From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 1 00:21:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:21:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48E233BC.4050000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >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 unless I'm badly >wrong. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: Alain is badly wrong, since all contestants have the right to appeal any ruling by the Director (Law 92A), provided that such appeal is timely (Law 92B). Of course, in some cases (rulings on law, regulations or discipline) an Appeals Committee lacks the power to over- rule the Director, but even then the Appeals Committee can recommend to the Director that the Director change such a ruling (Law 93B3). An Appeals Committee can, however, over-rule the Director's ascertaining of facts if it so desires. The WBF Code of Practice recommends that an Appeals Committee should only do so if it discovers new evidence. However, as discussed in a recent thread, an ACBL Appeals Committee feels no such constraint. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 amsterdamned.org Wed Oct 1 01:01:00 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 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 Wed Oct 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for September 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 131 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 86 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 76 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 67 ehaa (at) starpower.net 65 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 46 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 41 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 39 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 34 svenpran (at) online.no 32 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 25 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 20 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 19 john (at) asimere.com 13 Gampas (at) aol.com 8 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 8 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 6 sater (at) xs4all.nl 6 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 4 swillner (at) nhcc.net 4 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 4 henk (at) ripe.net 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 schoderb (at) msn.com 3 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 3 adam (at) tameware.com 3 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 3 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 2 torsten.astrand (at) telia.com 2 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 geller (at) nifty.com 2 cibor (at) poczta.fm 2 bobpark (at) connecttime.net 2 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 1 rbeye (at) yahoo.com 1 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 1 matthias.schueller (at) gmx.de 1 martino (at) bridgenz.co.nz 1 gampas (at) aol.com 1 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 1 blml (at) rtflb.org 1 bbickford (at) charter.net 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 1 09:22:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:22:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF Recorder Guidelines [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Recorder Guidelines The Role of Recorder: The ABF acknowledges that the individuals who have agreed to accept the role of Recorder perform an important function that facilitates the smooth running of bridge events. For the better guidance of individuals acting in such a role the following guidelines have been compiled by drawing upon the practice of Recorders as seen in comments made by Neville Moses and Keith McNeil and the rules of Natural Justice. 1. The first function of the Recorder for any event is to receive communications (oral or written) from individual players as to concerns which arise from events at the table at the particular event for which the Recorder is serving. 2. To facilitate such communications the Recorder will be available for consultation at the close of play for at least twenty minutes and for ten minutes before the commencement of play for the next session. 3. The Recorder will consider such communications and in his or her discretion respond by taking one of the following actions: a. Advise and inform the player/s that there is no need for further action, explaining the laws and practices of Bridge as necessary. b. Consult the director of the relevant session and then advise the players accordingly. c. Refer the player/s to an Appeals Advisor. d. Undertake to alert the Convenor of the event to the concern of the player/s. e. Where the concern is that an action by another player was or might have been unethical or inappropriate and there appears some chance that the concern is justified, inform the other player of the concern and obtain an account of the incident from their perspective. f. Decide that the incident does not merit an inquiry as to whether disciplinary action is appropriate as and by itself but that repeated instances of such conduct might merit such action, inform the subject of the comment accordingly and take a note of the details of the accounts received. g. Decide that the incident does merit an inquiry as to whether disciplinary action is appropriate, prepare a document for consideration by the ABF Ethics Committee, give a copy of the document to the Convenor of the event and forward the document to the ABF Secretariat. Note that a copy of the report will be made available to the subject of complaint if the ABF Ethics Committee is considering acting to discipline the player. 4. Within a week after the event concludes, the Recorder will prepare a report on the conduct of the event and any incidents dealt with under f above and forward a copy of that report to the ABF Secretariat marked for the attention of the National Recorder (in 2007 the National Recorder is Neville Moses). The ABF commits to using the full strength of its disciplinary powers to support any Recorder who meets discourtesy from any players that are approached by the Recorder in the course of exercising his or her functions. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 1 10:57:51 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:57:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> Hi all, last weekend some directors got together for an exam. Unsurprisingly this led to some discussions.... L81C3 says that the TD has to act, no matter how he became aware of some irregularity. No problem. Now there are some infractions which are handled differently depending on when they are discovered or perpetrated. Revoke: not established/established Revoke: dicovered after the end of the round or after a member of the NOS has made a call on the next board MI: maybe no damage done yet if cleared up before the opening lead Some others may come to mind. The question that arose was: if the TD becomes aware (in whatever way) that an infraction has occurred (or may have occured, does he have to act immediately? Especially if he cannot be sure without checking whether an infraction has occured at all? The case which gave rise to that discussion: Declarer in some irrelevant contract discovers that he has only 1 card left, all other players have 2. The director is called, the card is found, player is informed that he may have revoked etc. Now in this case the revoke happened in trick 11, defender had played to trick 12, revoke not yet established, declarer may not inspect his card from trick 11. Does the TD have to check (without the player asking for it, if the player says "I may have revoked in the last trick" the TD surely has to check) whether the revoke (if any) is correctable because it is not yet established? Faction A: Director has to act at the time when he becomes aware that an infraction has or may have occurred, never mind time limits. Faction B: Director has to act if another infraction might follow from the previous one, e.g. a non-established revoke (infraction) becomes established (separate infraction (?)), but not yet if the revoke is already established, so he lets the time limits expire and uses 64C if need be. Faction C: Director acts only after those time limits have expired. Arguments: A and B (who "disagree" only on a minor point (?)) argue that more Bridge results are possible and less severe rectifikations are needed. B argues that if no further damage can come from the infraction in question one should wait for the time limit. Faction C argues that the discovery of such irregularities as (in this example) revokes are part of the game too, and that the TD should not play Bridge for the players, so the TD acts only after the players had a chance to discover the infraction, for better or for worse. This could lead to harsher rectifikations or to no rectifikation at all, depending on when the players become aware and the relevant laws for the infraction. We had to agree to disagree, but obviousy this should be settled. Opinions? Best regards Matthias From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 1 11:37:53 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:37:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C3 In-Reply-To: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> Message-ID: <48E344F1.9070107@skynet.be> My opinion is that the TD ought to be aware that the revoke might be non-established, and that he has to act on that (possible) infraction. After all, even if t?it is the second revoke in the suit - if that second revoke is non-established, it has to be corrected. No need therefore to go checking (at this time) whether there has been any revoke before the last trick, that can wait - but checking the last trick should be done. Anyway, a player who does not remember what he played to the last trick may not need protection. BTW, why can't declarer check his own last trick? Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Hi all, > > last weekend some directors got together for an exam. Unsurprisingly > this led to some discussions.... > > L81C3 says that the TD has to act, no matter how he became aware of some > irregularity. No problem. > > Now there are some infractions which are handled differently depending > on when they are discovered or perpetrated. > > Revoke: not established/established > Revoke: dicovered after the end of the round or after a member of the > NOS has made a call on the next board > MI: maybe no damage done yet if cleared up before the opening lead > Some others may come to mind. > > The question that arose was: if the TD becomes aware (in whatever way) > that an infraction has occurred (or may have occured, does he have to > act immediately? Especially if he cannot be sure without checking > whether an infraction has occured at all? > > The case which gave rise to that discussion: > > Declarer in some irrelevant contract discovers that he has only 1 card > left, all other players have 2. The director is called, the card is > found, player is informed that he may have revoked etc. Now in this case > the revoke happened in trick 11, defender had played to trick 12, revoke > not yet established, declarer may not inspect his card from trick 11. > Does the TD have to check (without the player asking for it, if the > player says "I may have revoked in the last trick" the TD surely has to > check) whether the revoke (if any) is correctable because it is not yet > established? > > Faction A: Director has to act at the time when he becomes aware that an > infraction has or may have occurred, never mind time limits. > > Faction B: Director has to act if another infraction might follow from > the previous one, e.g. a non-established revoke (infraction) becomes > established (separate infraction (?)), but not yet if the revoke is > already established, so he lets the time limits expire and uses 64C if > need be. > > Faction C: Director acts only after those time limits have expired. > > Arguments: A and B (who "disagree" only on a minor point (?)) argue that > more Bridge results are possible and less severe rectifikations are > needed. B argues that if no further damage can come from the infraction > in question one should wait for the time limit. > Faction C argues that the discovery of such irregularities as (in this > example) revokes are part of the game too, and that the TD should not > play Bridge for the players, so the TD acts only after the players had a > chance to discover the infraction, for better or for worse. This could > lead to harsher rectifikations or to no rectifikation at all, depending > on when the players become aware and the relevant laws for the infraction. > > We had to agree to disagree, but obviousy this should be settled. > > Opinions? > > Best regards > Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 1 13:14:53 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:14:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C3 In-Reply-To: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000901c923b6$ee075dd0$ca161970$@no> On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus > Hi all, > > last weekend some directors got together for an exam. Unsurprisingly > this led to some discussions.... > > L81C3 says that the TD has to act, no matter how he became aware of some > irregularity. No problem. > > Now there are some infractions which are handled differently depending > on when they are discovered or perpetrated. > > Revoke: not established/established > Revoke: dicovered after the end of the round or after a member of the > NOS has made a call on the next board > MI: maybe no damage done yet if cleared up before the opening lead > Some others may come to mind. > > The question that arose was: if the TD becomes aware (in whatever way) > that an infraction has occurred (or may have occured, does he have to > act immediately? Especially if he cannot be sure without checking > whether an infraction has occured at all? > > The case which gave rise to that discussion: > > Declarer in some irrelevant contract discovers that he has only 1 card > left, all other players have 2. The director is called, the card is > found, player is informed that he may have revoked etc. Now in this case > the revoke happened in trick 11, defender had played to trick 12, revoke > not yet established, declarer may not inspect his card from trick 11. > Does the TD have to check (without the player asking for it, if the > player says "I may have revoked in the last trick" the TD surely has to > check) whether the revoke (if any) is correctable because it is not yet > established? > > Faction A: Director has to act at the time when he becomes aware that an > infraction has or may have occurred, never mind time limits. > > Faction B: Director has to act if another infraction might follow from > the previous one, e.g. a non-established revoke (infraction) becomes > established (separate infraction (?)), but not yet if the revoke is > already established, so he lets the time limits expire and uses 64C if > need be. > > Faction C: Director acts only after those time limits have expired. > > Arguments: A and B (who "disagree" only on a minor point (?)) argue that > more Bridge results are possible and less severe rectifikations are > needed. B argues that if no further damage can come from the infraction > in question one should wait for the time limit. > Faction C argues that the discovery of such irregularities as (in this > example) revokes are part of the game too, and that the TD should not > play Bridge for the players, so the TD acts only after the players had a > chance to discover the infraction, for better or for worse. This could > lead to harsher rectifikations or to no rectifikation at all, depending > on when the players become aware and the relevant laws for the infraction. > > We had to agree to disagree, but obviousy this should be settled. > > Opinions? > > Best regards > Matthias My general rule is that the director must never on his own initiative (or initiative from a spectator) interfere in any way during the time while the players' own action on an irregularity can have impact on the outcome of that irregularity. He must for instance not take any action on a revoke in progress unless called by the players on that irregularity, but he should take action after expiration of the period defined in Laws 64B4 and 64B5, whichever is relevant in the case. Here he was correctly called because of a missing card, and he properly informed the players that this irregularity could result in a revoke which, according to the story, would have occurred in the last played trick and therefore not yet be established. As the lead to the next trick was already made (by an opponent) Law 66B prohibits declarer from inspecting his own last played (and quitted) card. However, Law 66C explicitly allows the director to order such inspection, for instance for the purpose of verifying a revoke allegation (and in case avoid the revoke from becoming established). In my opinion this is a typical case for ordering such inspection. Regards Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 1 13:17:04 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:17:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C3 In-Reply-To: <48E344F1.9070107@skynet.be> References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> <48E344F1.9070107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E35C30.5060901@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > My opinion is that the TD ought to be aware that the revoke might be > non-established, and that he has to act on that (possible) infraction. > > After all, even if t?it is the second revoke in the suit - if that > second revoke is non-established, it has to be corrected. > > No need therefore to go checking (at this time) whether there has been > any revoke before the last trick, that can wait - but checking the last > trick should be done. > > Anyway, a player who does not remember what he played to the last trick > may not need protection. > > BTW, why can't declarer check his own last trick? > L66B. A defender had already led to the next trick before declarer discovered that he was one card short. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 1 14:04:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:04:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C3 In-Reply-To: <48E344F1.9070107@skynet.be> References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> <48E344F1.9070107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48E36761.9010301@ulb.ac.be> > > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> last weekend some directors got together for an exam. Unsurprisingly >> this led to some discussions.... >> >> L81C3 says that the TD has to act, no matter how he became aware of some >> irregularity. No problem. >> >> Now there are some infractions which are handled differently depending >> on when they are discovered or perpetrated. >> >> Revoke: not established/established >> Revoke: dicovered after the end of the round or after a member of the >> NOS has made a call on the next board >> MI: maybe no damage done yet if cleared up before the opening lead >> Some others may come to mind. >> >> The question that arose was: if the TD becomes aware (in whatever way) >> that an infraction has occurred (or may have occured, does he have to >> act immediately? Especially if he cannot be sure without checking >> whether an infraction has occured at all? >> >> The case which gave rise to that discussion: >> >> Declarer in some irrelevant contract discovers that he has only 1 card >> left, all other players have 2. The director is called, the card is >> found, player is informed that he may have revoked etc. Now in this case >> the revoke happened in trick 11, defender had played to trick 12, revoke >> not yet established, declarer may not inspect his card from trick 11. >> AG : this is irrelevant here. The TD has the right and duty to openly inspect quitted tricks is such a situation. Since it's not the payer's act, the player didn't commit the infraction of inspecting his previous cards. >> Does the TD have to check (without the player asking for it, if the >> player says "I may have revoked in the last trick" the TD surely has to >> check) whether the revoke (if any) is correctable because it is not yet >> established? >> >> Faction A: Director has to act at the time when he becomes aware that an >> infraction has or may have occurred, never mind time limits. >> AG : in my interpretation of TFLB, the TD is empowered to do so, not required, so position A isn't Lawful. However, he should act if he could prevent a mess, e.g. if he notices that a pair sits at the wrong table. For matters that are the players' responsibility, he shouldn't interfere before the situation is stabilized, e.g. not between the time when a revoke happens and the time when it becomes established. Else, the TD would have helped the player minimize the damage he could cause to himself, and that's not our role. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 1 14:11:19 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:11:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] L81C3 In-Reply-To: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:57:51 -0400, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Hi all, > > last weekend some directors got together for an exam. Unsurprisingly > this led to some discussions.... > > L81C3 says that the TD has to act, no matter how he became aware of some > irregularity. No problem. I have always interpreted "to rectify an error ir irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner" as a right (power), not a responsibility. I need this at the club level. (Partly this may be because calling the director for an irregularity is considered by the players to be a right of theirs, not a responsibility.) So if an infraction occurs at the table and everyone seems happy, I do not intrude. If there is a chance that someone is being taken advantage of, perhaps because they do not know the rules, I do intrude. I would not point out an unestablised revoke. But if I saw a card on the floor, I would pick it up and return it to the proper hand. So I sometimes correct irregularities in progress and sometimes do not. Yesterday, declarer decided half-way through my visit to handle the matter herself. Sometimes I allow this, sometimes I don't. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Oct 1 14:25:53 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:25:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C3 In-Reply-To: <000901c923b6$ee075dd0$ca161970$@no> References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> <000901c923b6$ee075dd0$ca161970$@no> Message-ID: <48E36C51.6080801@t-online.de> Sven Pran schrieb: > My general rule is that the director must never on his own initiative (or > initiative from a spectator) interfere in any way during the time while the > players' own action on an irregularity can have impact on the outcome of > that irregularity. > > He must for instance not take any action on a revoke in progress unless > called by the players on that irregularity, but he should take action after > expiration of the period defined in Laws 64B4 and 64B5, whichever is > relevant in the case. > > Here he was correctly called because of a missing card, and he properly > informed the players that this irregularity could result in a revoke which, > according to the story, would have occurred in the last played trick and > therefore not yet be established. > > As the lead to the next trick was already made (by an opponent) Law 66B > prohibits declarer from inspecting his own last played (and quitted) card. > However, Law 66C explicitly allows the director to order such inspection, > for instance for the purpose of verifying a revoke allegation (and in case > avoid the revoke from becoming established). > > In my opinion this is a typical case for ordering such inspection. I fail to reconcile that last statement with the first part of your posting. Surely all cases have be to handled consistently. So we either a) correct all infractions as soon as we are aware of them or b) correct infractions which can be rectified now with a lesser effect on the bridge score (meanng that we would get a more "bridge-like" result) than if we let it run its course (I have no idea at the moment how we are going to ascertain what that effect would be. For example: Revoke not established --> penalty card, revoke established --> tricks transferred, revoke established but not noticed in time --> L64C adjustment, which may well be the rectifikation with least impact, so which way would we go?) or c) we always wait for all time limits to expire, regardless of the infraction. So if the TD follows your approach of not acting before the time limit has expired, why should he now order such an inspection, in effect preventing the revoke from becoming established if it should have happened in that trick? Best regards Matthias > > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 1 15:29:13 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:29:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C3 In-Reply-To: <48E36C51.6080801@t-online.de> References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> <000901c923b6$ee075dd0$ca161970$@no> <48E36C51.6080801@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001501c923c9$b1ed5710$15c80530$@no> On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus > Sven Pran schrieb: > > > My general rule is that the director must never on his own initiative (or > > initiative from a spectator) interfere in any way during the time while the > > players' own action on an irregularity can have impact on the outcome of > > that irregularity. > > > > He must for instance not take any action on a revoke in progress unless > > called by the players on that irregularity, but he should take action after > > expiration of the period defined in Laws 64B4 and 64B5, whichever is > > relevant in the case. > > > > Here he was correctly called because of a missing card, and he properly > > informed the players that this irregularity could result in a revoke which, > > according to the story, would have occurred in the last played trick and > > therefore not yet be established. > > > > As the lead to the next trick was already made (by an opponent) Law 66B > > prohibits declarer from inspecting his own last played (and quitted) card. > > However, Law 66C explicitly allows the director to order such inspection, > > for instance for the purpose of verifying a revoke allegation (and in case > > avoid the revoke from becoming established). > > > > In my opinion this is a typical case for ordering such inspection. > > I fail to reconcile that last statement with the first part of your posting. > Surely all cases have be to handled consistently. So we either > a) correct all infractions as soon as we are aware of them or > b) correct infractions which can be rectified now with a lesser effect > on the bridge score (meanng that we would get a more "bridge-like" > result) than if we let it run its course (I have no idea at the moment > how we are going to ascertain what that effect would be. For example: > Revoke not established --> penalty card, revoke established --> tricks > transferred, revoke established but not noticed in time --> L64C > adjustment, which may well be the rectifikation with least impact, so > which way would we go?) or > c) we always wait for all time limits to expire, regardless of the > infraction. > > So if the TD follows your approach of not acting before the time limit > has expired, why should he now order such an inspection, in effect > preventing the revoke from becoming established if it should have > happened in that trick? Because as part of the procedure triggered by Law 14B4 which he is already dealing with, the director should call attention to the possibility of revoke and penalty card. However, when the director becomes aware of a revoke in progress, not because he is called to the table but from his own observation, he must give the players time to react on their own initiative and not interfere until either he is called or he determines that it is too late for the players to have any influence of the outcome of that revoke. Notice that it is fully acceptable if a player who notices a revoke by an opponent remains silent until the revoke is established in order to get the maximum benefit from that irregularity and the director has no business interfering with such tactics. As for your alternatives a), b) and c) above c) is IMHO the only acceptable alternative when there is a time limit within which the players' own actions can affect the final outcome of the irregularity. Right now I only remember the revoke rules where this is the case. In all other cases it follows, both from my "general rule" above and more important from Law 81C3 that the director shall react immediately whenever he becomes aware of an irregularity (provided he becomes aware of it within the time limit specified in Law 79C). Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 1 15:44:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:44:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] L81C3 In-Reply-To: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Oct 1, 2008, at 4:57 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > last weekend some directors got together for an exam. Unsurprisingly > this led to some discussions.... > > L81C3 says that the TD has to act, no matter how he became aware of > some > irregularity. No problem. > > Now there are some infractions which are handled differently depending > on when they are discovered or perpetrated. > > Revoke: not established/established > Revoke: dicovered after the end of the round or after a member of the > NOS has made a call on the next board > MI: maybe no damage done yet if cleared up before the opening lead > Some others may come to mind. > > The question that arose was: if the TD becomes aware (in whatever way) > that an infraction has occurred (or may have occured, does he have to > act immediately? Especially if he cannot be sure without checking > whether an infraction has occured at all? > > The case which gave rise to that discussion: > > Declarer in some irrelevant contract discovers that he has only 1 card > left, all other players have 2. The director is called, the card is > found, player is informed that he may have revoked etc. Now in this > case > the revoke happened in trick 11, defender had played to trick 12, > revoke > not yet established, declarer may not inspect his card from trick 11. > Does the TD have to check (without the player asking for it, if the > player says "I may have revoked in the last trick" the TD surely > has to > check) whether the revoke (if any) is correctable because it is not > yet > established? > > Faction A: Director has to act at the time when he becomes aware > that an > infraction has or may have occurred, never mind time limits. > > Faction B: Director has to act if another infraction might follow from > the previous one, e.g. a non-established revoke (infraction) becomes > established (separate infraction (?)), but not yet if the revoke is > already established, so he lets the time limits expire and uses 64C if > need be. > > Faction C: Director acts only after those time limits have expired. > > Arguments: A and B (who "disagree" only on a minor point (?)) argue > that > more Bridge results are possible and less severe rectifikations are > needed. B argues that if no further damage can come from the > infraction > in question one should wait for the time limit. > Faction C argues that the discovery of such irregularities as (in this > example) revokes are part of the game too, and that the TD should not > play Bridge for the players, so the TD acts only after the players > had a > chance to discover the infraction, for better or for worse. This could > lead to harsher rectifikations or to no rectifikation at all, > depending > on when the players become aware and the relevant laws for the > infraction. > > We had to agree to disagree, but obviousy this should be settled. > > Opinions? ISTM the TD should do his best to rectify the situation and restore equity -- the object being to "let them play bridge" -- at the point at which he was summoned. So I would check for a potential revoke, and if I found an unestablished revoke at trick 11 I would allow it to be treated as such. L81C3 has proven problematic in the past, but the difficulties have been with "in any manner", and have involved situations in which the director become aware of a problem without his attention having being called to it by a player. Once called, though, it would seem like it must be the TD's job to get the table as close to "back to normal" as he can within the constraints of the law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 2 00:31:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:31:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> Message-ID: The complete Law 81C3: The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. Richard Hills: It is important to remember that the Law 81C introductory paragraph is an integral part of all the Law 81C sub- clauses. Hence the guiding principle for a Director in enforcing Law 81C3 is "rectifying irregularities and redressing damage". And "damage" is defined as (Law 12B1): "...Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b)." Grattan Endicott, 19th September 2002: >The current law is plainly stated; the words "in any >manner" allow of no exceptions. > But note also the word "rectify". This covers >returning the position to normality, restoration of >equity, but it does not necessarily require that any >penalty provision of a law be imposed. A Director often >has room for manoeuvre in this respect: time limits >intervene, there are such provisions as those in Law >11B, and so on. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Consistent with Grattan Endicott's advice, if a Director has observed an established revoke, but the players did not, the appropriate time for "rectification" of "damage" to the innocent side requires the Director to defer intervention until Law 64C applies. An earlier intervention by the Director might "over-rectify" some "non-damage" to the innocent side by imposing revoke penalties on the 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 2 00:50:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:50:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48E2243D.40508@connecttime.net> Message-ID: Bob Park: >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. Richard Hills: In my opinion, alerts are a (very simplified) form of explanation. Indeed, this has been suggested by the new Lawbook, with this addition to Laws 16B1(a) and 73C: "an unexpected* alert or failure to alert" "* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." Ergo, my alerts are synchronised with my explanations, and neither are affected by whether or not I have a top honour in partner's promised solid suit. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 2 01:06:27 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 00:06:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] the probst cheat References: <2b1e598b0809281922g3794cb82n6215501a7223ae47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0B64CE61AEBA4246BCC766DCA2D4E584@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:22 AM Subject: [blml] the probst cheat >> The probst cheat prospers again :) John > > What's the probst cheat? I hope I'm not the only reader who does not > know. A concept freely floated here by me. Never very satisfactorily refuted by the blmlers either. A player with microscopic knowledge of the Law and regulation who is prepared to lie through his teeth if necessary in order to gain an advantage under Law, whilst all the time appearing to be innocent. Whenever an innocent player (innocent of the Law that is) is about to get a worse result than the probst cheat, and there are many examples just google them, then the cheat has prospered. A lot of my jurisprudence is based on not allowing him to prosper and so whenever someone does something that a cheat WOULD do I rule as if he HAS cheated without ever thinking he is one. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 2 01:23:29 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 00:23:29 +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> <000801c9221f$cd269c40$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <6B0DBAB8AEBB49F782FD92E008CFA2C2@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:01 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: Robert Park > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 1:48 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > > 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? > < > +=+ Interesting, and of course we may discover that partner > actually has eight or nine cards in a red suit, missing at least > the Ace. He just thought it a good moment to exercise his > Law 40C rights..... Should I discourage opponents from > reaching a slam in Spades? Will Mr Probst help them to > avoid it or to reach it? Fortunately I don't have to admit to opps that partner is a moron till after the hand. We have an agreement, I tell opps what it is. I play with partners who psyche. After the hand I may express my opinions as to the sanity of such a convention; the sanity of my partner; the sanity of the player who devised the convention in the first place; the sanity of the editor who felt it worthy of inclusion in mass distribution bridge material and finally the sanity of my partner's English teacher for ever having had the patience to teach a moron with self evidently an IQ about his shoe size to read. John > However, bear in mind that I have done no more than > define the border between what must be explained and what > would be information voluntarily given, in terms of the law. > It is not my position to deny the courtesy of giving additional > information voluntarily if it may be useful to opponent. The > discussion is about what information people would/should > actually choose to give. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 2 01:29:35 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 00:29:35 +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> <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: >> > > 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? This will do fine. That's the question I wanted answering. John > > > 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 ? Indeed, we have already cursed his English teacher for having taught him to read, we can now curse his arithmetic teacher for having taken the years it must have cost him to teach the moron to count as well. John _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 2 01:42:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:42:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] the probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0B64CE61AEBA4246BCC766DCA2D4E584@JOHN> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >.....and so whenever someone does something that a >cheat WOULD do I rule as if he HAS cheated without ever >thinking he is one. Imps Dlr: West Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) 2D (2) Pass ? (1) Any balanced or semi-balanced shape with 9-11 hcp (2) At least 54 or 45 in the majors with 9-14 hcp You, South, hold: --- 4 AK98 KQJ98653 What call would a probst cheat make? What other calls would a probst cheat consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 2 01:47:25 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 00:47:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000c01c92420$0ee7b770$2cb72650$@com> [The complete Law 81C3] The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner [DALB] Directing an event the other day, I observed dummy putting the spade suit down on her left. Since I knew that the contract was 4S, I told her to put the spades down on her right. "Are we playing in spades?" said declarer. "I thought the contract was 3NT." How would the Chief Tournament Director rule? David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 2 01:47:49 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 00:47:49 +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><001301c9208d$72f5d1c0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning > On Sep 27, 2008, at 6:39 AM, Grattan wrote: Wahey. I'm taking my 180 pages of system notes with proddy to the next tourney and marking my SC as "See notes". 1C* 2N* 3C* 3D* 3H* 3N* Pass !, End. Pass? PASS? WHAT DO YOU MEAN PASS? Anyway, I think we might like to know about the calls not made too. There are those who seem to suggest that some deific TDs can interpret which ones must and which ones needn't be disclosed. If you ask, then East has shown a 4144 with an Ace and a King (or 3 Kings), West a hand that is about 1 loser better than a SA 1 bid and no other detail at all, but he had a LOT of options and there are some mindbogglingly obvious inferences which opps are entitled to (and which are probably not GBK) as well as some meta-agreements which have been applied. John > >> 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 2 02:01:02 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:01:02 +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> <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: <6EF1E4F59F464A859661EFB122A6116A@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] question about that second meaning On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:48:05 -0400, Matthias Sch?ller wrote: >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? John is not entirely sure. He thinks the Probst cheat can prosper and where interpretations can prevent this he chooses such interpretations.. He believes that the Probst cheat will be able to find a way to phrase a question in such a way that he will find out how many Aces HAVE been shown (since he knows that opps are in the middle of a cataclysmic meltdown and for a Probst cheat it doesn't matter how he finds that out as long as he's not caught out). John _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 2 02:21:28 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:21:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] L81C3 References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> Message-ID: <7DF7542094794CB9A208D65488747C81@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:57 AM Subject: [blml] L81C3 > Hi all, > > last weekend some directors got together for an exam. Unsurprisingly > this led to some discussions.... > > L81C3 says that the TD has to act, no matter how he became aware of some > irregularity. No problem. > > Now there are some infractions which are handled differently depending > on when they are discovered or perpetrated. > > Revoke: not established/established > Revoke: dicovered after the end of the round or after a member of the > NOS has made a call on the next board > MI: maybe no damage done yet if cleared up before the opening lead > Some others may come to mind. > > The question that arose was: if the TD becomes aware (in whatever way) > that an infraction has occurred (or may have occured, does he have to > act immediately? Especially if he cannot be sure without checking > whether an infraction has occured at all? > > The case which gave rise to that discussion: > > Declarer in some irrelevant contract discovers that he has only 1 card > left, all other players have 2. The director is called, the card is > found, player is informed that he may have revoked etc. Now in this case > the revoke happened in trick 11, defender had played to trick 12, revoke > not yet established, declarer may not inspect his card from trick 11. > Does the TD have to check (without the player asking for it, if the > player says "I may have revoked in the last trick" the TD surely has to > check) whether the revoke (if any) is correctable because it is not yet > established? > > Faction A: Director has to act at the time when he becomes aware that an > infraction has or may have occurred, never mind time limits. > > Faction B: Director has to act if another infraction might follow from > the previous one, e.g. a non-established revoke (infraction) becomes > established (separate infraction (?)), but not yet if the revoke is > already established, so he lets the time limits expire and uses 64C if > need be. > > Faction C: Director acts only after those time limits have expired. > > Arguments: A and B (who "disagree" only on a minor point (?)) argue that > more Bridge results are possible and less severe rectifikations are > needed. B argues that if no further damage can come from the infraction > in question one should wait for the time limit. > Faction C argues that the discovery of such irregularities as (in this > example) revokes are part of the game too, and that the TD should not > play Bridge for the players, so the TD acts only after the players had a > chance to discover the infraction, for better or for worse. This could > lead to harsher rectifikations or to no rectifikation at all, depending > on when the players become aware and the relevant laws for the infraction. > > We had to agree to disagree, but obviousy this should be settled. We're to try to get a bridge result (ex cathedra). A bridge result is what would have happened if there had been no infractions; ie correct procedure had been followed. Sort it out now. Any other interpretation is bizarre. John > > Opinions? > > Best regards > Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 2 02:21:38 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:21:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c92420$0ee7b770$2cb72650$@com> References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> <000c01c92420$0ee7b770$2cb72650$@com> Message-ID: <000d01c92424$d6ad6440$84082cc0$@com> [DALB] Directing an event the other day, I observed dummy putting the spade suit down on her left. Since I knew that the contract was 4S, I told her to put the spades down on her right. "Are we playing in spades?" said declarer. "I thought the contract was 3NT." How would the Chief Tournament Director rule? [DALB, continued] That is, how should the CTD rule when the defending side complains that had I not reminded declarer that the contract was 4S, she made it by ruffing a loser in dummy when she would almost certainly not have followed this line in 3NT? (see Burn's Third Law in "Larry who?" for details). It seems to me that the deep and underlying problem is this: the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge operate in an environment where most of them don't matter. That is, they operate only where experts play against other experts, preferably with screens. They don't work all that well even then, but at least they stand a chance. As Eric Landau has pointed out time after time, these Laws and the opinions attached thereto simply cause chaos when attempts are made to apply them to bridge at the local club, or to any face-to-face game without screens among non-experts. Players do not know what to do when in possession of UI - most of them do not know whether or not they have UI in the first place. Players do not know what to do when it comes to informing the opponents of their "methods" in positions where they may or may not have any methods, or where they may or may not have remembered the methods that they may or may not have. Even the dWS is an honest attempt to establish how players should behave in everyday positions that confront them at the table, and neither the Laws nor the WBF interpretations provide them with anything by way of meaningful guidance. That's not the players' fault. That's the Lawmakers' fault, if it's anyone's. Larry Bennett, a gentleman I don't know and whose surname I might have misspelled (in which case I apologise) asked the other day whether anything we said on BLML had anything to do with the game he'd loved playing for a number of years. The answer is: yes it does, because at least here we're trying to sort out what the rules actually are, and we have to guide us some of the people who are the fons et origo of the rules as they actually are in 2008. But the answer also is: no it doesn't, because the rules as they actually are apply to a game that is not actually played by about 90% of the people who play duplicate bridge around the world. I don't have any easy answers. I don't even have any difficult ones. I just thought I'd state the problem. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 2 02:25:14 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:25:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Richard, would you mind changing seats please. It would be a kindness if you didn't always sit at the table away from the draught.. TIA John > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 2 02:31:28 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:31:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] the probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <14F297ECEA5C4DF6B1DD69DC4EEA0D40@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] the probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > John (MadDog) Probst: > >>.....and so whenever someone does something that a >>cheat WOULD do I rule as if he HAS cheated without ever >>thinking he is one. > > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) 2D (2) Pass ? > > (1) Any balanced or semi-balanced shape with 9-11 hcp > (2) At least 54 or 45 in the majors with 9-14 hcp > > You, South, hold: > > --- > 4 > AK98 > KQJ98653 > > What call would a probst cheat make? 2H is systemic - I'm not sure the probst cheat tries this one on; that's another game "lowest ethics bridge", played by my son and me sometimes. It requires a tolerant TD willing to adjust the scores on most boards to what we agree is appropriate with the opponents. > What other calls would a probst cheat consider making? 1NT (but he's not really that sort of cheat) > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC > respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The > official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's > website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Oct 2 02:36:00 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:36:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> <000c01c92420$0ee7b770$2cb72650$@com> Message-ID: <1313C957AF384B25AD05B5DA05A2110A@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [The complete Law 81C3] > > The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to > rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner > > [DALB] > > Directing an event the other day, I observed dummy putting the spade suit > down on her left. Since I knew that the contract was 4S, I told her to put > the spades down on her right. "Are we playing in spades?" said declarer. > "I > thought the contract was 3NT." > > How would the Chief Tournament Director rule? s'funny; I think this is one of the hardest questions to have been posed on this forum.. It certainly devolves onto whether the repositioning of the spades is AI or UI to declarer. I have NO idea what the answer is. John > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 2 04:52:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:52:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1313C957AF384B25AD05B5DA05A2110A@JOHN> Message-ID: David Burn: >>Directing an event the other day, I observed dummy putting >>the spade suit down on her left. Since I knew that the >>contract was 4S, I told her to put the spades down on her >>right. "Are we playing in spades?" said declarer. "I >>thought the contract was 3NT." >> >>How would the Chief Tournament Director rule? >> >>That is, how should the CTD rule when the defending side >>complains that had I not reminded declarer that the >>contract was 4S, she made it by ruffing a loser in dummy >>when she would almost certainly not have followed this line >>in 3NT? (see Burn's Third Law in "Larry who?" for details). John (MadDog) Probst: >s'funny; I think this is one of the hardest questions to >have been posed on this forum.. It certainly devolves onto >whether the repositioning of the spades is AI or UI to >declarer. I have NO idea what the answer is. John Richard Hills: I argue that MadDog "certainly" has insufficient lateral thinking, since in my opinion this question devolves onto _when_ it is the appropriate time for the Director to correct dummy's Law 41D infraction. When the 1997 Lawbook was in effect, a blmler argued that if partner committed a MI infraction, it was permissable to commit another MI infraction oneself, in order to prevent further "damage" to partner. Under a dictionary definition of "damage" that blmler's argument had some (teeny-tiny) small merit. But the 2007 Law 12B1 rules that an offending side cannot suffer "damage" from its own infraction. Ergo, if the non-offending side knows that spades is trumps, and the offending dummy's infraction causes the offending declarer to play in 3NT (and thus go off in a cold contract by failing to ruff), there is not any "damage" which the Director must immediately "rectify" under Law 81C3. So, to answer David Burn's question, if I was David's Chief Director (now described in Law 93 as "Director in charge"), I would rule that David's correction was sufficiently premature as to amount to a Law 82C Director's Error. Note that Law 9 requires the players to draw the Director's attention to a known irregularity; it is silent on _when_ the Director may draw the players' attention to an irregularity. So I would argue that a Director should _carefully_ consider the _timing_ of a Law 81C3 intervention on a case-by-case basis. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) John (MadDog) Probst: >Richard, would you mind changing seats please. It would be a >kindness if you didn't always sit at the table away from the >draught.. TIA John Best wishes Richard James Hills Gremlin on the shoulder of Grattan Endicott -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bobpark at connecttime.net Thu Oct 2 03:59:42 2008 From: bobpark at connecttime.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:59:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E42B0E.2090707@connecttime.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Bob Park: > > >> 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. >> > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, alerts are a (very simplified) form of > explanation. Indeed, this has been suggested by the new > Lawbook, with this addition to Laws 16B1(a) and 73C: > > "an unexpected* alert or failure to alert" > "* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." > > Ergo, my alerts are synchronised with my explanations, and > neither are affected by whether or not I have a top honour > in partner's promised solid suit. > > You are losing me here. So partner bids, you alert...and when asked for an explanation, you explain what your agreements are. Suppose now there is nothing in your hand to suggest that partner misbid. What would lead you to add to your explanation your opinion about partner's occasional flights of forgetfulness? Or the newness of your current agreement? It seems to me that to do this would be potentially more damaging to opponents than helpful, as it places doubts in their minds that are most likely unwarranted...as partner most likely has not forgotten and most likely has his bid. So I don't alert in these cases, nor would I suggest that others should. Which brings us to the case where you do have some feature in your hand that suggests or confirms that partner has misbid. It's not at all clear to me that either the laws or ethics require me to then provide any form of the "opinion" that I would not have provided had I not possessed that revealing feature. --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081001/e7a909ec/attachment-0001.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 2 09:45:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:45:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48E36C51.6080801@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus asserted: >Surely all cases have be to handled consistently. Richard Hills asks: Why? W.S. Gilbert: Our great Mikado, virtuous man, When he to rule our land began, Resolved to try A plan whereby Young men might best be steadied. So he decreed, in words succinct, That all who flirted, leered or winked (Unless connubially linked), Should forthwith be beheaded. Richard Hills notes: The _inconsistent_ policy of the Mikado, reducing the execution rate of married people vis a vis single people, no doubt had what the Mikado would consider an advantage of increasing the proportion of the population which was connubially linked. Likewise, as TD, I would consider it an advantage to inconsistently _immediately_ draw attention to a pair trying to sit at the wrong table, but _tardily_ draw attention to an established revoke. Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) Best wishes Walt Whitman Leaves of Grass -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 2 10:16:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:16:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] question about that second meaning [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48E42B0E.2090707@connecttime.net> Message-ID: Robert Park: >You are losing me here. So partner bids, you alert...and when >asked for an explanation, you explain what your agreements >are. Suppose now there is nothing in your hand to suggest >that partner misbid. What would lead you to add to your >explanation your opinion about partner's occasional flights >of forgetfulness? Richard Hills: The extrinsic nature of the auction. My regular partner is very accurate in the game-force relay auctions of our Symmetric Relay method (system notes emailed on request) if our auction is _uncontested_. However, if the opponents are in the auction (but do not insert a jump overcall, which breaks the relay), our coded relay responses shift up or down one or more steps. In those cases partner's error rate is sufficiently frequent as to be a pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding. So when explaining partner's relay responses after a contested auction, I am careful to warn the opponents of a possible error whether or not my hand tells me that such an error has occurred. (This, of course, is one reason why blmlers should _not_ ask for my system notes to be emailed. The significant amount of memorisation required is reminiscent of schoolwork rather than the recreation that bridge is supposed to be.) Robert Park: >Or the newness of your current agreement? It seems to me that >to do this would be potentially more damaging to opponents >than helpful, as it places doubts in their minds that are >most likely unwarranted...as partner most likely has not >forgotten and most likely has his bid. > >So I don't alert in these cases, nor would I suggest that >others should. Richard Hills: If the doubts are most likely unwarranted, then by definition one does not have a pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding. So I don't alert in this case, nor would I suggest that others should. But another regular partner, Dorothy, is old-school. She has no difficulty with using lebensohl after our 1NT opening, but the majority of the time she forgets lebensohl after a takeout double of a weak two. Therefore we have a two-way agreement that after my double of a weak two, her response of 2NT is either natural and values, or lebensohl. The problem for us occurs when I respond a lebensohl 2NT, since she often gives MI by failing to alert. Robert Park: >Which brings us to the case where you do have some feature in >your hand that suggests or confirms that partner has misbid. >It's not at all clear to me that either the laws or ethics >require me to then provide any form of the "opinion" that I >would not have provided had I not possessed that revealing >feature. Richard Hills: Correct. Pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understandings are tautologically pre-existing (Law 16A1(d) and Law 40A1(b)). It is not permitted to have new mutual explicit or implicit partnership understandings created partway through a deal by virtue of a feature in your hand. One can, of course, make unilateral deductions due to such a feature in your hand. But there is not any Law which requires disclosure of unilateral deductions. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 2 10:54:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:54:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E48C5E.4020700@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > The complete Law 81C3: > > The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for > rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The > Director's duties and powers normally include also the > following: > to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes > aware in any manner, within the correction period > established in accordance with Law 79C. > > Richard Hills: > > It is important to remember that the Law 81C introductory > paragraph is an integral part of all the Law 81C sub- > clauses. > > Hence the guiding principle for a Director in enforcing > Law 81C3 is "rectifying irregularities and redressing > damage". AG : true, but the TD is also allowed to intervene when only one of those two incentives is present. For example, he shall signal that the wrong set of boards is being used and rectify this irregularity, and in this case redressing damage isn't a concern. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Oct 2 11:34:14 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:34:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E49596.8060406@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Likewise, as TD, I would consider it an advantage > to inconsistently _immediately_ draw attention to > a pair trying to sit at the wrong table, but > _tardily_ draw attention to an established revoke. > Point taken. Two questions: Where does it say when an irregularity has to be rectified? If we can use our judgement as director, how do we go about synchronizing the judgements of all the TDs out there? Even if we find that there are cases which should be handled differently from other cases, how do we go about insuring that any _specific_ case is handled the same way by all those directors? Best regards Matthias From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Oct 2 11:51:27 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:51:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48E33B8F.8040208@t-online.de> <000c01c92420$0ee7b770$2cb72650$@com> <000d01c92424$d6ad6440$84082cc0$@com> Message-ID: <008001c92475$3d39edf0$2401a8c0@p41600> Ah but you DO know him David. Not in the biblical sense of course. I was well into a second bottle of Mesault at the time I'm afraid. ln[b] > Larry Bennett, a gentleman I don't know and whose surname I might have > misspelled (in which case I apologise) asked the other day whether anything > we said on BLML had anything to do with the game he'd loved playing for a > number of years. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 2 14:54:05 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:54:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:45:24 -0400, wrote: > Matthias Berghaus asserted: > >> Surely all cases have be to handled consistently. > > Richard Hills asks: > > Why? > > W.S. Gilbert: > > Our great Mikado, virtuous man, > When he to rule our land began, > Resolved to try > A plan whereby > Young men might best be steadied. > > So he decreed, in words succinct, > That all who flirted, leered or winked > (Unless connubially linked), > Should forthwith be beheaded. > > Richard Hills notes: > > The _inconsistent_ policy of the Mikado, reducing > the execution rate of married people vis a vis > single people, no doubt had what the Mikado would > consider an advantage of increasing the proportion > of the population which was connubially linked. > > Likewise, as TD, I would consider it an advantage > to inconsistently _immediately_ draw attention to > a pair trying to sit at the wrong table, but > _tardily_ draw attention to an established revoke. > > Do I contradict myself? > Very well then I contradict myself, > (I am large, I contain multitudes.) > > > Best wishes > > Walt Whitman > Leaves of Grass I would find it inconsistent if a director did not try to prevent a revoke from being established but did point it out afterwards. Directors rights should include all of the rights of a spectator, right? I would not consider it an infringement of proprieties if a spectator drew attention to a pair trying to sit at the wrong table. Perhaps a key factor is whether something is considered a part of the skill of the game. I think of 'avoiding revokes' as part of the skill of the game, but 'finding the right table' and 'noticing that a card has been dropped' are not parts of the skill of the game. I would not complain if a spectator caught an accidentally-dropped card before it hit the table. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 2 15:24:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:24:28 -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> Message-ID: <9B5C3B20-5F56-4636-AF64-3B862C7D9C2E@starpower.net> On Oct 1, 2008, at 7:47 PM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > Wahey. I'm taking my 180 pages of system notes with proddy to the next > tourney and marking my SC as "See notes". I don't know what the regs are Over There, but my RA has "specifie[d] the manner in which this [L40A1(b) disclosure] shall be done" to include filling out the SC properly and completely "before commencing play". John's plan would not be allowed left of the pond. >> 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Oct 2 16:25:03 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:25:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] L81C3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E4D9BF.9090600@t-online.de> I have not really counted votes, but it seems to me that an infraction with no time limit has to be corrected immediately, and this is what the law for such a case usually tells us to do (I have not checked all infractions, but the ones I looked at tell us to do something immediately). If it were a criterion whether further damage were prevented or not when deciding whether to act immediately or to wait until certain time limits have expired, then we have to answer the following question: (among others, probably) Do we prevent damage if we correct a non-established revoke before it becomes established? Possible outcomes: A: We correct immediately. Penalty card for a defender, may cost nothing, then again it may cost several tricks as the suit that beats 3NT three or four tricks will be forbidden (if partner is on lead). Possible big gain for declarer, but possibly Bridge as we know it continues to be played at this table. If declarer revoked we would get a result closely resembling "uninfracted" Bridge as no penalty cards are involved. B: We do not correct immediately. The revoke may become established, but the offending player may not notice in time, leading to B1: NOS notices the revoke, L64 is applied, result may or may not resemble equity, depending on situation or B2: NOS does not notice before time limit, TD adjusts (if need be) by L64C, thereby (by definition) an equitable result is reached, but not by the players, rather by the TD, who has to judge what is equitable under the circumstances. This may be difficult to do, depending on several circumstances, but nobody said the job should be easy. Now all these variations have certain positive and negative aspects. Can we "agree" what is best, or can someone find a law that says what we must do? If we cannot find such a law, would you like to have one, or would you rather handle each case according to your preferences (or your judgement)? Best regards Matthias From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 3 00:32:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:32:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] the probst cheat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <14F297ECEA5C4DF6B1DD69DC4EEA0D40@JOHN> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>>.....and so whenever someone does something that a >>>cheat WOULD do I rule as if he HAS cheated without ever >>>thinking he is one. >>Imps >>Dlr: West >>Vul: North-South >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>1NT(1) 2D (2) Pass ? >> >>(1) Any balanced or semi-balanced shape with 9-11 hcp >>(2) At least 54 or 45 in the majors with 9-14 hcp >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>--- >>4 >>AK98 >>KQJ98653 >> >>What call would a probst cheat make? John (MadDog) Probst: >2H is systemic - I'm not sure the probst cheat tries this >one on; that's another game "lowest ethics bridge", played >by my son and me sometimes. It requires a tolerant TD >willing to adjust the scores on most boards to what we >agree is appropriate with the opponents. >>What other calls would a probst cheat consider making? John (MadDog) Probst: >1NT (but he's not really that sort of cheat) Richard Hills: I asked the questions out of interest in discovering what sort of cheat the probst cheat was, but the real point of this problem is common-or-garden cheating. In Bobby Wolff's book he related a tale of two American experts who remarkably bid to a grand slam missing the king of trumps, and even more remarkably the king of trumps was onside. It was obvious to Bobby that they used a wire to cheat on the board, perhaps by an infraction of what is now Law 16C1: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information." And on Tuesday night South chose to immediately leap to 6C. All passed. Remarkably, North held: AK875 Q985 3 AT7 so 6C was cold. So it was obvious that South was cheating with a wire on the board. Except that I was South. The problem with the Rule of Coincidence used by werewolves to assess cheating is that they look only at one successful deal, failing to consider the other possibilities. For example, even if North was void in clubs, 6C would still be odds-on to make if North held QJ of diamonds and the ace of hearts. Plus the uninformative auction might steal a slam swing if North instead held QJ of diamonds and the ace of spades, and West guessed the wrong lead. Indeed, many a mickle makes a muckle. Although 6C was the contract at both tables, the scientific auction at the other table allowed East to make a lead-directing double of hearts. Because the opponents made 12 tricks while I made 13, after 14 boards of a 42 board playoff the opponents are leading by one imp, instead of by twice that amount. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 3 01:08:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:08:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] L81C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48E4D9BF.9090600@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: [snip] >Do we prevent damage if we correct a non-established revoke >before it becomes established? > >Possible outcomes: >A: We correct immediately. [snip] >B2: NOS does not notice before time limit, TD adjusts (if >need be) by L64C, thereby (by definition) an equitable result >is reached, but not by the players, rather by the TD, who has >to judge what is equitable under the circumstances. This may >be difficult to do, depending on several circumstances, but >nobody said the job should be easy. > >Now all these variations have certain positive and negative >aspects. Can we "agree" what is best, or can someone find a >law that says what we must do? If we cannot find such a law, >would you like to have one, or would you rather handle each >case according to your preferences (or your judgement)? Richard Hills: In my opinion, if there is no Director call by a player, the Director choosing A is wrong and the Director choosing B2 is right. I do not quote a numbered Law as my authority; rather I quote the often ignored Law Zero as my authority. 2007 Introduction: ".....The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged..... Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic penalties: they are replaced by the concept of rectification of a situation that unfortunately has arisen.....For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 3 01:42:18 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:42:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 76 (was 81C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >I would not consider it an infringement of proprieties if a >spectator drew attention to a pair trying to sit at the >wrong table. Law 76B5: "A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game." Richard Hills: When players are moving for the next round I would argue that a spectator is not "at the table" but rather "in the room". So yes, as TD I would permit a spectator telling me that the movement is about to fouled. (As TD, I also am grateful to spectators reminding me that the next round is the skip round.) Robert Frick: >Perhaps a key factor is whether something is considered a >part of the skill of the game. > >I think of 'avoiding revokes' as part of the skill of the >game, Richard Hills: No, the key factor is "at the table". I would argue that a spectator must keep schtum about anything which happened during the auction and play until the correction period has expired (except if requested to speak by the Director, Law 76C1). Robert Frick: >I would not complain if a spectator caught an accidentally- >dropped card before it hit the table. Richard Hills: Abort. Abort. In addition to sponsors hiring experts as partners, if Robert Frick was Director in charge of the Spingold, he would permit sponsors to hire spectating valets to reduce the number of penalty cards that the sponsors perpetrate? :-) :-) :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 3 05:18:22 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:18:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 76 (was 81C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:42:18 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> I would not consider it an infringement of proprieties if a >> spectator drew attention to a pair trying to sit at the >> wrong table. > > Law 76B5: > > "A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any > aspect of the game." > > Richard Hills: > > When players are moving for the next round I would argue > that a spectator is not "at the table" but rather "in the > room". So yes, as TD I would permit a spectator telling > me that the movement is about to fouled. (As TD, I also am > grateful to spectators reminding me that the next round is > the skip round.) > > Robert Frick: > >> Perhaps a key factor is whether something is considered a >> part of the skill of the game. >> >> I think of 'avoiding revokes' as part of the skill of the >> game, > > Richard Hills: > > No, the key factor is "at the table". I would argue that a > spectator must keep schtum about anything which happened > during the auction and play until the correction period has > expired (except if requested to speak by the Director, Law > 76C1). Actually, you don't have much control over spectators. What are you going to do -- give them a pp? All you can do is throw them out. And actually, I want them to correct errors in scoring. Both sides are supposed to be working together to get the correct score, so no one can complain about a spectator helping with that. > > Robert Frick: > >> I would not complain if a spectator caught an accidentally- >> dropped card before it hit the table. > > Richard Hills: > > Abort. Abort. > > In addition to sponsors hiring experts as partners, if Robert > Frick was Director in charge of the Spingold, he would permit > sponsors to hire spectating valets to reduce the number of > penalty cards that the sponsors perpetrate? :-) :-) :-) Right. Say there was a player who, because of age or disability, was inclined to drop cards. I would not mind a friendly spectator who tried to help that, or even someone who held and played his/her cards. That's because to me, holding one's cards is not a part of the game. Note that there are bans to memory aids, but no bans to "holding one's cards" aids. I don't know how far it will go, but maybe the issue is how the laws treat an action. There is no penalty for accidentally dropping one's cards. The rectification occurs only when the card is face up. There is no rectification per se for going to the wrong table and playing the wrong boards. Similarly, I would appreciate the sponsors hiring as much help as they want to prevent procedural penalties. So I think there may be a pattern to spectator rights (and that the director has the same rights). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 3 09:01:37 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:01:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 76 (was 81C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >Actually, you don't have much control over spectators. What >are you going to do -- give them a pp? All you can do is >throw them out. Law 76A1: "Spectators in the playing area* are subject to the control of the Director under the regulations for the tournament. * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present during a session in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation." ACBL spectator regulation: "Spectators (kibitzers) may attend all ACBL tournaments except those at which the privilege of watching is specifically curtailed. The DIC may impose restrictions on spectators, as necessary, to preserve the orderly conduct of the game. He or she should, for example, disallow standing spectators. The DIC may limit the number of spectators at a given table, may forbid spectators from moving from one table to another, and may remove any or all kibitzers from a room. Tournament players must extend the same reasonable privileges to spectators that the tournament officials grant them. While a player may not bar all spectators from the table, he or she may bar one spectator (excluding tournament officials, the recorder or his designee, or officially approved members of the press) without having to state any reason. If a player objects to the presence of other kibitzers, he or she must tell the DIC the reason(s) and request their removal from the table. If the DIC considers the request justified, appropriate action will be taken. The player must accept the DIC's ruling on the matter for the session in question." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 3 09:39:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:39:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 76 (was 81C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E5CC3D.3060700@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > > Right. Say there was a player who, because of age or disability, was > inclined to drop cards. I would not mind a friendly spectator who tried to > help that, or even someone who held and played his/her cards. That's > because to me, holding one's cards is not a part of the game. Note that > there are bans to memory aids, but no bans to "holding one's cards" aids. > > I don't know how far it will go, but maybe the issue is how the laws treat > an action. There is no penalty for accidentally dropping one's cards. Another case arose a few years ago in my club : screens were on, a player bid (IIRC) 4S, and while passing the trailer, the top cards were ripped off, so that the bidding read 4D. The kibitz signalled the fact,. The bidding cards had fallen next to him. I suppose this fits well into Robert's distinguo, since passing a trailer is not a bridge skill and there's no penalty for doing it clumsily. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 3 10:04:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:04:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 76 (was 81C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick suggested: >Right. Say there was a player who, because of age or >disability, was inclined to drop cards. I would not >mind a friendly spectator who tried to help that, or >even someone who held and played his/her cards. Richard Hills concurs: A top-class Indian expert became blind in his old age. He disdained braille cards, instead using a friend as an amanuensis sitting behind his shoulder whispering each call as it was made, and each card as it was revealed. Such was his memory that he did not need any review of calls or cards as he executed his double squeezes. But..... There is a difference between an amanuensis permitted by the Conditions of Contest, and a mere spectator choosing to influence the auction and/or play without permission. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 3 10:46:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:46:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c92424$d6ad6440$84082cc0$@com> Message-ID: In the L81C3 thread, David Burn wrote, in part: [big snip] >Larry Bennett, a gentleman I don't know and whose surname I >might have misspelled (in which case I apologise) asked the >other day whether anything we said on BLML had anything to >do with the game he'd loved playing for a number of years. > >The answer is: yes it does, because at least here we're >trying to sort out what the rules actually are, and we have >to guide us some of the people who are the fons et origo of >the rules as they actually are in 2008. Richard Hills: Indeed. When I checked the blml archives to discover exactly which post Larry Bennett objected to, I was pleasantly surprised. It was not an obvious objection to one of the 131 posts an over-prolific blmler made last month (but since I am a blmler in a glass house, I should not be the one to cast the first stone). Rather, Larry Bennett appeared to have misinterpreted a subtle joke by Paul Lamford which goes to the fundamental nature of the game. To recapitulate, the fundamental rule that David Burn and Paul Lamford were trying to sort out is Law 40A1(b): "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." David Burn argued that "make available its partnership understandings" was not synonymous with "make available all of its partnership understandings". The logical consequence of a Burnian interpretation would be that the only operative part of Law 40A1(b) would be its second sentence, which could thus legalise concealed partnership understandings. Ron Johnson, blml posting 28th July 2004: >>When I played in New York with my father we used to pre-alert >>the fact that we played 4 card majors and ACOL 2s. (even >>though pre-alerts didn't exist when we first started to do >>this) >> >>We started to do this after a good player doubled on the >>auction. What sounded to her like a desperate struggle to >>game was in fact a slam try auction, and she wasn't over the >>big hand as she thought. >> >>Nothing in the auction was alertable, but it left me with a >>bad taste. Richard Hills: Meanwhile, Paul Lamford's joke pointed out that the Law 7B2 phrase "he must inspect the faces of his cards" had an intended meaning of "he must inspect the faces of all of his cards", contrary to Burnian parsing. The key problem, as has been noted earlier by David Stevenson, is that it is impossible to pre-alert all of your partnership understandings. But from that premise, David Stevenson drew the unwarranted conclusion that pre-alert regs are futile and unnecessary. Cutting to the chase, while it is impractical to disclose all, in my opinion that does _not_ mean non-disclosure is cost free. Law 40B6(b): "The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 3 11:40:34 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:40:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E5E892.6010004@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > The key problem, as has been noted earlier by David Stevenson, > is that it is impossible to pre-alert all of your partnership > understandings. But from that premise, David Stevenson drew > the unwarranted conclusion that pre-alert regs are futile and > unnecessary. > > Cutting to the chase, while it is impractical to disclose all, > in my opinion that does _not_ mean non-disclosure is cost free. > > Law 40B6(b): > > "The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an > explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and > opponent is thereby damaged." > A corrollary of this is that anything which determines his choice of action of an opponent is disclosable by L40, and that in order to avoid adjustment by L40B6b, a player has a duty to answer any question about it when the opponent asks for it. So we come to the strange conclusion that if there are questions which are not obliged to be answered under L20F1 (as per some interpretations), these questions could still lead to score adjustments under L40B6b. What is the use then of those interpretations. "I don't need to answer this". "True, but if you don't you'll be held liable for MI". See how silly this interpretation was all along? Herman (the writer of 131 posts in september, if you did not read the statistic) :) From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 3 15:25:58 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:25:58 EDT Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 03/10/2008 08:47:01 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged. [paul lamford] There needs to be a practical way of ensuring this disclosure. David Burn thinks we cannot disclose all methods before the start of play, and I concur. It has been pointed out that Law 20F, particularly the clause: "relevant alternative calls available that were not made" does not give one the right to ask about calls that are still to be made. Say I look at the opponents' card and find that they do not have DOPI there, and I elect to bid 5D over 4NT on xx xx Jxxx KQxxx after the auction, say, (1S) - 3D - (4NT - RKCB for spades) - 5D, and they now double showing one key card and elect to defend at adverse, knowing they do not have a slam on. This turns out to be the right thing to do as partner has Kxx xx KQxxxxx x and we go 4 off. Now it appears that I cannot ask whether they play DOPI before bidding 5D, as this is not an alternative call that was not made. I can try to claim that the card was not complete enough, but I would not expect to be given a ruling in my favour. However: "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership?s methods." indicates that the RA may allow the asking of questions about the system generally or about specific calls which might be made in the future, presumably before the auction or at the player's turn to call, and this is has indeed become accepted by practice. I would often want to know the opponents' methods after an intervention over 1NT before venturing it, riskily, on some 5-4 ten-count. The simplest, if this is indeed the view of the RA, is to delete "alternative" in Law 20F, as it is clearly inappropriate if that person's turn to call in the auction has not been reached. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 3 16:49:00 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:49:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E630DC.7010307@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 03/10/2008 08:47:01 GMT Standard Time, > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation > is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged. > > [paul lamford] There needs to be a practical way of ensuring this > disclosure. David Burn thinks we cannot disclose all methods before the start of play, > and I concur. It has been pointed out that Law 20F, particularly the clause: > > "relevant alternative calls available that were not made" > > does not give one the right to ask about calls that are still to be made. > > Say I look at the opponents' card and find that they do not have DOPI there, > and I elect to bid 5D over 4NT on xx xx Jxxx KQxxx after the auction, say, > (1S) - 3D - (4NT - RKCB for spades) - 5D, and they now double showing one key > card and elect to defend at adverse, knowing they do not have a slam on. This > turns out to be the right thing to do as partner has Kxx xx KQxxxxx x and we > go 4 off. Now it appears that I cannot ask whether they play DOPI before > bidding 5D, as this is not an alternative call that was not made. I can try to > claim that the card was not complete enough, but I would not expect to be given > a ruling in my favour. No? You think the WBF would allow this to be the correct interpretation of Law? > However: > > "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other > methods of disclosure of a partnership?s methods." indicates that the RA may > allow the asking of questions about the system generally or about specific calls > which might be made in the future, presumably before the auction or at the > player's turn to call, and this is has indeed become accepted by practice. I > would often want to know the opponents' methods after an intervention over 1NT > before venturing it, riskily, on some 5-4 ten-count. The simplest, if this > is indeed the view of the RA, is to delete "alternative" in Law 20F, as it is > clearly inappropriate if that person's turn to call in the auction has not > been reached. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 3 17:53:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:53:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E64011.6000906@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other > methods of disclosure of a partnership?s methods." indicates that the RA may > allow the asking of questions about the system generally or about specific calls > which might be made in the future, presumably before the auction or at the > player's turn to call, and this is has indeed become accepted by practice. I > would often want to know the opponents' methods after an intervention over 1NT > before venturing it, riskily, on some 5-4 ten-count. AG : if you're an aggressive player, so aggressive that you'll want to change style according to oppnents' agreements (e.g. about doubles), I'd expect you to check relevant facts on their CC or by asking them before the round. BTW, asking at the very moment you want to overcall, then overcalling, will : a) waive the red flag in front of them. After they tell you they're playing TO doubles, they'll leave them in more readily. b) creating UI, which will compel partner to be aggressive too, in order to "bend backwards". Whence more penalties. All in all, not the right move. Best regards Alain From Gampas at aol.com Fri Oct 3 18:21:42 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:21:42 EDT Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 03/10/2008 14:49:26 GMT Standard Time, Hermandw at skynet.be writes: No? You think the WBF would allow this to be the correct interpretation of Law? [paul lamford] The problem is that there is only so much information that can be entered on the CC, and DOPI is often omitted. And I would surely be seen as a *bridge lawyer* if claiming the absence of this detail on the card had damaged me. Take another example. I have never found "Double of Stayman" on any card. Some play it as strong balanced, and some play it as clubs. And some, of course, don't know how they play it. So, if you have AJxx AJx KQxx xx and your partner opens a weak NT, and RHO passes, there is no express provision for you to ask how a double of Stayman is played. If there were, they would draw the conclusion from the question that a club lead from two or three small might be to their advantage, but the reply to the question is UI to them, so they are not allowed to draw that conclusion. Although the question is AI, I think, which presents a contradiction. The principle that one has an absolute right to knowledge of the opponents' system is being violated by the wording of 20F, unless there is some provision to ask about bids that *have not yet been made*. And yes, in another thread Alain indicates that you confer UI to your partner by asking. I agree, but that is always the risk you take with any question. You need to balance the need to know with the extra ethical restriction placed on partner's bidding. From adam at tameware.com Fri Oct 3 22:43:02 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 16:43:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ cases posted In-Reply-To: <694eadd40810031247y17432708ofb31480837b3c06e@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40809072004r2dc329bdp36b0af45719aae9@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40809130802u4664463bme69637f7c0b5b72a@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40809130804g21853f98m62a3ec8ef350e987@mail.gmail.com> <694eadd40810031247y17432708ofb31480837b3c06e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40810031343p626875a9xa8cb347acbcae80c@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 11:04 AM, I wrote: > 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 Here are my draft comments. Corrections and criticisms are welcome! If you want to discuss a particular case please start a separate thread. 