in mine : Gilles has never forgotten any agreement) p will nearly be above 0.1 and below 0.9, so this case is the only one with any interest. > > It might look like I am asking for too much precision, but I don't > really mean to. I just want some idea of how to properly handle > uncertainty. Mine can be recast as a qualitative question: Is p* > closest to 1, .99999999, .999, .9, or .5? > > AG : I'd guess .9 or .95, and as I said above, p will be less than that in at least 99,9 % of the cases. And that's why I said before that giving two differeing lines of behaviour for cases < p and > p (MS + the position above) would be very artificial IMOBO.. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 12:57:31 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:57:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> Message-ID: <48E0B49B.502@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Forget the p (I know sufficient math to know the implication). Instead of > expressing a probability p I have three possibilities: I know that I am > right, I know that partner is right or I am not sure who is right. > Completely wrong. He was saying you are in the third possibility. Within that possibility, your uncertainty can be quantified. > My position is simply this: If I am not sure then it is because there is > still a possibility that my own understanding is correct. It doesn't matter > whether p is 0.1 0.5 0.9 or 0.999999999 (well hardly the latter). > And that is the answer he was looking for: in your case p would have to be larger than 0.9, but not 0.99999999. Let's call it 0.99 then. OK? > Whenever there is in my mind a real possibility (however small) that I was > right all the time the risk is that by changing my explanation to fit > partner's UI I actually go from giving correct information to giving > incorrect information. > > This is a risk I don't want to take! > And that was the answer Robert was looking for. 0.99. Now see if the others come up with the same answer. > What are the consequences of the alternatives? > We know those - we are simply not agreeing on which is the worse consequence. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 13:09:34 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:09:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> Message-ID: <48E0B76E.9010404@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Whenever there is in my mind a real possibility (however small) that I was > right all the time the risk is that by changing my explanation to fit > partner's UI I actually go from giving correct information to giving > incorrect information. > > This is a risk I don't want to take! > Look at it the other way, Sven. If you are 90% certain that he is right, and yet you give what you thought was the right answer before hearing him, then you have gone from a 90% certainly correct information to giving incorrect information? Is that a risk you are willing to take? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Sep 29 13:45:10 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:45:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E0BFC6.2000705@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > But then you answer 1 key-card. Do you really think I was talking to you > and you alone. You answer whatever your type of Blackwood tells you 5Di > shows. Surely that is not so difficult? My Blackwood does not tell how many keycard this shows, as it depends on what is trumps. I do not know how many keycards my partner tries to show, if that is what he is doing. Surely that is not so difficult? > > And what is this about trick questions? There is no trick here. You bid > 4NT, that is explained as Blackwood. He bids 5Di. I ask what it shows. > You tell me 3 or 0 key-cards. No trick questions. See above. Shall I reply: 1 or 4 of 5 if clubs are trumps, but 1 or 4 of 6 if he thinks I have a two-suiter with diamonds, 0 or 3 of 5 if he thinks diamonds are trumps, 0 or 3 or 6 of 6 if he thinks it is a two-suiter with diamonds trumps and hearts or clubs as second suit, but not if spades are the second suit, where we have a third scheme? Any other number if his brain is as undersupplied with oxygen as it seems to be at the moment, since he cannot remember that 4NT cannot be Blackwood here, ever? > Anyway: when your partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, that usually means > you are playing Blackwood in some sequences, and so in most cases you > will know exactly how many aces (or key-cards) he has shown (and in what > suit). Would you agree with me that whenever this is the case, and you > do know the answer, then you will tell your opponents? What I will tell them is a different kettle of fish. If I can help them to some insight I will do so, as I mentioned several times already. I will _not_ volunteer information that is practically guaranteed to confuse them. If they are entitled to some information they will get it. If they are not entitled they may get it if I can provide them without leading them astray. I have obligations through laws 20 and 40. I will always follow those obligations. Certain things I am not obliged to do by those laws. I may do them regardless, provided that I do break another law. If the risk of giving MI is noticeable I will refuse. The fact that partner has forgotten the system does not take certain rights away from me. I may not use the UI, but I don't have to give MI. If I can help, I help. If I may damage my opps I keep my trap shut. I said this a couple of times already. What is so difficult about keeping to the laws where you must, helping where you can, keeping silent where you can't? Best regards Matthias From matthias.schueller at gmx.de Mon Sep 29 13:48:05 2008 From: matthias.schueller at gmx.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_Sch=FCller?=) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:48:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E0C075.8080806@gmx.de> Herman De Wael wrote: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> What is so wrong with answering "1 ace"? You know it, you know it's what >>> he meant, and they are asking about it. >> Herman, there in _no_, I repeat: _no_ bid in my system that ask for how >> many aces out of 4 partner holds. It is always 5, sometimes 6 keycards. >> Never 4. And now? What would you have me answer? How long would it take >> before people started asking trick questions all over the place? >> > > But then you answer 1 key-card. Do you really think I was talking to you > and you alone. You answer whatever your type of Blackwood tells you 5Di > shows. Surely that is not so difficult? > > And what is this about trick questions? There is no trick here. You bid > 4NT, that is explained as Blackwood. He bids 5Di. I ask what it shows. > You tell me 3 or 0 key-cards. No trick questions. RHO me LHO CHO 2S 4NT p 5D ? Me: "What does 4NT mean, please?" RHO: "Blackwood." Me: "What does 5D mean?" LHO: "Diamond preference (over clubs)." Me: "Thank you. I do not care how many aces 5D has shown, but, dear RHO, would you please tell me what, in your system, if a Blackwood response is doubled and there is no agreed trump suit, a pass by the Blackwood bidder means? This is relevant to the auction we are having here, because if a pass by him would be a relay asking for kings, then I might well double to push you at least one level higher." RHO: ? Matthias From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 29 14:01:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:01:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <48E0B49B.502@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B49B.502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E0C38E.9010801@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > And that is the answer he was looking for: in your case p would have to > be larger than 0.9, but not 0.99999999. Let's call it 0.99 then. OK? > > >> Whenever there is in my mind a real possibility (however small) that I was >> right all the time the risk is that by changing my explanation to fit >> partner's UI I actually go from giving correct information to giving >> incorrect information. >> >> This is a risk I don't want to take! >> >> > > And that was the answer Robert was looking for. 0.99. > Now see if the others come up with the same answer. > > There are two problems with that attitude : a) nobody knows how to compute such probability. Different persons will come with different results. When different people use the same behaviour rules and come with different conclusions, we have a problem with the rules. b) we must also consider the probability that the explanation is other than a discrepancy in conceptions of the bid ; for example, partner might be explaining the bid he saw us make, if his sight is poor ; or he might have committed a /lapsus linguae/. This latter consideration pleads in favor of maintaining Stefanie's strict line. 2D Mult-2NT-3C, showing spades ; partner knows it, but unfortunately says "hearts" in lieu of "spades" and doesn't realize it. This is the typical case where there will be at least a little doubt in my mind, as always with substitute bids. If I explain his next bid in the context of "hearts", I'll create confusion, not least in his mind, MI and UI altogether. If I explain it in the context of "spades", merely correcting before the lead will most probably solve all problems without them being affected. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 29 14:04:50 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:04:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E0BFC6.2000705@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> <48E0BFC6.2000705@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48E0C462.7020606@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Herman De Wael schrieb: > > >> But then you answer 1 key-card. Do you really think I was talking to you >> and you alone. You answer whatever your type of Blackwood tells you 5Di >> shows. Surely that is not so difficult? >> > > My Blackwood does not tell how many keycard this shows, as it depends on > what is trumps. I do not know how many keycards my partner tries to > show, if that is what he is doing. Surely that is not so difficult? > > >> And what is this about trick questions? There is no trick here. You bid >> 4NT, that is explained as Blackwood. He bids 5Di. I ask what it shows. >> You tell me 3 or 0 key-cards. No trick questions. >> > > See above. Shall I reply: 1 or 4 of 5 if clubs are trumps, but 1 or 4 of > 6 if he thinks I have a two-suiter with diamonds, 0 or 3 of 5 if he > thinks diamonds are trumps, 0 or 3 or 6 of 6 if he thinks it is a > two-suiter with diamonds trumps and hearts or clubs as second suit, but > not if spades are the second suit, where we have a third scheme? Any > other number if his brain is as undersupplied with oxygen as it seems to > be at the moment, since he cannot remember that 4NT cannot be Blackwood > here, ever? > > > AG : Mathias has a point here. How could we pretend that a partner dumb enough (permanently, or for the moment being) to know there ain't any BW without any agreed trump suit will be smart enough to know answers to BW ? From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 29 14:05:57 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:05:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <48E0B76E.9010404@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B76E.9010404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c9222b$bdec06f0$39c414d0$@no> Of Herman De Wael > > Whenever there is in my mind a real possibility (however small) that I was > > right all the time the risk is that by changing my explanation to fit > > partner's UI I actually go from giving correct information to giving > > incorrect information. > > > > This is a risk I don't want to take! > > > > Look at it the other way, Sven. > If you are 90% certain that he is right, and yet you give what you > thought was the right answer before hearing him, then you have gone from > a 90% certainly correct information to giving incorrect information? > Is that a risk you are willing to take? I don't care about the probability. That in itself is irrelevant if I still consider it a REAL possibility that my original understanding was the correct one and that partner is wrong. This is not a question of balance of probabilities; this is a question of what I believe to be true even after having received UI from partner. Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 29 14:39:26 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:39:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Whereabouts Message-ID: <008601c92230$6a90f830$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B76E.9010404@skynet.be> <000801c9222b$bdec06f0$39c414d0$@no> Message-ID: <48E0CC60.5030304@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Of Herman De Wael > > >>> Whenever there is in my mind a real possibility (however small) that I > was >>> right all the time the risk is that by changing my explanation to fit >>> partner's UI I actually go from giving correct information to giving >>> incorrect information. >>> >>> This is a risk I don't want to take! >>> >> Look at it the other way, Sven. >> If you are 90% certain that he is right, and yet you give what you >> thought was the right answer before hearing him, then you have gone from >> a 90% certainly correct information to giving incorrect information? >> Is that a risk you are willing to take? > > I don't care about the probability. That in itself is irrelevant if I still > consider it a REAL possibility that my original understanding was the > correct one and that partner is wrong. > > This is not a question of balance of probabilities; this is a question of > what I believe to be true even after having received UI from partner. > No Sven, what you believe to be true is his explanation. At 90% probability or so. You "know" (almost) that he has given right information, and that "1 ace" is the correct systemic meaning of his 5Di bid. And yet you say "diamond preference". Deliberate untruth, with a great probability. And as we have said before - after receiving UI is of no importance. You should explain what you think is right, without regards to UI. Only your bidding is restricted, not your explanation. You are almost certain it means 1 ace, systemically - and yet you misexplain. > Sven > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 14:45:40 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:45:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E0BFC6.2000705@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> <48E0BFC6.2000705@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48E0CDF4.8090104@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> But then you answer 1 key-card. Do you really think I was talking to you >> and you alone. You answer whatever your type of Blackwood tells you 5Di >> shows. Surely that is not so difficult? > > My Blackwood does not tell how many keycard this shows, as it depends on > what is trumps. I do not know how many keycards my partner tries to > show, if that is what he is doing. Surely that is not so difficult? > And my Blackwood does tell me that - are you talking just for yourself or are you talking for me as well. You are not allowed to answer "3 or 0 keycards", but I am, because I play a more sensible form of Blackwood. And next time I pose the question about some other convention. One where you have no doubt about partner's answers. Does your answer really depend on what system you are playing? And what would be wrong with an explanation "0 or 1, depending on whether he thinks clubs are trumps or not"? And don't you have rules about what are trumps? Can clubs be trumps on the bidding 4S-4NT? Why not tell them those rules, or simply apply them. I have said before, OK if you really don't know - but how can you that influence the entitlement when you do know? >> And what is this about trick questions? There is no trick here. You bid >> 4NT, that is explained as Blackwood. He bids 5Di. I ask what it shows. >> You tell me 3 or 0 key-cards. No trick questions. > > See above. Shall I reply: 1 or 4 of 5 if clubs are trumps, but 1 or 4 of > 6 if he thinks I have a two-suiter with diamonds, 0 or 3 of 5 if he > thinks diamonds are trumps, 0 or 3 or 6 of 6 if he thinks it is a > two-suiter with diamonds trumps and hearts or clubs as second suit, but > not if spades are the second suit, where we have a third scheme? Any > other number if his brain is as undersupplied with oxygen as it seems to > be at the moment, since he cannot remember that 4NT cannot be Blackwood > here, ever? > You are deliberately making it more difficult. I am talking about simple cases. Cases where you know the answer, 1000% certain (I decided not to delete the superfluous 0 there). Are you sure you won't answer. Refuse to answer, even? > >> Anyway: when your partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, that usually means >> you are playing Blackwood in some sequences, and so in most cases you >> will know exactly how many aces (or key-cards) he has shown (and in what >> suit). Would you agree with me that whenever this is the case, and you >> do know the answer, then you will tell your opponents? > > What I will tell them is a different kettle of fish. If I can help them > to some insight I will do so, as I mentioned several times already. I > will _not_ volunteer information that is practically guaranteed to > confuse them. confuse them? 4NT - Blackwood - 5Di - 1 ace. 4NT - Blackwood - 5Di - diamond preference which one is the more likely to confuse them? > If they are entitled to some information they will get it. > If they are not entitled they may get it if I can provide them without > leading them astray. > > I have obligations through laws 20 and 40. I will always follow those > obligations. Certain things I am not obliged to do by those laws. I may > do them regardless, provided that I do break another law. If the risk of > giving MI is noticeable I will refuse. The fact that partner has > forgotten the system does not take certain rights away from me. I may > not use the UI, but I don't have to give MI. If I can help, I help. If I > may damage my opps I keep my trap shut. I said this a couple of times > already. What is so difficult about keeping to the laws where you must, > helping where you can, keeping silent where you can't? > I can explain all my actions in exactly the same words. > Best regards > Matthias > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 14:49:39 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:49:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E0C462.7020606@ulb.ac.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> <48E0BFC6.2000705@t-online.de> <48E0C462.7020606@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48E0CEE3.5010904@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > AG : Mathias has a point here. How could we pretend that a partner dumb > enough (permanently, or for the moment being) to know there ain't any BW > without any agreed trump suit will be smart enough to know answers to BW ? > > I can turn that around as well. How can a partner who does not know which of the answers to give since he does not what is trumps, be dumb enough to still explain 4NT as Blackwood? Matthias certainly has a point, but it does not refer to the same cases we are talking about. This particular wheel cannot come off in Matthias' fixed partnership, but it can come off when Matthias plays with Herman (as he has done twice in the past). In that partnership, 4NT is always Blackwood, and there are always 5 aces (that's the way I like to play it). If Matthias bids 4NT for the minors in that partnership, and I say it's Blackwood, then Matthias can be bloody certain I will have 0 or 3 keycards when I reply 5Di. Do you really think he should not tell our opponents we agreed RKCB 1430 with always 5 aces? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 14:51:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:51:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <48E0C38E.9010801@ulb.ac.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B49B.502@skynet.be> <48E0C38E.9010801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48E0CF66.8090802@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> And that is the answer he was looking for: in your case p would have to >> be larger than 0.9, but not 0.99999999. Let's call it 0.99 then. OK? >> >> >>> Whenever there is in my mind a real possibility (however small) that I was >>> right all the time the risk is that by changing my explanation to fit >>> partner's UI I actually go from giving correct information to giving >>> incorrect information. >>> >>> This is a risk I don't want to take! >>> >>> >> And that was the answer Robert was looking for. 0.99. >> Now see if the others come up with the same answer. >> >> > There are two problems with that attitude : > > a) nobody knows how to compute such probability. Different persons will > come with different results. When different people use the same > behaviour rules and come with different conclusions, we have a problem > with the rules. > > b) we must also consider the probability that the explanation is other > than a discrepancy in conceptions of the bid ; for example, partner > might be explaining the bid he saw us make, if his sight is poor ; or he > might have committed a /lapsus linguae/. This latter consideration > pleads in favor of maintaining Stefanie's strict line. > > 2D Mult-2NT-3C, showing spades ; partner knows it, but unfortunately > says "hearts" in lieu of "spades" and doesn't realize it. This is the > typical case where there will be at least a little doubt in my mind, as > always with substitute bids. If I explain his next bid in the context of > "hearts", I'll create confusion, not least in his mind, MI and UI > altogether. If I explain it in the context of "spades", merely > correcting before the lead will most probably solve all problems without > them being affected. > No Alain. If you explain it in the context of hearts he'll realize he was wrong before and correct. And again, don't confuse the issue by having two errors overlap. > Best regards > > Alain > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 15:12:15 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:12:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sep 27, 2008, at 6:39 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" >> > I am flabbergasted to hear that something which ought to > be disclosed under L40 need not be answered under L20. >> > +=+ Then you have not read the law carefully or have > misunderstood the language. Each of these laws (20F and > 40A1b) specifies the time at which it applies. They are > directed at different purposes, general disclosure beforehand > in the latter case and relevant disclosure during the auction > and the play in the former. But the "general disclosure beforehand" specified in L40A1(b) is of "its partnership understandings", not of whichever of its partnership understandings the RA might choose. The RA is specifically empowered to specify the "manner in which this shall be done", but is not given the authority to repeal the rights granted in the previous sentence. It seems perfectly legitimate for the RA to decide that the "manner in which this shall be done" includes deferring disclosure of all but specified details until such time as the opponents actually want the information, but illegitimate to determine that those rights somehow disappear if, in following the RA's procedure, they are not exercised "before commencing play". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Sep 29 15:20:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:20:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <48E0CC60.5030304@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B76E.9010404@skynet.be> <000801c9222b$bdec06f0$39c414d0$@no> <48E0CC60.5030304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c92236$2e4fa640$8aeef2c0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>> Whenever there is in my mind a real possibility (however small) that I > > was > >>> right all the time the risk is that by changing my explanation to fit > >>> partner's UI I actually go from giving correct information to giving > >>> incorrect information. > >>> > >>> This is a risk I don't want to take! > >>> > >> Look at it the other way, Sven. > >> If you are 90% certain that he is right, and yet you give what you > >> thought was the right answer before hearing him, then you have gone from > >> a 90% certainly correct information to giving incorrect information? > >> Is that a risk you are willing to take? > > > > I don't care about the probability. That in itself is irrelevant if I still > > consider it a REAL possibility that my original understanding was the > > correct one and that partner is wrong. > > > > This is not a question of balance of probabilities; this is a question of > > what I believe to be true even after having received UI from partner. > > > > No Sven, what you believe to be true is his explanation. Herman: You have a very bad habit of telling other people what they think, or in other words that they lie when they tell that they actually think something else. I don't think [sic!] that you qualify as a mind reader, and I am not impressed. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 15:26:20 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:26:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <982D45CA-A6D3-41D0-9EF4-841D25D4FF13@starpower.net> On Sep 28, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Now return to the original problem, where 4NT is for the minors and > partner describes it as Blackwood. The supposed "MS" position is > that when > asked, I explain partner's bid as preferences for the minors. But > there is > NO consensus on entitlement if the opponents ask: > > 1. How many aces does that show, or how many aces would it show if > your > bid was Blackwood? > > 2. How many aces would that show if the opening bid was 3S and you bid > 4NT? (In the problem, 4NT was Blackwood over 3NT, you had agreed on > the > meaning of the responses, and that is how you knew what partner's > 5Di bid > meant.) > > Is that a silly question to try to answer? > > Grattan has, apparently, taken the extreme position that the > opponents are > not entitled to the answer to any of these questions. But most blmlers > took different position. Frankly, I cannot see how position #2 is > lawful. > > So I would like to discuss what partnership agreements the > opponents are > entitled to. I am not debating dWS and I think I don't qualify as a > member, especially since my current answer is not dWS. Bob is quite right; this has nothing to do with dWS. Bob tells us that "partner describes [4NT] as Blackwood", but that's a red herring. Suppose there was no confusion or misunderstanding, that 4NT systemically showed both minors, you intended it to show both minors, and partner had described it as showing both minors. Would the opponents then be entitled to an answer to the questions Bob asks about? I'm not sure of the answer, but I'm confident that the answer under both sets of circumstances must be the same. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 15:40:36 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:40:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sep 28, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Robert Frick schrieb: > >> Now return to the original problem, where 4NT is for the minors and >> partner describes it as Blackwood. The supposed "MS" position is >> that when >> asked, I explain partner's bid as preferences for the minors. But >> there is >> NO consensus on entitlement if the opponents ask: > > That depends on what you would call a consensus. It is not unanimous, > no, we all can see that. I would call it a consensus with dissenting > votes. We are not about to reach an unanimous opinion, if the last > dozens of mails are any indication.... > >> 1. How many aces does that show, or how many aces would it show if >> your >> bid was Blackwood? > > What would that bid mean if it didn't mean what it does? I think perhaps we've been sidetracked by unfortunate phrasing of those questions in terms of "[what] does that show" or "what would that bid mean". Forget about "that bid". Forget about the actual auction, or any attempted disclosure up to that point. The actual question being asked is, "What does 5D mean in response to a Blackwood 4NT?" Are the opponents entitled to be given that particular bit of information after the auction has begun? In the ACBL, it would seem that they must be, as ACBL regulations require the answer to be on the CC. Should, or does, that matter? >> 2. How many aces would that show if the opening bid was 3S and you >> bid >> 4NT? (In the problem, 4NT was Blackwood over 3NT, you had agreed >> on the >> meaning of the responses, and that is how you knew what partner's >> 5Di bid >> meant.) > > I will tell you when next I bid 4NT over 3S. I will even offer to > volunteer (at _your_ risk if you want to use that information) what > kind > of Blackwood responses we play in different situations, all of > which do > not apply here as 4NT was not Blackwood. I am not an unreasonable man, > so I am willing to give an opp who asks for it some information he > seems > to want, as long as he (and the TD) understands that this is an answer > to a hypothetical question. How should I know what mindset partner > is in > if he can't remember the system? > >> Is that a silly question to try to answer? > > Since the information value of the answer is somewhat debatable... > >> Grattan has, apparently, taken the extreme position that the >> opponents are >> not entitled to the answer to any of these questions. But most >> blmlers >> took different position. Frankly, I cannot see how position #2 is >> lawful. > > You don't? Well, I can, and so can lots of others. It is not an > extreme > position either, as it is shared by a lot of people. All EBL TDs on > this > list, for example, (well, except Herman), who surely would have > piped up > if they agreed with their esteemed colleague, and that is no small > number. > >> So I would like to discuss what partnership agreements the >> opponents are >> entitled to. I am not debating dWS and I think I don't qualify as a >> member, especially since my current answer is not dWS. > > Did you read Grattan's previous post? All the things opps are entitled > to were listed there. > So what if I "know" how many aces partner has (if I really know, which > is debatable)? I am not allowed to use that information, so why should > opps know, who are not entitled to that information? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 16:20:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:20:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> Message-ID: <13AE7C0A-93F3-40DE-AEB6-716A83F52F67@starpower.net> On Sep 28, 2008, at 6:44 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> I will even offer to >>> volunteer (at _your_ risk if you want to use that information) >>> what kind >>> of Blackwood responses we play in different situations, all of >>> which do >>> not apply here as 4NT was not Blackwood. I am not an unreasonable >>> man, >>> so I am willing to give an opp who asks for it some information >>> he seems >>> to want, as long as he (and the TD) understands that this is an >>> answer >>> to a hypothetical question. How should I know what mindset >>> partner is in >>> if he can't remember the system? >> >> Matthias, he said he thought 4NT was Blackwood - you tell me what 5Di >> means in your version of Blackwood - I will take all the provisos I >> need, and they are just the same if 4NT had been Blackwood after all. > > That so? You play 1NT opening 10-12 and natural responses. You never > played anything else in all your life. Now I ask you "what would 2H > mean > if 1NT was 15-17?" What's your answer? You haven't played 15-17, ever? > Well, I have not Blackwood in that position, ever. So what do I > answer? > What would 4C mean if 2S was a two-Suiter? I have no idea. What > would 2H > mean if 1C was Polish club? I couldn't answer that even though I play > Polish club with certain partners, but the meaning of 2H is different > from partner to partner. Who is to judge which of these questions I > can > answer, which I might be able to answer, when do I have some shrewd > idea, where do I have no idea at all? It is all very well to discuss > something "easy" like Blackwood ( I can assure you that there is > nothing > easy about Blackwood in most of my partnerships), but what about other > calls? What would 5H have meant if 1D were a weak no-trump or at > least 5 > diamonds? Which questions are reasonable, and which are not? Would you > care to propose a regulation for that? > > What if partner gave a wrong explanation, then made a bid which cannot > be explained even if you tried to guess, and made no sense with either > interpretation? "4NT?" "Blackwood" pass "6NT" "How many aces?" Will > you > say "9", or will you say "I have no idea what he is doing"? > >> Anyway, I note that you would answer the question. >> I presume many others would also do so. >> Why then should we discuss if these questions can be asked. > > We aren't. We are discussing whether they are entitled to an > answer. The > y can ask anything they like for all I care as long as they observe > the > laws pertaining to such questions. L20 does not say they may not > ask, it > only says they are not entitled to an answer to certain questions. > >> I would be extremely surprised if we pulled any EBL director right at >> this moment (without any advance warning) and he would answer that >> the >> question "what would 5Di mean if your partner had thought 4NT was >> Blackwood" would be "I don't have to tell you". Think about it behind >> screens. You tell me 4NT is for the minors, but for some reason I >> want >> to cover my bases and ask the question above. Do you really think any >> serious director would start reading L20 and come up with the answer >> Grattan gave? I doubt it. > > I don't. You would have to answer the question "what would 4S have > meant", but not "what would your bid mean if your partner's bid meant > something else", and I am extremely confident that any EBL director > who > is member of this list would have said so if he disagreed with > Grattan. > There are quite a lot who read this. Eidt,Sch?ller, Beauvillain, Amos, > Probst, Levy, van Staveren, Barker, Marques, O'Boyle, to name only > those who I am sure of that they read BLML, my guess is that it is at > least the same number again who do not post here, but read most of > BLML. > >>> So what if I "know" how many aces partner has (if I really know, >>> which >>> is debatable)? I am not allowed to use that information, so why >>> should >>> opps know, who are not entitled to that information? >> >> Circular reasoning - we are trying to find out if they are >> entitled to >> it or not. I think they are. > > I gathered as much. > > If it were as you say, who is to decide which questions you _can_ > answer, so you have to? What would 3NT mean if 1NT were 5-5 in two > unspecifed suits? What if 1NT promised a 6-card minor? What if 4NT > were > Blackwood? Wouldn't you be forced to answer any such question, at > least > if the proposed meaning were legal under the regulation pertaining to > the event in question? Is Herman going to decide what a player has to > answer and what not? Or do we read L20, see that opps are only > entitled > to the meaning of alternative calls, not to the meaning of answers to > bid that mean something else than they actually do, and be able to > play > Bridge, at last? As to "which questions you can answer, so you have to", that's easy: it would be any question that could have been meaningfully asked and answered "before commencing play" [L40a1(b)]. Imagine that you sit down against a pair and, before anyone looks at his cards, they ask you what kind of Blackwood responses you are playing; perhaps they wish to discuss counter-measures. Do you think you are entitled to refuse to answer, given that you do have an agreement (Matthias' counter-argument to the contrary, nobody suggests that you must make up an answer if you don't play Blackwood at all)? If not, do you think that information becomes unauthorized for them during the auction and play, subject to L16C? If not, do you really think that the pair at the next table, who did not ask about Blackwood responses before the auction began, should be placed at a considerable disadvantage by being refused the same information that you were entitled to, given and not prohibited from using? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 16:32:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:32:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] "they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809281951w4850062ficbc9bcc1cf02097@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0809281951w4850062ficbc9bcc1cf02097@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1DCF9047-F617-4C57-A6C0-6B395AFA67B0@starpower.net> On Sep 28, 2008, at 10:51 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Law 75C contains this: > > "The partnership agreement is as explained ? 2? 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." > > It seems to me that Law 75C's only purpose is to explain how to > determine damage when there is a misbid. But on BLML, the slogan "they > have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" has > been invoked for many other situations. > > What is the meaning of "they have no claim to an accurate description > of the North-South hands"? I seriously want to know. I hope that > those who consider it obvious will be able to help without too much > bother. I don't imagine that this a deep question, but I hope that > someone can enlighten me. > > Perhaps it is one or more of these: > > 1. Is it supposed to allow bidding mistakes? Yes. > 2. Is it supposed to allow a pair to hide aspects of their system > that in mishaps can become valuable knowledge to their opponents? No. > 3. Is it an oblique anti-dWS reference? Could be taken, although unlikely to have been intended, as such. > 4. Is it supposed to reassure a player to keep explaining the > partnership understandings even when his hand tells him that his > partner does not have his bid? Yes. > 5. Suppose your understanding of your partner's history and > tendencies, combined with the auction (but not your hand), makes it > clear the kind of hand your partner is trying to convey; in this case, > are you allowed to hide this information if it happens that your > partner has bid outside of your system notes? No. > 6. Is it supposed to remind you to describe what calls show, and not > to use phrases such as "he has..."? Yes. > Several of the above? Something different? In context, it appears to have been put there to clarify #4. > Also, should the phrase be limited to apply only to the narrow purpose > of Law 75C, or is valid to extend it to other purposes? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 16:50:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:50:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E083E7.9010809@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <000601c921ae$e5e38890$b1aa99b0$@no> <48E083E7.9010809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0E6DC3EA-CC0E-4877-B526-B9E60F15161E@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2008, at 3:29 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: > >> No, I don't argue that partner's explanation is UI; I argue that >> according >> to our agreements he has shown preference for diamonds and nothing >> else. >> >> AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT OPPONENTS ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW! >> >> Now opponents are free to assume from information available to >> them (not to >> me!) > > Yes to you as well. You are not allowed to bid on that information, > but > the information is there nevertheless. > >> that partner has actually misbid and shown a particular number of >> aces, > > They are indeed free to assume that. Let's assume they do so assume. > Whyever should they not? > >> they may even try to determine what number of aces partner has >> shown in >> response to what he believed was Blackwood. > > Indeed, and in order to do that, they need an important piece of > information: the kind of Blackwood that you are playing. > >> 1: The 4NT bid was not Blackwood. > > No, indeed - but I am writing about a case in which you do employ > Blackwood in your partnership. One clearly defined type of > Blackwood. If > your partner is so far off the rails that he names a convention he has > never played with you, that's a totally different story. My cases are > about partnerships who do know how many aces 5Di shows. OK? > >> 2: Blackwood was not an available call in the situation and >> therefore not an >> alternative call not made. > > No, but 5Cl was an alternative call to 5Di (as was 5He and 5Sp). > >> 3: Even if I (too) were to assume that 4NT was understood as >> Blackwood I >> have no idea how many aces partner has shown. > > Very well Sven, but you are still playing one kind of Blackwood, > and one > kind only. The fact that he does not always have the number of aces he > shows is well known to everybody, but it does not mean you are not > going > to tell them how many he has shown, does it? > >> Once he erred on the 4NT bid >> how am I to know what kind of Blackwood he believes that we would >> have used >> if we had used Blackwood in this position. > > But you are using only one kind of Blackwood - so of course you do > know > it. He thinks it's Blackwood, so he must also think it's the same kind > of Blackwood you are always playing. > And yes, there are (stupid IMO) people who play different Blackwood > over > different kinds of trumps. Well, he just told you it was Blackwood in > his opinion - is it so difficult to use whatever rules you have to > determine which kind of Blackwood he's probably thinking it is? And if > you get it wrong, is that a reason not to tell them which you think > it is? > If you only answer those questions to which you know the answer for > certain, then you are silent quite often, I should think. What difference can it possibly make whether you use "one kind of Blackwood" or six? You either have an agreement or you don't -- it doesn't matter how complicated or elaborate it is -- and, if you do, either you must reveal it or you may refuse to do so. >> Opponents are free to guess - at their own risk. > > Of course it's at their own risk - but they cannot guess if they are > lacking an important piece of information, which you have and > should share! > >> And the legal basis is Law 20F (part of which is quoted above). > > And part of which I also quoted: "choices available". > It strikes me as particularly odd that people who are so in favour of > FULL disclosure (as I know you are) can be thinking that L20 can limit > the amount of information that needs to be disclosed. > I read L20a as a reminder to people that there are more questions > possible and allowed than the simple "what does that show". Extending > the range of questions, not putting a limit on them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 17:07:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:07:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <747D2B3B-194C-4FA7-B549-C483F730C6DF@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2008, at 3:51 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 29/09/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>>> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>>>> I will even offer to >>>>> volunteer (at _your_ risk if you want to use that information) >>>>> what kind >>>>> of Blackwood responses we play in different situations, all of >>>>> which do >>>>> not apply here as 4NT was not Blackwood. I am not an >>>>> unreasonable man, >>>>> so I am willing to give an opp who asks for it some information >>>>> he seems >>>>> to want, as long as he (and the TD) understands that this is an >>>>> answer >>>>> to a hypothetical question. How should I know what mindset >>>>> partner is in >>>>> if he can't remember the system? >>>>> >>>> Matthias, he said he thought 4NT was Blackwood - you tell me >>>> what 5Di >>>> means in your version of Blackwood - I will take all the provisos I >>>> need, and they are just the same if 4NT had been Blackwood after >>>> all. >>> >>> That so? You play 1NT opening 10-12 and natural responses. You never >>> played anything else in all your life. Now I ask you "what would >>> 2H mean >>> if 1NT was 15-17?" What's your answer? You haven't played 15-17, >>> ever? >> >> Indeed - but that is not the case here. These cases are about a >> partnership naming one convention rather than another one, one >> convention that they both play. >> Of course you cannot answer what you don't know - but we're talking >> about things you DO know, and which you intend to keep hidden >> nevertheless. >> >>> Well, I have not Blackwood in that position, ever. So what do I >>> answer? >> >> But that is not the same thing - you do play Blackwood, with this >> partner, in this partnership, during this tournament. And you know >> what >> answers you use. And yet you refuse to tell this. > > I'd tell the opps that we don't play BW in this posittion and that > when 4NT is BW 5D would show 1 or 4 keycards wen clubs is trumps, 0 or > 3 keycards if some other suit is trumps and 1 of 4 aces in situations > where we ask for aces only. I don't think (actually, I'm pretty sure) > they're entitled to this information regarding BW, but I'll volunteer > that information anyway. (Maybe the unthinkable happened and I've got > the system wrong! lol) Of course that's exactly what you tell them (assuming you tell them anything); it *is* your partnership agreement, isn't it? I don't think that anyone is arguing that you may refuse to provide this information if they ask about it "before commencing play", per L40A1(b). The only unanswered question here, ISTM, is whether L20F1 is to be interpreted to mean that their right to obtain the information expires when play commences. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 29 17:20:03 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:20:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com><004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com><48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be><000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c92246$d95aee40$8c10cac0$@com> [EL] But the "general disclosure beforehand" specified in L40A1(b) is of "its partnership understandings", not of whichever of its partnership understandings the RA might choose. [DALB] I am not at all convinced about this. If a partnership has a duty to disclose its partnership understandings, and the RA specifies how this shall be done, it seems to me that the RA may include in its specification which understandings shall be disclosed. Otherwise, it seems to me that an opponent might legitimately refuse to play against me until I have told him how we play the sequence 1C-1D-2NT-3H-3S-4C, information that does not appear on my convention card. (If Matthias really wants to know, 3H was an artificial slam try in clubs, 3S was a cue bid, and 4C denied a spade control). For the sake of comparison and (perhaps) contrast, an announcement often heard on English trains is "Please make sure you have all your personal belongings with you before leaving the train." Well, most of mine are at home. Does this mean that I should not have boarded the train in the first place? David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 29 17:22:50 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E0C075.8080806@gmx.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> <48E0C075.8080806@gmx.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:48:05 -0400, Matthias Sch?ller wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >>> Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> What is so wrong with answering "1 ace"? You know it, you know it's >>>> what >>>> he meant, and they are asking about it. >>> Herman, there in _no_, I repeat: _no_ bid in my system that ask for how >>> many aces out of 4 partner holds. It is always 5, sometimes 6 keycards. >>> Never 4. And now? What would you have me answer? How long would it take >>> before people started asking trick questions all over the place? >>> >> >> But then you answer 1 key-card. Do you really think I was talking to you >> and you alone. You answer whatever your type of Blackwood tells you 5Di >> shows. Surely that is not so difficult? >> >> And what is this about trick questions? There is no trick here. You bid >> 4NT, that is explained as Blackwood. He bids 5Di. I ask what it shows. >> You tell me 3 or 0 key-cards. No trick questions. > > RHO me LHO CHO > 2S 4NT p > 5D ? > > Me: "What does 4NT mean, please?" > RHO: "Blackwood." > Me: "What does 5D mean?" > LHO: "Diamond preference (over clubs)." > Me: "Thank you. I do not care how many aces 5D has shown, but, dear RHO, > would you please tell me what, in your system, if a Blackwood response > is doubled and there is no agreed trump suit, a pass by the Blackwood > bidder means? This is relevant to the auction we are having here, > because if a pass by him would be a relay asking for kings, then I might > well double to push you at least one level higher." > RHO: ? I am confused by what you are saying. Obviously (?), the opponents have a right to ask any question that think might reveal useful information, and something in Law 74 probably kicks in if they are deliberately asking questions they think are irrelevant. At least I have not heard anyone disagree with these. Most of the disagreement on this thread seems to hinge on what happens if the opponents ask exactly the right question. To give a "close to right" question, RHO me LHO CHO 2S 4NT p 5D p p p I have made it so the auction is over. You want to know about number of aces for defending. You: Do you have any relevant partnership agreements that may shed any light on the intended meaning of the 5Di bid, given that your partner thought it was Blackwood? They have a partnership agreement that over a weak-three bid, 4NT is Blackwood. They have a firm agreement on what the 5Di bid then means. You would love to know this partnership agreement. They would rather not give it to you. Are you entitled to this information? To restate the positions so far: You seem to have emphatically stated that the answer is no. I find this surprising, but Grattan and Burns seem to have said the answer is no. And you claim to have agreement of all of the main directors, or else they would have said so. A few people on blml have answered yes. Eric. John Probst? From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 17:42:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:42:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> Message-ID: <608B18AF-D122-472A-BF7E-788C882B38EA@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2008, at 4:59 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > --------- >> [Sven Pran (complete)] >> >> After reading Grattan's "reminder" a while ago I have "refined" my >> opinion >> in the following way: >> >> If I am absolutely convinced that partner's explanation was >> correct (and >> that I have made a misbid) then I must explain according to partner's >> explanation. (But I must still continue to call according to my >> original >> understanding of our agreements). >> >> However, if even after hearing