1. Looks right to me. 2. This is the toughest case I've seen in a while. When I first read it I overlooked the fact that "The UI demonstrably suggested passing" is not obvious. The AC ought to have demonstrated it. One could argue that the UI demonstrably suggested bidding, since 3H could have been a 4-3 fit in which case 3S would almost certainly play better than 3H. An alternative argument is that 3H suggested passing, since if partner thinks 2C was Landy he'll treat 3S as forcing and a four level contract will likely be disastrous. The AC ruling seems inconsistent. If the committee thought 3S likely to end the auction then 3S was demonstrably suggested and the AC ought not adjust the score at all. If the committee judged 3S unlikely to end the auction then Pass was demonstrably suggested and the score for both sides ought to have been adjusted to NS -300 or -800. While I find this one too close to call, I don't think the TD and AC rulings can be correct. 3. It seems likely enough to me that East would have raised an immediate 2S to three. It would be unlucky to take only 8 tricks, and 10 are odds-on opposite as little as Jxxxxx xx xxxx x. Given the opportunity West would continue to game most of the time. I'd have adjusted the score for both sides to EW +620. 4. I don't agree that a pause of 6-7 seconds is a break in tempo on this auction, but this is a judgment call. I've made enough Blackwood mistakes that I always count my key cards twice, and one could argue that a faster response would convey the UI that South took 4N as Blackwood for hearts rather than something more esoteric. If UI was available it's not clear what it demonstrably suggests, though I would buy the argument that since a fast call would tend to show a simple RKCB response a slow call makes some other hand more likely. This was a close case that could have gone either way. 5. Good work all 'round. 6. The case is not clear-cut. NS failed to properly inform their opponents, and the MI made the winning action less attractive. With proper information it seems at least at all probable that East would have doubled, and I might judge it likely. EW's arguments did not help their case, but the AC did not need to attach overwhelming importance to them. The facts of the case speak for themselves. I'd have adjusted the score for both sides to EW +130 in 4C, so I certainly don't agree with the AWMW. 7. Note that the actual agreement must have been "semi-forcing", not "forcing", though that doesn't affect the case. The TD and AC decisions are reasonable ? I can see them going the other way too. This was a close case. 8. Another difficult case. I'd have liked to know whether North thought he was showing a minimum or a maximum, and if the latter why he didn't alert 2NT. South's reasoning is cogent, but that doesn't mean that some of her peers might not have blasted 4H. Both the TD and AC rulings seem reasonable to me. 9. It seems obvious to me that a slow double suggests a hand with reservations about defending doubled. Surely a TD should obtain input from expert players before making such a ruling in a National event, especially one where he must suspect his ruling will be controversial. The AC corrected an injustice. 10. A close case. Both the TD and the AC rulings seem reasonable to me. I'd have assessed a substantial procedural penalty against EW in addition. A more experienced AC might have. Because the appeal was filed late in the evening I persuaded three top experts who are not members of the NAC to serve, and I'd like to thank them, as well as all the NAC members, for their time and hard work. 11. A close case ? this one could have gone either way. I can't fault either the TD or the AC ruling. 12. The TD ruling puzzles me. The AC corrected an injustice. 13. I see no merit to the appeal. Before proceeding NS ought to have attempted constructed a hand for East where, from West's point of view, slam would be an underdog. Not being able to do so they might have realized they had no case. NS expressed surprise that East could be so weak. Had East held a stronger hand, though, slam could only have been better. 14. An especially thorough job by the AC. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 5 03:48:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:48:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40810031343p626875a9xa8cb347acbcae80c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: Here are my draft comments. Corrections and criticisms are welcome! If you want to discuss a particular case please start a separate thread. 2. This is the toughest case I've seen in a while. When I first read it I overlooked the fact that "The UI demonstrably suggested passing" is not obvious. The AC ought to have demonstrated it. One could argue that the UI demonstrably suggested bidding, since 3H could have been a 4-3 fit in which case 3S would almost certainly play better than 3H. An alternative argument is that 3H suggested passing, since if partner thinks 2C was Landy he'll treat 3S as forcing and a four level contract will likely be disastrous. The AC ruling seems inconsistent. If the committee thought 3S likely to end the auction then 3S was demonstrably suggested and the AC ought not adjust the score at all. If the committee judged 3S unlikely to end the auction then Pass was demonstrably suggested and the score for both sides ought to have been adjusted to NS -300 or -800. While I find this one too close to call, I don't think the TD and AC rulings can be correct. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Pass Pass 1NT(1) 2C (2) Pass 3H (3) Pass ? (1) 13+ to 16 (2) One or both majors (3) Pass or correct You, East, hold: KQJ752 QT9 953 Q What is your only logical alternative? What logical alternative is your only one? Richard Hills: The answer has to be 3S. East's actual choice of Pass only became a logical alternative once West gave UI that West thought that East was guaranteeing both majors (that is, the UI told East that West held long hearts and possibly a void in spades). Extract from the Appeals Committee Ruling: "What were the likely and at all probable results had East bid 3S? If West continued to believe that 2C shows both majors then 3S would be forcing and the auction would continue. The committee judged that the unusual 3S bid would almost certainly wake West up enough that he would recall the actual agreement and pass." Richard Hills: I beg to differ. An inconsistent-with-what-West-thinks- the-system-is 3S might wake West up, but a consistent- but-strength-showing 3S would, in my opinion, be at all probable to leave West still dozing. So I would have split the score under the 1997 Law 12C2, giving North- South the score for 3S +200, and giving East-West the score for 4Sx -800. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 5 04:14:47 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:14:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: [big snip] >The principle that one has an absolute right to >knowledge of the opponents' system is being violated by >the wording of 20F, unless there is some provision to >ask about bids that *have not yet been made*. Richard Hills: On page 4 of the 6th Daily Bulletin (Thursday 4th September) of the 2008 PABF Congress http://www.qldbridge.com/pabf/bulletin/PABF6.pdf West needed to know about a double that had not yet been made. She needed to know that the Ali-Hills partnership were playing the Worst System in the World, so if one of us opened 1H or 1S, and an opponent overcalled, a double by the other one of us would be penalties (not the negative double employed by those who use the Best Systems in the World). But of course our partnership pre-alerted our unusual doubling style, so West twice going for a number in 2Dx is a tribute to her determination, but perhaps less of a tribute to her skills in modifying her hand evaluation after a change in the external environment. Paul Lamford: >And yes, in another thread Alain indicates that you >confer UI to your partner by asking. I agree, but that >is always the risk you take with any question. You need >to balance the need to know with the extra ethical >restriction placed on partner's bidding. Richard Hills: And that is perhaps one of the best arguments for the EBU policy of legalising new conventions gradually (first licensed at the expert level, then licensed at lower levels if they prove popular). An intrinsically ineffective convention may still pick up imps and matchpoints due to its novelty value. And if an opponent tries to mitigate the novelty by asking a question, the opponent's partner is under UI constraint, and the UI constraint may cost imps and matchpoints. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Oct 6 01:30:58 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:30:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] Message-ID: <48E94E32.9080003@aol.com> I received this email from a friend who is an EBL TD. He'd be interested in the input of blml members concerning the case. JE -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Your opinion? Datum: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:21:30 +0200 Von: PHARMA-Marketing An: 'Jeff Easterson' CC: 'P?ter G?l' Dear Jeff we met the following case recently (pairs tournament) West East AKQJ9xxx x x xx ADTx KJxxxxx - Jxx Bidding W N E S 3 H passz 4 H 6 S passz passz Dbl all pass North plays the OL face down. At this moment W raises the following question: Is your partnership long existing? Reply: Yes West to North: What is the meaning of the double? North: We have no agreement South: Certainly we have, the situation has been discussed. North faces the OL: Ace of H. South plays the King of H to the trick. North leads a diamond, South ruffs -- one down. What is your decision (if any) based on which rules? Thanks, Andras From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 6 06:14:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:14:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48E94E32.9080003@aol.com> Message-ID: Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): "The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions." >Dear Jeff we met the following case recently (pairs >tournament) > >West East >AKQJ9xxx x >x xx >AQTx KJxxxxx >--- Jxx > >Bidding > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 3H Pass 4H >6S Pass Pass Dbl >Pass Pass Pass > >North plays the OL face down. At this moment West >raises the following question: "Is your partnership >long existing?" > >Reply: "Yes." > >West to North: "What is the meaning of the double?" > >North: "We have no agreement." > >South: "Certainly we have, the situation has been >discussed." > >North faces the OL: Ace of H. South plays the King of H >to the trick. North leads a diamond, South ruffs -- one >down. > >What is your decision (if any) based on which rules? Richard Hills: Firstly, we have here an infraction by South of another blmler's favourite Law, Law 20F5(a). So it is obviously appropriate to apply a procedural penalty to South. Secondly, West had no need to ask any questions at that time, but asking questions is only illegal if you are asking a question to help partner - and West's partner was dummy. Thirdly, it is impossible to make a score adjustment ruling without knowing North's cards. Given the AI from the bidding, and from the play to trick one, it may well be possible that a diamond switch at trick two is the only logical alternative for North. If, however, North has chosen to preempt with two aces, laying down the ace of clubs at trick two may be a logical alternative, since if I was West I would gamble 6S when holding: AKQJ9876 2 AQT 2 and in that case a diamond switch would be disastrous. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gerben at t-online.de Sat Oct 4 23:26:13 2008 From: gerben at t-online.de (Gerben Dirksen) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 14:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [blml] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn Message-ID: <1149036297.659283.1223155573865.JavaMail.app@com06.prod> LinkedIn ------------ Blml at Amsterdamned., I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Gerben Learn more: https://www.linkedin.com/e/isd/371634771/ezn1VHLv/ ------------------------------------------ What is LinkedIn and why should you join? http://learn.linkedin.com/what-is-linkedin/ ------ (c) 2008, LinkedIn Corporation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081004/76357f11/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 6 11:38:55 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:38:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E9DCAF.2080500@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): > > "The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for > the right to hear the music of our own opinions." > > >> Dear Jeff we met the following case recently (pairs >> tournament) >> >> West East >> AKQJ9xxx x >> x xx >> AQTx KJxxxxx >> --- Jxx >> >> Bidding >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 3H Pass 4H >> 6S Pass Pass Dbl >> Pass Pass Pass >> >> North plays the OL face down. At this moment West >> raises the following question: "Is your partnership >> long existing?" >> >> Reply: "Yes." >> >> West to North: "What is the meaning of the double?" >> >> North: "We have no agreement." >> >> South: "Certainly we have, the situation has been >> discussed." >> >> North faces the OL: Ace of H. South plays the King of H >> to the trick. North leads a diamond, South ruffs -- one >> down. >> >> What is your decision (if any) based on which rules? >> AG : first, a 20% PP to South, or more, because his mannerism could well have been voluntary. Second, we have to decide whether AI = UI, that is, without the remainder about the double, whether the Diamond switch is obvious. I'd say it could be, after the flamboyant play of the HQ. If North has AQ of Hearts, the play of the King is unmistakable. If he doesn't hold the Queen, I'd say there exists a LA, the King possibly being from KQ bare (just to avoid playing the Queen).. Third, West gave the opponents the gun to shoot him, but that's not an infraction AFAIC. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 6 14:43:17 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:43:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EA07E5.80502@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): > > "The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to > hear the music of our own opinions." > >> Dear Jeff we met the following case recently (pairs tournament) >> >> West East AKQJ9xxx >> x x xx AQTx >> KJxxxxx --- Jxx >> >> Bidding >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 3H Pass >> 4H 6S Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass >> >> North plays the OL face down. At this moment West raises the >> following question: "Is your partnership long existing?" >> >> Reply: "Yes." >> >> West to North: "What is the meaning of the double?" >> >> North: "We have no agreement." >> >> South: "Certainly we have, the situation has been discussed." >> >> North faces the OL: Ace of H. South plays the King of H to the >> trick. North leads a diamond, South ruffs -- one down. >> >> What is your decision (if any) based on which rules? > > Richard Hills: > > Firstly, we have here an infraction by South of another blmler's > favourite Law, Law 20F5(a). So it is obviously appropriate to apply > a procedural penalty to South. > That particular blml-er believes that L20F5a deserves better than that. This law does not in itself provide for any penalty, and I don't believe it should. The penalty from the resulting UI should be enough. I am therefor going to be very severely harsh on NS and am going to find that the club return, despite the quite obvious HK signal, is a LA. I'll have to be somewhat inventive in finding this, but how about the following: Without the question, South would not know that North did not know that the double asked for diamonds. South could then have chosen to signal somewhat less obvious, and North might switch to clubs. In fact, I am ruling UI on South. Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 6 15:25:13 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:25:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] In-Reply-To: <48E94E32.9080003@aol.com> References: <48E94E32.9080003@aol.com> Message-ID: <8BF455F6-105D-4ED4-BCCA-EFBFF7D7BD89@starpower.net> On Oct 5, 2008, at 7:30 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: Your opinion? > Datum: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:21:30 +0200 > Von: PHARMA-Marketing > An: 'Jeff Easterson' > > Dear Jeff we met the following case recently (pairs tournament) > > West East > > AKQJ9xxx x > > x xx > > ADTx KJxxxxx > > - Jxx > > Bidding > > W N E S > > 3 H passz 4 H > > 6 S passz passz Dbl > > all pass > > North plays the OL face down. At this moment W raises the following > question: Is your partnership long existing? > > Reply: Yes > > West to North: What is the meaning of the double? > > North: We have no agreement > > South: Certainly we have, the situation has been discussed. > > North faces the OL: Ace of H. South plays the King of H to the trick. > North leads a diamond, South ruffs -- one down. > > What is your decision (if any) based on which rules? North has extraneous information from his partner's comment and is therefore subject to the constraints specified by L16B. Whether he has committed an infraction by violating those constraints depends on what he holds. It does seem likely a priori that the HK signal will prove to have been unmistakeable, leaving North with no LA to a diamond shift, but that is what we need to find out. No decision is possible without knowing North's hand. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 6 15:50:43 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:50:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EA07E5.80502@skynet.be> References: <48EA07E5.80502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c927ba$87bcd6b0$97368410$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > >> North plays the OL face down. At this moment West raises the > >> following question: "Is your partnership long existing?" > >> > >> Reply: "Yes." > >> > >> West to North: "What is the meaning of the double?" > >> > >> North: "We have no agreement." > >> > >> South: "Certainly we have, the situation has been discussed." > >> > >> North faces the OL: Ace of H. South plays the King of H to the > >> trick. North leads a diamond, South ruffs -- one down. > >> > >> What is your decision (if any) based on which rules? > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Firstly, we have here an infraction by South of another blmler's > > favourite Law, Law 20F5(a). So it is obviously appropriate to apply > > a procedural penalty to South. > > > > That particular blml-er believes that L20F5a deserves better than that. > > This law does not in itself provide for any penalty, and I don't believe > it should. The penalty from the resulting UI should be enough. > > I am therefor going to be very severely harsh on NS and am going to find > that the club return, despite the quite obvious HK signal, is a LA. > I'll have to be somewhat inventive in finding this, but how about the > following: > Without the question, South would not know that North did not know that > the double asked for diamonds. South could then have chosen to signal > somewhat less obvious, and North might switch to clubs. > In fact, I am ruling UI on South. There is no need to make this more difficult than it is. The comment from South is extraneous and therefore UI to North, no doubt about that. So first: The director can impose a PP if he feels for it. Second: This UI "could" have reminded North about some agreements and therefore "could" suggest a particular play. The opening lead from North and his answers suggest that he had forgotten a possible agreement about Lightner; common understanding of Law 16B is that he may not now "suddenly" remember such agreement. (Ironically, he would have been allowed to "remember" this agreement from West's asking if only South had kept his mum shut!) We don't know North's hand, but unless his hand contains overwhelming evidence for a diamond switch in trick two I should adjust the table result. (Is there any suspicion that West deliberately asked his questions in order to somehow deceive opponents?) Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 6 15:51:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:51:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EA07E5.80502@skynet.be> References: <48EA07E5.80502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48EA17FA.5050700@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): >> >> "The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to >> hear the music of our own opinions." >> >> >>> Dear Jeff we met the following case recently (pairs tournament) >>> >>> West East AKQJ9xxx >>> x x xx AQTx >>> KJxxxxx --- Jxx >>> >>> Bidding >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 3H Pass >>> 4H 6S Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass >>> >>> North plays the OL face down. At this moment West raises the >>> following question: "Is your partnership long existing?" >>> >>> Reply: "Yes." >>> >>> West to North: "What is the meaning of the double?" >>> >>> North: "We have no agreement." >>> >>> South: "Certainly we have, the situation has been discussed." >>> >>> North faces the OL: Ace of H. South plays the King of H to the >>> trick. North leads a diamond, South ruffs -- one down. >>> >>> What is your decision (if any) based on which rules? >>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Firstly, we have here an infraction by South of another blmler's >> favourite Law, Law 20F5(a). So it is obviously appropriate to apply >> a procedural penalty to South. >> >> > > > I am therefor going to be very severely harsh on NS and am going to find > that the club return, despite the quite obvious HK signal, is a LA. > I'll have to be somewhat inventive in finding this, but how about the > following: > Without the question, South would not know that North did not know that > the double asked for diamonds. South could then have chosen to signal > somewhat less obvious, and North might switch to clubs. > In fact, I am ruling UI on South. > AG : I didn't realize that ! Herman is absolutely right. Bridge players tend to reason that "you shouldn't give twice the same information". That's a bad time to reason that way, but surely it could have happened. And South could (barely) have been reluctant to throw his HK from Kx, in case West held Qx. Now he feels he has more to win. Notice that I don't like the idea of trying to find some subtle reason for penalizing the side we "feel" should be penalized, but the second paragraph is very convincing. (unless West knew that his question could give his opponents UI problems, and asked it precisely for that purpose, but that's too far-fetched IMHO) Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 6 23:41:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:41:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas non-NABC #21 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EA07E5.80502@skynet.be> Message-ID: Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): "The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions." Richard Hills: >>Firstly, we have here an infraction by South of another >>blmler's favourite Law, Law 20F5(a). So it is obviously >>appropriate to apply a procedural penalty to South. Herman De Wael: >That particular blml-er believes that L20F5a deserves better >than that. > >This law does not in itself provide for any penalty, and I >don't believe it should. Law 90A - Procedural Penalties - Director's Authority: "The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." Herman De Wael: >The penalty from the resulting UI should be enough. > >I am therefore going to be very severely harsh on NS and am >going to find that the club return, despite the quite obvious >HK signal, is a LA. I'll have to be somewhat inventive in >finding this, [snip] Richard Hills: "Penalty" from the resulting UI??? In my opinion Mister De Wael has made the ontological error of "category mistake", due to ambiguous wording in the superseded 1997 Lawbook. The new 2007 Lawbook makes clear that a score adjustment "rectification" is in a different category to a disciplinary or procedural "penalty". http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/LasVegas2008/21-Non-NABC+.pdf A similar category mistake was made in Las Vegas by a Director's Panel when it upheld a Director's Ruling. "The Ruling: Even though there was MI, the director determined that the MI did not cause damage to E/W in either the auction or play. The director judged that damage to E/W had no connection to the incomplete explanation of the 2NT bid. Therefore the table result of 3D by South making three, N/S plus 110 was allowed to stand." "The Decision: The panel determined that E/W's result was not directly caused by the MI. However, both North and South have over 10,000 masterpoints and a high standard regarding full disclosure is expected. Therefore, the panel allowed the table result of 3D by South making three, E/W minus 110 to stand for E/W and adjusted the N/S result to the most unfavorable result at all probable of 3D by South down two, N/S minus 100 (Laws 47E2(b) and 75)." Richard Hills: In my opinion, both the Director and the Panel erred. Even though the North-South MI did not cause damage, due to North-South being a long-standing and expert partnership, the Director should still have applied a procedural penalty to them. And, of course, the Panel was correct in noting what the Director carelessly ignored, that "a high standard regarding full disclosure is expected" from such experts. But since the auction and play was unaffected by the North-South MI infraction, it was a ridiculous category mistake to adjust the North-South score to a result that North-South did not achieve at the table. Just as ridiculous, in my opinion, as a supposedly impartial Director apparently prejudging the facts in a case with: "I'll have to be somewhat inventive in finding this....." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 7 01:58:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:58:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EA17FA.5050700@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): "The sound of tireless voices is the price we pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions." Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I didn't realize that ! Herman is absolutely right. [snip] >Notice that I don't like the idea of trying to find some >subtle reason for penalizing the side we "feel" should be >penalized, but the second paragraph is very convincing. [snip] Richard Hills: It is very easy to design "convincing" ex post facto reasoning to justify what we "feel" we should do. David Stevenson fell into that trap in 2004. "Groundhog Day" thread, 14th May 2004: Context plays a part in subconsciously biasing a player's selection of logical alternatives. But context might also play a part in subconsciously biasing a TD away from the requirement of an impartial judgement of the facts. When the first Groundhog Day problem was proposed to the Australian Bridge Directors' panel, South had chosen a successful 6H alternative, which some panellists thought was not a logical alternative. Did this context subconsciously bias some panellists into ruling that North's hesitation was a demonstrable suggestion? E.g. -> David Stevenson, 2004: [snip] >>>However, experience shows that players get this sort of >>>position right, so the UI must suggest something to >>>this pair. South's action, holding an ace, is pretty >>>incredible anyway. [snip] When the second Groundhog Day problem was proposed to the blml panel, South had chosen a successful Pass, and the East-West pair were seemingly trying to sea-lawyer their way out of a bad result. Did this context subconsciously bias some panellists into ruling that North's hesitation did *not* suggest anything? E.g. -> Herman De Wael, 2004: >>By asking for two adjustments at once, EW tell us they >>cannot tell which of the alternatives is suggested by the >>hesitation. Therefore, no alternative can be said to be >>_demonstrably_ suggested by the hesitation. Thus, no UI >>infraction. [snip] Two identical South hands, two identical auctions to South's crucial decision, with two identical hesitations by North. In one context, a very respected TD had no difficulty in ruling that North's hesitation was a demonstrable suggestion. In another context, a very respected TD had no difficulty in ruling that North's hesitation was *not* a demonstrable suggestion. Did these two very respected TDs rule in accordance with an objective assessment of what the hesitation demonstrably suggested? Or did these two very respected TDs rule in accordance with their little lists, due to a subconscious bias caused by context? W.S. Gilbert: "As some day it must happen that a victim must be found, I've got a little list - I've got a little list Of society offenders who might well be under ground And who never would be missed - who never would be missed!" Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 7 02:35:23 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 01:35:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] In-Reply-To: <48E94E32.9080003@aol.com> References: <48E94E32.9080003@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001c92814$96e88e90$c4b9abb0$@com> [JE] West East AKQJ9xxx x x xx AQTx KJxxxxx - Jxx Bidding W N E S 3H Pass 4H 6S Pass Pass Dbl All pass North plays the OL face down. At this moment W raises the following question: Is your partnership long existing? Reply: Yes West to North: What is the meaning of the double? North: We have no agreement South: Certainly we have, the situation has been discussed. North faces the OL: Ace of H. South plays the King of H to the trick. North leads a diamond, South ruffs - one down. What is your decision (if any) based on which rules? [DALB] Result stands - obviously no LA to playing a diamond at trick two, so no damage from UI. South penalised under Law 73B1 for attempted inappropriate communication. Since this is a particularly blatant offence, something like three or four times the standard amount - say, 10 IMPs or 40% of a top - seems appropriate. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 7 06:06:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:06:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48E5E892.6010004@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman (the writer of 131 posts in September, if you did not read the statistic) :) >A corollary of this is that anything which determines his >choice of action of an opponent is disclosable by L40, and >that in order to avoid adjustment by L40B6b, a player has a >duty to answer any question about it when the opponent asks >for it. > >So we come to the strange conclusion that if there are >questions which are not obliged to be answered under L20F1 >(as per some interpretations), these questions could still >lead to score adjustments under L40B6b. What is the use >then of those interpretations? > >"I don't need to answer this". "True, but if you don't >you'll be held liable for MI". > >See how silly this interpretation was all along? Eric Landau (the writer of 67 posts in September): >>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." Richard Hills (the writer of 86 posts in September): I agree with Herman De Wael and with Eric Landau. But I additionally note that while Law 40B6(b) sanctions an _incomplete_ explanation to a question, it does not solve Ron Johnson's problem of a _non-answer_ to a _non-question_ because the non-questioner did not realise that a question was necessary. Ron Johnson, blml posting 28th July 2004: "When I played in New York with my father we used to pre-alert the fact that we played 4 card majors and ACOL 2s. (Even though pre-alerts didn't exist when we first started to do this.) We started to do this after a good player doubled on the auction. What sounded to her like a desperate struggle to game was in fact a slam try auction, and she wasn't over the big hand as she thought. Nothing in the auction was alertable, but it left me with a bad taste." Law 40B4: "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score." Richard Hills (the writer of 96 posts in August) asks: But what do "these laws require"? If one assumes that the 2007 Lawbook applied at the time Ron Johnson gained his "bad taste" top, could a TD adjust the score of the Johnson-Johnson partnership via Law 40B4? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 7 06:57:15 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:57:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 76 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: overheard today: "It's not your lead" "Yes it is." "No, I trumped the last trick" "We're in no trump." "Oh" I think good players wouldn't have this conversation or put up with it, but this was in the easier section of today's game. If these had been strong players having this conversation against weaker player's, I would have intruded. I think the principle is to intrude to protect the weak or ignorant. But the opps seemed content to let them have this conversation. It didn't make sense to go to the table when everyone there might be unhappy I came. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 7 07:17:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 16:17:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c92814$96e88e90$c4b9abb0$@com> Message-ID: David Burn asserted: >Result stands - obviously no LA to playing a diamond at trick >two, Richard Hills quibbles: While it may well be (on the balance of probabilities) true that there is no LA to playing a diamond at trick two, that is not the same as (obviously) true. Eric Landau and I wish to know the North hand first. If the complete deal is North T8 AQJT98765 98 --- West East AKQJ9543 2 2 43 AQT2 KJ76543 --- J32 South 76 K --- AKQT987654 then perhaps a diamond switch is "obvious", since North knows for a fact that a second heart will not cash. But..... Herman De Wael asserted: >>>North might switch to clubs. Alain Gottcheiner agreed: >>Herman is absolutely right. :-) :-) :-) * * * If, however, North thinks that the complete deal is North --- AJT9876 98 87654 West East AKQJT98 2 2 43 --- KJ76543 AKQT9 J32 South 76543 KQ54 AQT2 --- then North may well switch to a club if South's king of hearts might be misinterpreted as something other than diamond suit- preference (e.g. natural count in hearts and/or promising the queen of hearts). Of course, when the actual deal is: North --- AJT9876 98 87654 West East AKQJ9543 2 2 43 AQT2 KJ76543 --- J32 South T876 KQ54 --- AKQT9 South has erred in not trying a "when in doubt, bid one more" 7C, which happens to be cold. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 7 10:12:20 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:12:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] In-Reply-To: <000001c92814$96e88e90$c4b9abb0$@com> References: <48E94E32.9080003@aol.com> <000001c92814$96e88e90$c4b9abb0$@com> Message-ID: <48EB19E4.4080802@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > > Result stands - obviously no LA to playing a diamond at trick two, so no > damage from UI. South penalised under Law 73B1 for attempted inappropriate > communication. Since this is a particularly blatant offence, something like > three or four times the standard amount - say, 10 IMPs or 40% of a top - > seems appropriate. > AG : no objection to this big penalty ; however, we aren't told the exact tone and timing of South's reaction : attempt to communicate or exclamation of surprise ? Improper anyway, of course. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 7 10:21:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:21:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EB1C21.7060002@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Ron Johnson, blml posting 28th July 2004: > > "When I played in New York with my father we used to pre-alert > the fact that we played 4 card majors and ACOL 2s. (Even > though pre-alerts didn't exist when we first started to do > this.) > We started to do this after a good player doubled on the > auction. What sounded to her like a desperate struggle to > game was in fact a slam try auction, and she wasn't over the > big hand as she thought. > Nothing in the auction was alertable, but it left me with a > bad taste." > AG : this is amplified by the silly present regulations that a double or redouble shall never be alerted. While it could be useful that neither a penalty double, not a takeout double, nor an optional double, nor a value double would be alertable, there are other doubles and redoubles that are too strange to be guessed. Two cases that give me a problem : - in one partnership, we play 1 minor - (double) - redouble as 6-8 without any long suit (5-card major or 6-card minor).; - in another, we play Wagner, and double of 2M (often a 4-card suit within the most popular defense in our country) is P/C, maening length will be misplaced an/or they won't dare to raise. My feeling is that, if Laws and Rules dictate that a player be misled by the bidding and left furious about it, then the Laws and Rules, not the player's mood, should be changed. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 7 10:43:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:43:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EB2123.9030801@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > David Burn asserted: > > >> Result stands - obviously no LA to playing a diamond at trick >> two, >> > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > While it may well be (on the balance of probabilities) true > that there is no LA to playing a diamond at trick two, that is > not the same as (obviously) true. Eric Landau and I wish to > know the North hand first. If the complete deal is > > North > T8 > AQJT98765 > 98 > --- > West East > AKQJ9543 2 > 2 43 > AQT2 KJ76543 > --- J32 > South > 76 > K > --- > AKQT987654 > > then perhaps a diamond switch is "obvious", since North knows > for a fact that a second heart will not cash. You don't need such an extreme example. If North has the likes of x - AJxxxxx - xx - Kxx (quite mundane, isn't it ?) he might be unable to distinguish between those two hands when South plays the King : xx - KQx - void - AQJxxxxx, what partner would have held in the present case, which would need a Diamond switch, xx - KQ - xx - Kxxxxxx, which would need a Heart continuation. But, anyway, North's UI to South that South would rather awaken him a second time means that LAs to playing the King must also be considered, and there probably are. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 7 10:55:00 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:55:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EB23E4.3020708@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Ron Johnson, blml posting 28th July 2004: > > "When I played in New York with my father we used to pre-alert the > fact that we played 4 card majors and ACOL 2s. (Even though > pre-alerts didn't exist when we first started to do this.) We started > to do this after a good player doubled on the auction. What sounded > to her like a desperate struggle to game was in fact a slam try > auction, and she wasn't over the big hand as she thought. Nothing in > the auction was alertable, but it left me with a bad taste." > > Law 40B4: > > "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to > provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws > require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an > adjusted score." > > Richard Hills (the writer of 96 posts in August) asks: > > But what do "these laws require"? > > If one assumes that the 2007 Lawbook applied at the time Ron Johnson > gained his "bad taste" top, could a TD adjust the score of the > Johnson-Johnson partnership via Law 40B4? > I think that a partnership that follows all the regulations of pre-alerting and alerting, yet fails to convey all the necessary information to opponents, has done nothing wrong. Ron is very ethical by giving pre-alerts, because it meant that once he realised that the regulations provided him sith a loophole, he stopped the hole himself. The opponents were damaged not by Ron but by the regulations - I think a split-score might have been in order, together with an obligation on Ron to start acting in the way he did of himself. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From john at asimere.com Tue Oct 7 11:20:29 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:20:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 76 References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 5:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 76 > overheard today: > > "It's not your lead" > "Yes it is." > "No, I trumped the last trick" > "We're in no trump." > "Oh" > > I think good players wouldn't have this conversation or put up with it, > but this was in the easier section of today's game. If these had been > strong players having this conversation against weaker player's, I would > have intruded. I think the principle is to intrude to protect the weak or > ignorant. I think this approach is correct. I might wander over after the hand and have a joke with them "Didn't your partner put the NT or the right?" and this gives me an opportunity to do some eductation. But I like the approach. john > > But the opps seemed content to let them have this conversation. It didn't > make sense to go to the table when everyone there might be unhappy I came. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 7 12:53:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:53:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 76 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EB3FAA.4050909@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 5:57 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 76 > > > >> overheard today: >> >> "It's not your lead" >> "Yes it is." >> "No, I trumped the last trick" >> "We're in no trump." >> "Oh" >> >> I think good players wouldn't have this conversation or put up with it, >> but this was in the easier section of today's game. If these had been >> strong players having this conversation against weaker player's, I would >> have intruded. I think the principle is to intrude to protect the weak or >> ignorant. >> > > I think this approach is correct. I might wander over after the hand and > have a joke with them "Didn't your partner put the NT or the right?" and > this gives me an opportunity to do some eductation. But I like the > approach. john > AG : in notrumps, always put the combined (supposed) weakest suit to dummy's right. Is that the kind of eductaion you had in mind ? But there is another interesting point about this dialog : We agreed, more than once, that reminding your conventions to your partner is UI, although the system is AI /stricto sensu/, because he has just proven he didn't own this piece of AI. In this case, wouldn't the fact that you remind him what the contract is the same kind of UI ? In this case, there isn't any damage done, because the right player will have to lead, but suppose partner hesitates to trump the trick or not, and you spontaneously declare "that's a notrump contract" ? Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 8 08:14:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:14:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the August 2003 iteration of this thread, Gordon Rainsford wrote: [snip] >He doesn't like being challenged, doesn't see the >need to justify arguments which may not have been >as carefully worded as they might, and has >explicitly stated that he doesn't have the time to >go back and check on what he and others have >written. Hence he's unapologetic about misquoting >others or misrepresenting their arguments. Jaap van der Neut wrote: [snip] >>If you cannot take it you should not dish it out. Gordon Rainsford agreed: >Indeed. Though it's a shame, since he obviously >has so much to contribute that I (and most others) >could gain from. Richard Hills: In my opinion it is unfortunate that all three of these gentlemen are no longer active posters to blml, since there seems to me to be an ever- shrinking number of active posters to the list. Only 14 blmlers chose to post 10 or more times last month, but in January there were 23 blmlers posting 10 or more times plus a significantly greater number of overall postings. Perhaps a factor has been that two long-time active posters - Ed Reppert and Raija - decided in January that they did not want to "take it" any more. (But I hasten to add that Ed and Raija - unlike the subject of Jaap's and Gordon's criticism - never "dished it out".) Or maybe simply boredom is the reason. Over time I have probably started more new threads than any other blmler, but perhaps I am getting stale. So now is the time for a blml lurker to start her very first 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 brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Oct 8 10:23:52 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:23:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EC6E18.60709@meadows.pair.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: <...