partner's explanation I believe >> that my own >> understanding of our agreements is the correct one I must maintain >> this >> understanding and explain correspondingly. >> >> The real problem arises when I don't know which of the two >> understandings > is >> correct. I believe in that case the best thing to do is to act as >> if my > own >> understanding is correct. >> >> [Jerry Fusselman] > ................. >> In paragraph 3, Sven then mentions the very interesting case where >> 1 > >> p > 0. In this case, he says that he believes the "best thing to do" >> is to keep explaining it his own way, not partner's way. The word >> "must" is gone, so it seems there is a choice. When p = .99999, does >> he really think his suggestion is best? Sven's position might be one >> of the following: > > Forget the p (I know sufficient math to know the implication). > Instead of > expressing a probability p I have three possibilities: I know that > I am > right, I know that partner is right or I am not sure who is right. > > My position is simply this: If I am not sure then it is because > there is > still a possibility that my own understanding is correct. It > doesn't matter > whether p is 0.1 0.5 0.9 or 0.999999999 (well hardly the latter). > > Whenever there is in my mind a real possibility (however small) > that I was > right all the time the risk is that by changing my explanation to fit > partner's UI I actually go from giving correct information to giving > incorrect information. > > This is a risk I don't want to take! > > What are the consequences of the alternatives? > > When I maintain my explanations then opponents should understand > from the > inconsistencies between explanations from me and from my partner that > something has gone wrong. > > If I change my explanations then opponents will receive corresponding > explanations from me and from my partner and have no indication that > something was wrong until they see my hand. > > I strongly believe that opponents will possibly be less damaged > (and in any > case not more damaged) with the first alternative. > > I suppose this answers your question directed to me below? I don't think Jerry is seriously suggesting that it might be deemed an infraction (subject to redress?) if one's realistically almost totally subjective estimate of the probabilities were a bit off in the nth decimal place, which is what a "legislated" value of p would imply. So Sven's approach, which does not depend on choosing some specific value of p, seems entirely appropriate as well as workable. Perhaps the question we should ask is whether this is something about which individual players should be making their own determination, or whether it would be appropriate for RAs to provide regulatory guidelines for such situations. In a previous thread, I asked whether such guidelines existed; Grattan's posts convinced me that there were none to be found in TFLB itself. Would it help to have some? What might they be? Sven gives us one possible answer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 29 17:52:27 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:52:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <747D2B3B-194C-4FA7-B549-C483F730C6DF@starpower.net> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <747D2B3B-194C-4FA7-B549-C483F730C6DF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101c9224b$5fc2bfe0$1f483fa0$@com> [EL] I don't think that anyone is arguing that you may refuse to provide this information if they ask about it "before commencing play", per L40A1(b). [DALB] Then you have not read closely what I have written (not that you need to, of course). I do contend that there is a practical (and legal) limit to the level of disclosure you are required to provide before commencing play - otherwise, play might not commence at all. I contend that the Regulating Authority in effect specifies this limit under Law 40A1 through the medium it imposes for disclosure prior to the commencement of play. The more "serious" an event, the more comprehensive the medium. In a European Championship or an Olympiad I will make (and have made) my entire system available to opponents before we sit down to play - including notes as to which sequences we have previously psyched or previously forgotten. But if I came to the Silver Springs bridge club for a local duplicate, I would not insist that Eric made equivalent information on his partnership methods, tendencies and experience available to me before I took my cards from the first board against him, and I think that whoever directs at the Silver Springs bridge club would be supported by Law in showing me the door if I did. Not that I'd mind all that much - there are some decent Lebanese restaurants in Silver Springs, and I'd rather go to dinner at one of those than quiz Eric all night on whether his partner had ever forgotten lebensohl. More strongly, though, I feel that if I am contemplating some dodgy 2S overcall of Eric's 1NT opening, I am not allowed to ask either opponent "If I overcall 2S, do you play penalty doubles?" David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 17:59:26 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:59:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <48E0C38E.9010801@ulb.ac.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B49B.502@skynet.be> <48E0C38E.9010801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48E0FB5E.1040407@skynet.be> Second answer, augmented: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > 2D Mult-2NT-3C, showing spades ; partner knows it, but unfortunately > says "hearts" in lieu of "spades" and doesn't realize it. This is the > typical case where there will be at least a little doubt in my mind, as > always with substitute bids. If I explain his next bid in the context of > "hearts", I'll create confusion, not least in his mind, MI and UI > altogether. If I explain it in the context of "spades", merely > correcting before the lead will most probably solve all problems without > them being affected. > No Alain. If you explain it in the context of hearts he'll realize he was wrong before and correct. In fact, if he really forgot the convention and he thinks it hearts, then your next explanation (based on hearts) will not seem strange to him, and he'll happily go on believing it was hearts. Whereas if he knew it was spades all along and merely says "hearts", your explanation based on hearts will wake him up, but it won't be UI to him, since he knew it was spades after all. He'll be able to convince the director that he knew it was spades all along, and the bidding can go on (of course after the necessary corrections). Now do the same with a MS explanation: If he thought it was hearts, and your explanation is based on spades, he'll have UI and won't be able to do anything sensible. And even if he thought it was spades, but merely said hearts, your explanation being based on spades will still be counted as UI. All well and good saying "I knew it was spades and misspoke", when there is UI saying the same thing. Sorry, UI. So even in this convoluted construction of Alain's, the dWS explanation will be beneficial. Which of course according to some must mean it's illegal, but we've already dealt with that argument. Do you know I've stopped counting trumps? Since that was beneficial to my scores, someone told me it must have been illegal. Scored 27% yesterday! I must be doing something else illegal, still. :) > Best regards > > Alain > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 18:03:31 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:03:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <000901c92236$2e4fa640$8aeef2c0$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B76E.9010404@skynet.be> <000801c9222b$bdec06f0$39c414d0$@no> <48E0CC60.5030304@skynet.be> <000901c92236$2e4fa640$8aeef2c0$@no> Message-ID: <48E0FC53.60104@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> This is not a question of balance of probabilities; this is a question > of >>> what I believe to be true even after having received UI from partner. >>> >> No Sven, what you believe to be true is his explanation. > > Herman: You have a very bad habit of telling other people what they think, > or in other words that they lie when they tell that they actually think > something else. > Sven, I was the one making up the story, for you to answer. In that story, I stated that you were 90% certain that partner had given the right answer, and I asked you what you would do. If then you answer that you don't believe that partner was right, then you are not answering the problem I have posed. I don't need to be a mind reader, I have told you what you were believing to start with. > I don't think [sic!] that you qualify as a mind reader, and I am not > impressed. > Since I cannot read your mind, please answer the question then as it is put: You are 90% certain your partner gave the right explanation, and yet you continue to give the wrong (supposedly) explanation. And you don't think you are giving MI? You are willing to take that risk? > Sven > You really should try and follow a thread - we're at 3 mails a day as it is, should not be too difficult to follow a to-and-fro. I can manage it, surely you can as well. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 18:11:27 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:11:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <982D45CA-A6D3-41D0-9EF4-841D25D4FF13@starpower.net> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <982D45CA-A6D3-41D0-9EF4-841D25D4FF13@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48E0FE2F.2070204@skynet.be> I'm sorry to dissapoint you, Eric, but maybe you are not completely right here: Eric Landau wrote: > > Bob is quite right; this has nothing to do with dWS. Bob tells us > that "partner describes [4NT] as Blackwood", but that's a red > herring. Suppose there was no confusion or misunderstanding, that > 4NT systemically showed both minors, you intended it to show both > minors, and partner had described it as showing both minors. Would > the opponents then be entitled to an answer to the questions Bob asks > about? I'm not sure of the answer, but I'm confident that the answer > under both sets of circumstances must be the same. > It may be hard to come up with a valid reason to be asking that question at this particular point, so I might side with a director who told me "stop asking silly questions". However, if a player tells me (as director) that he has a valid reason for so asking (John described something like this) I might rule "overruled, but get to the point quickly" . Anyway, Eric, many good points raised here - you're firmly on the right track (well, if ever my track can be the right one :) ) > > Eric Landau Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 18:37:57 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:37:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sep 29, 2008, at 5:01 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> What is so wrong with answering "1 ace"? You know it, you know >> it's what >> he meant, and they are asking about it. > > Herman, there in _no_, I repeat: _no_ bid in my system that ask for > how > many aces out of 4 partner holds. It is always 5, sometimes 6 > keycards. > Never 4. And now? What would you have me answer? How about telling them whatever your partnership agreement is? Isn't that what you do with any request for disclosure, assuming you don't refuse to reply? > How long would it take > before people started asking trick questions all over the place? When and how, one wonders, did, "What are your agreements regarding responses to Blackwood?" become a "trick question"? It sounds like a straightforward question to me, and one to which a straightforward answer is likely to be available. >> I am astonished to see into what corners you are trying to paint >> yourself rather than admit that players are entitled to a simple >> answer >> when they ask a relevant question. > > They will get a simple answer if they ask a relevant question. They > will > get no answer if they ask hypothetical questions. "What are your agreements regarding responses to Blackwood?" is no more a "hypothetical question" than it is a "trick" one, unless you actually do not have any agreements regarding responses to Blackwood. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 19:13:27 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2A25135E-3957-4C8D-B0C7-D760F63A3ADA@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >> >>> What is so wrong with answering "1 ace"? You know it, you know >>> it's what >>> he meant, and they are asking about it. >> >> Herman, there in _no_, I repeat: _no_ bid in my system that ask >> for how >> many aces out of 4 partner holds. It is always 5, sometimes 6 >> keycards. >> Never 4. And now? What would you have me answer? How long would it >> take >> before people started asking trick questions all over the place? > > But then you answer 1 key-card. Do you really think I was talking > to you > and you alone. You answer whatever your type of Blackwood tells you > 5Di > shows. Surely that is not so difficult? > > And what is this about trick questions? There is no trick here. You > bid > 4NT, that is explained as Blackwood. He bids 5Di. I ask what it shows. > You tell me 3 or 0 key-cards. No trick questions. > > Of course when I know you would reply "4NT is not Blackwood" if that > were the case, then I _will_ start asking this all the time, rather > than > look at your SC. But that's another argument. > > Anyway: when your partner explains 4NT as Blackwood, that usually > means > you are playing Blackwood in some sequences, and so in most cases you > will know exactly how many aces (or key-cards) he has shown (and in > what > suit). Would you agree with me that whenever this is the case, and you > do know the answer, then you will tell your opponents? > > Why then do you wish to wriggle out of this obligation? > >>> I am astonished to see into what corners you are trying to paint >>> yourself rather than admit that players are entitled to a simple >>> answer >>> when they ask a relevant question. >> >> They will get a simple answer if they ask a relevant question. >> They will >> get no answer if they ask hypothetical questions. > > But they do ask a relevant question. It is only you who make it > into an > irrelevant one by saying that 4NT was not Blackwood. But since (quite > probably) he HAS shown his number of aces, the question is certainly > relevant, not hypothetical. Permit me to nitpick. "Relevant" and "hypothetical" have nothing to do with one another. "Relevant" means pertaining to the subject at hand. "Hypothetical" means requiring a presumption that is either untrue or unknown. A question may be either, neither or both. Examples: Relevant and factual: "What did 5D mean?" Relevant and hypothetical: "What would it have meant if he had bid 5C instead of 5D?" Irrelevant and factual: "What did you have for breakfast this morning?" Irrelevant and hypothetical: "If I were to do what you ask, would you still respect me in the morning?" Could we please continue this discussion in English? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 19:52:23 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:52:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <000101c9224b$5fc2bfe0$1f483fa0$@com> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <747D2B3B-194C-4FA7-B549-C483F730C6DF@starpower.net> <000101c9224b$5fc2bfe0$1f483fa0$@com> Message-ID: <48E115D7.3070801@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > More > strongly, though, I feel that if I am contemplating some dodgy 2S overcall > of Eric's 1NT opening, I am not allowed to ask either opponent "If I > overcall 2S, do you play penalty doubles?" > Why not? Specifically since there is no-one expecting you to have asked that question beforehand (in the Lebanese restaurant or in the club), I feel that you should be allowed to ask the question at that time! I hope you were not talking about the fact that your question would be UI to your partner, I'm certain everyone realizes that. Which of course will mean you won't be asking that question - but I do believe you are entitled to know everything, at every possible time (that you're on call). > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 19:53:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:53:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E0BFC6.2000705@t-online.de> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09978.20702@t-online.de> <48E0B3DD.5030704@skynet.be> <48E0BFC6.2000705@t-online.de> Message-ID: <623B6A50-D8AF-4C16-A1BF-6412CF2C534B@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2008, at 7:45 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> But then you answer 1 key-card. Do you really think I was talking >> to you >> and you alone. You answer whatever your type of Blackwood tells >> you 5Di >> shows. Surely that is not so difficult? > > My Blackwood does not tell how many keycard this shows, as it > depends on > what is trumps. I do not know how many keycards my partner tries to > show, if that is what he is doing. Surely that is not so difficult? Not difficult at all, just not relevant. You have been asked what your agreements are, and you either do or do not tell them what your agreements are. Whether or not your agreements are such that the number of aces a particular reply shows depends on what trumps are doesn't matter; they are still your agreements. >> And what is this about trick questions? There is no trick here. >> You bid >> 4NT, that is explained as Blackwood. He bids 5Di. I ask what it >> shows. >> You tell me 3 or 0 key-cards. No trick questions. > > See above. Shall I reply: 1 or 4 of 5 if clubs are trumps, but 1 or > 4 of > 6 if he thinks I have a two-suiter with diamonds, 0 or 3 of 5 if he > thinks diamonds are trumps, 0 or 3 or 6 of 6 if he thinks it is a > two-suiter with diamonds trumps and hearts or clubs as second suit, > but > not if spades are the second suit, where we have a third scheme? Any > other number if his brain is as undersupplied with oxygen as it > seems to > be at the moment, since he cannot remember that 4NT cannot be > Blackwood > here, ever? You should reply exactly as you would if you had been asked about your agreements regarding Blackwood responses before anyone at the table had picked up their hand. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 20:41:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:41:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E0FE2F.2070204@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <982D45CA-A6D3-41D0-9EF4-841D25D4FF13@starpower.net> <48E0FE2F.2070204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8497614B-00F8-4545-B249-AD6D88CE1296@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I'm sorry to dissapoint you, Eric, but maybe you are not completely > right here: > > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Bob is quite right; this has nothing to do with dWS. Bob tells us >> that "partner describes [4NT] as Blackwood", but that's a red >> herring. Suppose there was no confusion or misunderstanding, that >> 4NT systemically showed both minors, you intended it to show both >> minors, and partner had described it as showing both minors. Would >> the opponents then be entitled to an answer to the questions Bob asks >> about? I'm not sure of the answer, but I'm confident that the answer >> under both sets of circumstances must be the same. > > It may be hard to come up with a valid reason to be asking that > question > at this particular point, so I might side with a director who told me > "stop asking silly questions". However, if a player tells me (as > director) that he has a valid reason for so asking (John described > something like this) I might rule "overruled, but get to > the point quickly" . > > Anyway, Eric, many good points raised here - you're firmly on the > right > track (well, if ever my track can be the right one :) ) If I ask a question that *I* know (or believe) to be "silly" I violate L74B2, and a director may hold me accountable. If, however, my actions at the table might depend on the answer to my question, then *I* don't think it's silly, and the director cannot abrogate my rights (if indeed I have them) just because were he in my situation *his* actions would not depend on the answer. If called to the table by a pair that wished to refuse to reply to your question, I would investigate whether L74B2 was being violated, starting by asking you, "Why do you want to know?" If you produce an answer which I judge to be credible, then I believe the law requires me to find your question to be "not silly". I again refer to my earlier analogy to L20F1-2. The law says you're entitled to a review of the auction any time it is your turn to call or play, but if you exercise that right every time it's your turn to call or play throughout an entire session, you can expect to be thrown out of the game. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Sep 29 21:38:09 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:38:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? Message-ID: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> Aside: BLML at current form is getting marginalized. These discussions are unreadable, and according to me so far away from real life to be totally beside the point. Having said that.... Last weekend in the Dutch semi-top league an interesting situation occurred, which I will explain in full later, but which led to me search in vain for an answer to the question: Which law covers what to do when the auction is incomplete? You all know the standard form, N 1NT, S 3 NT, and without any more passes everybody packs up things and plays. This of course is against the law, but suppose you would get called as a TD what do you do and why? Interestingly enough, an overcomplete auction(bidding on after three passes) *is* covered. I assure you the actual case was much more interesting, but I want you to rack your brains on this one first. Hans van Staveren From henk at ripe.net Mon Sep 29 21:52:12 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:52:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> Message-ID: <48E131EC.5000006@ripe.net> Hans van Staveren wrote: > Last weekend in the Dutch semi-top league an interesting situation occurred, > which I will explain in full later, but which led to me search in vain for > an answer to the question: > > Which law covers what to do when the auction is incomplete? You all know the > standard form, N 1NT, S 3 NT, and without any more passes everybody packs up > things and plays. This of course is against the law, but suppose you would > get called as a TD what do you do and why? Simple: This match was played with screens, the screen (WBF) regulations say that a player who removes his bidding cards from the tray is deemed to have passed. That means that 3NT is passed out and we play 3NT. And without screens: 24B? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Sep 29 21:56:07 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:56:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Which_law_covers_incomplete_auction=3F?= In-Reply-To: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> Message-ID: <1KkOql-21z9GK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: "Hans van Staveren" > Aside: BLML at current form is getting marginalized. These discussions > are unreadable, and according to me so far away from real life to be > totally beside the point. correct :( > Having said that.... > Last weekend in the Dutch semi-top league an interesting situation > occurred, which I will explain in full later, but which led to me > search in vain for an answer to the question: > > Which law covers what to do when the auction is incomplete? You all > know the standard form, N 1NT, S 3 NT, and without any more passes > everybody packs up things and plays. This of course is against the > law, but suppose you would get called as a TD what do you do and why? Ton said - I think more than once - that packing up thinks is deemed to be a pass, if it was meant as a pass. If - on the other hand - the player thought that the bidding was already over, it is not deemed to be a pass. The new WBF screen regs say: "E. A player who removes his bidding cards from the tray is deemed to have passed." Peter > Interestingly enough, an overcomplete auction(bidding on after three > passes) *is* covered. > > I assure you the actual case was much more interesting, but I want you > to rack your brains on this one first. > > Hans van Staveren > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Sep 29 22:25:17 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:25:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> Message-ID: <48E139AD.5010604@skynet.be> Hello Hans, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Aside: BLML at current form is getting marginalized. These discussions are > unreadable, and according to me so far away from real life to be totally > beside the point. Having said that.... > You don't need to read the discussions - and there are others. Let's hope you start something interesting here. > Last weekend in the Dutch semi-top league an interesting situation occurred, > which I will explain in full later, but which led to me search in vain for > an answer to the question: > > Which law covers what to do when the auction is incomplete? You all know the > standard form, N 1NT, S 3 NT, and without any more passes everybody packs up > things and plays. This of course is against the law, but suppose you would > get called as a TD what do you do and why? > > Interestingly enough, an overcomplete auction(bidding on after three passes) > *is* covered. > > I assure you the actual case was much more interesting, but I want you to > rack your brains on this one first. > I would say that if someone leads before there have been three passes, those that haven't passed have a duty to complain, and ask that they be allowed to make a call. If they don't complain, then it seems to me as if they agree to them having "passed". Of course I know where this is heading. This is behind screens, no? West calls, North passes, East passes, South doubles, West takes away his calls - they push it through, and North-East do not realize there is still something there. They take away their calls. NE think they are playing undoubled, SW that it's doubled. However: since South and West are both at fault, I'd let the doubled contract stand. And then East says he wanted to bid on. Yep, the laws do not cover this. Herman. > Hans van Staveren > From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Sep 29 22:25:47 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:25:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <1KkOql-21z9GK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> <1KkOql-21z9GK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <004401c92271$917c48a0$b474d9e0$@nl> [PE] Ton said - I think more than once - that packing up thinks is deemed to be a pass, if it was meant as a pass. If - on the other hand - the player thought that the bidding was already over, it is not deemed to be a pass. The new WBF screen regs say: "E. A player who removes his bidding cards from the tray is deemed to have passed." [HvS] Ton's remarks seem very good, and I'll take them. But still, anybody find an actual law that covers this? However highly I regard Ton, he still ranks slightly below the Law. And 24B is not enough, it silences the leader's partner, but not the opponent. And although this match was indeed played with screens, the non-screen answer would be nice too. Hans From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Sep 29 22:52:51 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:52:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:38:09 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Aside: BLML at current form is getting marginalized. These discussions > are > unreadable, and according to me so far away from real life to be totally > beside the point. Having said that.... > > Last weekend in the Dutch semi-top league an interesting situation > occurred, > which I will explain in full later, but which led to me search in vain > for > an answer to the question: > > Which law covers what to do when the auction is incomplete? You all know > the > standard form, N 1NT, S 3 NT, and without any more passes everybody > packs up > things and plays. This of course is against the law, but suppose you > would > get called as a TD what do you do and why? > > Interestingly enough, an overcomplete auction(bidding on after three > passes) > *is* covered. > > I assure you the actual case was much more interesting, but I want you to > rack your brains on this one first. > > Hans van Staveren neat question. Putting away one's bidding cards is roughly a pass. (The law acknowledges and accepts improper forms of designating a call or play. Other ways of passing include knocking on the table and I thinK saying "bye".) If a player puts away his bidding cards and then changes his mind and wants to make a call, the operative word here is "changes his mind". Too late. The tricky thing is if the players do not put away their bidding boxes in order and one player does not. Then I think you have to consider that the real meaning of putting away the bidding boxes is "I think everyone here is going to pass". If a player might take a call, he does not put away his bidding cards. If he does take a call other than pass, the "bidding-box passes" after the call (in terms of proper bidding order) are negated. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Sep 29 23:04:27 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:04:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> Message-ID: <4AD392DA-3E05-439B-91F8-FE7BC7EDD1EE@starpower.net> On Sep 29, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Aside: BLML at current form is getting marginalized. These > discussions are > unreadable, and according to me so far away from real life to be > totally > beside the point. Having said that.... > > Last weekend in the Dutch semi-top league an interesting situation > occurred, > which I will explain in full later, but which led to me search in > vain for > an answer to the question: > > Which law covers what to do when the auction is incomplete? You all > know the > standard form, N 1NT, S 3 NT, and without any more passes everybody > packs up > things and plays. This of course is against the law, but suppose > you would > get called as a TD what do you do and why? If I was called after the irregular "opening lead" was made face down, i order it retracted and the auction continued to its normal conclusion. If I was called after the card was "led" face up, but there has been no further action, I rule that it is a card exposed during the auction period, and apply L24B. If I was called after someone started to table the dummy, I rule that the attempted "lead" has been accepted per L54C, it has therefore become a face-up lead, which means that the "play period [has begun] irrevocably" [L41C], thus play continues normally from that point. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 29 23:06:56 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:06:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <004401c92271$917c48a0$b474d9e0$@nl> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> <1KkOql-21z9GK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <004401c92271$917c48a0$b474d9e0$@nl> Message-ID: <000301c92277$4ef6cea0$ece46be0$@com> [HvS] And 24B is not enough, it silences the leader's partner, but not the opponent. [DALB] 24B? Had someone actually led something? David Burn London, England From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Sep 29 23:36:31 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:36:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <000301c92277$4ef6cea0$ece46be0$@com> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> <1KkOql-21z9GK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <004401c92271$917c48a0$b474d9e0$@nl> <000301c92277$4ef6cea0$ece46be0$@com> Message-ID: <004501c9227b$70559af0$5100d0d0$@nl> [HvS] And 24B is not enough, it silences the leader's partner, but not the opponent. [DALB] 24B? Had someone actually led something? [HvS] In these sort of situations not only is a card lead, but the whole board is played and a result entered. The trouble could be that someone now can say they did not actually entered a final pass in the auction. And of course, with screens we can become very creative here. Tomorrow evening I will post what actually happened, but is becoming more and more clear that the laws as they stand do not prescribe to the TD what to do with an incomplete auction. That of course means that the TD is free to do whatever he sees to be just. This in general is fine with me... Hans From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 30 00:14:25 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:14:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <48E0FC53.60104@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B76E.9010404@skynet.be> <000801c9222b$bdec06f0$39c414d0$@no> <48E0CC60.5030304@skynet.be> <000901c92236$2e4fa640$8aeef2c0$@no> <48E0FC53.60104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000501c92280$bbbaf580$3330e080$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >>> > >>> This is not a question of balance of probabilities; this is a question > > of > >>> what I believe to be true even after having received UI from partner. > >>> > >> No Sven, what you believe to be true is his explanation. > > > > Herman: You have a very bad habit of telling other people what they think, > > or in other words that they lie when they tell that they actually think > > something else. > > > > Sven, I was the one making up the story, for you to answer. In that > story, I stated that you were 90% certain that partner had given the > right answer, and I asked you what you would do. > > If then you answer that you don't believe that partner was right, then > you are not answering the problem I have posed. > I don't need to be a mind reader, I have told you what you were > believing to start with. > > > I don't think [sic!] that you qualify as a mind reader, and I am not > > impressed. > > > > Since I cannot read your mind, please answer the question then as it is put: > > You are 90% certain your partner gave the right explanation, and yet you > continue to give the wrong (supposedly) explanation. And you don't think > you are giving MI? You are willing to take that risk? On what basis am I 90% certain that partner's explanation is correct? Have I asked ten players of my own approximate quality for their opinions and found that nine out of ten thinks so? No Herman, either I am convinced that I am correct, convinced that my partner is correct or still in doubt. Speaking of probabilities here is meaningless. > You really should try and follow a thread - we're at 3 mails a day as it > is, should not be too difficult to follow a to-and-fro. I can manage it, > surely you can as well. Sure I can if I care, but some threads are IMHO not worthy of the effort. Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 30 00:25:50 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:25:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> Message-ID: <000601c92282$53e85e00$fbb91a00$@no> On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren ............. > Last weekend in the Dutch semi-top league an interesting situation occurred, > which I will explain in full later, but which led to me search in vain for > an answer to the question: > > Which law covers what to do when the auction is incomplete? You all know the > standard form, N 1NT, S 3 NT, and without any more passes everybody packs up > things and plays. This of course is against the law, but suppose you would > get called as a TD what do you do and why? > > Interestingly enough, an overcomplete auction(bidding on after three passes) > *is* covered. > > I assure you the actual case was much more interesting, but I want you to > rack your brains on this one first. If "everybody" agrees that the auction has been completed, that is with three (implied) passes in a row after the last bid (or in case double or redouble) then I see no problem at all. So the problem exists if (at least) one player objects and says he hasn't made his call yet. In that case, if any card on that deal has been "exposed" by any player the applicable law is Law 24. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 30 02:28:54 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:28:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] "they have no claim to an accurate description of theNorth-South hands" References: <2b1e598b0809281951w4850062ficbc9bcc1cf02097@mail.gmail.com> <1DCF9047-F617-4C57-A6C0-6B395AFA67B0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003e01c92294$e958b9a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" On Sep 28, 2008, at 10:51 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Law 75C contains this: > > "The partnership agreement is as explained ? 2? 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." > > It seems to me that Law 75C's only purpose is to explain how to > determine damage when there is a misbid. But on BLML, the slogan "they > have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands" has > been invoked for many other situations. > > What is the meaning of "they have no claim to an accurate description > of the North-South hands"? I seriously want to know. I hope that > those who consider it obvious will be able to help without too much > bother. I don't imagine that this a deep question, but I hope that > someone can enlighten me. > > Perhaps it is one or more of these: > > 1. Is it supposed to allow bidding mistakes? Yes. > 2. Is it supposed to allow a pair to hide aspects of their system > that in mishaps can become valuable knowledge to their opponents? No. > 3. Is it an oblique anti-dWS reference? Could be taken, although unlikely to have been intended, as such. > 4. Is it supposed to reassure a player to keep explaining the > partnership understandings even when his hand tells him that his > partner does not have his bid? Yes. > 5. Suppose your understanding of your partner's history and > tendencies, combined with the auction (but not your hand), makes it > clear the kind of hand your partner is trying to convey; in this case, > are you allowed to hide this information if it happens that your > partner has bid outside of your system notes? No. > 6. Is it supposed to remind you to describe what calls show, and not > to use phrases such as "he has..."? Yes. > Several of the above? Something different? In context, it appears to have been put there to clarify #4. > Also, should the phrase be limited to apply only to the narrow purpose > of Law 75C, or is valid to extend it to other purposes? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net +=+ The phrase first appeared in the 1975 Law Book and was accompanied then as now by the injunction forbidding the director to alter the table result. (Butler, Harding, Kaplan, Sheinwold, Okie, Mizroch, Cabanne, de Miranda Jordao, Littman-Le Maitre, Mazzacara, Rozenkrantz, please stand up and be counted.) It was entered primarily, I would say, to establish beyond doubt that the partnership agreement must be described accurately to opponent in response to his enquiry and that the explanation given *must not* aim to describe instead what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It was in those terms that we continued it in the 1987 law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether they thought the example or the wording should be refreshed and among replies received there was general consensus in favour of retaining it as it had been previously. To repeat something I have said previously, the Law does not concern itself with why or why not. It simply requires that in reply to opponent's enquiry he shall be given a correct explanation of the partnership understanding, the partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call. If opponents have been given that explanation there is no infraction. If they have not been given that explanation, there is an infraction whatever may be the reason for the failure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 30 02:38:20 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:38:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> <1KkOql-21z9GK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <004401c92271$917c48a0$b474d9e0$@nl><000301c92277$4ef6cea0$ece46be0$@com> <004501c9227b$70559af0$5100d0d0$@nl> Message-ID: <003f01c92294$e9b817b0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? > [HvS] > > And 24B is not enough, it silences the leader's partner, but not the > opponent. > > [DALB] > > 24B? Had someone actually led something? > > [HvS] > > In these sort of situations not only is a card lead, but the whole board > is > played and a result entered. The trouble could be that someone now can say > they did not actually entered a final pass in the auction. And of course, > with screens we can become very creative here. > > Tomorrow evening I will post what actually happened, but is becoming more > and more clear that the laws as they stand do not prescribe to the TD what > to do with an incomplete auction. That of course means that the TD is free > to do whatever he sees to be just. This in general is fine with me... > > Hans > +=+ I would always wish to know what the relevant bidding box regulations say on this question. I note for example that the WBF bidding box regulations applicable in play without screens say that "if a player whose pass will conclude the auction removes his bidding cards he is deemed to have passed". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 03:15:27 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:15:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <000501c92280$bbbaf580$3330e080$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B76E.9010404@skynet.be> <000801c9222b$bdec06f0$39c414d0$@no> <48E0CC60.5030304@skynet.be> <000901c92236$2e4fa640$8aeef2c0$@no> <48E0FC53.60104@skynet.be> <000501c92280$bbbaf580$3330e080$@no> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0809291815i17a0d31aka40076c34d340b8c@mail.gmail.com> [Sven Pran] On what basis am I 90% certain that partner's explanation is correct? Have I asked ten players of my own approximate quality for their opinions and found that nine out of ten thinks so? No Herman, either I am convinced that I am correct, convinced that my partner is correct or still in doubt. Speaking of probabilities here is meaningless. [Jerry Fusselman] There are so many problems with that position. I will try to list some: 1. No director is going to ask you to prove your subjective probability. (At least I hope no directors stray that far from the law book.) As a player, you do the best the you can to describe your understandings, and if it turns out you were wrong, the director deals with it. When he deals with it, there no exercise to go through with peers. Nowhere in the law book is any exercise with peers described for helping you get your explanations to the opponents correct. 2. You refuse to hypothesize a 90% certainty, apparently on the grounds that there is no such thing as subjective probability. I don't think you understand subjective probability at all. Sorry. Would you be willing to read the wikipedia article on the subject? No? Well, I will give some hints below to help you, and other BLMLers with a similar viewpoint, see how subjective probability works. 3. You argue that this kind of uncertainty can never be quantified. And in the same paragraph you argue that you *can* sometimes determine with perfect certainty which of two possibilities is true. If you cannot have any idea whatsoever whether a subjective probability is large or small, how can you possibly know with *certainty* that something is true or false? This characterization of perfect knowledge in some cases and no knowledge in *all* other cases is not tenable. It is nonsense to say that the only possibilities are perfect knowledge and no knowledge whatsoever. 4. Without subjective probability, you cannot play a decent game of bridge. Suppose that you are considering a possibly play for an overtrick that it will work unless E has the following killing defense: He has the queen of hearts and he will immediately shift to clubs. Now, anyone who thinks subjective probability is pure nonsense must be stuck. The problem is not solvable. But a good bridge player does better than always flipping a coin in such situations. If the probability of the killing defense is sufficiently low, you try for the overtrick. If it is sufficiently high, you don't. Any decent bridge player can handle the situation, and his inability to define a mathematically precise estimate of the probability does not prevent him from taking reasonable action. Subjective probability may not be provable, but that does not matter. You do the best you can. 5. It is nonsense to claim that you are absolutely certain, unless you are not a mortal. And even if you considered your mind and memory to be perfect, what you think your partnership agreements are will not necessary match what the director decides, and his opinion trumps yours. So, even if you are perfect, you can never be sure what your partnership understandings are (as defined in the laws). 6. Before I walk two blocks to the convenience store tonight at midnight (in Chicago), can I estimate the probability I will be shot dead on the trip? Sure. I don't claim that my number is perfect, but neither I nor other people I see out there would take such a trip if we thought or felt that the probability of being shot dead was 90%. You see, 0.0001% is a much better estimate. We take actions in our lives all of the time that are consistent with decent estimates of subjective probabilities. Any notion that just because my estimate is imperfect, there I can have no sensible estimate whatsoever is a mistake. 7. Or another example. What do you suppose is the probability that I have played piano? I will give you a hint: I have played organ and harpsichord, and I have composed music. Paraphrasing Sven, "either he knows for a fact that I have played piano, or he knows for a fact that I have not, or he is still in doubt. Speaking of probabilities here is meaningless." But I think if you believe I am honest, then you are likely to come up with a subjective probability considerably greater than 50%. It is not meaningless, though it is not exact. No one said it had to be exact. 8. The classic way to get started understanding subjective probability is this: Which lottery ticket would you rather have: The one that pays $1000000 if your understanding is accurate, or the one that pays $1000000 if your partner's understanding is accurate? Your answer to that question reveals whether your subjective probability is greater or less than 50%. 9. I doubt that Grattan would advise choosing the explanation that you are 90% sure is false over choosing the one that you are 10% sure is false. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 30 04:34:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:34:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] Except for all the others [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1KkOql-21z9GK0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >>>Aside: BLML at current form is getting marginalized. These >>>discussions are unreadable, and according to me so far >>>away from real life to be totally beside the point. [snip] David Stevenson, blml posting 7th September 2005: >>I find this forum has gone doo-lally. If you post a simple >>situation, people look for the traps and assume you mean >>other than what you say. >> >>When you have a simple concept like the difference between >>normal and irrational, people produce totally illogical >>arguments about hands that are neither or both, and have >>spent quite literally 1000s of posts saying damn-all >>useful. [big snip] >>and IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help in >>rulings - as against arguing about how many angels dance on >>the head of a pin. Grattan Endicott, blml posting 7th September 2005: >+=+ I did read this statement with interest: >"IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help in rulings" >and I wondered whether perfection lay in the lack of >challenge to questionable guidance. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Yes, I agree that blml is the worst form of bridge laws mailing list, except for all the others. For example, on a New Zealand bridge laws mailing list, a poster was not contradicted when he argued that Law 12C1(d): "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score." meant that, if it was disputed whether a slam made or was one off, then the possibilities were not obvious, permitting an artificial adjusted score midway between slam making and slam one off. Had that New Zealander posted on blml, he would have been quickly told about the correct and relevant Law, Law 66D: "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 30 05:59:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:59:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Lurker at the Threshold (was ?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48E094E9.3070003@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: >the argument is that senior directors have had lots of >communication on that subject, so they usually share a >point of view. If they don't they say so, see some >disagreements between Grattan, Ton, Kojak, some others >joining in from time to time. Richard Hills: Still an invalid argument. Communicating senior TDs interpreting Law 77 to deem reciprocal scores, and Paul Hauff interpreting Law 77 to deem non-reciprocal scores have equal judicial power outside a tournament - zero power. Judicial power is hierarchically vested in the WBF Laws Committee, then Zonal Laws Committees, then Regulating Authorities. Of course, during a tournament the Director in charge has Law 81C2 power to interpret Law 77 if required (provided there is not any pre-existing formal guidance from a relevant higher authority). And if a novice Director in charge is uncertain how to interpret Law 77, as a practical matter that novice would be well-advised to adopt the traditional view. The tricky point of meta-Law is whether Hauff's view of Law 77 is so manifestly absurd that a Law 81C2 ruling is not required. As similar "manifestly absurd" claim could be made about the Kiwi TD who used Law 12C1(d) when instead Law 66D was correct (see the parallel "Except for all the others" thread). 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 Sep 30 06:48:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:48:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c9221f$cd269c40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Robert Park >I don't understand. If South held no top honor in spades, >would you have South make the same statement? Richard Hills: Yes and no. Either South has a _pre-existing_ implicit mutual partnership understanding (that North probably forgets a new convention the first time it is used) or South does not. South should ignore her cards when describing her pre-existing explicit and implicit mutual partnership understandings, since mutual understandings are not legally created during the auction and play (Law 16A1(d)). Robert Park: >If not, then why should he make that statement now, when >doing so must clearly reveal that he has a top spade... >something opponents are not entitled to know? Richard Hills: If I was South, my explanations would never clearly reveal anything about my hand. I explain pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understandings, even when the cards in my own hand tell me that partner has erred in applying our Symmetric Relay methods (system notes emailed on request). Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 30 07:34:29 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:34:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <000501c92280$bbbaf580$3330e080$@no> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000401c9215b$4f6c06b0$ee441410$@no> <001101c92167$5b7a7570$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFA032.5000401@skynet.be> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B76E.9010404@skynet.be> <000801c9222b$bdec06f0$39c414d0$@no> <48E0CC60.5030304@skynet.be> <000901c92236$2e4fa640$8aeef2c0$@no> <48E0FC53.60104@skynet.be> <000501c92280$bbbaf580$3330e080$@no> Message-ID: <48E1BA65.2090109@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >> Sven, I was the one making up the story, for you to answer. In that >> story, I stated that you were 90% certain that partner had given the >> right answer, and I asked you what you would do. >> >> If then you answer that you don't believe that partner was right, then >> you are not answering the problem I have posed. >> I don't need to be a mind reader, I have told you what you were >> believing to start with. >> >>> I don't think [sic!] that you qualify as a mind reader, and I am not >>> impressed. >>> >> Since I cannot read your mind, please answer the question then as it is > put: >> You are 90% certain your partner gave the right explanation, and yet you >> continue to give the wrong (supposedly) explanation. And you don't think >> you are giving MI? You are willing to take that risk? > > On what basis am I 90% certain that partner's explanation is correct? Well, whenever you are uncertain of something, there is some process in your mind that lets you decide which of the two things you think are more likely. That is what I mean. If that concept is strange to you, then I don't know how to explain it. You must be a very special person then. > Have I asked ten players of my own approximate quality for their opinions > and found that nine out of ten thinks so? > No, you yourself think so, with a degree of certainty that I have called 90%. I don't know how many degrees you yourself can distinguish between 50% (no idea if it's A or B) and 100% (fully certain that it's B), but there must at least be one degree in between (more certain of it being B than A). > No Herman, either I am convinced that I am correct, convinced that my > partner is correct or still in doubt. Speaking of probabilities here is > meaningless. > There are however many levels of doubt. You can be almost certain of A (10%), pretty certain of A (30%), have no idea (50%) and the same towards B. >> You really should try and follow a thread - we're at 3 mails a day as it >> is, should not be too difficult to follow a to-and-fro. I can manage it, >> surely you can as well. > > Sure I can if I care, but some threads are IMHO not worthy of the effort. > Then why do you answer to them? > Sven > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Sep 30 07:37:52 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:37:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] using information from partner's explanation In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0809291815i17a0d31aka40076c34d340b8c@mail.gmail.com> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <000801c921b1$ba9896a0$2fc9c3e0$@no> <2b1e598b0809282048u3a8de5e4p98f76804a01cad53@mail.gmail.com> <000701c92211$a45f30a0$ed1d91e0$@no> <48E0B76E.9010404@skynet.be> <000801c9222b$bdec06f0$39c414d0$@no> <48E0CC60.5030304@skynet.be> <000901c92236$2e4fa640$8aeef2c0$@no> <48E0FC53.60104@skynet.be> <000501c92280$bbbaf580$3330e080$@no> <2b1e598b0809291815i17a0d31aka40076c34d340b8c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48E1BB30.5070503@skynet.be> Well done, Jerry. Sadly most people are out of this thread by now, and my telling that your post is worth while reading will not convince them to read it after all. Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Sven Pran] > > On what basis am I 90% certain that partner's explanation is correct? > Have I asked ten players of my own approximate quality for their opinions > and found that nine out of ten thinks so? > > No Herman, either I am convinced that I am correct, convinced that my > partner is correct or still in doubt. Speaking of probabilities here is > meaningless. > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > There are so many problems with that position. I will try to list some: > > 1. No director is going to ask you to prove your subjective > probability. (At least I hope no directors stray that far from the > law book.) As a player, you do the best the you can to describe your > understandings, and if it turns out you were wrong, the director deals > with it. When he deals with it, there no exercise to go through with > peers. Nowhere in the law book is any exercise with peers described > for helping you get your explanations to the opponents correct. > > 2. You refuse to hypothesize a 90% certainty, apparently on the > grounds that there is no such thing as subjective probability. I > don't think you understand subjective probability at all. Sorry. > Would you be willing to read the wikipedia article on the subject? > No? Well, I will give some hints below to help you, and other BLMLers > with a similar viewpoint, see how subjective probability works. > > 3. You argue that this kind of uncertainty can never be quantified. > And in the same paragraph you argue that you *can* sometimes determine > with perfect certainty which of two possibilities is true. If you > cannot have any idea whatsoever whether a subjective probability is > large or small, how can you possibly know with *certainty* that > something is true or false? This characterization of perfect > knowledge in some cases and no knowledge in *all* other cases is not > tenable. It is nonsense to say that the only possibilities are > perfect knowledge and no knowledge whatsoever. > > 4. Without subjective probability, you cannot play a decent game of > bridge. Suppose that you are considering a possibly play for an > overtrick that it will work unless E has the following killing > defense: He has the queen of hearts and he will immediately shift to > clubs. Now, anyone who thinks subjective probability is pure nonsense > must be stuck. The problem is not solvable. But a good bridge player > does better than always flipping a coin in such situations. If the > probability of the killing defense is sufficiently low, you try for > the overtrick. If it is sufficiently high, you don't. Any decent > bridge player can handle the situation, and his inability to define a > mathematically precise estimate of the probability does not prevent > him from taking reasonable action. Subjective probability may not be > provable, but that does not matter. You do the best you can. > > 5. It is nonsense to claim that you are absolutely certain, unless > you are not a mortal. And even if you considered your mind and memory > to be perfect, what you think your partnership agreements are will not > necessary match what the director decides, and his opinion trumps > yours. So, even if you are perfect, you can never be sure what your > partnership understandings are (as defined in the laws). > > 6. Before I walk two blocks to the convenience store tonight at > midnight (in Chicago), can I estimate the probability I will be shot > dead on the trip? Sure. I don't claim that my number is perfect, but > neither I nor other people I see out there would take such a trip if > we thought or felt that the probability of being shot dead was 90%. > You see, 0.0001% is a much better estimate. We take actions in our > lives all of the time that are consistent with decent estimates of > subjective probabilities. Any notion that just because my estimate is > imperfect, there I can have no sensible estimate whatsoever is a > mistake. > > 7. Or another example. What do you suppose is the probability that I > have played piano? I will give you a hint: I have played organ and > harpsichord, and I have composed music. Paraphrasing Sven, "either he > knows for a fact that I have played piano, or he knows for a fact that > I have not, or he is still in doubt. Speaking of probabilities here is > meaningless." But I think if you believe I am honest, then you are > likely to come up with a subjective probability considerably greater > than 50%. It is not meaningless, though it is not exact. No one said > it had to be exact. > > 8. The classic way to get started understanding subjective > probability is this: Which lottery ticket would you rather have: The > one that pays $1000000 if your understanding is accurate, or the one > that pays $1000000 if your partner's understanding is accurate? Your > answer to that question reveals whether your subjective probability is > greater or less than 50%. > > 9. I doubt that Grattan would advise choosing the explanation that > you are 90% sure is false over choosing the one that you are 10% sure > is false. > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 30 08:26:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:26:29 +1000 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4AD392DA-3E05-439B-91F8-FE7BC7EDD1EE@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: >If I was called after the irregular "opening lead" was made >face down, I order it retracted and the auction continued >to its normal conclusion. Richard Hills concurs: Correct. Eric Landau asserted: >If I was called after the card was "led" face up, but there >has been no further action, I rule that it is a card exposed >during the auction period, and apply L24B. Richard Hills concurs: Correct. Eric Landau asserted: >If I was called after someone started to table the dummy, I >rule that the attempted "lead" has been accepted per L54C, it >has therefore become a face-up lead, which means that the >"play period [has begun] irrevocably" [L41C], thus play >continues normally from that point. Richard Hills quibbles: Incorrect. A card exposed during the auction is not a faced opening lead out of turn, so Law 54C does not apply. Rather, it is merely an attempt to make an opening lead, a.k.a. a card prematurely led, the phraseology used in Law 24B. Neither has dummy been determined in an incomplete auction, so the person who incorrectly believes that they are dummy, and tabled their hand, have 13 cards exposed during the auction, thus Law 24C applies: "If two or more cards are so exposed offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side)." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Sep 30 08:53:55 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:53:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <48E09D6B.4030407@skynet.be> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09D6B.4030407@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 29/09/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >> > >>> Well, I have not Blackwood in that position, ever. So what do I answer? > >> But that is not the same thing - you do play Blackwood, with this > >> partner, in this partnership, during this tournament. And you know what > >> answers you use. And yet you refuse to tell this. > > > > I'd tell the opps that we don't play BW in this posittion and that > > when 4NT is BW 5D would show 1 or 4 keycards wen clubs is trumps, 0 or > > 3 keycards if some other suit is trumps and 1 of 4 aces in situations > > where we ask for aces only. I don't think (actually, I'm pretty sure) > > they're entitled to this information regarding BW, but I'll volunteer > > that information anyway. (Maybe the unthinkable happened and I've got > > the system wrong! lol) > > > > Harald, that is precisely what I was saying. > Now, you would probably also add how you decide what is trumps, and you > may even apply that and just give the single Blackwood if it is clear > what your partner thought was trumps. > And if you had agreed a simpler (and IMO much better (*)) form of > Blackwood you would explain the single answer, ok? > > So the answer Harald gives is: "Yes, I would explain it, but I don't > think opponents are entitled to it". If that is not an answer destined > to keep me from having arguments in favour of dWS, then I don't know > what is. > > (*) I have never understood the kind of Blackwood Harald is explaining > here - 1430 is precisely meant to be useful when clubs are trumps, so > why in heaven's name would you want to discard it then - or, to put in > reverse, why would you be wanting to play 1430 if diamonds are trumps - > what's the utility? Herman, the idea behind 1430 responses is to have more avaiable bidding room when you need it most. Experience shows that this is more wanted after a 1 (or 4) KC replay than after a 0 (or 3) reply. Thus the original 5C and 5D responses switched. This is the case when a major suit is trumps, you'll have more room to ask for the trump queen or other controls. When diamonds are trumps it doesnt't matter much, except that I use 5D as trump queen ask when partner shows 4 KCs. With clubs trumps it's no good to have 5C show 1 KC if that's what you need for slam. When partner replies 5D showing 0, you're too high. Of course that's happening very seldom, since you normally will know that partner holds at least 1 KC, but you'll be surprised on occasion. If you really want to give yourself more space after asking for KCs you should use kickback or some other KC asking mechanism, not RKCB. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 30 09:31:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:31:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It was the Goulash Butler Pairs Night at the Unicorn's Bridge Club. The traditional partners Hideous Hog and Rueful Rabbit met their traditional rivals Karapet the Unlucky and Papa the Greek on this board: Dlr: North Vul: Both R.R. --- AKQJT98765432 --- Karapet --- Papa KQJT8642 A --- --- AKQJ9 864 --- H.H. AKQJT8642 9753 --- T7532 9753 R.R. decided to try the triple-bluff opening bid of 7H. Papa doubled in tempo, H.H. passed and Karapet, thinking that the curse of the Witch of Ararat had finally ceased, bid 7S. The Rabbit and Papa now passed. Both Karapet and Papa were eager to see how good a contract 7S was, so exchanged hands. At this stage the Hog called the Director. The Director ruled that because the auction was not over, Law 24 meant that East-West had 26 exposed cards during the auction. "A mere technicality," smirked Papa, "since Karapet is about to declare 7S". But now the Hog unveiled his masterstroke by overcalling 7NT on his pointless hand. Neither Karapet nor Papa were permitted to double this contract (Law 24C), but worse news was to come. With 26 penalty cards, the Hog employed this triple dummy line: 1 D9 - HA - D8 - DT 2 C9 - DA - HK - C8 3 C7 - DK - HQ - C6 4 C5 - DQ - HJ - C4 5 C3 - DJ - HT - C2 6 D7 - SK - H9 - D6 7 D5 - SQ - H8 - D4 8 D3 - SJ - H7 - SA 9 D2 - ST - H6 - CA 10 S9 - S8 - H5 - CK 11 S7 - S6 - H4 - CQ 12 S5 - S4 - H3 - CJ 13 S3 - S2 - H2 - CT +2220 to H.H. despite zero hcp and no entry to R.R.'s dummy. 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 henk at ripe.net Tue Sep 30 09:48:09 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:48:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E1D9B9.1020304@ripe.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > +2220 to H.H. despite zero hcp and no entry to R.R.'s dummy. I'd use law 23 and award an AS of 7NTx making 7. Papa knows quite well that whatever happens, something will go horribly wrong for the Karapet. Forcing him to pass will most likely reduce the damage for EW. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 30 11:18:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:18:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: <982D45CA-A6D3-41D0-9EF4-841D25D4FF13@starpower.net> References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <004301c91edb$3a15fb40$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB4226.2050707@skynet.be> <002a01c91eee$a1a3b500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DB835D.2060802@skynet.be> <000001c91f20$4fdbcff0$ef936fd0$@com> <48DBB802.8060300@skynet.be> <48DCAA12.704@ulb.ac.be> <000401c91ff4$00685a90$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DDE859.1060307@skynet.be> <001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <982D45CA-A6D3-41D0-9EF4-841D25D4FF13@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48E1EECE.9060809@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Bob is quite right; this has nothing to do with dWS. Bob tells us > that "partner describes [4NT] as Blackwood", but that's a red > herring. Suppose there was no confusion or misunderstanding, that > 4NT systemically showed both minors, you intended it to show both > minors, and partner had described it as showing both minors. Would > the opponents then be entitled to an answer to the questions Bob asks > about? I'm not sure of the answer, but I'm confident that the answer > under both sets of circumstances must be the same. > AG : then it's a firm no. It is explicitly said that questions can include bids that could have been made in lieu of the actual bid; but weren't. If it also included bids that could have been made in other circumstances, that would have been said, so the answers to both questions (what if 4NT was BW ? what if partner had opened 1S ?) aren't available. And that's fair, too, because if you could be asked to explain your umpteen pages of agreements at any time, other problems would arise. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 30 11:43:17 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:43:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <48E139AD.5010604@skynet.be> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> <48E139AD.5010604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E1F4B5.7030200@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > I would say that if someone leads before there have been three passes, > those that haven't passed have a duty to complain, and ask that they be > allowed to make a call. > Don't forget that this, and the act of picking up one's cards, assuming that everybody will pass, are within the scope of UI regulations. Before bidding is completed, telling you expect it to end is UI. For example, in the 1NT-3NT case, if opening leader picks one's cards, it could mean 'I don't need any lead-directing double, I know what to do'. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 30 11:46:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:46:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> Message-ID: <48E1F574.9080303@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > Putting away one's bidding cards is roughly a pass. (The > law acknowledges and accepts improper forms of designating a call or play. > Other ways of passing include knocking on the table and I thinK saying > "bye".) > AG : I would also accept : "your lead" or a gesture to that efect, when it is. From Gampas at aol.com Tue Sep 30 12:36:13 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:36:13 EDT Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 30/09/2008 08:48:46 GMT Standard Time, henk at ripe.net writes: Papa knows quite well that whatever happens, something will go horribly wrong for the Karapet. Forcing him to pass will most likely reduce the damage for EW. [paul lamford] I think the meaning of "could have known that an infraction was to one's advantage" is being stretched a bit far here. But if you so rule, then surely you must give a weighted score which is a mixture of 7NT xx and 7NT x? The 26 penalty cards are placed face up during the auction, so the weighting, for someone of the Hog's ability, must surely be 100% of 7NTxx. However, if you think that, without the infraction, the Hog would have doubled 7S, and Karapet would have bid 7NT and then redoubled, he would indeed be better off defending 7NT xx by North-South, as 7NT xx by East-West fails by 13 tricks. So perhaps you should have some weighting of -3800 too. Even in this case: _http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/telltale.htm_ (http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/telltale.htm) , the director did not impose a double of Six Spades on the hapless opponents. But had he done so, then the redouble is surely automatic. From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Sep 30 13:49:30 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:49:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <48E1F574.9080303@ulb.ac.be> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> <48E1F574.9080303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <006a01c922f2$9e2cdca0$da8695e0$@nl> Ok, so what is the real story? At a certain point in the bidding, with NS bidding and EW silent the North player bid 3S(max with 3S) which was GF in their methods. The tray went to the other side and returned empty. NE discussed this strange event at their side of the table only. South played a spade contract, making 10 tricks, and N entered 3S+1 in the Bridgemate, East agreeing. On the way back home in the car NS discussed this board, North registering surprise at the pass in the forcing auction. South was furious, since he had bid and made 4S. Using Bridgemates the teams do not have to compare and hand in a result, we use the other way(we compute, the players check, next day OK) The next morning the director was called. In our regulations for such weekends this is within the 79C period. There are at least two possibilities: 1) South bid 4S, but due to some mixup the tray was never sent back to the other side. So SW played 4S, NE played 3S. As it happens this is a simple board, where a spade contract will make 10 tricks, and there is no chance of the bidding going other than pass, pass, pass after the 4S. It was clear to both players at the SW side that 4S in principle ended the auction, so such a mixup is definitely possible. 2) South was confused and forgot to bid 4S, 3S being played at both side of the screen. Also clearly possible. We asked the W player whether he agreed that S had indeed bid 4S. West said he did not remember, so neither a yes nor a no. Now in my opinion, if the 4S call has actually been made, we are in a situation where the laws are silent, and the TD has to make an adjusted score. I could not think of any more reasonable score than 4S making in that case. But the facts were not agreed upon, S claiming to have bid 4S, and W neither agreeing, nor disagreeing. In my opinion I had to choose between the two possibilities listed above, both strange. In the end I decided that the balance of probabilities was with the 4S call having been made, so I adjusted the score to 4S making. You will not be surprised that this is currently in appeal. Hans From svenpran at online.no Tue Sep 30 15:17:42 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:17:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <006a01c922f2$9e2cdca0$da8695e0$@nl> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> <48E1F574.9080303@ulb.ac.be> <006a01c922f2$9e2cdca0$da8695e0$@nl> Message-ID: <001501c922fe$eb941d80$c2bc5880$@no> On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren > > Ok, so what is the real story? > > At a certain point in the bidding, with NS bidding and EW silent the North > player bid 3S(max with 3S) which was GF in their methods. The tray went to > the other side and returned empty. NE discussed this strange event at their > side of the table only. South played a spade contract, making 10 tricks, and > N entered 3S+1 in the Bridgemate, East agreeing. On the way back home in the > car NS discussed this board, North registering surprise at the pass in the > forcing auction. South was furious, since he had bid and made 4S. > > Using Bridgemates the teams do not have to compare and hand in a result, we > use the other way(we compute, the players check, next day OK) > The next morning the director was called. In our regulations for such > weekends this is within the 79C period. > > There are at least two possibilities: > 1) South bid 4S, but due to some mixup the tray was never sent back to the > other side. So SW played 4S, NE played 3S. As it happens this is a simple > board, where a spade contract will make 10 tricks, and there is no chance of > the bidding going other than pass, pass, pass after the 4S. It was clear to > both players at the SW side that 4S in principle ended the auction, so such > a mixup is definitely possible. > 2) South was confused and forgot to bid 4S, 3S being played at both side of > the screen. Also clearly possible. > > We asked the W player whether he agreed that S had indeed bid 4S. West said > he did not remember, so neither a yes nor a no. > > Now in my opinion, if the 4S call has actually been made, we are in a > situation where the laws are silent, and the TD has to make an adjusted > score. I could not think of any more reasonable score than 4S making in that > case. > > But the facts were not agreed upon, S claiming to have bid 4S, and W neither > agreeing, nor disagreeing. > > In my opinion I had to choose between the two possibilities listed above, > both strange. In the end I decided that the balance of probabilities was > with the 4S call having been made, so I adjusted the score to 4S making. You > will not be surprised that this is currently in appeal. > > Hans My first reaction is that both North and East are to blame. Why didn't they call the director when they were deprived of their calls? Second: Which player on the South/West side of the screen is responsible (according to regulations in force) for passing the tray to the other side? This player is apparently to blame for not doing his duty? No, I don't agree that the laws are silent on this matter. In fact I think that this is a matter of regulation, not of law. Then to the question of ruling a result on the board: The director must establish facts according to Law 85 and rule accordingly. I see no foundation here for choosing between that South passed (probably by mistake) or bid 4S so I cannot offer any opinion. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 30 15:25:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:25:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning In-Reply-To: References: <000101c91ea5$bb513bb0$31f3b310$@com> <48DF537A.70703@skynet.be> <000501c92165$2690d810$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48DFC953.9030602@t-online.de> <48DFDB79.6090901@skynet.be> <48E008BA.1070506@t-online.de> <48E086B8.5020608@skynet.be> <48E09D6B.4030407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8F8D2EC5-0497-4B57-BAD1-173422EFFBA6@starpower.net> On Sep 30, 2008, at 2:53 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Herman, the idea behind 1430 responses is to have more avaiable > bidding room when you need it most. Experience shows that this is more > wanted after a 1 (or 4) KC replay than after a 0 (or 3) reply. Thus > the original 5C and 5D responses switched. > > This is the case when a major suit is trumps, you'll have more room to > ask for the trump queen or other controls. When diamonds are trumps it > doesnt't matter much, except that I use 5D as trump queen ask when > partner shows 4 KCs. > > With clubs trumps it's no good to have 5C show 1 KC if that's what you > need for slam. When partner replies 5D showing 0, you're too high. Of > course that's happening very seldom, since you normally will know that > partner holds at least 1 KC, but you'll be surprised on occasion. If > you really want to give yourself more space after asking for KCs you > should use kickback or some other KC asking mechanism, not RKCB. Most pairs don't have such elaborate methods. They will often find themselves in slam-try auctions where one would like to know how many aces his partner has, but cannot afford to ask, as an unfortunate reply might force the auction to a slam off two aces (or keycards). Which provides a perfectly good "bridge reason" why their opponents might want to know what their Blackwood responses are, notwithstanding that Blackwood has not actually been used in the auction (or mentioned during a disclosure mix-up). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From henk at ripe.net Tue Sep 30 15:45:50 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:45:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <001501c922fe$eb941d80$c2bc5880$@no> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> <48E1F574.9080303@ulb.ac.be> <006a01c922f2$9e2cdca0$da8695e0$@nl> <001501c922fe$eb941d80$c2bc5880$@no> Message-ID: <48E22D8E.9010406@ripe.net> Sven Pran wrote: > My first reaction is that both North and East are to blame. Why didn't they > call the director when they were deprived of their calls? Well, the auction went West North East South ... ... ... ... ... 3 S Pass North now passed the tray to SW and it come back empty (that is with no bidding cards from SW). The local habit is that when a bid is passed out, the players on that side of the screen remove their bidding cards from the tray before returning it to the other side. To NE it must have looked as 3S was passed out. The auction is then over, so they haven't missed a chance to bid. (Yes, this habit isn't exactly following the laws and regulations, but it is what players do.) > > Second: Which player on the South/West side of the screen is responsible > (according to regulations in force) for passing the tray to the other side? > This player is apparently to blame for not doing his duty? South. And this suggests to me that 3S was, in fact, passed out. South puts down a pass card, wests passed too, SW pick up their bidding cards and south returned the tray. I don't think this is a very strong argument though and I'd certainly accept if the TD ruled differently. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Sep 30 15:47:10 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:47:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <001501c922fe$eb941d80$c2bc5880$@no> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> <48E1F574.9080303@ulb.ac.be> <006a01c922f2$9e2cdca0$da8695e0$@nl> <001501c922fe$eb941d80$c2bc5880$@no> Message-ID: <009601c92303$0df824d0$29e86e70$@nl> [SP] My first reaction is that both North and East are to blame. Why didn't they call the director when they were deprived of their calls? Second: Which player on the South/West side of the screen is responsible (according to regulations in force) for passing the tray to the other side? This player is apparently to blame for not doing his duty? No, I don't agree that the laws are silent on this matter. In fact I think that this is a matter of regulation, not of law. Then to the question of ruling a result on the board: The director must establish facts according to Law 85 and rule accordingly. I see no foundation here for choosing between that South passed (probably by mistake) or bid 4S so I cannot offer any opinion. Regards Sven [HvS] Unfortunately it is considered "normal" that players clean up the tray at the end of the bidding, so NE just assumed it went pass-pass at the other side. South is responsible for moving the tray, although of course West should prevent mishaps happening. If South had indeed bid 4S, and West passed, South should have moved the tray, and West should have prevented cleaning up their bidding-cards. South getting more blame than West. Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 30 16:12:12 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:12:12 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <006a01c922f2$9e2cdca0$da8695e0$@nl> References: <004301c9226a$e762cf20$b6286d60$@nl> <48E1F574.9080303@ulb.ac.be> <006a01c922f2$9e2cdca0$da8695e0$@nl> Message-ID: <48E233BC.4050000@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > > In my opinion I had to choose between the two possibilities listed above, > both strange. In the end I decided that the balance of probabilities was > with the 4S call having been made, so I adjusted the score to 4S making. You > will not be surprised that this is currently in appeal. > AG : Sorry, but I am surprised. Your job, as a TD, is to ascertain the facts, using every possible relevant information, and if needed deciding on the balance of probability. You did. This decision is *not* subject to appeal uness I'm badly wrong. BTW, I aprrove of your decision. A manipulation error is indeed the most plausible explanation. (hey, that's a good case for exclaiming out loud "why on Earth did you pass ?") Best regards Alain From bobpark at connecttime.net Tue Sep 30 15:06:05 2008 From: bobpark at connecttime.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:06:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E2243D.40508@connecttime.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert Park > > >> I don't understand. If South held no top honor in spades, >> would you have South make the same statement? >> > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and no. > > Either South has a _pre-existing_ implicit mutual > partnership understanding (that North probably forgets a > new convention the first time it is used) or South does > not. South should ignore her cards when describing her > pre-existing explicit and implicit mutual partnership > understandings, since mutual understandings are not > legally created during the auction and play (Law 16A1(d)). > > Robert Park: > > >> If not, then why should he make that statement now, when >> doing so must clearly reveal that he has a top spade... >> something opponents are not entitled to know? >> > > Richard Hills: > > If I was South, my explanations would never clearly reveal > anything about my hand. I explain pre-existing mutual > explicit or implicit partnership understandings, even when > the cards in my own hand tell me that partner has erred in > applying our Symmetric Relay methods (system notes emailed > on request). > I agree...as far as explanations go. But doesn't this all start with an alert? What I don't understand is why South should be alerting just because he has a top honor in partner's promised solid suit. --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080930/32a8dbca/attachment.htm