> > Or maybe simply boredom is the reason. Over time I > have probably started more new threads than any > other blmler, but perhaps I am getting stale. So > now is the time for a blml lurker to start her very > first thread. > All right, although a (very) occasional poster rather than a lurker, I'll take up Richard's challenge. Those of you wanting an in-depth discussion of some esoteric point of law will have to look elsewhere, though. The question I'd like to pose is whether another attempt should be made to produce a set of Laws which could be applied to online bridge. For those of you who may not be aware of it, the WBFLC had a shot at producing a set of laws for the online game some years ago. I forget which members of the WBFLC were involved (someone will no doubt remind me), but I do remember that Bill Segraves, whom I knew from my days on OKBridge, was co-opted in some role or other. The end result, I think it's fair to say, was only minimally different from TFLB (offline), and at least as far as I read on the OKBridge Discuss mailing list, it was received with a certain amount of derision. Most of the posters to that list had looked at the results, seen all the stuff relating to the mechanical aspects of the deal were still there, seen that the (non-existent, for most online play) Director was still to be called under most circumstances when something went wrong, and dismissed the whole thing as irrelevant. I know there are those on this list who are not familiar with online bridge. While there are tournaments run on the two bridge sites I've used (OKBridge and Bridge Base Online, although my knowledge of OKBridge is now five years out of date) which will have a TD available, and there are a small number of people who volunteer to help sort out problems on BBO (the "Yellows") the vast majority of online bridge is played as a continuous duplicate, with usually only the players at the table available to sort out any problems. IMHO, for any set of Laws to be accepted by the online bridge world, they would have to meet the following criteria :- 1) The Laws will need to be applied by ordinary players, not Tournament Directors, and so have to be written in PLAIN language. No subtle inferences, no convoluted constructs, call a spade "a @#$%^&* shovel" and leave it at that. 2) The Laws need to acknowledge that the online software is going to prevent many of the usual errors (BOOTs, LOOTs, insufficient bids, etc.) You'll get a far greater number of online players actually reading the laws if all of that stuff is given the same treatment as the BOOTs and LOOTs and simply removed. The target has to be a SHORT document, not a small book. 3) There has to be a way of dealing with irregularities which assumes that there is NOT going to be a TD present. Just to give an example, on both OKBridge and BBO, a disputed claim is settled by revealing all four hands to the side which didn't claim, and play continues with that side ONLY playing double dummy. 4) The Laws must take into account that much, if not most, online bridge is played with pickup partnerships. System discussions are generally limited to the name of a bidding system and that's it, although many people do carry a short list of their preferred gadgets in their profile, and ?Your profile, pard? is far from an uncommon arrangement. Discussions are generally limited to a couple of lines of text, and play starts. "No agreement" is routinely correct, even in the simplest of situations - for example, try 1NT-(dbl, for penalties)-2D Lots of luck in guessing whether that's a transfer or to play. Based on my experience, it's close to a 50-50 guess. No doubt there are many other considerations, most of which escape me at this early hour of the morning, but the above should suffice to give some idea of the major differences between the online and offline forms of the game. So, any opinions? Is it worth another attempt, or should the online game be left to go its own way? Anyone who thinks so may want to consider that I've seen in excess of 12,000 people logged on to Bridge Base Online at one time, and that was WITHOUT a VuGraph in progress. The online game has to represent a significant (and growing, IMO) group of bridge players. Brian. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 8 10:31:42 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 09:31:42 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <13858462.1223454702693.JavaMail.root@ps29> +=+ No problem, really. Wait until the product of this week's meetings of the WBF Drafting Subcommittee and the WBF Laws Committee can be made public. There should then be enough to discuss. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ See your new look Tiscali Homepage - http://www.tiscali.co.uk ___________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 8 10:51:13 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 09:51:13 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <7859896.1223455873304.JavaMail.root@ps29> +=+ Under WBF Screen regulations communication across the screen is not permitted from the start of the auction period until the end of the play. What were the screen regs in this case? +=+ See your new look Tiscali Homepage - http://www.tiscali.co.uk ___________________________________________________ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 8 14:45:19 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:45:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48ECAB5F.70808@skynet.be> Another reaction to this same post richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Firstly, we have here an infraction by South of another > blmler's favourite Law, Law 20F5(a). So it is obviously > appropriate to apply a procedural penalty to South. > Obviously? I happen to disagree completely. Let me first state that I find this infraction particularly grave, and that I would probably also give a PP - but it's not that obvious. Many people fall into the same trap. There is something very fishy here, and we don't like the diamond return after the illegal remark. But ask yourself one thing: what if the return had been of no importance whatsoever, or the lead, or anything. Would you still give a PP? If yes, then by all means give the same one here. But many TDs would suffice with a sever warning "never do that again!". Well, then they should do the same here. Now if you are thinking "but they have cheated", then deal with that. We are not completely certain about a score adjustment here. Now suppose you would indeed change the contract from down to made. Would you still add on a PP? Or do you think they are sufficiently punished? And what if North, after cashing the Ace of hearts and noticing the HK, did the actively ethical thing and switched to a club, because of UI restrictions. Again, the contract would be made, you would congratulate North on his ethics, and tell off South pointing at the consequences of his actions. But would you add on a PP? Which is why I don't believe it is very obvious to give a PP here. You should all learn to curb your enthusiasm for PPs in cases where damage has occured. Rectify the damage, but do not add a PP if you would not have done it without the damage. And especially do not give PPs in cases where you cannot find the damage, but feel there could be. And certainly do not award PPs in cases where you know you are only called because there might be damage, and where you are never called otherwise (such as slight failures to alert, picking up bidding cards before the auction is over, and the like). From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 8 15:59:24 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:59:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 76 In-Reply-To: <48EB3FAA.4050909@ulb.ac.be> References: <48EB3FAA.4050909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > AG : in notrumps, always put the combined (supposed) weakest suit to > dummy's right. Is that the kind of eductaion you had in mind ? A pair in our unit has made it to the unit level on a complaint that they always put the led suit on the far left of their dummy (left from dummy's perspective). I think this is being treated as an illegal memory aid. But in that respect, is it any different than putting a weak suit to the far right in no trump so that partner knows he is in no trump? I asked the unit secretary about this, and he said he always puts his suits down in random order. So is it legal to put the weakest suit to dummy's right? One distinction is that putting a weak suit to the far right in no trump is information any player can ask for at any time. A second distinction is that the first-suit-led-goes-on-the-left is a code only declarer knows. But neither of these distinctions seems to be in the laws. Bob From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 8 16:50:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:50:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48ECAB5F.70808@skynet.be> References: <48ECAB5F.70808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48ECC8C1.1090303@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Another reaction to this same post > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Firstly, we have here an infraction by South of another >> blmler's favourite Law, Law 20F5(a). So it is obviously >> appropriate to apply a procedural penalty to South. >> >> > > Obviously? > > I happen to disagree completely. > > Let me first state that I find this infraction particularly grave, and > that I would probably also give a PP - but it's not that obvious. > > Many people fall into the same trap. There is something very fishy here, > and we don't like the diamond return after the illegal remark. > But ask yourself one thing: what if the return had been of no importance > whatsoever, or the lead, or anything. Would you still give a PP? If yes, > then by all means give the same one here. But many TDs would suffice > with a sever warning "never do that again!". Well, then they should do > the same here. > AG : you seem to consider that the gravity of an infraction doesn't depend from the damage done. That's not a popular view. The Law recognizes the importance of aggravating circumstances. Surely the judge will be more severe if that infraction to the Highway Code killed somebody. (and this is in addition to compensations) > Now if you are thinking "but they have cheated", then deal with that. > We are not completely certain about a score adjustment here. Now suppose > you would indeed change the contract from down to made. Would you still > add on a PP? Or do you think they are sufficiently punished? > AG : The answer to this is easy : changing the contract back isn't a penalty ; it is redress. > And what if North, after cashing the Ace of hearts and noticing the HK, > did the actively ethical thing and switched to a club, because of UI > restrictions. Again, the contract would be made, you would congratulate > North on his ethics, and tell off South pointing at the consequences of > his actions. But would you add on a PP? > AG : I would. >And especially do not give PPs in cases where you cannot find thedamage, but feel there could be. AG : sorry, but I repeat that PPs and redress are different things : PP for infraction (if serious enough), redress for damage (even if light : /Lex Aquilia/), possibly both. Whence I don't need any damage to penalize the infraction. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 8 16:59:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:59:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 76 In-Reply-To: References: <48EB3FAA.4050909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48ECCAC9.1050702@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : >> AG : in notrumps, always put the combined (supposed) weakest suit to >> dummy's right. Is that the kind of eductaion you had in mind ? >> > > A pair in our unit has made it to the unit level on a complaint that they > always put the led suit on the far left of their dummy (left from dummy's > perspective). > > I think this is being treated as an illegal memory aid. But in that > respect, is it any different than putting a weak suit to the far right in > no trump so that partner knows he is in no trump? AG : when trumps are put to dummy's right, this serves as a remainder of the denomination, and that's legal. Some authors recommend facing the led suit last to keep partner from playing too quickly. In doing so, most players will put it to dummy's right Is that foul play ? Also, most scoresheets or scoring tickets contain a box "lead", which will be in plain sight of the players. So I don't see what this way of tabling dummy will accomplish that isn't already done. Best regards Alain . From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 8 23:19:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:19:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EC6E18.60709@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: >.....the WBFLC had a shot at producing a set of laws for >the online game some years ago......it was received with >a certain amount of derision.....So, any opinions? Is it >worth another attempt, or should the online game be left >to go its own way?..... Richard Hills: Yes and yes. Since the WBF LC produced a set of Online Laws there has been a paradigm shift. When the Laws Drafting Committee was undecided on Law 1, the WBF Executive intervened by an overwhelming vote to authorise a name change of the game from "Duplicate Contract Bridge" to "Duplicate Bridge". The apparent purpose was to make it clear that Duplicate Bridge and Contract (Rubber) Bridge are now two sister games (a la Rugby Union and Rugby League) rather than two aspects of the same game. As a consequence, the WBF LC is not to be involved in the drafting of the next version of the Contract (Rubber) Bridge Lawbook, instead leaving the task to rubber bridge authorities such as the Portland Club. Given this 2007 paradigm shift, in my opinion it is worth another attempt to design the Online Bridge Lawbook, but the designers should not be the WBF LC, but rather online bridge authorities such as BBO and John (MadDog) Probst. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 9 00:15:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 09:15:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48ECAB5F.70808@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Obviously? > >I happen to disagree completely. > >Let me first state that I find this infraction particularly >grave, and that I would probably also give a PP - but it's >not that obvious. > >Many people fall into the same trap. There is something >very fishy here, and we don't like the diamond return after >the illegal remark. > >But ask yourself one thing: what if the return had been of >no importance whatsoever, or the lead, or anything. Would >you still give a PP? If yes, then by all means give the >same one here. But many TDs would suffice with a severe >warning "never do that again!". Well, then they should do >the same here. [snip] Richard Hills: I fully agree with the point that Herman is making here. A score adjustment depends on whether and by how much the non- offending side has been damaged. A procedural penalty depends upon the intrinsic gravity of the offence, not on whether the offence caused damage. (Nor indeed on whether the non-offending side chose to appeal. A distressing tendency in ACBL casebooks are the numerous instances of a slack TD not applying a PP to an offending side, but a draconian AC then choosing to do so.) But how do Herman and myself counter the apparently contrary wording of Law 90B7? "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): 7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that **require an adjusted score** for any contestant." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 9 00:36:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 09:36:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 41D (was 76) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 41D: "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy's right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy." Robert Frick: >>A pair in our unit has made it to the unit level on a >>complaint that they always put the led suit on the far >>left of their dummy (left from dummy's perspective). >> >>I think this is being treated as an illegal memory aid. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : when trumps are put to dummy's right, this serves as a >remainder of the denomination, and that's legal. > >Some authors recommend facing the led suit last to keep >partner from playing too quickly. In doing so, most players >will put it to dummy's right. Is that foul play ? Law 43A1(c): "Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer." Richard Hills: I do not think that laying down last the suit of the opening lead is "communicating anything about the play" to declarer; since declarer already knows what the opening lead was. Nor do I think that dummy is providing an illegal memory aid; rather a legal memory aid since Law 41D gives dummy some discretionary rights (as do Laws 9A3, 42 and 65B). 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.willey at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 00:57:42 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:57:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48EC6E18.60709@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0810081557o17a5bfb1t8ef555c29872a3f@mail.gmail.com> I'm not sure that the distinction between Duplicate and Rubber extends to Online versus Face to Face... As I understand matters, people place in an online ACBL event are still playing duplicate.... If the WBF wishes to wash their hands of the online game, they should probably issue a formal statement. I'm not sure if I would agree with that decision or oppose it. Either way, clarification would be welcome On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM, wrote: > Brian Meadows: > >>.....the WBFLC had a shot at producing a set of laws for >>the online game some years ago......it was received with >>a certain amount of derision.....So, any opinions? Is it >>worth another attempt, or should the online game be left >>to go its own way?..... > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and yes. > > Since the WBF LC produced a set of Online Laws there has > been a paradigm shift. When the Laws Drafting Committee > was undecided on Law 1, the WBF Executive intervened by an > overwhelming vote to authorise a name change of the game > from "Duplicate Contract Bridge" to "Duplicate Bridge". > > The apparent purpose was to make it clear that Duplicate > Bridge and Contract (Rubber) Bridge are now two sister > games (a la Rugby Union and Rugby League) rather than two > aspects of the same game. > > As a consequence, the WBF LC is not to be involved in the > drafting of the next version of the Contract (Rubber) > Bridge Lawbook, instead leaving the task to rubber bridge > authorities such as the Portland Club. > > Given this 2007 paradigm shift, in my opinion it is worth > another attempt to design the Online Bridge Lawbook, but > the designers should not be the WBF LC, but rather online > bridge authorities such as BBO and John (MadDog) Probst. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 9 01:48:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 10:48:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0810081557o17a5bfb1t8ef555c29872a3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Willey: >As I understand matters, people playing in an online >ACBL event are still playing duplicate.... Richard Hills: They are still being awarded ACBL masterpoints, yes. Playing duplicate? In my opinion, no. For example, online bridge is designed to infract the "play ceases" requirement of Duplicate Law 68D. Brian Meadows: >>Just to give an example, on both OKBridge and BBO, a >>disputed claim is settled by revealing all four >>hands to the side which didn't claim, and play >>continues with that side ONLY playing double 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 richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 02:19:41 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:19:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2da24b8e0810081557o17a5bfb1t8ef555c29872a3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0810081719j42493f8dqba384c05f362d83f@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:48 PM, wrote: > Richard Willey: > >>As I understand matters, people playing in an online >>ACBL event are still playing duplicate.... > > Richard Hills: > > They are still being awarded ACBL masterpoints, yes. > > Playing duplicate? In my opinion, no. For example, > online bridge is designed to infract the "play ceases" > requirement of Duplicate Law 68D. This seems non-responsive: You're making an argument that the existing Law Book doesn't handle the reality of Online play. I don't think anyone disagrees with this point. >From my perspective, the crux of the argument has to do with the definition of "Duplicate Bridge". I would argue that "Duplication" provides the lowest common denominator. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 9 03:15:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:15:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0810081719j42493f8dqba384c05f362d83f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Willey: >From my perspective, the crux of the argument has to >do with the definition of "Duplicate Bridge". Richard Hills: I agree. Richard Willey: >I would argue that "Duplication" provides the lowest >common denominator. Richard Hills: I disagree, or else Duplicate Whist would be defined as an aspect of Duplicate Bridge, rather than as a sister game to Duplicate Bridge. Note that the Mitchell movement and (of course) the American Whist movement were originally designed for Duplicate Whist tournaments. Ultimately, I would define Duplicate Bridge as a game that is played in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. For the 2007 Lawbook the drafters went to some considerable trouble in defining what were: (a) Laws which could be varied by the Tournament Organizer and/or Regulating Authority, or (b) Laws which were fundamental and hence invariant. The only variable part of the claim Laws is Law 70E2, with the rest of the claim Laws being fundamental and invariant. Ergo, I classify Duplicate Whist, Online Bridge and Contract (Rubber) Bridge as sister games to Duplicate Bridge, not aspects of Duplicate Bridge. Richard Willey: >I would argue that "Duplication" provides the lowest >common denominator. Wikipedia: "Duplicate Scrabble is a variant of the board game Scrabble where all the players are faced with the same board and letters at the same time and must play the highest scoring word they can find. Although duplicate is rarely played at competition level in English, it is the most popular form of the game in French and is also played in other languages, such as Romanian and Dutch. The largest French Scrabble festivals can attract over 2000 people and some individual tournaments can count over 1000 participants per game." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 9 05:19:02 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 04:19:02 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <24572036.1223522342308.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ .... and how many angels can dance on the point of a needle? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ See your new look Tiscali Homepage - http://www.tiscali.co.uk ___________________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 9 05:21:40 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:21:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Richard. The term "bridge", as a card game, is relatively well-defined. Anyone following the basic rules is understood to be playing bridge. Following some official rules is not a part of the definition for bridge, or for a variety of other activites such as golf, tennis, scrabble, etc. If you have need for a shorter form of "following the rules of Duplicate Bridge as formulated in the 2007 Laws", you should make up a new word. Is there any place that actually follows all of the rules of Duplicate Bridge? I am thinking that big tournaments might come close. But there must be some laws they don't follow. For example, I think Law 16A3 says that players cannot base their calls and plays on the hesitations, frowns, etc. of the opponents. If I am missing something there, I bet I can find some other rule that is ignored. > Richard Willey: > >> From my perspective, the crux of the argument has to >> do with the definition of "Duplicate Bridge". > > Richard Hills: > > I agree. > > Richard Willey: > >> I would argue that "Duplication" provides the lowest >> common denominator. > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree, or else Duplicate Whist would be defined > as an aspect of Duplicate Bridge, rather than as a > sister game to Duplicate Bridge. Note that the > Mitchell movement and (of course) the American Whist > movement were originally designed for Duplicate Whist > tournaments. > > Ultimately, I would define Duplicate Bridge as a game > that is played in accordance with the Laws of > Duplicate Bridge. For the 2007 Lawbook the drafters > went to some considerable trouble in defining what > were: > > (a) Laws which could be varied by the Tournament > Organizer and/or Regulating Authority, > > or > > (b) Laws which were fundamental and hence invariant. > > The only variable part of the claim Laws is Law 70E2, > with the rest of the claim Laws being fundamental and > invariant. > > Ergo, I classify Duplicate Whist, Online Bridge and > Contract (Rubber) Bridge as sister games to Duplicate > Bridge, not aspects of Duplicate Bridge. > > Richard Willey: > >> I would argue that "Duplication" provides the lowest >> common denominator. > > Wikipedia: > > "Duplicate Scrabble is a variant of the board game > Scrabble where all the players are faced with the > same board and letters at the same time and must play > the highest scoring word they can find. Although > duplicate is rarely played at competition level in > English, it is the most popular form of the game in > French and is also played in other languages, such as > Romanian and Dutch. The largest French Scrabble > festivals can attract over 2000 people and some > individual tournaments can count over 1000 > participants per game." > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by > persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. > DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act > 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the > department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 9 05:28:55 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 04:28:55 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <5364268.1223522935755.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ cultural differences are showing ~ G ~ +=+ See your new look Tiscali Homepage - http://www.tiscali.co.uk ___________________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 9 06:22:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:22:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <24572036.1223522342308.JavaMail.root@ps33.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: +=+ .... and how many angels can dance on the point of a needle? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Full article at: http://www.headofapin.net/ Extract: Assuming that each angel contains at least one bit of information (fallen / not fallen), and that the point of the pin is a sphere of diameter of an ?ngstr?m (R=10exp-10 m) and has a total mass of M=9.5*10exp-29 kilograms (equivalent to that of one iron atom), we can use the Bekenstein bound on information to calculate an upper bound on the angel density. In a system of diameter D and mass M, less than kDM distinguishable bits can exist, where k=2.57686*10exp43 bits/meter kg. This gives us a bound of just 2.448*10exp5 angels, far below the Schewe bound. Note that this does not take the mass of angels into account. A finite angel mass-energy would increase the possible information density significantly. If each angel has a mass m, then the Bekenstein bound gives us N1/kD ?3.8807* 10exp-34 kg this produces an unbounded maximal angel density as each angel contributes enough mass-energy to allow the information of an extra angel to move in, and so on. However, if angels have mass, then the point of the pin will collapse into a black hole if c2R/2G< Nm (here I ignore the mass of the iron atom at the tip). For angels of human weight (80 kg), we get a limit of 4.2089*10exp14 angels. The maximal mass of any angel amenable to dance on the pin is 3.3671*10exp16 kg; at this point there is only room for a single angel. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From geller at nifty.com Thu Oct 9 09:16:53 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:16:53 +0900 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]) In-Reply-To: <48EC6E18.60709@meadows.pair.com> References: <48EC6E18.60709@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <200810090716.AA15989@geller204.nifty.com> In my opinion there is no need for a separate set of laws for on-line duplicate bridge. The appropriate course would be to publish a set of modifications like the mods when screen are used in tourneys (if this ever became necessary. But right now the problem is that the security problems are so severe that there are no major on-line tourneys now, so there is no demand for a set of laws for the on-line game. Perhaps at some point in the future jet fuel will become so expensive that the world championships will be held on line, with players being required to assemble at venues in their own continents and play in isolation booths under strict supervision. At that time (and not before) we will really need a set of on-line rules. -Bob brian ????????: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > ><...> > >> Or maybe simply boredom is the reason. Over time I >> have probably started more new threads than any >> other blmler, but perhaps I am getting stale. So >> now is the time for a blml lurker to start her very >> first thread. >> > >All right, although a (very) occasional poster rather than a lurker, >I'll take up Richard's challenge. Those of you wanting an in-depth >discussion of some esoteric point of law will have to look elsewhere, >though. The question I'd like to pose is whether another attempt >should be made to produce a set of Laws which could be applied to >online bridge. > >For those of you who may not be aware of it, the WBFLC had a shot at >producing a set of laws for the online game some years ago. I forget >which members of the WBFLC were involved (someone will no doubt remind >me), but I do remember that Bill Segraves, whom I knew from my days on >OKBridge, was co-opted in some role or other. The end result, I think >it's fair to say, was only minimally different from TFLB (offline), >and at least as far as I read on the OKBridge Discuss mailing list, it >was received with a certain amount of derision. Most of the posters to >that list had looked at the results, seen all the stuff relating to >the mechanical aspects of the deal were still there, seen that the >(non-existent, for most online play) Director was still to be called >under most circumstances when something went wrong, and dismissed the >whole thing as irrelevant. > >I know there are those on this list who are not familiar with online >bridge. While there are tournaments run on the two bridge sites I've >used (OKBridge and Bridge Base Online, although my knowledge of >OKBridge is now five years out of date) which will have a TD >available, and there are a small number of people who volunteer to >help sort out problems on BBO (the "Yellows") the vast majority of >online bridge is played as a continuous duplicate, with usually only >the players at the table available to sort out any problems. > >IMHO, for any set of Laws to be accepted by the online bridge world, >they would have to meet the following criteria :- > >1) The Laws will need to be applied by ordinary players, not >Tournament Directors, and so have to be written in PLAIN language. No >subtle inferences, no convoluted constructs, call a spade "a @#$%^&* >shovel" and leave it at that. > >2) The Laws need to acknowledge that the online software is going to >prevent many of the usual errors (BOOTs, LOOTs, insufficient bids, >etc.) You'll get a far greater number of online players actually >reading the laws if all of that stuff is given the same treatment as >the BOOTs and LOOTs and simply removed. The target has to be a SHORT >document, not a small book. > >3) There has to be a way of dealing with irregularities which >assumes that there is NOT going to be a TD present. Just to give an >example, on both OKBridge and BBO, a disputed claim is settled by >revealing all four hands to the side which didn't claim, and play >continues with that side ONLY playing double dummy. > >4) The Laws must take into account that much, if not most, online >bridge is played with pickup partnerships. System discussions are >generally limited to the name of a bidding system and that's it, >although many people do carry a short list of their preferred gadgets >in their profile, and ?Your profile, pard? is far from an uncommon >arrangement. Discussions are generally limited to a couple of lines of >text, and play starts. "No agreement" is routinely correct, even in >the simplest of situations - for example, try > >1NT-(dbl, for penalties)-2D > >Lots of luck in guessing whether that's a transfer or to play. Based >on my experience, it's close to a 50-50 guess. > > > > >No doubt there are many other considerations, most of which escape me >at this early hour of the morning, but the above should suffice to >give some idea of the major differences between the online and offline >forms of the game. > >So, any opinions? Is it worth another attempt, or should the online >game be left to go its own way? Anyone who thinks so may want to >consider that I've seen in excess of 12,000 people logged on to Bridge >Base Online at one time, and that was WITHOUT a VuGraph in progress. >The online game has to represent a significant (and growing, IMO) >group of bridge players. > > >Brian. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 9 09:02:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 18:02:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40810031343p626875a9xa8cb347acbcae80c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: >>7. Note that the actual agreement must have been "semi- >>forcing", not "forcing", though that doesn't affect the >>case. Richard Hills: >I disagree with "must". Law permits East to violate the >agreed partnership methods if East thinks more matchpoints >would be gained by such system violation, and the East >hand is screaming "play 1NT" even if 1NT is 110% forcing. Adam Wildavsky: >>The TD and AC decisions are reasonable - I can see them >>going the other way too. This was a close case. * * * APPEAL NABC+ SEVEN Subject Misinformation (MI) DIC Henry Cukoff Event NABC+ Fast Open Pairs Session Second Qualifying Date July 24, 2008 Brd: 21 Dlr: North Vul: North-South Mary Dresser T532 964 AQ6 Q87 Mike Dorn Wiss Chris Diamond K64 AJ7 3 AJ875 JT942 83 JT94 A52 William Peters Q98 KQT2 K75 K63 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass 1H Pass 1NT(1) Pass Pass X Pass 2S X Pass Pass Pass (1) Agreement is forcing but there was no Announcement. Final Contract 2S doubled by N Opening Lead D8 Table Result Down 1, N/S -100 RJBH: >Seems to be a vulnerability typo; should be -200. Director Ruling 1NT W, down 2, E/W -100 Committee Ruling 1NT W, down 2, E/W -100 The Facts: The director was called prior to the opening lead. East started to speak up to inform opponents of his partner's failure to Announce that 1NT was forcing. The director instructed the table to play the hand. RJBH: >Neither East, nor the Director, nor the Appeals >Committee, nor Adam Wildavsky appear to have noticed that >East's action was an infraction of the 1997 Law 75D2 / >2007 Law 20F5. Given the number of players aware of the >technical difference between the 1997 Law 75D1 / 2007 Law >20F4 and 1997 Law 75D2 / Law 20F5 is so few, I would be an >advocate for abolishing Law 20F5 in the 2018 Lawbook and >instead letting Law 20F4 reign supreme (that is, immediate >correction of all MI, yours or partner's) in 2018. > >But I digress. The point is that since both East and West >have infracted Law on the same deal, perhaps they deserve >half a PP each? South stated that had he known that 1NT was forcing that he would not have balanced. The Ruling: The director determined that there was MI because of the failure to Announce in a timely manner. In accordance with [1997] Laws 75 and 12C2, the result was adjusted to 1NT by West down two, E/W minus 100. The Appeal: All four players attended the hearing. E/W stated that that the difference between a forcing and non-forcing 1NT seemed so slight that it ought not matter that the other side was misinformed. The Decision: The committee felt that doubling 1NT was a hairline decision. RJBH: >No, in my opinion, a takeout double of 1NT was a wild or >gambling decision. South's aceless 3433 shape is all >defence, zero offence, especially when South's 4-card suit >is RHO's 5-card suit. Many players would double on some days and not others. RJBH: >Many ACBL players are funky gibbons? Or has Al Roth's >invention of the Sputnik double so corrupted ACBL culture >that players holding the South hand genuinely expect that >no low-level partscores are ever doubled for penalty? That the 1NT call could have been stronger was, therefore, relevant. RJBH: >Relevant to a possible split score. The fact that the >offending side is not entitled to benefit from the non- >offending side's wild or gambling decision has been >clarified by the 2007 12C1(b). It pushed the tight decision a little bit in the successful option's direction. Therefore, the committee judged that the MI damaged the N/S pair. The next question was whether N/S's bad result was due directly to the MI or to North's decision to bid rather than pass the double. While many of us would pass without pause, the committee learned that both North and South thought the double was takeout of hearts - not penalty. Given N/S's experience level and given that they appeared to be on the same (albeit unusual) wavelength, the committee judged that the damage was a consequence of the infraction, not simply due to N/S's misjudgment. RJBH: >J is for Just a Moment. Is the AC arguing that some would >choose a penalty double on the South cards when assessing >whether some Souths would double? In that case I would >agree that a penalty double of 1NT is a hairline decision. > >But if the Wooden Horse of Troy had foaled..... > >But since that is not the North-South agreement, it is not >North's 2S which is the misjudgment but rather South's >shapeless takeout double which is the misjudgment. > >And the argument "given N/S's experience level", does that >mean that North-South must be deemed to play beyond their >known skills in hand evaluation when adjusting their score? > >In his short story "Harrison Bergeron", Kurt Vonnegut wrote: > >"Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out >some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking >unfair advantage of their brains...." The number of tricks E/W will take in 1NT was difficult to decide. Deep Finesse calculated and the director judged five. Some lines of play will lead to four. Whether those lines are likely enough to invoke Law 12C2?'s "at all probable" standard is another matter. Because this was a Fast Open Pairs (i.e. players wanted to get their final scores and leave for the day), the committee decided not to try to guess that and concurred with the director's adjustment of 1NT by West, down two, E/W minus 100. Since the bridge judgment was close, E/W were not assessed an appeal without merit warning (AWMW). The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (Chair), Steve Robinson and Kevin Wilson Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 9 09:44:02 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:44:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EDB642.90708@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Wikipedia: > > "Duplicate Scrabble is a variant of the board game > Scrabble where all the players are faced with the > same board and letters at the same time and must play > the highest scoring word they can find. Although > duplicate is rarely played at competition level in > English, it is the most popular form of the game in > French and is also played in other languages, such as > Romanian and Dutch. The largest French Scrabble > festivals can attract over 2000 people and some > individual tournaments can count over 1000 > participants per game." > I'll leave his anonimity intact, but a certain non-flemish belgian frequent contributor to blml is a fervent attendant of those tournaments. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 9 09:48:45 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:48:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EDB75D.2060809@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > But how do Herman and myself counter the apparently contrary > wording of Law 90B7? > > "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural > penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): > 7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in > one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that **require an > adjusted score** for any contestant." > Does it say that? By God - they've changed the laws! That law used to be restricted to artificial scores, and then I was OK with it. Anything that causes another set of players to lose a board should indeed be punished. As it stands, I do not agree with this law. Literally said, this would mean that any revoke also requires a PP. Or if you don't consider penalty tricks adjusted scores, any L64C. Or any MI. That cannot have been the WBF's intention. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 9 11:25:06 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:25:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EDB75D.2060809@skynet.be> References: <48EDB75D.2060809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c929f0$eb75b720$c2612560$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > But how do Herman and myself counter the apparently contrary > > wording of Law 90B7? > > > > "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural > > penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): > > 7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in > > one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that **require an > > adjusted score** for any contestant." > > > > Does it say that? > By God - they've changed the laws! > That law used to be restricted to artificial scores, and then I was OK > with it. Anything that causes another set of players to lose a board > should indeed be punished. > As it stands, I do not agree with this law. Literally said, this would > mean that any revoke also requires a PP. Or if you don't consider > penalty tricks adjusted scores, any L64C. Or any MI. That cannot have > been the WBF's intention. Again, reading a law only partially can result in strange interpretations (Notice that the verb used in Law 90A is "may", so the Director is never required to impose a PP): LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES A. Director's Authority The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): .......... Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 9 12:37:52 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:37:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c929f0$eb75b720$c2612560$@no> References: <48EDB75D.2060809@skynet.be> <000101c929f0$eb75b720$c2612560$@no> Message-ID: <48EDDF00.1060401@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > Again, reading a law only partially can result in strange interpretations > (Notice that the verb used in Law 90A is "may", so the Director is never > required to impose a PP): > > LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES > > A. Director's Authority > > The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, > may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or > obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct > procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. > > B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty > > The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but > the offences are not limited to these): > .......... > AG : IMHO, this means that PPs are compatible with both artificial adjusted scores (e.g. fouled board) and assigned results (e.g. ill-completed CC resulting in MI). It also means that imposing a PP and adjusting a score are independent : - the latter without the former is surely possible, because of the word "may" ; - the former without the latter. For example, loud discussion of the deal is explicitly mentioned as a PP source, if it could be heard at another table. Notice that TFLB doesn't say "if it was heard and used", so that a PP could be imposed without the discussion actually affecting the results. That's an important thing to say to non-TDs who want to understand the principles of TDing. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 9 13:00:58 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:00:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c929f0$eb75b720$c2612560$@no> References: <48EDB75D.2060809@skynet.be> <000101c929f0$eb75b720$c2612560$@no> Message-ID: <48EDE46A.4060309@skynet.be> Hello Sven, I happen to believe that the laws have not changed all that much, and chose to interpret those laws that have changed only in certain words in the same manner as those of 1997. In that light, I feel that L90A authorizes a TD to award PPs for whatever he choses, but that L90B lists a number of cases where a PP is more obligatory. As a rule, in the past, I have never awarded PPs for anything not listed in L90B, unless there are aggravating circumstances (such as having been reminded twice). I have often pointed to L90B7 when I gave PPs for a particular offence saying that I only give the PP because the laws tell me to (not citing in tone that I don't agree with that law - as a matter of fact I do). I do not understand why there should be a L90A and a L90B. They appear to be saying exactly the same thing. Why is there a summary in L90A if there is a numbered list in L90B? Grattan? Herman. Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> But how do Herman and myself counter the apparently contrary >>> wording of Law 90B7? >>> >>> "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural >>> penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): >>> 7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in >>> one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that **require an >>> adjusted score** for any contestant." >>> >> Does it say that? >> By God - they've changed the laws! >> That law used to be restricted to artificial scores, and then I was OK >> with it. Anything that causes another set of players to lose a board >> should indeed be punished. >> As it stands, I do not agree with this law. Literally said, this would >> mean that any revoke also requires a PP. Or if you don't consider >> penalty tricks adjusted scores, any L64C. Or any MI. That cannot have >> been the WBF's intention. > > Again, reading a law only partially can result in strange interpretations > (Notice that the verb used in Law 90A is "may", so the Director is never > required to impose a PP): > > LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES > > A. Director's Authority > > The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, > may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or > obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct > procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. > > B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty > > The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but > the offences are not limited to these): > .......... > > Regards Sven > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Oct 9 14:12:24 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:12:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EDF528.3070909@talktalk.net> [Richard.Hills] .. I would define Duplicate Bridge as a game that is played in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. [Nigel] Richard is right. Nevertheless, the *on-line* variant of duplicate bridge is fun and accords with the spirit of the game. Furthermore, on-line rules are simple, unsphisticated and easily comprehensible by players. Even if the WBFLC regard them as an affront to all they stand for, I hope that they do not interfere again. From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 9 14:12:27 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:12:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EDE46A.4060309@skynet.be> References: <48EDB75D.2060809@skynet.be> <000101c929f0$eb75b720$c2612560$@no> <48EDE46A.4060309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c92a08$4bf67dc0$e3e37940$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Hello Sven, > > I happen to believe that the laws have not changed all that much, and > chose to interpret those laws that have changed only in certain words in > the same manner as those of 1997. > > In that light, I feel that L90A authorizes a TD to award PPs for > whatever he choses, but that L90B lists a number of cases where a PP is > more obligatory. > > As a rule, in the past, I have never awarded PPs for anything not listed > in L90B, unless there are aggravating circumstances (such as having been > reminded twice). > > I have often pointed to L90B7 when I gave PPs for a particular offence > saying that I only give the PP because the laws tell me to (not citing > in tone that I don't agree with that law - as a matter of fact I do). > > I do not understand why there should be a L90A and a L90B. They appear > to be saying exactly the same thing. Why is there a summary in L90A if > there is a numbered list in L90B? Grattan? > > Herman. Frankly I don't believe that Law 90 was changed at all except changes that became necessary due to the replacement of "penalty" with "rectification". Here is 1997 Law 90A: The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table Now L90A is (and was) the law that gives the director a general power to impose procedural penalties, L90B does not give the director such power, it simply contains (as before) a non-exclusive list of irregularities that may lead to such penalty. What is the problem? Sven > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>> But how do Herman and myself counter the apparently contrary > >>> wording of Law 90B7? > >>> > >>> "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural > >>> penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): > >>> 7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in > >>> one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that **require an > >>> adjusted score** for any contestant." > >>> > >> Does it say that? > >> By God - they've changed the laws! > >> That law used to be restricted to artificial scores, and then I was OK > >> with it. Anything that causes another set of players to lose a board > >> should indeed be punished. > >> As it stands, I do not agree with this law. Literally said, this would > >> mean that any revoke also requires a PP. Or if you don't consider > >> penalty tricks adjusted scores, any L64C. Or any MI. That cannot have > >> been the WBF's intention. > > > > Again, reading a law only partially can result in strange interpretations > > (Notice that the verb used in Law 90A is "may", so the Director is never > > required to impose a PP): > > > > LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES > > > > A. Director's Authority > > > > The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, > > may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or > > obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct > > procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. > > > > B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty > > > > The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but > > the offences are not limited to these): > > .......... > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Thu Oct 9 15:29:11 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:29:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c92a08$4bf67dc0$e3e37940$@no> References: <48EDB75D.2060809@skynet.be> <000101c929f0$eb75b720$c2612560$@no> <48EDE46A.4060309@skynet.be> <000201c92a08$4bf67dc0$e3e37940$@no> Message-ID: <48EE0727.4020508@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Frankly I don't believe that Law 90 was changed at all except changes that > became necessary due to the replacement of "penalty" with "rectification". > > Here is 1997 Law 90A: > > The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, > may also assess penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs > the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or > requires the award of an adjusted score at another table > > Now L90A is (and was) the law that gives the director a general power to > impose procedural penalties, L90B does not give the director such power, it > simply contains (as before) a non-exclusive list of irregularities that may > lead to such penalty. > > What is the problem? > No problem - it confirms what I thought - L90 was not changed. My interpretation was, and is, that L90A authorizes a TD to give PP for anything, and that L90B lists a number of things a TD should give PPs for. The problem with that interpretation is that the removal of the word "artificial" in L90B7 means that PPS can (and should) be given for any infraction, including inadvertent ones like misexplanations. Also, I believe L90B7 used to refer to contestants at a different table - that too has been dropped. > Sven > Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 10 00:07:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:07:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EE0727.4020508@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: >The problem with that interpretation is that the >removal of the word "artificial" in L90B7 means that >PPS can (and should) be given for any infraction, >including inadvertent ones like misexplanations. > >Also, I believe L90B7 used to refer to contestants >at a different table - that too has been dropped. Richard Hills quibbles: Law 90B7 has identical wording in both the 1997 Lawbook and also in the 2007 Lawbook. Was there a translator's error in the Flemish version of the 1997 Lawbook? Or is Herman diving into the deep past with a reference to either the 1987 or the 1975 Lawbooks? Herman De Wael asserted: >I have often pointed to L90B7 when I gave PPs for a >particular offence saying that I only give the PP >because the laws tell me to (not citing in tone that >I don't agree with that law - as a matter of fact I >do). Richard Hills quibbles: Law 90B7 does not compel a TD to give a PP for that particular offence. The Law 90B introduction says "subject to procedural penalty", not "with a mandatory procedural penalty". Herman De Wael asked: >I do not understand why there should be a L90A and a >L90B. They appear to be saying exactly the same >thing. Why is there a summary in L90A if there is a >numbered list in L90B? Grattan? Richard Hills two cents worth: Firstly, some items in Law 90B (e.g. the Law 90B2 infraction of "unduly slow play") are infractions nowhere else in the Lawbook, so would not be deemed to be infractions if not listed in Law 90B. Secondly, a series of indicative examples give a TD a feel for when, after rectification of an infraction, the infraction may deserve an additional PP, and when it is sufficient to merely rectify. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 10 01:15:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:15:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] TFLB and offline bridge (was online) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200810090716.AA15989@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: >IMHO, for any set of Laws to be accepted by the online >bridge world, they would have to meet the following >criteria :- > >1) The Laws will need to be applied by ordinary players, >not Tournament Directors, and so have to be written in >PLAIN language. No subtle inferences, no convoluted >constructs, call a spade "a @#$%^&* shovel" and leave it >at that. Richard Hills: Even in the offline world, the vast majority of Tournament Directors are ordinary players, not full-time paid professionals. So to assist them, not only should the mooted Appendix be written in PLAIN language, but the Appendix should also include a number of real-life indicative case studies (as was done in the attachments to the WBF Code of Practice). Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 10 05:33:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:33:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200810090716.AA15989@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller: >But right now the problem is that the security problems >are so severe that there are no major on-line tourneys >now, so there is no demand for a set of laws for the on- >line game. Richard Hills: Yes, in his book Bobby Wolff noted that it is easier to cheat on-line than it is to cheat face-to-face. But, as compensation, it is easy to catch on-line cheats, since complete bidding and play records are preserved for posterity by the website's server. John (MadDog) Probst, 10th September 2007: [big snip] >>We have even detected single players who're playing with >>prior knowledge of the hands, who played with innocent >>partners. Hands stay live long enough on most sites for >>this to be easy to do. >> >>Now BCL may well be the only site that spends a sizeable >>chunk of its income on cleaning up the game, but we think >>it's worthwhile. The same methods would work perfectly >>well f2f. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 10 06:20:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:20:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >The Appeal: All four players attended the hearing. > >E/W stated that that the difference between a forcing and >non-forcing 1NT seemed so slight that it ought not matter >that the other side was misinformed. Richard Hills: Not quite the best argument for East-West. They should have argued that the more points West's (semi-)forcing 1NT had as a possible maximum, the fewer points East would have for East's pass of West's (semi-)forcing 1NT. That is, with the MI the combined hcp of the East-West hands had a particular maximum. Without the MI the combined hcp of the East-West hands had the identical particular maximum, but slightly skewed to West. In my opinion, that slight skewing did not cause North-South any damage. But it gets better. The MI suggested that East would rarely invite. Correct information suggested that East would frequently invite. So, when West holds minimum values for West's 1NT call (which West in fact did), the MI suggests not balancing - since East could hold extra values - but the correct information suggests balancing - since East could not hold extra values. {Off-topic - In my opinion the 2-over-1 game force system has a more fundamental problem than the forcing or semi- forcing 1NT. It is predicated on the assumption that the only games worth bidding are brute-force games, ignoring the "points-schmoints" games reached with fitting shape and minimal high cards.} Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 10 06:28:53 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:28:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:33:10 -0400, wrote: > Robert Geller: > >> But right now the problem is that the security problems >> are so severe that there are no major on-line tourneys >> now, so there is no demand for a set of laws for the on- >> line game. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, in his book Bobby Wolff noted that it is easier to > cheat on-line than it is to cheat face-to-face. But, as > compensation, it is easy to catch on-line cheats, since > complete bidding and play records are preserved for > posterity by the website's server. > > John (MadDog) Probst, 10th September 2007: > > [big snip] > >>> We have even detected single players who're playing with >>> prior knowledge of the hands, who played with innocent >>> partners. Hands stay live long enough on most sites for >>> this to be easy to do. >>> >>> Now BCL may well be the only site that spends a sizeable >>> chunk of its income on cleaning up the game, but we think >>> it's worthwhile. The same methods would work perfectly >>> well f2f. I don't know what bridge sites actually do. But at least in theory, if a pair does well, they should do well on the hands that the other good pairs do well on and poorly on the hands other good pairs do poorly on. (e.g., the should do poorly when the 70% slam goes down.) Given a reasonable measure of ability and a lot of hands, cheaters should be detectable by a computer program. From geller at nifty.com Fri Oct 10 06:53:21 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:53:21 +0900 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810100453.AA16008@geller204.nifty.com> Robert Frick ????????: >On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:33:10 -0400, wrote: > >> Robert Geller: >> >>> But right now the problem is that the security problems >>> are so severe that there are no major on-line tourneys >>> now, so there is no demand for a set of laws for the on- >>> line game. >> >I don't know what bridge sites actually do. But at least in theory, if a >pair does well, they should do well on the hands that the other good pairs >do well on and poorly on the hands other good pairs do poorly on. (e.g., >the should do poorly when the 70% slam goes down.) Given a reasonable >measure of ability and a lot of hands, cheaters should be detectable by a >computer program. They all do stuff like the abobe and also all the hands are open to inspection by the public for some time (say 1 month). But that doesn't mean we're ready to hold an important tourney on-line at present, unless the players are at a site or sites where they are3 monitored. -Bob From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Oct 10 08:02:04 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:02:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081010170015.01ce3d28@mail.optusnet.com.au> RJH: >{Off-topic - In my opinion the 2-over-1 game force system >has a more fundamental problem than the forcing or semi- >forcing 1NT. It is predicated on the assumption that the >only games worth bidding are brute-force games, ignoring >the "points-schmoints" games reached with fitting shape >and minimal high cards.} > Perhaps they should switch to the Symmetric Relay (system notes send on request)?? :) Tony (Sydney) >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) >Department of Immigration and Citizenship >Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >advise the sender and delete the message and attachments >immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, >sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, >retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons >or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC >respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The >official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's >website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 10 08:03:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:03:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200810100453.AA16008@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >But at least in theory, if a pair does well, they should >do well on the hands that the other good pairs do well >on and poorly on the hands other good pairs do poorly >on. (e.g., they should do poorly when the 70% slam goes >down.) Given a reasonable measure of ability and a lot >of hands, cheaters should be detectable by a computer >program. Richard Hills refutes the theory: One third of international experts thought that slam was 70% on the North-South cards. The pair in question did not. A highly suspicious datum for a cheating detection computer program. All other international experts had short auctions to reach their contract on the North-South cards. The pair in question took ten bids. A highly suspicious datum for a cheating detection computer program. SOUTH NORTH --- A87 AK9 Q32 KQT3 AJ982 QJT764 83 SOUTH NORTH 1C (1) 2D (2) 2H (3) 3D (4) 3H (3) 4C (5) 4D (3) 4NT(6) 5C (7) 5D (8) Pass (1) Strong (2) Natural, game-forcing (3) Relay (4) 3-3-5-2 (5) 4 controls (A = 2, K = 1) (6) A or K of diamonds and A or K of spades, but no A nor K of hearts (7) At this stage South realised that 6D would still be a good contract if North's four controls happened to be DA and SK and CK, so tried one more relay (8) No A nor K of clubs Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 10 09:35:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:35:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EE0727.4020508@skynet.be> References: <48EDB75D.2060809@skynet.be> <000101c929f0$eb75b720$c2612560$@no> <48EDE46A.4060309@skynet.be> <000201c92a08$4bf67dc0$e3e37940$@no> <48EE0727.4020508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48EF05C9.4010409@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > My interpretation was, and is, that L90A authorizes a TD to give PP for > anything, and that L90B lists a number of things a TD should give PPs for. > > The problem with that interpretation is that the removal of the word > "artificial" in L90B7 means that PPS can (and should) be given for any > infraction, including inadvertent ones like misexplanations. > AG : PP are given only for inadvertent infractions ; others will get you a ban. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 10 09:52:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:52:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EF09CB.70608@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > {Off-topic - In my opinion the 2-over-1 game force system > has a more fundamental problem than the forcing or semi- > forcing 1NT. It is predicated on the assumption that the > only games worth bidding are brute-force games, ignoring > the "points-schmoints" games reached with fitting shape > and minimal high cards.} > AG : I also thought that ; but since 5 / 6 of two-over-ones are made in a minor, that's less of a concern than one could expect. Something could be said in favor of "all 2/1 forcing to game except 1S-2H". From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 10 10:22:08 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:22:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EF10B0.8030305@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> The problem with that interpretation is that the >> removal of the word "artificial" in L90B7 means that >> PPS can (and should) be given for any infraction, >> including inadvertent ones like misexplanations. >> >> Also, I believe L90B7 used to refer to contestants >> at a different table - that too has been dropped. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Law 90B7 has identical wording in both the 1997 > Lawbook and also in the 2007 Lawbook. > > Was there a translator's error in the Flemish > version of the 1997 Lawbook? > No, the text is unchanged from 1997. > Or is Herman diving into the deep past with a > reference to either the 1987 or the 1975 Lawbooks? > Not even that - the text is unchanged in 1987 and 1975 (although at a different number there). I was wrong to rely on my memory - I was WRONG. You learn something new every day. Herman. From john at asimere.com Fri Oct 10 17:03:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:03:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Robert Frick asserted: > >>But at least in theory, if a pair does well, they should >>do well on the hands that the other good pairs do well >>on and poorly on the hands other good pairs do poorly >>on. (e.g., they should do poorly when the 70% slam goes >>down.) Given a reasonable measure of ability and a lot >>of hands, cheaters should be detectable by a computer >>program. We need about 300 hands; in one case we needed over 1,000 but that was a sophisticated pair. It's usually carelessness by the perpetrators which lets us get there. A single hand shows nothing and is irrelevant. > > Richard Hills refutes the theory: > > One third of international experts thought that slam was > 70% on the North-South cards. The pair in question did > not. A highly suspicious datum for a cheating detection > computer program. > > All other international experts had short auctions to > reach their contract on the North-South cards. The pair > in question took ten bids. A highly suspicious datum for > a cheating detection computer program. > > SOUTH NORTH > --- A87 > AK9 Q32 > KQT3 AJ982 > QJT764 83 > > SOUTH NORTH > 1C (1) 2D (2) > 2H (3) 3D (4) > 3H (3) 4C (5) > 4D (3) 4NT(6) > 5C (7) 5D (8) > Pass > > (1) Strong > (2) Natural, game-forcing > (3) Relay > (4) 3-3-5-2 > (5) 4 controls (A = 2, K = 1) > (6) A or K of diamonds and A or K of spades, but no A nor > K of hearts > (7) At this stage South realised that 6D would still be a > good contract if North's four controls happened to be > DA and SK and CK, so tried one more relay > (8) No A nor K of clubs > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC > respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The > official departmental 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 Fri Oct 10 18:07:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:07:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48EF7DD0.4060206@ulb.ac.be> >> Richard Hills refutes the theory: >> >> One third of international experts thought that slam was >> 70% on the North-South cards. The pair in question did >> not. A highly suspicious datum for a cheating detection >> computer program. >> >> All other international experts had short auctions to >> reach their contract on the North-South cards. The pair >> in question took ten bids. A highly suspicious datum for >> a cheating detection computer program. >> AG : I fail to understand this. A relay pair needs more bids to assert their best contract. Often they'll do it right, especially on slam decisions. Does your computer detect they're c****s just for those mere two facts ? I've played relay systems 25 years, and still occasionally do. I wouldn't have liked to be merely suspect, just because I use a longer bidding sequence. Our record is 24 bids, to reach 7S, not bid in the other room. On another occasion, we bid : 1C-1D-1H-1S-1NT-2C-2D-2H-2S-2NT-3NT, responder having described 7-9 HCP and any 4333 pattern. Most other pairs bid 2NT-3NT. So what ? (connoisseurs perhaps have recognized version 3 of the Beta system) Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 11 02:36:26 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:36:26 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Beijing statistics - appeals Message-ID: <17374674.1223685386295.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ From the Round Robin. open, women, seniors, in all eight appeals. In none of these did the AC alter the Director's ruling and score entered, save that in one case a half VP penalty was imposed for a wrong explanation that was not deemed, however, to have damaged declarer. In four cases deposit (USD 100 or equivalent) forfeited. Some AC voices are again urging that 'deposits' for appeals should be in the form of VPs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ See your new look Tiscali Homepage - http://www.tiscali.co.uk ___________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 11 02:45:35 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:45:35 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <19222668.1223685935678.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ Kojak thinks that in eight appeals here in Beijing we have actually twice imposed a half VP PP for a wrong explanation. Amend my previous note accordingly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ See your new look Tiscali Homepage - http://www.tiscali.co.uk ___________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 11 03:21:31 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:21:31 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Pause for thought. Message-ID: <704783.1223688091663.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ Minutes running into six pages await ratification by the WBF Executive on Thursday. After that RAs worldwide will receive copies and denizens of this jungle may fight over the carcases. I have an underground bunker into which I plan to retreat (mainly in fear, of course, that a well-attended committee overlooked some vital question that should have been added to the 27-plus decisions and interpretations recorded). Afficionados may commence speculating on the probable contents - I start you off with Law 27...... but you knew that! (Adam Wildavsky take heart.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ See your new look Tiscali Homepage - http://www.tiscali.co.uk ___________________________________________________ From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Sat Oct 11 09:40:50 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:40:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Beijing statistics - appeals In-Reply-To: <17374674.1223685386295.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <17374674.1223685386295.JavaMail.root@ps35.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: Hello Gratan, we use those VP's deposit in France for now some years, it works well : it' fair : everybody is competing for VP, 2VP is the same but 60 euros (team) is not the same value for everyone, in pairs, 30 euros and 2% AC can pick up none, one, both, completely or partly, 60E 2VP is a maximum brodcast : nice weather in Britanny, Best wishes Olivier > > +=+ From the Round Robin. open, women, seniors, in all eight appeals. In > none > of these did the AC alter the Director's ruling and score entered, save > that in > one case a half VP penalty was imposed for a wrong explanation that was > not > deemed, however, to have damaged declarer. In four cases deposit (USD 100 > or > equivalent) forfeited. > Some AC voices are again urging that 'deposits' for appeals should > be > in the form of VPs. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > See your new look Tiscali Homepage - http://www.tiscali.co.uk > > ___________________________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la > base des signatures de virus 3514 (20081011) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Oct 11 10:01:13 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 10:01:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] questions for Grattan Message-ID: <48F05D49.3010707@aol.com> Ahoj Grattan! 1: Can we get copies of the appeals in Peijing? Will there be a sort of casebook? If so, what are the coordinates per internet? 2: I assume the changes made in the laws in Peijing will be made available per internet. When, and (again) the coordinates in order to download them? Ciao, JE From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 11 10:55:46 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:55:46 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] questions for Grattan Message-ID: <11227783.1223715346971.JavaMail.root@ps25> +=+ 1. No. 2. They will be available after Thursday but not on the WBF or Ecats website, I imagine, until a few weeks time. BUT it is my intention to pass them to known 'interested parties' as soon as I have clearance from the WBF Executive. ~ G ~ +=+ See your new look Tiscali Homepage - http://www.tiscali.co.uk ___________________________________________________ From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Oct 11 11:53:48 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:53:48 +1300 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: T95 KJ432 J93 Q6 One commentator said "they do that in third position" and one spectator said to me "its third hand, a normal approach in Norway". The relevant HUM definition is "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. " It seems to me that if this is something "they do" and is "a normal approach" then this agreement would meet the definition of a HUM. As far as I am aware HUMs are not allowed in the current world championships. Their system card says "10-23 HCP NAT 4+ hearts". Perhaps this was a "one-off psyche" but the Norweigan commentator and spectator seem to suggest it is their style. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 11 12:56:25 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:56:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c92b90$018ad310$04a07930$@no> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: > > T95 > KJ432 > J93 > Q6 > > One commentator said "they do that in third position" and one > spectator said to me "its third hand, a normal approach in Norway". > > The relevant HUM definition is "By partnership agreement an opening > bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below > average strength. " > > It seems to me that if this is something "they do" and is "a normal > approach" then this agreement would meet the definition of a HUM. > > As far as I am aware HUMs are not allowed in the current world championships. > > Their system card says "10-23 HCP NAT 4+ hearts". > > Perhaps this was a "one-off psyche" but the Norweigan commentator and > spectator seem to suggest it is their style. I have no comment as far as "they" refers to Geir & co or to the regulations in force for this championship. But there is to my knowledge no special provision here in Norway for allowing opening 1H on such hands in this position. That would be HUM all right, and that is about all there is to say about it. Regards Sven From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Oct 11 20:11:43 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:11:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> [Wayne Burrows] Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 One commentator said "they do that in third position" and one spectator said to me "its third hand, a normal approach in Norway".The relevant HUM definition is "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. As far as I am aware HUMs are not allowed in the current world championships. Their system card says "10-23 HCP NAT 4+ hearts". Perhaps this was a "one-off psyche" but the Norweigan commentator and spectator seem to suggest it is their style. [Nigel] Little credence should be accorded to hearsay evidence; but Wayne's allegation demands urgent investigation by Norway and the WBF. At an EBU parochial level a similar situation arose with local rule of 18/19 rules. Teams like mine lost matches by abiding by the regulation, against teams who didn't. I explained our predicament and saught advice from the EBU. My efforts attracted ridicule from BLML but a few sympathetic Directors patiently explained that such rules are not taken literally. They themselves evaluated hands according to their individual Bridge judgement. This kind of thing never seems to attract an adverse ruling, even in extreme cases, such as Herman de Wael, who opens 1H, third in hand, when he picks up a Yarborough. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 13 11:13:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:13:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48F3114D.7070708@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: > > T95 > KJ432 > J93 > Q6 > > One commentator said "they do that in third position" and one > spectator said to me "its third hand, a normal approach in Norway". > > The relevant HUM definition is "By partnership agreement an opening > bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below > average strength. " > > It seems to me that if this is something "they do" and is "a normal > approach" then this agreement would meet the definition of a HUM. > > As far as I am aware HUMs are not allowed in the current world championships. > AG : in Belgium, the Law of 18 isn't implemented in competition at good-to-high level, making this explicitly a non-HUM, provided, of course, that it is explicitly mentioned on the CC. Isn't it the same at international level ? I'd say this hand, plus the H10, would be considered a routine 3rd-in-hand opening by about 60% of good Belgian players. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 13 05:30:42 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:30:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] productive delays In-Reply-To: <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> Message-ID: To try to skip most of the details, I opened with a minimal hand third seat, I bid 3H to confirm a heart fit and just trying to compete. My partner, instead of bidding 4H, bid 4S. My first thought was that he had mispulled (using bidding cards). I could have found a bid in 10 seconds, but instead waited about 30 seconds, to see if he would notice the mispull. I pretended to think, or actually thought, during this time. Was it legal to wait? The critical law seems to be L73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo... However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side..." I decided this didn't make my wait illegal, though that is a somewhat long story and there was a long discussion of this on rgb. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 12 03:31:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:31:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] TFLB and online bridge (was blml [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EF7DD0.4060206@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills refutes the theory: >>One third of international experts thought that slam was >>70% on the North-South cards. The pair in question did >>not. A highly suspicious datum for a cheating detection >>computer program. >> >>All other international experts had short auctions to >>reach their contract on the North-South cards. The pair >>in question took ten bids. A highly suspicious datum for >>a cheating detection computer program. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I fail to understand this. A relay pair needs more >bids to assert their best contract. Often they'll do it >right, especially on slam decisions. Does your computer >detect they're c****s just for those mere two facts ? Pocket Oxford Dictionary: irony, n. Expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency, especially mock adoption of another's views or tone. Richard Hills syllogism: 1. The average expert has dreadful results in the game / slam zone. 2. A cheat has better results than the average expert. 3. An expert of average standard with consistent good results in the game / slam zone must be a cheat. Not so. It was my partner Hashmat Ali who cleverly relayed out my hand, while a long-standing partnership of Aussie internationals at the other table lacked the methods to avoid the slam. So clauses 2 and 3 of the syllogism need to be rewritten to read: 2. A cheat has _inexplicably_ better results than the average expert. 3. An expert of average standard with _inexplicably_ consistent good results in the game / slam zone must be a cheat. And because of the word "inexplicably", computer analysis is insufficient to resolve cheating. The field of artificial intelligence in bridge computers has not advanced far enough to analyse positive and negative inferences in bidding systems. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 13 04:02:45 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:02:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] productive delays In-Reply-To: <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> Message-ID: To try to skip most of the details, I opened with a minimal hand third seat, I bid 3H to confirm a heart fit and just trying to compete. My partner, instead of bidding 4H, bid 4S. My first thought was that he had mispulled (using bidding cards). I could have found a bid in 10 seconds, but instead waited about 30 seconds, to see if he would notice the mispull. I pretended to think, or actually thought, during this time. Was it legal to wait? The critical law seems to be L73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo... However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side..." I decided this didn't make my wait illegal, though that is a somewhat long story and there was a long discussion of this on rgb. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 12 02:44:20 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:44:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48EF10B0.8030305@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael believed: >>Also, I believe L90B7 used to refer to contestants >>at a different table - that too has been dropped. Herman De Wael correction: >I was wrong to rely on my memory - I was WRONG. > >You learn something new every day. Richard Hills consolation: Herman was only partially wrong. He was wrong in believing that the 1997 Law 90B7 used to refer to contestants at a different table. But the 2007 Law 90A still says: "The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score **at another table**." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 12 02:00:01 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:00:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810111700m7ed222fcucd8ad59c0c28f077@mail.gmail.com> [Wayne Burrows] Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 [Nigel] Little credence should be accorded to hearsay evidence; but Wayne's allegation demands urgent investigation by Norway and the WBF. At an EBU parochial level a similar situation arose with local rule of 18/19 rules. [Jerry] Wayne's complaint seems apt, but I wonder what kind of hands Nigel is thinking of. I don't think that very many directors would have a problem with a player opening 1S, in first seat even, with AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void. The reason is that it this hand has a great shot of taking 5 tricks, so being a point short is (I believe) generally forgiven. If this is the kind of example Nigel is complaining about, then the authorities should be clear that we indeed do get to exercise at least this small amount of judgement when choosing to open 1 of a suit. I.e., seven points arranged into two quick tricks in a very long suit, plus a void, should be worth something extra---certainly a point---to regulators. Of course, it would be nice if the regulation was clear. My guess is that the ACBL would come down hard on the S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 hand opening, even in third seat. It's trick-taking potential is seriously diminished by the auction so far. Does anyone really want AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void and S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 to be regulated the same? Fortunately, I do not think that they are regulated the same, though a clear statement from the authorities would be appreciated. Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 12 03:43:31 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:43:31 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? Message-ID: <28636025.1223775811764.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ Appendix 4 to the WBF Systems Policy deals with psychic bidding etc. Can someone remind us as to its contents, please? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ See your new look Tiscali Homepage - http://www.tiscali.co.uk ___________________________________________________ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Oct 12 12:38:29 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:38:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <48F1D3A5.8010205@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Wayne Burrows] > Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: > S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 > One commentator said "they do that in third position" and one spectator > said to me "its third hand, a normal approach in Norway".The relevant > HUM definition is "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one > level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. As > far as I am aware HUMs are not allowed in the current world > championships. Their system card says "10-23 HCP NAT 4+ hearts". Perhaps > this was a "one-off psyche" but the Norweigan commentator and spectator > seem to suggest it is their style. > > [Nigel] > Little credence should be accorded to hearsay evidence; but Wayne's > allegation demands urgent investigation by Norway and the WBF. > > At an EBU parochial level a similar situation arose with local rule of > 18/19 rules. Teams like mine lost matches by abiding by the regulation, > against teams who didn't. I explained our predicament and saught advice > from the EBU. My efforts attracted ridicule from BLML but a few > sympathetic Directors patiently explained that such rules are not taken > literally. They themselves evaluated hands according to their individual > Bridge judgement. > > This kind of thing never seems to attract an adverse ruling, even in > extreme cases, such as Herman de Wael, who opens 1H, third in hand, when > he picks up a Yarborough. > There is a difference though : Yarboroughs (and even the 0-3 I do it with) are very uncommon in third hand. That frequency is very far away from the hand by Helgemo. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 13 03:19:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:19:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asserted: [big snip] >This kind of thing never seems to attract an adverse ruling, >even in extreme cases, such as Herman de Wael, who opens 1H, >third in hand, when he picks up a Yarborough. Richard Hills quibbles: I have argued before that what the EBU names a "Red Psyche" is actually a misnomer; the technically correct name would be "concealed partnership understanding pseudo-psyche". And a lot of these "Red Psyches" / CPUs would also be HUMs. Ergo, there have been lots of adverse rulings in Nigel's EBU homeland. Two in the most recent EBU appeals casebook: http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm plus "Red Psyche" HUMs are frequently discussed in the minutes of the EBU Law and Ethics Committee: http://www.ebu.co.uk/general/frontpage/minutes.htm Hijack of thread - this item appeared in the latest minutes: 6.3 Mutual awareness Mr Endicott initiated a discussion on OB clause 3B10. The clause states that if a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon. Mr Endicott said that if you do not tell opponents and it turns out to be something significant they would be entitled to redress. Mr Stevenson was worried that if the clause was removed then we should always tell opponents in every case when partner forgets. To say something like "he commonly forgets" would be unhelpful to opponents. The current wording had been intended to help members, but the Committee agreed that it was illegal to do so. With immediate effect the clause was rescinded and it would be removed from the 2009 OB. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 13 04:44:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:44:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: EBU Laws and Ethics Committee minutes, September 4th 2008: Discussion moved on to the disclosure of psychic tendencies, with Mr Burn suggesting that psychic tendencies should be disclosed but as soon as you do that it becomes subject to the regulations on partnership agreement. An example given was where the auction went 1C (Precision) followed by a psychic 1S overcall - made on any 13 cards. Partner always treats the call as showing a genuine spade overcall so there is no element of fielding. Mr Stevenson said that it was correct to disclose such tendencies but you couldn't use them for your own use. It would also be allowed to know that one opponent psyched but the other did not. Mr Burn suggested that whatever the committee did would be illegal but the most sensible way forward was to allow disclosure. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 12:04:54 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:04:54 +1300 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810111700m7ed222fcucd8ad59c0c28f077@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> <2b1e598b0810111700m7ed222fcucd8ad59c0c28f077@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810130304o718891d7u9b77cadd3231876@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/12 Jerry Fusselman : > [Wayne Burrows] > Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: > S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 > > [Nigel] > Little credence should be accorded to hearsay evidence; but Wayne's > allegation demands urgent investigation by Norway and the WBF. > > At an EBU parochial level a similar situation arose with local rule of > 18/19 rules. > > [Jerry] > > Wayne's complaint seems apt, but I wonder what kind of hands Nigel is > thinking of. I don't think that very many directors would have a > problem with a player opening 1S, in first seat even, with > AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void. The reason is that it this hand has a great > shot of taking 5 tricks, so being a point short is (I believe) > generally forgiven. If this is the kind of example Nigel is > complaining about, then the authorities should be clear that we indeed > do get to exercise at least this small amount of judgement when > choosing to open 1 of a suit. I.e., seven points arranged into two > quick tricks in a very long suit, plus a void, should be worth > something extra---certainly a point---to regulators. Of course, it > would be nice if the regulation was clear. > > My guess is that the ACBL would come down hard on the S:T95 H:KJ432 > D:J93 C:Q6 hand opening, even in third seat. It's trick-taking > potential is seriously diminished by the auction so far. > > Does anyone really want AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void and S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 > C:Q6 to be regulated the same? Fortunately, I do not think that they > are regulated the same, though a clear statement from the authorities > would be appreciated. > I disagree with much of this. If the regulations allow judgement then whose judgement is allowed - your expert judgement; Helgemo's world class judgement or some palooka's judgement. Playing at the club recently vulnerable my opponent opened 1NT 12-14 on an ace-less 4-3-3-3 eleven count with no redeeming features. At the end of the hand he said with sincerity "it was a very good eleven count". Should his judgement be disallowed while others judgement is allowed? Wayne From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 13 12:08:03 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:08:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000301c92d1b$96fe60b0$c4fb2210$@no> I posted this on Saturday; it apparently never made it to the list? On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > [Wayne Burrows] > Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: > S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 > One commentator said "they do that in third position" and one spectator > said to me "its third hand, a normal approach in Norway".The relevant > HUM definition is "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one > level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. As > far as I am aware HUMs are not allowed in the current world > championships. Their system card says "10-23 HCP NAT 4+ hearts". Perhaps > this was a "one-off psyche" but the Norweigan commentator and spectator > seem to suggest it is their style. > > [Nigel] > Little credence should be accorded to hearsay evidence; but Wayne's > allegation demands urgent investigation by Norway and the WBF. > > At an EBU parochial level a similar situation arose with local rule of > 18/19 rules. Teams like mine lost matches by abiding by the regulation, > against teams who didn't. I explained our predicament and saught advice > from the EBU. My efforts attracted ridicule from BLML but a few > sympathetic Directors patiently explained that such rules are not taken > literally. They themselves evaluated hands according to their individual > Bridge judgement. > > This kind of thing never seems to attract an adverse ruling, even in > extreme cases, such as Herman de Wael, who opens 1H, third in hand, when > he picks up a Yarborough. My attention as director was called to a similar system declaration at the recent Norwegian Bridge festival (Norwegian championships). The affected pair was immediately ordered (in the middle of a round) to cease using their entire system (not only the HUM part) and switch to a very simple standard natural system we provide for beginners, until they had prepared a new system declaration and had this new declaration approved by our NBO (which of course was present in the rooms). Regards Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 12:17:13 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:17:13 +1300 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <28636025.1223775811764.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <28636025.1223775811764.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810130317n213e7deeq9b09272797b959aa@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/12 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk : > +=+ Appendix 4 to the WBF Systems Policy deals with psychic bidding etc. Can > someone remind us > as to its contents, please? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > 1. Explicit agreements that psychic calls are expected, or providing systemic protection for them, are classified as Brown Sticker. One example of the kind is when, third in hand at favourable vulnerability, a player is expected to open the bidding on anything at all. 2. Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. 3. It continues to be the case that random psychics may occur as the laws allow, without warning, so long as these can no more be anticipated by the partner than by the opponents. 4. Similar principles apply in the case of psychic actions in defenders' play of the cards. It seems to me given the reaction of those in the know with regard to the Norwegian style seems to suggest that at least Helgemo and Helness may have an agreement which is Brown Sticker as per 1 above. At the very least this type of common violation of system is required to be disclosed on the convention card. As far as I can tell it is not for this pair. Wayne From cibor at poczta.fm Sun Oct 12 23:20:28 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:20:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01f101c92cb0$5a834b70$043d0a53@mala15b1d381fb> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:53 AM Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? > Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: > > T95 > KJ432 > J93 > Q6 > > One commentator said "they do that in third position" and one > spectator said to me "its third hand, a normal approach in Norway". > > The relevant HUM definition is "By partnership agreement an opening > bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below > average strength. " It is one of the biggest holes in all systems policies known to me and a question I have always asked but never have been replied. Third seat openings - the system policies seem to not notice the difference between third and other seats at all. For me the inability to open 1D in third position on xxx xxx KQJT xxx would be a huge blow to the game of bridge, I'd consider it utterly idiotic to ban such openings. Opening 1H on Helgemo's hand seems more or less routine. To me 3rd seat openers should be treated as overcalls rather than openings. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Drinkomat - aplikacja na telefon! Pobierz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1f38 From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 11 22:34:48 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:34:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000601c92be0$ce996d80$6bcc4880$@no> On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > [Wayne Burrows] > Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: > S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 > One commentator said "they do that in third position" and one spectator > said to me "its third hand, a normal approach in Norway".The relevant > HUM definition is "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one > level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. As > far as I am aware HUMs are not allowed in the current world > championships. Their system card says "10-23 HCP NAT 4+ hearts". Perhaps > this was a "one-off psyche" but the Norweigan commentator and spectator > seem to suggest it is their style. > > [Nigel] > Little credence should be accorded to hearsay evidence; but Wayne's > allegation demands urgent investigation by Norway and the WBF. > > At an EBU parochial level a similar situation arose with local rule of > 18/19 rules. Teams like mine lost matches by abiding by the regulation, > against teams who didn't. I explained our predicament and saught advice > from the EBU. My efforts attracted ridicule from BLML but a few > sympathetic Directors patiently explained that such rules are not taken > literally. They themselves evaluated hands according to their individual > Bridge judgement. > > This kind of thing never seems to attract an adverse ruling, even in > extreme cases, such as Herman de Wael, who opens 1H, third in hand, when > he picks up a Yarborough. My attention as director was called to a similar system declaration at the recent Norwegian Bridge festival (Norwegian championships). The affected pair was immediately ordered (in the middle of a round) to cease using their entire system (not only the HUM part) and switch to a very simple standard natural system we provide for beginners, until they had prepared a new system declaration and had this new declaration approved by our NBO (which of course was present in the rooms). Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 13 12:43:08 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:43:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] productive delays In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <48F3263C.1090704@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > To try to skip most of the details, I opened with a minimal hand third > seat, I bid 3H to confirm a heart fit and just trying to compete. My > partner, instead of bidding 4H, bid 4S. > > My first thought was that he had mispulled (using bidding cards). I could > have found a bid in 10 seconds, but instead waited about 30 seconds, to > see if he would notice the mispull. I pretended to think, or actually > thought, during this time. > > Was it legal to wait? The critical law seems to be L73D1: "It is > desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady > tempo... However, players should be particularly careful when variations > may work to the benefit of their side..." > > I decided this didn't make my wait illegal, though that is a somewhat long > story and there was a long discussion of this on rgb. > By waiting for 30 seconds, you have done two things: - given him the opportunity to change his mispull because you haven't bid yet; - given him the information that something is wrong; I do not wish to call the second thing UI, since that would imply L16 restrictions, and I don't think there are any restrictions. He is allowed to use the information that something went wrong in selecting the action of noticing that he has mispulled. Also, L26A does not give him any choice but to correct his mispull, so he is allowed to do so (he does not make a call since L26A actually tells him that his call is 4H). So there are no L16 restrictions. Also I do not think it is illegal to wait for 30 seconds, in order for it to be still possible to change the call by L26A. BUT: L73A1 tells us that communication with partner shall happen only by calls and plays. Waiting for 30 seconds is IMO equal to saying "did you not mispull, partner?", something which L73A1 seems to forbid. So, while the actions of partner are not restricted (L26A tells him to change his call), the "question" is an infraction, for which there seems to be no specific penalty. Yet the opponents are damaged. It seems to me that L12A1 then applies. You are deemed to be playing 5H, which probably will have been down one or we would not be hearing this story. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Oct 13 12:48:06 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:48:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F32766.2080104@talktalk.net> [Richard Hills] I have argued before that what the EBU names a "Red Psyche" is actually a misnomer; the technically correct name would be "concealed partnership understanding pseudo-psyche". And a lot of these "Red Psyches" / CPUs would also be HUMs. Ergo, there have been lots of adverse rulings in Nigel's EBU homeland. Two in the most recent EBU appeals casebook: [Nige1] A "red psych" may be a misnomer. But such a diagnosis does require partner to appear to *field* the "psych". And such cases aren't the topic of this thread. The point is that a non-vulnerable, sub-minimum, lead-directing, third-seat opening can be an effective policy, even when partner makes no obvious attempt to field. Many players do not even classify this as a psych or "psych". IMO, the latter are still illegal. But such cases don't appear in books of adverse rulings. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 13 12:53:51 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:53:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: Your opinion?] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F328BF.8010200@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael believed: > >>> Also, I believe L90B7 used to refer to contestants >>> at a different table - that too has been dropped. > > Herman De Wael correction: > >> I was wrong to rely on my memory - I was WRONG. >> >> You learn something new every day. > > Richard Hills consolation: > > Herman was only partially wrong. He was wrong in > believing that the 1997 Law 90B7 used to refer to > contestants at a different table. But the 2007 Law > 90A still says: > > "The Director, in addition to implementing the > rectifications in these Laws, may also assess > procedural penalties for any offence that unduly > delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other > contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires > the award of an adjusted score **at another table**." > OK, so what do we have here: L90 has 2 parts L90A L90B The Director MAY assess SUBJECT TO (but not limited) procedural penalties procedural penalty any offence that examples of offences 1) arrival after starting time unduly delays 2) unduly slow play obstructs the game 3) discussion of the bidding 4) unauthorized comparison 5) touching of cards 6) placing cards in incorrect p. violates correct procedure 7) errors in procedure requires an AS. AT ANOTHER TABLE that require an AS 8) failure to comply So, these laws seem to say exactly the same, except that the words are slightly different. Why did these two laws stay as such? From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 13 14:27:05 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:27:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] productive delays In-Reply-To: <48F3263C.1090704@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> <48F3263C.1090704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48F33E99.2070808@skynet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > > So, while the actions of partner are not restricted (L26A tells him to > change his call), the "question" is an infraction, for which there seems > to be no specific penalty. Yet the opponents are damaged. > It seems to me that L12A1 then applies. You are deemed to be playing 5H, > which probably will have been down one or we would not be hearing this > story. > > Herman. > Notice that this means that we can give weighted scores - it's not L16 but L12 that we are using. Not that this matters in this case, where the contract is always going to be 5H. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 13 14:38:34 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:38:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810130304o718891d7u9b77cadd3231876@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> <2b1e598b0810111700m7ed222fcucd8ad59c0c28f077@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810130304o718891d7u9b77cadd3231876@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48F3414A.6040207@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > 2008/10/12 Jerry Fusselman : > >> [Wayne Burrows] >> Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: >> S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 >> >> [Nigel] >> Little credence should be accorded to hearsay evidence; but Wayne's >> allegation demands urgent investigation by Norway and the WBF. >> >> At an EBU parochial level a similar situation arose with local rule of >> 18/19 rules. >> >> [Jerry] >> >> Wayne's complaint seems apt, but I wonder what kind of hands Nigel is >> thinking of. I don't think that very many directors would have a >> problem with a player opening 1S, in first seat even, with >> AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void. The reason is that it this hand has a great >> shot of taking 5 tricks, so being a point short is (I believe) >> generally forgiven. If this is the kind of example Nigel is >> complaining about, then the authorities should be clear that we indeed >> do get to exercise at least this small amount of judgement when >> choosing to open 1 of a suit. I.e., seven points arranged into two >> quick tricks in a very long suit, plus a void, should be worth >> something extra---certainly a point---to regulators. Of course, it >> would be nice if the regulation was clear. >> >> My guess is that the ACBL would come down hard on the S:T95 H:KJ432 >> D:J93 C:Q6 hand opening, even in third seat. It's trick-taking >> potential is seriously diminished by the auction so far. >> >> Does anyone really want AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void and S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 >> C:Q6 to be regulated the same? Fortunately, I do not think that they >> are regulated the same, though a clear statement from the authorities >> would be appreciated. >> >> > > I disagree with much of this. > > If the regulations allow judgement then whose judgement is allowed - > your expert judgement; Helgemo's world class judgement or some > palooka's judgement. > > Playing at the club recently vulnerable my opponent opened 1NT 12-14 > on an ace-less 4-3-3-3 eleven count with no redeeming features. At > the end of the hand he said with sincerity "it was a very good eleven > count". Should his judgement be disallowed while others judgement is > allowed? > AG : perhaps, as it is of the "self-serving" type. The AC would be entitled to ask the player what he based his judgment on. Now there is that odd (in both senses) bridge player who honestly thinks more honors (which implies quacks) are better than strong honors. If they tell you that they value Q10x - Qxx - KJxx - Kxx more than AKx - xxxx - A10xx - xx; most notably for lead values, you can't tell them they aren't allowed - but you can demand that they explain they're prone to open 1 point short when holding a scattering of honors. If thay don't, CPU it is. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 13 17:44:17 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:44:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? Message-ID: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> What do you think of a player who opens, third in hand, vulnerable against not, on: AKJ6 K83 32 AQJ7 with: 1Di playing 5-card majors, better minor, 15-17 NT. The ensueing deb?cle (-1400 to us) was partly due to this opening (partner confidently finessed the DK over him) but I decided not to ask for a ruling anyway (written rulings - too much trouble for what it's worth). He did not find the joke that his diamond suit was solid, as opposed to the holes in the club suit. Yet, what do you think? Herman. From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 18:05:53 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:05:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0810130905v2a8a2dfuc5a4e3b866659f50@mail.gmail.com> I wouldn't call the bid standard, but its one that I am well acquainted with and one that Mollo showed all the time. Opener is anticipating a 2NT rebid and hoping to declare 3NT The one lead that he wants to deter more than any other is a Diamond. What the easiest way to deter a Diamond lead? Open 1D... Obviously, if this player habitually opens his weaker minor when planning a 2NT rebid the partnership should disclose this information. We'd need more information to determine the frequency with which said player choses said action: Was this a one time deviation? Does it occur randomly? (If so, whats the frequency?). Does this happen all the time? For what its worth, its somewhat amusing to see someone SO insistent that his Herman 1H opening is not systemic and doesn't need to be disclosed whining about lack of disclosure in a completely analogous situation On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > What do you think of a player who opens, third in hand, vulnerable > against not, on: > > AKJ6 K83 32 AQJ7 > > with: 1Di > > playing 5-card majors, better minor, 15-17 NT. > > The ensueing deb?cle (-1400 to us) was partly due to this opening > (partner confidently finessed the DK over him) but I decided not to ask > for a ruling anyway (written rulings - too much trouble for what it's > worth). > > He did not find the joke that his diamond suit was solid, as opposed to > the holes in the club suit. > > Yet, what do you think? > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Oct 13 19:49:39 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:49:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48F38A33.3070305@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > What do you think of a player who opens, third in hand, vulnerable > against not, on: > > AKJ6 K83 32 AQJ7 > > with: 1Di > > playing 5-card majors, better minor, 15-17 NT. > > The ensueing deb?cle (-1400 to us) was partly due to this opening > (partner confidently finessed the DK over him) but I decided not to ask > for a ruling anyway (written rulings - too much trouble for what it's > worth). > > He did not find the joke that his diamond suit was solid, as opposed to > the holes in the club suit. > > Yet, what do you think? it's a quite common cpu used by many partnerships. in the 12-14 range, it's rather restricted to balanced hands without 4 cards in spades (with 4 spades, the risk of being exposed is too great); but in the 18-19 range it's even easier. i never saw the problem legally adressed. quite the opposite: i saw people frowning at it beeing laughed at. jpr > > Herman. > -- _______________________________________________ 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 20:03:39 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:03:39 +1300 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <01f101c92cb0$5a834b70$043d0a53@mala15b1d381fb> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <01f101c92cb0$5a834b70$043d0a53@mala15b1d381fb> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810131103s17fb3e2fva758911b3ee98521@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/13 Konrad Ciborowski : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:53 AM > Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? > > >> Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: >> >> T95 >> KJ432 >> J93 >> Q6 >> >> One commentator said "they do that in third position" and one >> spectator said to me "its third hand, a normal approach in Norway". >> >> The relevant HUM definition is "By partnership agreement an opening >> bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below >> average strength. " > > It is one of the biggest holes in all systems policies known to me > and a question I have always asked but never have been replied. > Third seat openings - the system policies seem to not notice > the difference between third and other seats at all. > For me the inability to open 1D in third position on > > xxx > xxx > KQJT > xxx > > would be a huge blow to the game of bridge, I'd consider it > utterly idiotic to ban such openings. > Opening 1H on Helgemo's hand seems more or less > routine. > > To me 3rd seat openers should be treated as overcalls > rather than openings. > One of my partner's said something similar in a discussion of this case. "Its just bridge." But if it is "just bridge" and not clearly allowed by the regulations then as Nigel points out there is a serious problem when one group of players adhere to the written and announced regulations believing that they are to be complied with while another group of players gain an advantage by flouting the regulations and playing a method that those regulations define as an illegal HUM and justifying this position by saying it is "just bridge". If "just bridge" is allowed then the regulations need to explicitly say so otherwise we create a situation in which some players "in the know" are advantaged at the expense of others who adhere to the written regulations. Having a situation where the boundaries are blurred and not fixed ("a king or more") as written in the regulations is impossible to be sure of what is allowed. Helgemo's >> T95 >> KJ432 >> J93 >> Q6 is allowed but what of J95 K5432 J93 Q6 KJ5 T9432 J93 Q6 1095 KJ432 1093 76 and various hands in between. What is allowed and what is not if it is "just bridge" and the regulations do not carry their full weight? Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 20:09:12 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:09:12 +1300 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48F3414A.6040207@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> <2b1e598b0810111700m7ed222fcucd8ad59c0c28f077@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810130304o718891d7u9b77cadd3231876@mail.gmail.com> <48F3414A.6040207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810131109k7f1e7ca2yb197998976394614@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/14 Alain Gottcheiner : > Wayne Burrows a ?crit : >> 2008/10/12 Jerry Fusselman : >> >>> [Wayne Burrows] >>> Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: >>> S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> Little credence should be accorded to hearsay evidence; but Wayne's >>> allegation demands urgent investigation by Norway and the WBF. >>> >>> At an EBU parochial level a similar situation arose with local rule of >>> 18/19 rules. >>> >>> [Jerry] >>> >>> Wayne's complaint seems apt, but I wonder what kind of hands Nigel is >>> thinking of. I don't think that very many directors would have a >>> problem with a player opening 1S, in first seat even, with >>> AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void. The reason is that it this hand has a great >>> shot of taking 5 tricks, so being a point short is (I believe) >>> generally forgiven. If this is the kind of example Nigel is >>> complaining about, then the authorities should be clear that we indeed >>> do get to exercise at least this small amount of judgement when >>> choosing to open 1 of a suit. I.e., seven points arranged into two >>> quick tricks in a very long suit, plus a void, should be worth >>> something extra---certainly a point---to regulators. Of course, it >>> would be nice if the regulation was clear. >>> >>> My guess is that the ACBL would come down hard on the S:T95 H:KJ432 >>> D:J93 C:Q6 hand opening, even in third seat. It's trick-taking >>> potential is seriously diminished by the auction so far. >>> >>> Does anyone really want AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void and S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 >>> C:Q6 to be regulated the same? Fortunately, I do not think that they >>> are regulated the same, though a clear statement from the authorities >>> would be appreciated. >>> >>> >> >> I disagree with much of this. >> >> If the regulations allow judgement then whose judgement is allowed - >> your expert judgement; Helgemo's world class judgement or some >> palooka's judgement. >> >> Playing at the club recently vulnerable my opponent opened 1NT 12-14 >> on an ace-less 4-3-3-3 eleven count with no redeeming features. At >> the end of the hand he said with sincerity "it was a very good eleven >> count". Should his judgement be disallowed while others judgement is >> allowed? >> > AG : perhaps, as it is of the "self-serving" type. > The AC would be entitled to ask the player what he based his judgment on. > > Now there is that odd (in both senses) bridge player who honestly thinks > more honors (which implies quacks) are better than strong honors. > If they tell you that they value Q10x - Qxx - KJxx - Kxx more than AKx > - xxxx - A10xx - xx; most notably for lead values, you can't tell them > they aren't allowed - but you can demand that they explain they're prone > to open 1 point short when holding a scattering of honors. If thay > don't, CPU it is. > A bad player might not be able to clearly define which hands they will open. One example is that they see some expert upgrading using his expert judgement and think that is a good idea and try to follow but without expert judgement they open lighter hands than their explicit agreement in a haphazard manner. Their only explanation when questioned about their agreement might be we saw Geir Helgemo opening 7 hcp on vugraph when their convention card says 10+ HCP so we thought that we would do that too. Wayne From john at asimere.com Mon Oct 13 20:48:21 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:48:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <42656311E7E64C1DAF397E1432E694AA@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 10:53 AM Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? > Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this hand: > > T95 > KJ432 > J93 > Q6 > > One commentator said "they do that in third position" and one > spectator said to me "its third hand, a normal approach in Norway". We do it in England too :) John > > The relevant HUM definition is "By partnership agreement an opening > bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below > average strength. " > > It seems to me that if this is something "they do" and is "a normal > approach" then this agreement would meet the definition of a HUM. > > As far as I am aware HUMs are not allowed in the current world > championships. > > Their system card says "10-23 HCP NAT 4+ hearts". > > Perhaps this was a "one-off psyche" but the Norweigan commentator and > spectator seem to suggest it is their style. > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 13 21:06:31 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:06:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810131103s17fb3e2fva758911b3ee98521@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <01f101c92cb0$5a834b70$043d0a53@mala15b1d381fb> <2a1c3a560810131103s17fb3e2fva758911b3ee98521@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c92d66$ce219030$6a64b090$@no> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ..................... > But if it is "just bridge" and not clearly allowed by the regulations > then as Nigel points out there is a serious problem when one group of > players adhere to the written and announced regulations believing that > they are to be complied with while another group of players gain an > advantage by flouting the regulations and playing a method that those > regulations define as an illegal HUM and justifying this position by > saying it is "just bridge". > > If "just bridge" is allowed then the regulations need to explicitly > say so otherwise we create a situation in which some players "in the > know" are advantaged at the expense of others who adhere to the > written regulations. > > Having a situation where the boundaries are blurred and not fixed ("a > king or more") as written in the regulations is impossible to be sure > of what is allowed. > > Helgemo's > > >> T95 > >> KJ432 > >> J93 > >> Q6 > > is allowed but what of > > J95 > K5432 > J93 > Q6 > > KJ5 > T9432 > J93 > Q6 > > 1095 > KJ432 > 1093 > 76 > > and various hands in between. What is allowed and what is not if it > is "just bridge" and the regulations do not carry their full weight? I believe questions like this were discussed on a TD seminar here in Norway some time ago and the answer was that when a regulation specifies a particular HCP limit (like a King or more below an average hand) this limit is not "negotiable". So if according to agreement (or understanding) "a particular strong hand can be opened at the one-level even when it holds only 7 HCP" this agreement is HUM, end of story. (That a player may open such a hand at the one-level contrary to agreements and partnership understanding is a different story.) Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 21:41:01 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:41:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810131241u198b9f94nc130741a8438516a@mail.gmail.com> "It would also be allowed to know that one opponent psyched but the other did not." I don't understand this part. Anyone care to elaborate? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 13 23:14:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:14:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F32766.2080104@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >The point is that a non-vulnerable, sub-minimum, lead- >directing, third-seat opening can be an effective policy, >even when partner makes no obvious attempt to field. Many >players do not even classify this as a psych or "psych". > >IMO, the latter are still illegal. But such cases don't >appear in books of adverse rulings. EBU Appeals Casebook 2007, number 14, Richard Hills comment: The late and great Maurice Harrison-Gray, in his seminal articles on the Losing Trick Count, noted that an extra trick was there when holding four-card trump support instead of only three-card trump support. So the East hand, with only three-card trump support, is not as powerful as it first seems. Furthermore, while imp scoring favours bidding a vulnerable game which has only a 37.5% chance of success, matchpoint scoring is skewed towards accumulating plus scores. Ergo, I would have conservatively raised to 2S myself. I therefore would have classified the 1S opening a Green Psyche, since I consider the 2S response to be entirely normal. But..... The problem with the EBU Green Psyche regulation is that it is inconsistent with this WBF advice in the Code of Practice (page 8): "A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 14 03:11:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:11:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810131241u198b9f94nc130741a8438516a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: "It would also be allowed to know that one opponent psyched but the other did not." Jerry Fusselman asked: I don't understand this part. Anyone care to elaborate? Richard Hills ornately elaborate hypothetical: Let us assume that two hypothetical players, DWS and dWS, agree to form a partnership. To avoid confusion, let us arbitrarily label DWS as "Stevenson" and arbitrarily label dWS as "Herman". This hypothetical partnership agrees that their 1H opening bids will be 11-20 hcp with 5+ hearts. In third seat not vul versus vul Stevenson's 1H opening bids always correspond with Stevenson holding a hand which contains 11-20 hcp with 5+ hearts (and Herman is aware of this). In third seat not vul versus vul Herman's 1H opening bids always correspond with two possibilities, either: (a) 0-4 hcp with 3+ hearts, or (b) 11-20 hcp with 5+ hearts (and Stevenson is aware of these two possibilities). This hypothetical partnership is playing in an imaginary event which has the following unusual Condition of Contest: "HUM understandings not permitted". Herman incorrectly argues that the partnership does not have an understanding because the option (a) HUM is infrequent. Stevenson incorrectly argues that the partnership has done nothing wrong if Herman's option (a) HUM is disclosed by the partnership but Stevenson always bids in accordance with option (b). Stevenson may be biased by the EBU Green Psyche regulation, which is based on the hypothesis that a concealed partnership understanding perpetrated by one partner ceases to be any type of mutual partnership understanding if the other partner avoids a "field". Or, even worse, is unable to "field" (so an EBU player may freely perpetrate a Green Psyche CPU when she knows her partner has a yarborough). The EBU Green Psyche regulation is invalidated 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. Hypothetical jurist DALB has it right: "Mr Burn suggesting that psychic tendencies should be disclosed but as soon as you do that it becomes subject to the regulations on 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 04:46:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:46:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c92d1b$96fe60b0$c4fb2210$@no> Message-ID: Thomas De Quincey (1785-1859): "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he next comes to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." ...followed by HUMming. Sven Pran: >...The affected pair was immediately ordered (in the >middle of a round) to cease using their entire system (not >only the HUM part) and switch to a very simple standard >natural system we provide for beginners... Richard Hills: The future opponents of the Norwegian pair in question could have a just complaint that they are now playing against a more effective system than the earlier opponents had to cope with in the session. For example... In Australia's Interstate Open Teams a few years ago, the New South Wales team were the antebellum favourites. But the NSW (and international) experts Ron Klinger and Khokan Bagchi were playing a highly complicated homegrown system called POWER, Ron's pride and joy. Due to the system's inefficient furfuraceousness Bagchi-Klinger were having continual POWER failures, so the NSW team was at risk of not qualifying for the final. The NSW npc cunningly spoke to Ron's wife Suzie, and she convinced Ron to abandon his pride and joy in favour of "a very simple standard natural system". NSW then powered (not POWERed) into the final, which it won by a crushing margin. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 14 05:18:45 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:18:45 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? Message-ID: <26914112.1223954325062.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> +=+ Perhaps it was deemed to fit section 2 of Appendix 4 to the Sytems Policy. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Free Games for all the family - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play ________________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 14 05:55:02 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:55:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: <48F38A33.3070305@meteo.fr> References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> <48F38A33.3070305@meteo.fr> Message-ID: I am not sure if this is the same thing, but today a player overcalled with 7 HCP. On his convention card, the minimum HCP range for overcalls was 8. He explained that he wasn't vulnerable. Somehow this got to the club owner instead of me, and she told him not to psyche again. But to me it wasn't a psyche. Instead, it was filling out his convention card wrong. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 06:16:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:16:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810131103s17fb3e2fva758911b3ee98521@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman rhetorical question: >>Does anyone really want AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void and >>S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 to be regulated the same? Richard Hills: Yes. Jerry Fusselman asserted: >>Fortunately, I do not think that they are regulated the >>same, though a clear statement from the authorities >>would be appreciated. Catchphrase of Richard M. Nixon, deceased perjurer: "Let me make one thing perfectly clear." Richard Hills rhetorical question: How can the Authorities make a clear statement about an inherently fuzzy regulation? EBU Orange Book clause 10B4: "If it is said that the minimum permitted strength for an agreement about (say) strong opening bids is Rule of 25 or equivalent playing strength then that means that it is illegal to have an agreement to open a Rule of 24 hand unless it **clearly** has equivalent playing strength to a typical Rule of 25 hand." Catchphrase of Richard M. Nixon, deceased perjurer: "Let me make one thing perfectly clear." Richard Hills: If "clearly" is decided before the fact by the bidder in question, then the OB reg ridiculously encourages perjury. If "clearly" is decided after the fact by the Director, then the bidder is ridiculously unaware whether her call is legal until too late. Wayne Burrows rhetorical question: >What is allowed and what is not if it is "just bridge" and >the regulations do not carry their full weight? Richard Hills: Yes, an arbitrary regulation which legalises an opening bid holding AKxxxx-xxxx-Jxx-void, but prohibits an opening bid holding AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void has the advantage of drawing a clearcut line so that Directors and players can make easy decisions about what is legal and what is prohibited. If one assumes that opening the bidding on 432 432 432 5432 as a matter of partnership understanding is illegal under the Conditions of Contest, then a line has to be drawn _somewhere_. Rhetorical question -> Suppose one TD draws a line by permitting an opening bid with 9753-void-97532-9753, while another TD requires the stronger 9753-void-T7532-9753 (on the grounds that only the ten of diamonds permits the hand to make 7NT when dummy has a 13 card heart suit)??? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 06:45:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:45:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <26914112.1223954325062.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: +=+ Perhaps it was deemed to fit section 2 of Appendix 4 to the Systems Policy. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ WBF Systems Policy, Appendix 4, section 2: 2. Understandings whereby from time to time there may be **gross violations** of the **normal** meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give **full detail** of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. Richard Hills skewed worldview: Under the 1997 Lawbook one could justly say that HUM "agreements" were _not_ permitted in WBF events. Under the 2007 Lawbook (especially Laws 40A1 and 40C1) one could equally justly say that HUM "understandings" _are_ permitted in WBF events provided that the HUMs are: (a) a secondary option (gross violation) in a two-way call, (b) disclosed in full detail, and (c) abnormal (which in this context presumably means that the HUM is infrequent). But if a player _always_ opens a grotty 7 hcp plus a 5-card heart suit with 1H in third hand not vul versus vul, then that HUM fails the (c) abnormal test. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 14 09:27:50 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:27:50 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Mislaid Message-ID: <6468226.1223969270673.JavaMail.root@ps29> Will someone send jeff easterson's email address to me please ~ Grattan ~ Free Games for all the family - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play ________________________________________________ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Oct 14 09:39:55 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:39:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mislaid In-Reply-To: <6468226.1223969270673.JavaMail.root@ps29> References: <6468226.1223969270673.JavaMail.root@ps29> Message-ID: <48F44CCB.4070201@aol.com> Ahoj Grattan! I hope I qualify under the conditions given (someone). The address is: . Ciao, JE grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk schrieb: > Will someone send jeff easterson's email address to me please > ~ Grattan ~ > > > > > Free Games for all the family - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play > > ________________________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 14 10:23:28 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:23:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> Very funny Richard! No, I am not being sarcastic. Well written and very correct. But what is the point? Let's see: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > "It would also be allowed to know that one opponent psyched but the > other did not." > > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > I don't understand this part. Anyone care to elaborate? > > Richard Hills ornately elaborate hypothetical: > > Let us assume that two hypothetical players, DWS and dWS, agree to > form a partnership. To avoid confusion, let us arbitrarily label DWS > as "Stevenson" and arbitrarily label dWS as "Herman". > > This hypothetical partnership agrees that their 1H opening bids will > be 11-20 hcp with 5+ hearts. In third seat not vul versus vul > Stevenson's 1H opening bids always correspond with Stevenson holding > a hand which contains 11-20 hcp with 5+ hearts (and Herman is aware > of this). In third seat not vul versus vul Herman's 1H opening bids > always correspond with two possibilities, either: > > (a) 0-4 hcp with 3+ hearts, or 0-3, but I won't quibble. > (b) 11-20 hcp with 5+ hearts > > (and Stevenson is aware of these two possibilities). > Indeed most of my partners are not aware of this, but we must assume for the sake of ruling that they are. > This hypothetical partnership is playing in an imaginary event which > has the following unusual Condition of Contest: "HUM understandings > not permitted". > Very unusual condition indeed. ;) (In Australia of course) > Herman incorrectly argues that the partnership does not have an > understanding because the option (a) HUM is infrequent. > Well, indeed. Please look at it this way - why do we know that I do this? Because I told you. Anybody else who has performed this psyche four times in the last five years has exactly the same frequency as I have, but they will not be deemed to be HUMming, because no-one will criticize psyching with that frequency. Yet they will have, just as I have, performed that particular psyche on 90% of the suitable hands. > Stevenson incorrectly argues that the partnership has done nothing > wrong if Herman's option (a) HUM is disclosed by the partnership but > Stevenson always bids in accordance with option (b). > Stevenson is also correct. Hills is incorrect for the second time by again using the adverb "incorrectly" in the sentence above. > Stevenson may be biased by the EBU Green Psyche regulation, which is > based on the hypothesis that a concealed partnership understanding > perpetrated by one partner ceases to be any type of mutual > partnership understanding if the other partner avoids a "field". Or, > even worse, is unable to "field" (so an EBU player may freely > perpetrate a Green Psyche CPU when she knows her partner has a > yarborough). > > The EBU Green Psyche regulation is invalidated 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. > It seems to me that this validates Stevenson's argument rather than not. > Hypothetical jurist DALB has it right: > > "Mr Burn suggesting that psychic tendencies should be disclosed but > as soon as you do that it becomes subject to the regulations on > partnership agreement." > Of course they do - they even do if you fail to disclose them. That is not the question - the question is whether the HUM regulations currently apply or should apply to psyches that are being disclosed. I believe the regulations explicitely state that they do not apply to psyches. Which means we still have to define what psyches are. If any realisation that partner might be psyching is considered rendering the "psyche" systemic, then there can be no psyching whatsoever. That's the American saying: "psyching is OK, so long as you only do it once in your entire lifetime". > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 14 10:28:52 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:28:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0810130905v2a8a2dfuc5a4e3b866659f50@mail.gmail.com> References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0810130905v2a8a2dfuc5a4e3b866659f50@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48F45844.1010900@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > I wouldn't call the bid standard, but its one that I am well > acquainted with and one that Mollo showed all the time. > > Opener is anticipating a 2NT rebid and hoping to declare 3NT The one > lead that he wants to deter more than any other is a Diamond. What > the easiest way to deter a Diamond lead? Open 1D... > > Obviously, if this player habitually opens his weaker minor when > planning a 2NT rebid the partnership should disclose this information. > We'd need more information to determine the frequency with which said > player choses said action: Was this a one time deviation? Does it > occur randomly? (If so, whats the frequency?). Does this happen all > the time? > Who can tell what the frequency if from one occurence? > For what its worth, its somewhat amusing to see someone SO insistent > that his Herman 1H opening is not systemic and doesn't need to be > disclosed whining about lack of disclosure in a completely analogous > situation > FWIW: a) I'm not whining b) my 1H does need to be disclosed! c) certainly not completely analogous. Just compare the relative frequency of an 18-count in second seat with a 3-count in third. > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 14 10:57:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:57:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48F45EDC.2090104@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > What do you think of a player who opens, third in hand, vulnerable > against not, on: > > AKJ6 K83 32 AQJ7 > > with: 1Di > > playing 5-card majors, better minor, 15-17 NT. > > > AG : psyche, with everything it implies, L75B etc. Making it registered would have been better. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 14 11:04:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:04:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F460B0.1010207@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Nigel Guthrie: > > > Ergo, I would have conservatively raised to 2S myself. I > therefore would have classified the 1S opening a Green > Psyche, since I consider the 2S response to be entirely > normal. > AG : but can we not consider the constructive 2S response (as played by many in the US and France) as a "psyche control", something many countries disallow ? Furthermore, can't 3-step Drury considered the same ? (2D = minimal opening, 2S = sub-minimal, other = additional values) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 14 11:11:42 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:11:42 +0200 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> <48F38A33.3070305@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <48F4624E.9050208@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I am not sure if this is the same thing, but today a player overcalled > with 7 HCP. On his convention card, the minimum HCP range for overcalls > was 8. He explained that he wasn't vulnerable. Somehow this got to the > club owner instead of me, and she told him not to psyche again. > > But to me it wasn't a psyche. Instead, it was filling out his convention > card wrong. > > _ AG : I'd say it isn't the same thing. Because, if and when L/18 or L/19 is implemented, you aren't allowed to open on less, while few OB restrict overcalling strength. So you are allowed to write down overcalls as "7-15" in lieu of "8-15", if that's a better description, but not openings. That would be admitting you're playing a HUM. (one might wonder whether point ranges for overcalls make any sense ; my description is "wide range" and those who ask us to state a point range will get a honest, that is, vague, answer) But there is still another problem : all this discussion takes for granted that, in international championships, L/18 is on 3rd-in-hand. Is everybody sure of this ? If so, Belgian legislation for 3rd division matches would be more laxist, and that's strange. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 14 11:17:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:17:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F463BD.1050403@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Yes, an arbitrary regulation which legalises an opening bid > holding AKxxxx-xxxx-Jxx-void, but prohibits an opening bid > holding AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void has the advantage of drawing a > clearcut line so that Directors and players can make easy > decisions about what is legal and what is prohibited. > > If one assumes that opening the bidding on 432 432 432 5432 > as a matter of partnership understanding is illegal under > the Conditions of Contest, then a line has to be drawn > _somewhere_. > AG : the Law's words 'a King under an opening can be disallowed' satisfies me. It disallows Helgemo's opening while allowing both openings above. It should be noted that, in the late 80s, when the US officially disallowed to open a weak 2 with less than 5 HCP or less than 5 cards, this decision was ridiculed in /The Bridge World/, and the editorialist (Rubens ?) gave as still more ridiculous the L/19, which had just been implemented in the Netherlands. I still find those ridiculous. And the most ridiculous at all is that they compel you to use as your base of evaluation a method that nobody ever proved to be the best one - quite the contrary IMOBO. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 14 11:27:09 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:27:09 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Mislaid Message-ID: <28652402.1223976429797.JavaMail.root@ps29> I am sure you are someone. Thank you. ~ G ~ Free Games for all the family - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play ________________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 14 11:35:24 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:35:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> References: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48F467DC.5060400@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Well, indeed. > Please look at it this way - why do we know that I do this? Because I > told you. Anybody else who has performed this psyche four times in the > last five years has exactly the same frequency as I have, but they will > not be deemed to be HUMming, because no-one will criticize psyching with > that frequency. Yet they will have, just as I have, performed that > particular psyche on 90% of the suitable hands. > > There a snag in it, Herman. Many people read blml that you don't know of. If you were playing with any of them, there would be a CPU. Stranger still, they might have a CPU and you wouldn't (they know, but you don't know they know). Can that be ? BTW, I don't like the idea that frequency of the hand is a factor in deciding whetehr a systemic psyche is allowed. I'd prefer the traditional way : a psyche is allowed if partner will never take into account its possibility. I'm ready to believe Herman when he says that's the case. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 14 13:22:14 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:22:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F467DC.5060400@ulb.ac.be> References: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> <48F467DC.5060400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48F480E6.2020204@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Well, indeed. >> Please look at it this way - why do we know that I do this? Because I >> told you. Anybody else who has performed this psyche four times in the >> last five years has exactly the same frequency as I have, but they will >> not be deemed to be HUMming, because no-one will criticize psyching with >> that frequency. Yet they will have, just as I have, performed that >> particular psyche on 90% of the suitable hands. >> >> > > There a snag in it, Herman. Many people read blml that you don't know > of. If you were playing with any of them, there would be a CPU. Stranger > still, they might have a CPU and you wouldn't (they know, but you don't > know they know). Can that be ? > > BTW, I don't like the idea that frequency of the hand is a factor in > deciding whetehr a systemic psyche is allowed. > I'd prefer the traditional way : a psyche is allowed if partner will > never take into account its possibility. Well, isn't that what the frequency implies? If something happens once in a thousand - even if you know it can - will you take it into account? Of course there is a second condition: there cannot be a systemic catch. If you have a system which allows you to find out about the "psyche" even if it is only once a thousand, it is no longer a psyche. But as I often said, I don't play Drury. > I'm ready to believe Herman when he says that's the case. > Those of my "regular" partners that have encountered a psyche have told me never to do it again - they don't like it. I'm not certain if I will follow their instructions. > Best regards > > Alain > Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 14 13:55:00 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:55:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn/What do you think In-Reply-To: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> References: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:23:28 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > Which means we still have to define what psyches are. Psyches It seems to me that a "psyche" occurs when you make a bid or play that misdescribes your hand, and you know this, but you hope that the confusion this creates for the opponents is more than the confusion you create for partner. For example, with a strong hand defending against 3NT and playing fourth best, you might lead the deuce from AK852. Tactical Bids A tactical bid is one where you decide that the auction works better even though partner is misled. For example, in response to partner's 1D opening and holding AQx x xxx xxxxx I might decide to bid 1S, being perfectly willing to play a 4-3 fit. The opponents might misdefend, but that is not the purpose of my bid, I am just trying to find a good contract. "I Say I Play One System but I Really Play a Different System" Bids You claim to lead small from 10xxx, but when the situation actually comes up you decide to lead second highest to show that you don't have an honor. Or my example of the player who wrote 8+ for his overcalls and then overcalled with 7 HCP because it seemed like a good idea. Or a pair that agrees that over a forcing no trump (1S - P 1NT - ?), 2C shows at least 3 clubs. Then, when they have 4-5-2-2 distribution, they bid 2C. We knew they would probably do that, even if they didn't. I think maybe there is a tendency to require players to describe what they do, not what they agree to do but don't follow. Then the problem is bids that fall into the cracks. Nonvulnerable 3 seat with less than 6 points, I will usually try to open the bidding. I do this unilaterally. It doesn't come up often -- my regular partner has never seen it. But it is essentially a part of my system, though it is also a pysche by my definition. Similarly, opening AKJ6 K83 32 AQJ7 with 1Di was described as both a psyche and systemic. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 14 16:07:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:07:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> <48F38A33.3070305@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Oct 13, 2008, at 11:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I am not sure if this is the same thing, but today a player overcalled > with 7 HCP. On his convention card, the minimum HCP range for > overcalls > was 8. He explained that he wasn't vulnerable. Somehow this got to the > club owner instead of me, and she told him not to psyche again. > > But to me it wasn't a psyche. Instead, it was filling out his > convention > card wrong. Some folks don't understand the distinction between a deviation and a psych (the latter being a subset of the former, and, in practice, a rather small one). A "psych" must be a "gross misstatement of honor strength and/or suit length" [Definintions], and this presumably wasn't that. If his partner might have expected an overcall on only 7 HCP (as would be the case if he has done this a couple of times already with that partner), then this was indeed a case of "filling out his convention card wrong" (which would be subject to adjustment as MI). But don't overlook the possibility that it was simply a normal, unexpected, perfectly legal (L40C1) "judgment" deviation. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 14 16:53:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:53:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> <48F38A33.3070305@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <48F4B253.6040909@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 13, 2008, at 11:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > >> I am not sure if this is the same thing, but today a player overcalled >> with 7 HCP. On his convention card, the minimum HCP range for >> overcalls >> was 8. He explained that he wasn't vulnerable. Somehow this got to the >> club owner instead of me, and she told him not to psyche again. >> >> But to me it wasn't a psyche. Instead, it was filling out his >> convention >> card wrong. >> > > Some folks don't understand the distinction between a deviation and a > psych (the latter being a subset of the former, and, in practice, a > rather small one). A "psych" must be a "gross misstatement of honor > strength and/or suit length" [Definintions], and this presumably > wasn't that. If his partner might have expected an overcall on only > 7 HCP (as would be the case if he has done this a couple of times > already with that partner), then this was indeed a case of "filling > out his convention card wrong" (which would be subject to adjustment > as MI). But don't overlook the possibility that it was simply a > normal, unexpected, perfectly legal (L40C1) "judgment" deviation. > AG : yes, it could have been, but from the player's remark -we were nonvulnerable- ISTM that they're rather playing 8+ V and 7+ NV, in which case "misfilled CC" is the right pigeonhole. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 14 21:29:52 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:29:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: <48F4B253.6040909@ulb.ac.be> References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> <48F38A33.3070305@meteo.fr> <48F4B253.6040909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: I think I am starting to understand this. Suppose the ACBL had a place on the convention card for "sometimes opens worse minor with 18-19 HCP". If I liked to do this, I could check that I do this. Or, I could check that I never do this and have this be the agreement but then psyche whenever it comes up. As long as I don't trigger an implicit agreement and partner does not field the psyche, I am legally okay. Some opponents might assume my convention card describes my bidding, but there is no legal basis for that (because the laws fixate on agreements). From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Oct 14 22:35:00 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:35:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> <48F38A33.3070305@meteo.fr> <48F4B253.6040909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48F50274.60504@talktalk.net> [Robert Frick] I think I am starting to understand this. Suppose the ACBL had a place on the convention card for "sometimes opens worse minor with 18-19 HCP". If I liked to do this, I could check that I do this. Or, I could check that I never do this and have this be the agreement but then psyche whenever it comes up. As long as I don't trigger an implicit agreement and partner does not field the psyche, I am legally okay. Some opponents might assume my convention card describes my bidding, but there is no legal basis for that (because the laws fixate on agreements). [nige1] Ordinary players, who adhere to the letter and spirit of regulations, might naively regard this as cheating. Rules are different, however, for secretary birds and sophisticated directors on the inside track. For them, this is not even a "psych" or a "treatment". The fashionable euphemism is "tactical bid". Such partnerships are deliberately and selectively "careless" about picking up and remembering each others habits. Arguably, however, this is a gray area. Whereas agreeing to play a HUM, 3rd in hand, seems a clear-cut infraction of WBF rules. Can anyone tell us how far the WBF investigation has progressed in investigating Wayne's allegation? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 23:53:19 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:53:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F463BD.1050403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner reminisced: >It should be noted that, in the late 80s, when the US officially >disallowed to open a weak 2 with less than 5 HCP or less than 5 >cards, this decision was ridiculed in /The Bridge World/, and >the editorialist (Rubens ?) gave as still more ridiculous the >L/19, which had just been implemented in the Netherlands. > >I still find those ridiculous. Richard Hills corrects: The editorialist against the so-called "Marty Bergen rule" was the late, great Edgar Kaplan, who was El Supremo in the drafting of the 1975, 1987 and 1997 Lawbooks. Edgar had a strong belief that tournament organisers should not be able to restrict natural bids. Edgar was partially over-ruled by his colleagues in the 1987 and 1997 Lawbooks (when tournament organisers were granted the power to restrict natural opening bids at the one level of a king (or more) less than average strength), and has been completely over- ruled by the 2007 Lawbook's new concept of "special partnership understanding". If you concede that a boundary should be set (unlike the open slather on partnership methods permitted in the top third of the field in the South-West Pacific Teams), I do not find rules setting a particular boundary ridiculous. At worst such a rule may be ill-judged. Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >And the most ridiculous at all is that they compel you to use as >your base of evaluation a method that nobody ever proved to be >the best one - quite the contrary IMOBO. Richard Hills quibbles: Even Edgar Kaplan disagreed with Alain on this point. In another editorial in The Bridge World, Edgar responded to an Alainish reader's complaint by noting that although Milton Work's 4-3-2-1 point count was inaccurate, it was universally popular amongst ACBL members, hence it was logical for ACBL authorities to use the Work count as a basis for their regulations. (I vaguely recall that a 7-5-3-1 point count has majority support in a particular European NBO. If so, that European NBO's RA would presumably frame their local regulations using their local point count as a basis.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 15 01:25:45 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:25:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: >>Herman incorrectly argues that the partnership does not have an >>understanding because the option (a) HUM is infrequent. Herman De Wael quibbled: >Well, indeed. > >Please look at it this way - why do we know that I do this? >Because I told you. Anybody else who has performed this psyche >four times in the last five years has exactly the same frequency >as I have, but they will not be deemed to be HUMming, because no- >one will criticize psyching with that frequency. Yet they will >have, just as I have, performed that particular psyche on 90% of >the suitable hands. Richard Hills nuances: Okay, Herman has a partially valid point with which I must confess I partially agree with, so I will change my previous assertion to the more nuanced "Herman partially correctly argues...". 4NT Acol Blackwood has a similar infrequency to the Herman 1H. I and my partner have agreed to play the Acol Blackwood convention, so under Law 40A1 it does not matter that the opening 4NT bid is infrequent - it is a pre-existing explicit mutual partnership understanding. Frequency is, however, relevant for the creation of some implicit partnership understandings - those which "deviate from your side's announced understandings" (Law 40C1). So, if and only if: (a) Herman had avoided "announcing" his two-way 1H to the world and especially had avoided "announcing" it to his partner, and (b) Herman's partner had "no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" (i.e. by the time that a later 0-3 hcp deviation occurred, Herman's partner had completely forgotten about the previous 0-3 hcp deviation - a difficult feat, since opening a yarborough is 1066 And All That MEMORABLE), then (c) Herman's highly infrequent 0-3 hcp deviations would indeed be fully legal. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 15 04:46:38 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:46:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081015134317.01d22a00@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 10:25 AM 15/10/2008, you wrote: >Richard Hills asserted: > > >>Herman incorrectly argues that the partnership does not have an > >>understanding because the option (a) HUM is infrequent. > >Herman De Wael quibbled: > > >Well, indeed. > > > >Please look at it this way - why do we know that I do this? > >Because I told you. Anybody else who has performed this psyche > >four times in the last five years has exactly the same frequency > >as I have, but they will not be deemed to be HUMming, because no- > >one will criticize psyching with that frequency. Yet they will > >have, just as I have, performed that particular psyche on 90% of > >the suitable hands. > >Richard Hills nuances: > >Okay, Herman has a partially valid point with which I must confess >I partially agree with, so I will change my previous assertion to >the more nuanced "Herman partially correctly argues...". > >4NT Acol Blackwood has a similar infrequency to the Herman 1H. I >and my partner have agreed to play the Acol Blackwood convention, >so under Law 40A1 it does not matter that the opening 4NT bid is >infrequent - it is a pre-existing explicit mutual partnership >understanding. > >Frequency is, however, relevant for the creation of some implicit >partnership understandings - those which "deviate from your side's >announced understandings" (Law 40C1). > >So, if and only if: > >(a) Herman had avoided "announcing" his two-way 1H to the world and >especially had avoided "announcing" it to his partner, > >and > >(b) Herman's partner had "no more reason to be aware of the >deviation than have the opponents" (i.e. by the time that a later >0-3 hcp deviation occurred, Herman's partner had completely >forgotten about the previous 0-3 hcp deviation - a difficult feat, >since opening a yarborough is 1066 And All That MEMORABLE), > >then > >(c) Herman's highly infrequent 0-3 hcp deviations would indeed be >fully legal. I well remember the original post describing the Herman 1H, about 10 years ago. He described the bid as very successful, and since then I have not had the opportunity of testing its efficacy. However, were I to sit down opposite Herman, it is the first part of our system that I would discuss. It is beyond improbable that others of Herman's home club were not fully aware of the time (or times) that Herman opened his eponymous heart. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 15 04:58:18 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:58:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F50274.60504@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asserted: >Ordinary players, who adhere to the letter and spirit of >regulations, might naively regard this as cheating. Rules >are different, however, for secretary birds and >sophisticated directors on the inside track. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: (a) If Nigel Guthrie is alleging that last year's EBU psyche regulations are illegal under this year's Lawbook, then Grattan Endicott and David Burn apparently agree. (b) If Nigel Guthrie is alleging that if this year's Lawbook had hypothetically different rules, then some people abiding by the actual rules would then become hypothetical cheats, then I agree. (How can I not agree with a tautology?) (c) If Nigel Guthrie, more interestingly, is suggesting that the 2012 Lawbook should be written by "Joe Six-Pack", then I quote -> Adlai E. Stevenson (no relation to David): "In America, anyone can become president. That's one of the risks you take." Richard Hills hypothetical question: Suppose that the WBF delegated the drafting of the 2012 Lawbook to the President of the United States. Who would you prefer: (x) President "Washington insider" John McCain? or (y) President "Joe Six-Pack" Sarah Palin? McCain is my man, since he is more likely to pick up unintended consequences of populist changes to Law (as indeed he differed with his own Republican Administration by noting unintended consequences of populist changes to the Geneva Convention on torture). Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 15 08:10:37 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:10:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48F463BD.1050403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 14/10/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner reminisced: > > >It should be noted that, in the late 80s, when the US officially > >disallowed to open a weak 2 with less than 5 HCP or less than 5 > >cards, this decision was ridiculed in /The Bridge World/, and > >the editorialist (Rubens ?) gave as still more ridiculous the > >L/19, which had just been implemented in the Netherlands. > > > >I still find those ridiculous. > > Richard Hills corrects: > > The editorialist against the so-called "Marty Bergen rule" was > the late, great Edgar Kaplan, who was El Supremo in the drafting > of the 1975, 1987 and 1997 Lawbooks. Edgar had a strong belief > that tournament organisers should not be able to restrict natural > bids. > > Edgar was partially over-ruled by his colleagues in the 1987 and > 1997 Lawbooks (when tournament organisers were granted the power > to restrict natural opening bids at the one level of a king (or > more) less than average strength), and has been completely over- > ruled by the 2007 Lawbook's new concept of "special partnership > understanding". > > If you concede that a boundary should be set (unlike the open > slather on partnership methods permitted in the top third of the > field in the South-West Pacific Teams), I do not find rules > setting a particular boundary ridiculous. At worst such a rule > may be ill-judged. > > Alain Gottcheiner asserted: > > >And the most ridiculous at all is that they compel you to use as > >your base of evaluation a method that nobody ever proved to be > >the best one - quite the contrary IMOBO. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Even Edgar Kaplan disagreed with Alain on this point. In another > editorial in The Bridge World, Edgar responded to an Alainish > reader's complaint by noting that although Milton Work's 4-3-2-1 > point count was inaccurate, it was universally popular amongst > ACBL members, hence it was logical for ACBL authorities to use > the Work count as a basis for their regulations. > > (I vaguely recall that a 7-5-3-1 point count has majority support > in a particular European NBO. If so, that European NBO's RA would > presumably frame their local regulations using their local point > count as a basis.) LOL, that's the Vienna (Wiener) point count, which indeed was normal both in Austria and other countries (Norway among them) decades ago. I strongly doubt it's got majority support or even is popular anywhere in Europe today. It's still used very locally a couple of places in Norway. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 15 08:33:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:33:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael complimented: >Very funny Richard! >No, I am not being sarcastic. Well written and very correct. >But what is the point? Richard Hills asserted: >>Stevenson incorrectly argues that the partnership has done >>nothing wrong if Herman's option (a) HUM is disclosed by the >>partnership but Stevenson always bids in accordance with >>option (b). Herman De Wael counter-asserted: >Stevenson is also correct. >Hills is incorrect for the second time by again using the >adverb "incorrectly" in the sentence above. WBF Code of Practice (page 8) counter-counter-asserted: "A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is **based upon an understanding** by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any **agreement, explicit or implicit**, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." Dlr: South Herman Vul: East-West 432 432 65432 65432 Rueful Rabbit Hideous Hog --- JT987 AKQJT98765432 --- --- JT98 --- JT98 Stevenson AKQ65 --- AKQ7 AKQ7 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH R.R. dWS H.H. DWS --- --- --- Pass(1) Pass(2) 1H(3) Pass(4) 7NT (5) X (6) Pass Pass XX (7) Pass Pass Pass Opening lead: Jack of hearts (fourth best), North-South -7000 (1) The Rabbit kindly offered Stevenson a glass of the Rabbit's liqueur cherry brandy. This gustatory delight distracted Stevenson, causing him to pass his game force (Law 25A). (2) A true psyche (Law 40A3), since the only previous time that the Rabbit had held these cards R.R. had opened 7H instead. (3) Herman quickly infracted Law 7B2, then equally quickly opened 1H, thus deleting Stevenson's Law 25A rights. (4) Before the Hog called, Stevenson correctly alerted and explained Herman's Multi-1H bid. The Hog then called the Director. The Director fined the DWS-dWS partnership a standard PP for playing an illegal convention (Law 40B5). Stevenson argued that he did not deserve a PP because he was about to respond to 1H as if the partnership's illegal understanding did not exist. The TD retorted, "An illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is an illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is an illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding." The Hog silkily interrupted, "I did not call because of Law 40B5 but rather because of Law 13F." The TD then removed the three surplus cards from Herman's hand and ordered the auction and play to continue. (5) By now Stevenson had finished his liqueur cherry brandy, so was able to correctly count his 4-3-2-1 Milton Work points. (6) Because R.R. had shared his liqueur cherry brandy with DWS, R.R. was sufficiently clear-headed to notice he was on lead. (7) Consistent, since if Herman holds at least 11 of the 4-3-2-1 Milton Work points, 7NTxx is guaranteed to be cold. The TD chose not to use Law 40B5 to also adjust the score, as the TD deemed (on the Law 85 balance of probabilities) that East-West were probably not damaged. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 15 10:32:23 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:32:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F5AA97.9040502@skynet.be> Richard makes a logical fault: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > 4NT Acol Blackwood has a similar infrequency to the Herman 1H. I and > my partner have agreed to play the Acol Blackwood convention, so > under Law 40A1 it does not matter that the opening 4NT bid is > infrequent - it is a pre-existing explicit mutual partnership > understanding. > Infrequency is not the sole criterium I use! It is the combination of infrequency AND absence of systemic handling that make psyches psyches. Don't make fun of my arguments by misrepresenting them! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 15 10:34:03 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:34:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F5AAFB.6080101@skynet.be> Richard then goes on: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > (a) Herman had avoided "announcing" his two-way 1H to the world and > especially had avoided "announcing" it to his partner, > How can I undo that announcement? As soon as anyone has noticed the Helgemo action, Helgemo can no longer open his 1He? But it was OK before that? Surely this argument is totally invalid. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 15 10:47:08 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:47:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F5AE0C.8030201@skynet.be> And one more: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > (b) Herman's partner had "no more reason to be aware of the > deviation than have the opponents" (i.e. by the time that a later > 0-3 hcp deviation occurred, Herman's partner had completely > forgotten about the previous 0-3 hcp deviation - a difficult feat, > since opening a yarborough is 1066 And All That MEMORABLE), > NO. This is not a definition of something being a psyche or not - it is a definition of the psyching tendencies being known to opponents. It says "no MORE reason". So partner forgetting it is not important - the fact that opponents also "remember" it is. And if such remembrance is absent (how could it be) the director will judge if the absence caused damage, and correct that damage if it did. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 15 10:50:55 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:50:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20081015134317.01d22a00@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20081015134317.01d22a00@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <48F5AEEF.3040002@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > > I well remember the original post describing the Herman 1H, about > 10 years ago. He described the bid as very successful, and since > then I have not had the opportunity of testing its efficacy. However, > were I to sit down opposite Herman, it is the first part of our > system that I would discuss. It is beyond improbable that others > of Herman's home club were not fully aware of the time (or times) > that Herman opened his eponymous heart. > I shall say that it is absolutely certain that none of my irregular partners would ever suspect it happening. You see, it happens so terribly infrequently that no-one remembers it when it does. blml readers are not typical bridge players. They have read far more about this 1He than I have ever told any of my friends. Besides, I have kept up my promise of telling blml whenever I did one. Can you remember the last one? I cannot! It must be more than six months ago. And I can assure you that I have done it every time I had the opportunity. And I play on average three times a week. And no Tony, I would not discuss it with you. There is nothing to discuss. > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 15 12:37:24 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:37:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F5AEEF.3040002@skynet.be> References: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20081015134317.01d22a00@mail.optusnet.com.au> <48F5AEEF.3040002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48F5C7E4.1000907@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> I well remember the original post describing the Herman 1H, about >> 10 years ago. He described the bid as very successful, and since >> then I have not had the opportunity of testing its efficacy. However, >> were I to sit down opposite Herman, it is the first part of our >> system that I would discuss. It is beyond improbable that others >> of Herman's home club were not fully aware of the time (or times) >> that Herman opened his eponymous heart. >> >> AG : please notice that the good thing about this opening style is that opponents will be aware, and wary, of it. Whence rarity is the key of success (partner will be fooled by a psyche less often than opponents by a genuine, perhaps lightish, opening). Whence partner has every reason to disregard altogether the possibility of a psyche, even if he was aware of the possibility. Most probably, the best tactics would be to write in *BOOOLD* on the first leaflet of Herman's CC 'possible psychic 1H on a yarborough' and draw their attention on it. "Giving too much attention to the trap makes you liable to fall into it" (la Fontaine) Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 15 15:03:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:03:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 14, 2008, at 5:53 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner asserted: > >> And the most ridiculous at all is that they compel you to use as >> your base of evaluation a method that nobody ever proved to be >> the best one - quite the contrary IMOBO. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Even Edgar Kaplan disagreed with Alain on this point. In another > editorial in The Bridge World, Edgar responded to an Alainish > reader's complaint by noting that although Milton Work's 4-3-2-1 > point count was inaccurate, it was universally popular amongst > ACBL members, hence it was logical for ACBL authorities to use > the Work count as a basis for their regulations. The problem is that they compel you to use *a* method as the basis of hand evaluation; given that, the Work 4-3-2-1 count is as good a choice as any. But thoughtful expert bidders -- whether they do so explicitly or intuitively -- evaluate their hand by a variety of methods simultaneously, then bid according to their "composite" evaluation. They understand that no single evaluation method, no matter how complex, can provide them with a definitive evaluation. AKxxxx/KQxx/xx/x: 12 Work points, 15 Goren points, 5 losers (LTC), 3 quick tricks. QJxx/QJx/QJx/QJx: 12 Work points, 10 or 11 Goren points, 8 losers, no quick tricks. Treating these hands as of equivalent strength for regulatory purposes makes Alain's "ridiculous" rather an underbid. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Oct 15 15:38:18 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:38:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F5F24A.8030906@meadows.pair.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Suppose that the WBF delegated the drafting of the 2012 > Lawbook to the President of the United States. Who would > you prefer: > > (x) President "Washington insider" John McCain? > > or > > (y) President "Joe Six-Pack" Sarah Palin? > > McCain is my man, since he is more likely to pick up > unintended consequences of populist changes to Law (as > indeed he differed with his own Republican Administration > by noting unintended consequences of populist changes to > the Geneva Convention on torture). > Palin is probably enough of a religious fundamentalist to regards playing cards as "tools of the devil", and all card games would most likely be outlawed if she came to power. She no doubt thinks that bridge players should take up a respectable pastime instead, i.e. go and blast the hell out of the local wildlife, like any self-respecting, god-bothering, evolution-denying national rifle association member would do. Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 15 16:00:16 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:00:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F5F770.6030808@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > The problem is that they compel you to use *a* method as the basis of > hand evaluation; given that, the Work 4-3-2-1 count is as good a > choice as any. But thoughtful expert bidders -- whether they do so > explicitly or intuitively -- evaluate their hand by a variety of > methods simultaneously, then bid according to their "composite" > evaluation. They understand that no single evaluation method, no > matter how complex, can provide them with a definitive evaluation. > > AKxxxx/KQxx/xx/x: 12 Work points, 15 Goren points, 5 losers (LTC), > 3 quick tricks. > QJxx/QJx/QJx/QJx: 12 Work points, 10 or 11 Goren points, 8 losers, > no quick tricks. > > Treating these hands as of equivalent strength for regulatory > purposes makes Alain's "ridiculous" rather an underbid. > AG : furthermore, it goes directly against the spirit of disclosure laws. If I use LTC or playing tricks or Culbertson (high tricks minus losers) and they compel me to state ranges in HCP, I'll comply by giving very broad HCP ranges. That will be misleading information. For example, a 1NT opening that can range from xx - Axx - KJ109x - Kxx to KJx - QJxx - QJxx - AQ has in fact a narrow range, but must be desccribed as broad. Best regards Alain From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Oct 15 17:31:41 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:31:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48F5F770.6030808@ulb.ac.be> References: <48F5F770.6030808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48F60CDD.2000907@talktalk.net> [Alain Gottcheiner] Furthermore, it goes directly against the spirit of disclosure laws. If I use LTC or playing tricks or Culbertson (high tricks minus losers) and they compel me to state ranges in HCP, I'll comply by giving very broad HCP ranges. That will be misleading information. For example, a 1NT opening that can range from xx - Axx - KJ109x - Kxx to KJx - QJxx - QJxx - AQ has in fact a narrow range, but must be desccribed as broad. [Nigel] Many would agree that regulations that restrict agreements are unnecessary but if we must have them, then most players prefer simple objective rules that we can understand. Most players can count HCP using Milton Work's A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1. Whereas Alain Gottcheiner and Eric Landau are directors, who typically want rules that maximise the scope for director judgment, no matter how confusing and unfair they appear to players. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Oct 15 17:50:25 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:50:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? In-Reply-To: References: <48F36CD1.2090904@skynet.be> <48F38A33.3070305@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <48F61141.7030304@talktalk.net> [Eric Landau] Some folks don't understand the distinction between a deviation and a psych (the latter being a subset of the former, and, in practice, a rather small one). A "psych" must be a "gross misstatement of honor strength and/or suit length" [Definintions], and this presumably wasn't that. If his partner might have expected an overcall on only 7 HCP (as would be the case if he has done this a couple of times already with that partner), then this was indeed a case of "filling out his convention card wrong" (which would be subject to adjustment as MI). But don't overlook the possibility that it was simply a normal, unexpected, perfectly legal (L40C1) "judgment" deviation. [nige1] Ordinary players can't aspire to the sophisticated judgement of directors and top players; which means that there is one law for them and another for the rest of us. Even worse: many players naively and rigidly follow these regulations, dimly aware that directors and top players openly ignore them. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 15 23:51:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:51:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F5AA97.9040502@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: >...AND absence of systemic handling that make psyches >psyches... Richard Hills quibbles: An illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is an illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is an illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. It is irrelevant whether or not the partnership scores -7000 due to lack of a conventional method to respond to its illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Richard M. Nixon: "Let me make one thing perfectly clear." Richard Hills asserts: A few years ago I played a Forcing Pass system with a 1D opening bid as a 0-7 hcp fert. I had an agreement that a 1H response was 19+ hcp artificial. But if there were no systemic responses to the fert, would it be redefined as a psyche rather than an understanding? Of course not. (And if there is a quibble that 0-7 hcp is too frequent, assume we are discussing a Marston-style 0-4 hcp mini-fert.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 16 01:33:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:33:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F5AAFB.6080101@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Frequency is, however, relevant for the creation of some implicit >>partnership understandings - those which "deviate from your >>side's announced understandings" (Law 40C1). >> >>So, if and only if: >> >>(a) Herman had avoided "announcing" his two-way 1H to the world >>and especially had avoided "announcing" it to his partner, >> >>and [snip] Herman De Wael asked: >How can I undo that announcement? Richard Hills: In the context of Law 40 as a whole, in my opinion the Law 40C1 phrase "announced understandings" has the meaning "explicit or implicit partnership understandings which are not concealed partnership understandings". So Herman can change the "announcement" by changing his partnership understanding (e.g. by adopting a new mutual explicit partnership understanding to use the Symmetric Relay system and hence never to open the bidding with a yarborough). Herman De Wael rhetorical question: >As soon as anyone has noticed the Helgemo action, Helgemo can no >longer open his 1He? But it was OK before that? Richard Hills: Broadly speaking, yes. The WBF Code of Practice goes into some detail about when a true psyche metamorphoses into a CPU pseudo- psyche. WBF Code of Practice, page 8: To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic. This will be the case only if in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances is established: (a) similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on several occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the memory of the actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or (b) in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in the partnership and it is considered the memory of it is so fresh that it cannot have faded from mind; or (c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or (d) the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Oct 16 02:29:35 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:29:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48F50274.60504@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081016112744.01d31ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Richard: >Adlai E. Stevenson (no relation to David): > >"In America, anyone can become president. That's one of >the risks you take." "Every intelligent person in the US will vote for you" Adlai Stevenson: "It won't be enough" Cheers Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 16 03:23:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:23:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F45700.5040707@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted: >Which means we still have to define what psyches are. 2007 Lawbook, Definitions: "Psychic call (commonly 'psych[e]' or 'psychic') - a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length." Herman De Wael asserted: >If any realisation that partner might be psyching is >considered rendering the "psyche" systemic, 2007 Law 40C1, first sentence: "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." Herman De Wael asserted: >then there can be no psyching whatsoever. Richard Hills counter-asserts: Then there can be no CPU pseudo-psyching whatsoever. Herman De Wael: >That's the American saying: "psyching is OK, so long as >you only do it once in your entire lifetime". Grattan Endicott (18th December 2007): "+=+ The WBF has made a statement on the nature of a heightened awareness that I would expect it to continue in the interpretation of 2007 Law 40C1. The statement appears in the Code of Practice under 'Psychic Calls'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+" EBU L&EC minutes (4th September 2008): "Mr Burn suggested that whatever the committee did would be illegal but the most sensible way forward was to allow disclosure." Richard Hills: If a call is doubly illegal, because it is both a HUM and also a CPU, then I agree that the most sensible way forward is to allow disclosure. Then the call will be merely singly illegal, thus less likely to damage the non- offending side (plus it is easier for the TD to assess an adjusted score if an illegal call is disclosed rather than concealed). I am reminded of the apocryphal but ethical Little Old Ladies who disclosed on their system card, "We lead our singletons from our left hand". (A practice that I follow myself, since I am left-handed.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 16 03:53:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:53:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20081016112744.01d31ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Adlai E. Stevenson (no relation to David): "In America, anyone can become president. That's one of the risks you take." Tony Musgrove quoted: >"Every intelligent person in the US will vote for you" > >Adlai Stevenson: "It won't be enough" Adlai Stevenson, Democrat presidential nominee 1952 & 1956: "If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." Richard Hills (previous post): >>Suppose that the WBF delegated the drafting of the 2012 >>Lawbook to the President of the United States. >>..... >>McCain is my man, since he is more likely to pick up >>unintended consequences of populist changes to Law Richard Hills (current post): A case in point is the 2007 Law 20F3. Under the 1997 Lawbook it was not legal to ask about a single call; one was required to ask about the entire auction. There was a populist groundswell to allow asking about a single call. So the first phrase of the 2007 Law 20F3 reads: "Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call....." Nigel Guthrie: >>>Ordinary players can't aspire to the sophisticated >>>judgement of directors and top players; which means that >>>there is one law for them and another for the rest of us. [snip] Richard Hills (current post): So if a "Joe Six-Pack" ordinary player had drafted Law 20F3, she might have made the unsophisticated judgement that the first phrase was all that was necessary. This would have had the unintended consequence of legalising Ruritanian Asking Bids ("Tell me about your Stayman 2C", when holding 100 honours in clubs). Ergo, the "Washington insiders" of the top player Drafting Committee used sophisticated judgement to insert the second phrase of the 2007 Law 20F3: ".....but Law 16B1 may apply." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 16 04:12:22 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:53:43 -0400, wrote: > > A case in point is the 2007 Law 20F3. Under the 1997 > Lawbook it was not legal to ask about a single call; one > was required to ask about the entire auction. There was a > populist groundswell to allow asking about a single call. My impression, at least at the club level, was that no one imagined that the rule was that you could not ask about a single call. So there was zero demand for a change in the laws, not a populist groundswell. Instead, I am guessing the laws were changed to conform to current widespread practice. (I have no idea what happened at world tournaments -- did they really follow this law?) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 16 06:01:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:01:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >[hypothetical player] Stevenson argued that he did not >deserve a PP because he was about to respond to 1H as if >the partnership's illegal understanding did not exist. If one assumes that a partnership has infracted Law 40B5 by: (a) agreeing to designate a call as having two meanings, one of which is an illegal conventional meaning, and (b) one partner has deployed that call during the auction, then (c) what are the responsibilities of each partner during the subsequent auction (i.e. what is required of each partner to avoid a second illegality)? Law 16A1(d): "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information." The Laws preclude deployment of an illegal convention, but do the Laws preclude use of information from a deployed illegal convention? Suppose [hypothetical player] Stevenson had used information from [hypothetical player] Herman's illegal convention to opt to defend 7H undoubled for -2210. Then, should the TD's ruling be based on an assumption that: (x) the illegal call was deployed, but the illegal option was UI to North-South, so North-South get -7000 in 7NTxx plus a procedural penalty, or (y) the illegal call was not deployed, since the illegal option was AI to North-South, so North-South get -2940 defending 7Hxx plus a procedural penalty? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 16 06:40:47 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:40:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [big snip] >or > >(y) the illegal call was not deployed, since the illegal > option was AI to North-South, so North-South get -2940 > defending 7Hxx plus a procedural penalty? or (z) the EBU seems to assume that illegal responses to an illegal convention are part-and-parcel of a _single_ infraction of Law 40B5, hence mandating an artificial (not assigned) adjusted score. EBU L&EC minutes (4th September 2008): 6.9 Psyches in EBU Tournaments Mr Endicott initiated a discussion on the current regulations regarding psyches in EBU events. He thought the current regulations were probably illegal. Mr Stevenson said that the classification system of red, amber and green had worked well for many years and the new laws probably made it legal to award an adjusted score for what we called a red psyche by ruling under L12C1d. (If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score) The Committee considered how to proceed in teams play. The new law 86D allowed the result obtained at the other table to be taken into account when adjusting the score. The following was agreed for adjusting the score in red psyche situations: In pairs play the score was adjusted to A+ / A- with a fine against the psycher's side of the standard amount (legal basis 12C1d). (This is the same as now). In teams play the score is also adjusted to A+ / A- with the proviso to apply L86D where appropriate. In addition there would be a penalty against the psycher's side of the standard amount. The same would also apply for fielded misbids and use of illegal conventions except that there would be no fine. This would apply with immediate effect in EBU tournaments. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 16 07:27:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:27:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tautology (was Tautology) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F328BF.8010200@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: [big snip] >So, these laws seem to say exactly the same, except that the >words are slightly different. > >Why did these two laws stay as such? Richard Hills two cents worth: Why not? It is ambiguity which is a cancer in a Lawbook, not tautology. Indeed, judicious use of tautology can be beneficial, as a key concept is less likely to be overlooked if repeated. Some other examples of useful tautology in the 2007 Lawbook are: Definition of "odd trick" -> Law 18A Definition of "sorted deck" -> Law 6 footnote Law 16B1(a) and footnote -> Law 73C and footnote Law 20 second footnote -> Law 41 second footnote Law 21B1(b) -> Law 75C Law 70 footnote -> Law 71 footnote Index, note to "Average score" -> Index, note to "Zero score" Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 16 09:29:35 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:29:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F6ED5F.5020607@skynet.be> Richard, now you're doing exactly the opposite: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> ...AND absence of systemic handling that make psyches psyches... > > Richard Hills quibbles: An illegal pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding is an illegal pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding is an illegal pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding. > > It is irrelevant whether or not the partnership scores -7000 due to > lack of a conventional method to respond to its illegal pre-existing > mutual partnership understanding. > > Richard M. Nixon: > > "Let me make one thing perfectly clear." > > Richard Hills asserts: > > A few years ago I played a Forcing Pass system with a 1D opening bid > as a 0-7 hcp fert. I had an agreement that a 1H response was 19+ hcp > artificial. But if there were no systemic responses to the fert, > would it be redefined as a psyche rather than an understanding? Of > course not. > Systemic responses is not the only criterium either!!! Your example lacks my other criterium: frequency! You cannot go criticising my criteria by using only one of them in isolation - it is both together that I want to propose. > (And if there is a quibble that 0-7 hcp is too frequent, assume we > are discussing a Marston-style 0-4 hcp mini-fert.) > And I was not talking about frequency, but of relative frequency. My 0-3 is very infrequent when compared to the 11+ it normally shows. Also, it's not 0-4 any position, but 0-3 in third, which you must realize is much less frequent still. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 16 09:33:22 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:33:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F6EE42.9090302@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > > [snip] > > Herman De Wael asked: > >> How can I undo that announcement? > > Richard Hills: > > In the context of Law 40 as a whole, in my opinion the Law 40C1 > phrase "announced understandings" has the meaning "explicit or > implicit partnership understandings which are not concealed > partnership understandings". > > So Herman can change the "announcement" by changing his partnership > understanding (e.g. by adopting a new mutual explicit partnership > understanding to use the Symmetric Relay system and hence never to > open the bidding with a yarborough). > Which is the same to saying that I cannot perform the psyche. What you are saying is that Helgemo's opening was OK until someone talked about it on BBO - now it is forbidden for him - and this until his untimely death in 2057. And since they said "that's what they do in Norway", it's also forbidden for any Norwegian. Australians can keep doing it however, until someone does the same to them on BBO. Noticing that a habit exists cannot mean the end of the habit. John would not be able to psyche any more. > Herman De Wael rhetorical question: > >> As soon as anyone has noticed the Helgemo action, Helgemo can no >> longer open his 1He? But it was OK before that? > > Richard Hills: > > Broadly speaking, yes. The WBF Code of Practice goes into some > detail about when a true psyche metamorphoses into a CPU pseudo- > psyche. > > WBF Code of Practice, page 8: > > To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be > determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a > heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be > psychic. This will be the case only if in the opinion of the > committee one of the following circumstances is established: > > (a) similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on several > occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the memory of the > actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be identified > when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or > > (b) in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in the > partnership and it is considered the memory of it is so fresh that it > cannot have faded from mind; or > > (c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership > with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is > clearly aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or > > (d) the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some > significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic > call. > And all these are merely indications of how a psyche gets noticed, and that it then becomes disclosable - not that it is no longer a psyche or becomes banned. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 16 11:30:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:30:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48F60CDD.2000907@talktalk.net> References: <48F5F770.6030808@ulb.ac.be> <48F60CDD.2000907@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <48F709C4.7020402@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Nigel] > Many would agree that regulations that restrict agreements are unnecessary but if we must have them, then most players prefer *simple objective rules that we can understand.* Most players can count HCP using Milton Work's A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1. Whereas Alain Gottcheiner and Eric Landau are directors, who typically want rules that maximise the scope for director judgment, no matter how confusing and unfair they appear to players. > > You misunderstood me. I just want to be allowed to exercise my own judgment that AKxxxxx - AKJ10 - x - x is a game force, while KQJ - KQJ - KQJ - KQJx isn't. Demanding that I state a range for a GF opening, whatever it is, in points, will compel me to say it could be 15 HCP, but sometimes I won't make it on 24, while my *simple, objective and understandable* explanation of "at least 30-40% chance of taking 10 tricks" will be understood by every bridge player - only it isn't legal. And don't forget that books for near-beginners insist on playing tricks more than points for several opening bids - e.g.Acol 2-bids, so even the near-beginner can be baffled by the requisit that you use points. I took the above 15 HCP freak as an example, because that's a hand on which opening a strong 2C (not GF, but Benji) has been deemed a psyche by a Belgian AC, prompting many players to write down a totally unhelpful "12-24" as their range for a 2C opening. Now if you tell me that KQ10xxxx - x - xx - AKx isn't an Acol-type, I'll accept your judgment, but I want you to accept mine that it is. Furthermore, some CoC explicitly disallow systems where one opens a one-bid with strength X, but passes with strength Y, where Y > X. If the scale used is unaccurate, the CoC compel us to play bad bridge. This is too big a price for the Walruses' ataraxy. Best regards Alain, very proud of having been able not to use any word beginning with schm... From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 16 11:39:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:39:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F70BD1.1050003@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > 2007 Law 40C1, first sentence: > > "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." > > You will surely have noticed that this is a complete license to psyche, any number of times, in a club where everybody knows you do, provided there is no pattern to your psyching. Even having made this particular psyche before would be unrestricted if you had the good idea of boasting about it. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 16 15:08:08 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:08:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 15, 2008, at 5:51 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> ...AND absence of systemic handling that make psyches >> psyches... > > Richard Hills quibbles: > An illegal > pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is an illegal > pre-existing mutual partnership understanding is an illegal > pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. > > It is irrelevant whether or not the partnership scores -7000 > due to lack of a conventional method to respond to its > illegal pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Indeed, one would think that it is irrelevant whether the partnership "scores" at all, or whether the understanding actually comes up during a deal. Isn't that what "pre-existing" means? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 16 23:17:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:17:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F6EE42.9090302@skynet.be> Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice, page 8: >>To deem that such an **implicit understanding** exists [big snip] Herman De Wael obviously incorrectly wrote: >And all these are merely indications of how a psyche >gets noticed, and that it then becomes disclosable - >not that it is no longer a psyche or becomes banned. Richard Hills refutes: ...becomes a disclosable implicit understanding... ...hence subject to a HUM regulation for partnership understandings if an implicit HUM understanding... ...hence banned if HUMs are banned... 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 Fri Oct 17 00:32:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:32:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F709C4.7020402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >I just want to be allowed to exercise my own judgment >that AKxxxxx - AKJ10 - x - x is a game force, Richard Hills: I just want to be allowed to exercise my own judgment that 9753 --- T7532 9753 is a game force (after all, H.H. made 13 tricks in 7NT with these cards despite no entry to R.R.'s dummy). But seriously folks, you (or your Regulating Authority) has to draw the line somewhere. World champion Billy Eisenberg once said, "If I open a game force, and the opponents bid slam, they are not making". Alain's game force fails that Eisenberg criterion, since there are numerous layouts where the opponents can make a small slam (or even a grand slam) in a minor. Nor does Alain's game force fit the lesser criterion of (almost) always making game, since "a priori" Alain's partner is more likely to be short in the majors and long in the minors, thus Alain's "game force" may often suffer the indignity of scoring -500 in 4Sx. Ergo, playing Aussie Acol I would automatically open 1S on Alain's hand. (Another disadvantage of opening an artificial 2C game force on Alain's hand is that if the opponents pre-empt in a minor, it is almost impossible for you to get the chance to mention your secondary heart suit, a disadvantage if hearts is your best spot. But if you bid spades naturally on the first round of the auction, it is easier to mention or imply a heart suit later.) Alain Gottcheiner: >I took the above 15 HCP freak as an example, because >that's a hand on which opening a strong 2C (not GF, but >Benji) has been deemed a psyche by a Belgian AC, Richard Hills: Yet another semantic problem with the word "psyche". While presumably Belgium has a regulation prohibiting the psyching of strong artificial calls, it seems more likely that the partnership had an agreement to play "points-schmoints", hence this call was the different illegality of concealed partnership understanding. Alain Gottcheiner: >prompting many players to write down a totally unhelpful >"12-24" as their range for a 2C opening. Richard Hills: Still a CPU. Since the players have additional criteria defining this 2C opening other than Milton Work points, those players are required to list those criteria in supplementary sheets attached to their system cards. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 17 01:19:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:19:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): "There was a time when a fool and his money were soon parted, but now it happens to everybody." Eric Landau: >Indeed, one would think that it is irrelevant whether >the partnership "scores" at all, or whether the >understanding actually comes up during a deal..... Richard Hills: While Law 40B5 refers to "use" of an illegal understanding, that is merely for the purposes of rectifying damage for the non-offending side. Law 40B2(a), first sentence: "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding." Richard Hills: So if you have an illegal special partnership understanding written on your system cards, it is illegal even if the opportunity to use it has not yet arisen, thus the Director can properly order you to delete 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 Fri Oct 17 02:13:47 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:13:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810131103s17fb3e2fva758911b3ee98521@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski >Third seat openings - the system policies seem to not notice >the difference between third and other seats at all. > >For me the inability to open 1D in third position on > >xxx >xxx >KQJT >xxx > >would be a huge blow to the game of bridge, I'd consider it >utterly idiotic to ban such [mutual partnership understanding] >openings. Richard Hills: (a) For me the inability to open 1D in third position on xxx xxx QJT9 xxx would be a huge blow to the game of bridge, (b) For me the inability to open 1D in third position on xxx xxx JT98 xxx would be a huge blow to the game of bridge, * * * (z) For me the inability to open 1D in third position on xxx xxx 5432 xxx would be a huge blow to the game of bridge, I'd consider it utterly idiotic to ban such [mutual partnership understanding] openings. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 17 02:42:15 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:42:15 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested Message-ID: <12361689.1224204135714.JavaMail.root@ps26> +=+ Eric Landau is right. If it exists and is not disclosed it is illegal. Of course we have to find out about it, and this usually only happens (except in he case of someone who advertises it to third parties on the internet) only when it comes up in auction or play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Free Games for all the family - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play ________________________________________________ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 17 03:07:54 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:07:54 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggests ....(SEC=PERSONAL) Message-ID: <32512176.1224205674624.JavaMail.root@ps26> Richard Hills: So if you have an illegal special partnership understanding written on your system cards, it is illegal even if the opportunity to use it has not yet arisen, thus the Director can properly order you to delete it. +=+ Yes.............. ~ G ~ +=+ Free Games for all the family - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play ________________________________________________ From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 17 03:18:26 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:18:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggests ....(SEC=PERSONAL) In-Reply-To: <32512176.1224205674624.JavaMail.root@ps26> References: <32512176.1224205674624.JavaMail.root@ps26> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810161818v2cf00641kcf122258fc4bb642@mail.gmail.com> > Richard Hills: > > So if you have an illegal special partnership understanding > written on your system cards, it is illegal even if the > opportunity to use it has not yet arisen, thus the Director > can properly order you to delete it. > > +=+ Yes.............. ~ G ~ +=+ > And, which I find stranger, the director can decline to do anything about it. *Properly* decline to do anything about it and allow it to stay on the convention card? I don't know. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 17 04:11:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:11:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggests .... [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810161818v2cf00641kcf122258fc4bb642@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>.....Isn't that what "pre-existing" means? Jerry Fusselman: >.....*Properly* decline to do anything about it and allow it >to stay on the convention card? I don't know. Law 40B2(a), second sentence: "It may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets, for the **prior** listing of a partnership's understandings, and regulate its use." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 17 04:38:50 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:38:50 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggests ....(SEC=PERSONAL) Message-ID: <2017513.1224211130352.JavaMail.root@ps26> +=+ See Law 81C3, which does not allow the Director to do nothing about it once he is aware of it.+=+ Free Games for all the family - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play ________________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 17 05:36:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:36:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] De Wail [SEC=PERSONAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810161818v2cf00641kcf122258fc4bb642@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965); "A lie is an abomination unto the Lord and a very present help in time of trouble." WBF LC minutes, 10th October 2008, page 5: LAW 20 There is no infraction when a correct explanation discloses that partner's prior explanation was mistaken. The words "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made" (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct explanations of the partnership understandings. LAW 75C The phrase "they have no claim to an accurate description of the N-S hands" first appeared in the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied then as now by the injunction forbidding the Director to alter the table result. It was entered primarily to establish beyond doubt that that the partnership agreement must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry and that the explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It was continued in those terms in the 1987 law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the example or the wording should be updated. Among replies received there was a general consensus for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote into the body of the 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Oct 17 05:48:55 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:48:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggests ....(SEC=PERSONAL) In-Reply-To: <2017513.1224211130352.JavaMail.root@ps26> References: <2017513.1224211130352.JavaMail.root@ps26> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810162048m15595f14t92e5234f62420683@mail.gmail.com> > +=+ See Law 81C3, which does not allow the Director to do nothing about it once > he is aware of it.+=+ > Thanks. Alright, Law 81C starts "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 which Law 81C3 adds "to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Are you saying, Grattan, that an illegal partnership understanding that has not engaged during the session should be considered by all directors to be an irregularity in need of an 81C rectification? In other words, do you really think that law 81C clearly and undeniably requires that a director must immediately (after his awareness) make a player remove an illegal partnership understanding from their system? I am a little confused, because it now sounds like Richard's "can properly order you to delete it" was misleading on the grounds that he should have written "must order you to delete it." Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 17 06:55:47 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:55:47 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggests ....(SEC=PERSONAL) Message-ID: <7647287.1224219347800.JavaMail.root@ps26> Jerry F: Are you saying, Grattan, that an illegal partnership understanding that has not engaged during the session should be considered by all directors to be an irregularity in need of an 81C rectification? In other words, do you really think that law 81C clearly and undeniably requires that a director must immediately (after his awareness) make a player remove an illegal partnership understanding from their system? I am a little confused, because it now sounds like Richard's "can properly order you to delete it" was misleading on the grounds that he should have written "must order you to delete it." +=+ I would say "has the power and the duty to rectify the matter". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Free Games for all the family - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play ________________________________________________ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 17 07:29:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:29:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Butler Pairs (imps against a datum) Dlr: West Vul: Both You, North, hold: AK543 AKQ AKQJ 6 The uncontested auction proceeds: NORTH SOUTH 1C strong 1H 4+ hearts, 8+ hcp 1S relay 2C 4+ clubs 2D relay 2H exactly 4 hearts, 5+ clubs 2S relay 2NT singleton or void in spades 3C relay 3H 1-4-2-6 3S relay 3NT exactly 2 controls (A = 2, K = 1) ?? What rose do you name? What other final contract do you consider naming? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Oct 17 08:07:53 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:07:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007f01c9301e$b1bc9c90$1535d5b0$@nl> Don't tell my relay possibilities are over.... But if I have to shoot now it seems 7H seems a reasonable shot. If I count the controls and the points it is a reasonable bet pd has the HJ. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: vrijdag 17 oktober 2008 7:29 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Butler Pairs (imps against a datum) Dlr: West Vul: Both You, North, hold: AK543 AKQ AKQJ 6 The uncontested auction proceeds: NORTH SOUTH 1C strong 1H 4+ hearts, 8+ hcp 1S relay 2C 4+ clubs 2D relay 2H exactly 4 hearts, 5+ clubs 2S relay 2NT singleton or void in spades 3C relay 3H 1-4-2-6 3S relay 3NT exactly 2 controls (A = 2, K = 1) ?? What rose do you name? What other final contract do you consider naming? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 17 08:46:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:46:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): "Eggheads of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your yolks." Law 43B3: "If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, there is no rectification. Play continues as though no irregularity had occurred. At the end of play see Law 12B1." WBF LC minutes, 10th October 2008, page 3: Law 43B3 - when referring to Law 12B1 the Director treats both sides as offending and a split adjusted score is awarded. If, having lost his rights, dummy draws attention to a[n opponent's] revoke during the play, no penalty tricks are transferred. However, the Director restores equity. Law 45F: "After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested." WBF LC minutes, 10th October 2008, page 3: Law 45F - Mr. Kooijman's proposal that the Director should not adjust the score if [declarer] would have played the indicated card anyway was agreed. Dummy is liable to a procedural penalty. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 17 09:00:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:00:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007f01c9301e$b1bc9c90$1535d5b0$@nl> Message-ID: Butler Pairs (imps against a datum) Dlr: West Vul: Both You, North, hold: AK543 AKQ AKQJ 6 The uncontested auction proceeds: NORTH SOUTH 1C strong 1H 4+ hearts, 8+ hcp 1S relay 2C 4+ clubs 2D relay 2H exactly 4 hearts, 5+ clubs 2S relay 2NT singleton or void in spades 3C relay 3H 1-4-2-6 3S relay 3NT exactly 2 controls (A = 2, K = 1) ?? What rose do you name? Hans van Staveren: >Don't tell my relay possibilities are over.... No, but pard is almost certain to hold the queen of clubs, while you lack the methods to relay out the jack and ten of hearts. Hans van Staveren: >But if I have to shoot now it seems 7H seems a reasonable shot. >If I count the controls and the points it is a reasonable bet >pd has the HJ. > >Hans But does pard also hold the heart ten? If one, for the sake of argument, assumes that only one ruff is needed to make a grand slam, on the available information which grand slam is the best percentage chance? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 17 09:14:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:14:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] What do you think of this? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Ordinary players can't aspire to the sophisticated >judgement of directors and top players; which means that >there is one law for them and another for the rest of us. Richard Hills: Indeed there is. Ordinary players will now get treated more leniently than top players. WBF LC minutes, 10th October 2008, page 2: In Law 12, "serious error" should be judged according to the calibre of player. Law 12C1(b): "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a **serious error** (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." Richard Hills: For someone of David Burn's calibre a "serious error" is failure to execute a backwash squeeze. For someone of Nigel Guthrie's calibre a "serious error" is failure to execute a double squeeze. For someone of my calibre a "serious error" is a revoke. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 20:19:51 2008 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:19:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810131109k7f1e7ca2yb197998976394614@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560810110253i59a5a611ocaedd14ec8f4aad7@mail.gmail.com> <48F0EC5F.3040705@talktalk.net> <2b1e598b0810111700m7ed222fcucd8ad59c0c28f077@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810130304o718891d7u9b77cadd3231876@mail.gmail.com> <48F3414A.6040207@ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560810131109k7f1e7ca2yb197998976394614@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2008/10/14 Alain Gottcheiner : > > Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > >> 2008/10/12 Jerry Fusselman : > >> > >>> [Wayne Burrows] > >>> Third seat Nil Vul after two passes Geir Helgemo opened 1H with this > hand: > >>> S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 C:Q6 > >>> > >>> [Nigel] > >>> Little credence should be accorded to hearsay evidence; but Wayne's > >>> allegation demands urgent investigation by Norway and the WBF. > >>> > >>> At an EBU parochial level a similar situation arose with local rule of > >>> 18/19 rules. > >>> > >>> [Jerry] > >>> > >>> Wayne's complaint seems apt, but I wonder what kind of hands Nigel is > >>> thinking of. I don't think that very many directors would have a > >>> problem with a player opening 1S, in first seat even, with > >>> AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void. The reason is that it this hand has a great > >>> shot of taking 5 tricks, so being a point short is (I believe) > >>> generally forgiven. If this is the kind of example Nigel is > >>> complaining about, then the authorities should be clear that we indeed > >>> do get to exercise at least this small amount of judgement when > >>> choosing to open 1 of a suit. I.e., seven points arranged into two > >>> quick tricks in a very long suit, plus a void, should be worth > >>> something extra---certainly a point---to regulators. Of course, it > >>> would be nice if the regulation was clear. > >>> > >>> My guess is that the ACBL would come down hard on the S:T95 H:KJ432 > >>> D:J93 C:Q6 hand opening, even in third seat. It's trick-taking > >>> potential is seriously diminished by the auction so far. > >>> > >>> Does anyone really want AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void and S:T95 H:KJ432 D:J93 > >>> C:Q6 to be regulated the same? Fortunately, I do not think that they > >>> are regulated the same, though a clear statement from the authorities > >>> would be appreciated. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> I disagree with much of this. > >> > >> If the regulations allow judgement then whose judgement is allowed - > >> your expert judgement; Helgemo's world class judgement or some > >> palooka's judgement. > >> > >> Playing at the club recently vulnerable my opponent opened 1NT 12-14 > >> on an ace-less 4-3-3-3 eleven count with no redeeming features. At > >> the end of the hand he said with sincerity "it was a very good eleven > >> count". Should his judgement be disallowed while others judgement is > >> allowed? > >> > > AG : perhaps, as it is of the "self-serving" type. > > The AC would be entitled to ask the player what he based his judgment on. > > > > Now there is that odd (in both senses) bridge player who honestly thinks > > more honors (which implies quacks) are better than strong honors. > > If they tell you that they value Q10x - Qxx - KJxx - Kxx more than AKx > > - xxxx - A10xx - xx; most notably for lead values, you can't tell them > > they aren't allowed - but you can demand that they explain they're prone > > to open 1 point short when holding a scattering of honors. If thay > > don't, CPU it is. > > > > A bad player might not be able to clearly define which hands they will > open. One example is that they see some expert upgrading using his > expert judgement and think that is a good idea and try to follow but > without expert judgement they open lighter hands than their explicit > agreement in a haphazard manner. Their only explanation when > questioned about their agreement might be we saw Geir Helgemo opening > 7 hcp on vugraph when their convention card says 10+ HCP so we thought > that we would do that too. > > Wayne It''s not just bad players is it? It seems to me there are at least 2 factors which might influence non-bad players to not be able to say a priori which hands they would open. a) table feel and state of the event considerations b) aren't there game theoretic advantages that accrue to intentionally randomizing your play in certain situations? These might well apply for marginal openings too. Collins > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081013/bce0c7b8/attachment-0001.htm From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 17 04:29:56 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:29:56 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] 2008 minutes - WBF Laws Committee. (SEC=PERSONAL) Message-ID: <8163263.1224210596630.JavaMail.root@ps26> Attached are the minutes of the WBF LC as ratified in Beijing this Thursday. The parenthetical rider conveying Ton Kooijman's thoughts on 86D is not part of the ratified minute and remains as his personal opinion. Please pass these items to anyone you wish. Copies will be made available to all Regulating Authorities. An updated Code of Practice will be posted very soon. Regulating authorities are urged to adopt it. Those which adopt only parts of it are invited to say which parts they do not apply. ~ Grattan ~ (Concerning Law 27B, it is suggested that, hopefully without knowing the hand, a playing Director may be able to tell a player of the limitations that apply to substitution under 27B1 and ask him if he has a call that meets the requirements. If he says 'yes', without seeking to know what it is the Director may tell him to go ahead and complete auction and play, returning later to decide whether he needs to make an adjustment under 27D. If he says 'no' then proceed to 27B2 etc.) ______________________________________________________ Hundreds of Free Games for all the family - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play ________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081017/c146b9a4/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WBF LC Minutes - 10th Oct 2008. (3).doc Type: application/msword Size: 58368 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081017/c146b9a4/attachment-0001.doc From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 17 09:34:16 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:34:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F83FF8.4010108@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills refutes: > > ...becomes a disclosable implicit understanding... > > ...hence subject to a HUM regulation for partnership > understandings if an implicit HUM understanding... > > ...hence banned if HUMs are banned... > > What's the problem? > The second step! HUMs do not apply to psyches. There can be a partnership understanding that a particular player has a tendency to deviate from a partnership understanding, but that does not make the deviation part of the system that is regulated. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Oct 17 09:45:09 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:45:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F84285.5040807@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > But does pard also hold the heart ten? If one, for the sake of > argument, assumes that only one ruff is needed to make a grand > slam, on the available information which grand slam is the best > percentage chance? > > 7D. Needs SQ and spades and diamonds 4-3. 7H will always fail on a S lead, as no black suit can be established and cashed except with spades 4-3 and hearts 3-3, so 7D is better, as it only needs a 4-3 break instead of 3-3. Best regards Matthias From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Oct 17 10:07:19 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:07:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <007f01c9301e$b1bc9c90$1535d5b0$@nl> Message-ID: <000601c9302f$60d6dd20$22849760$@nl> There is always 7D on the 4-2 fit of course Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: vrijdag 17 oktober 2008 9:00 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Butler Pairs (imps against a datum) Dlr: West Vul: Both You, North, hold: AK543 AKQ AKQJ 6 The uncontested auction proceeds: NORTH SOUTH 1C strong 1H 4+ hearts, 8+ hcp 1S relay 2C 4+ clubs 2D relay 2H exactly 4 hearts, 5+ clubs 2S relay 2NT singleton or void in spades 3C relay 3H 1-4-2-6 3S relay 3NT exactly 2 controls (A = 2, K = 1) ?? What rose do you name? Hans van Staveren: >Don't tell my relay possibilities are over.... No, but pard is almost certain to hold the queen of clubs, while you lack the methods to relay out the jack and ten of hearts. Hans van Staveren: >But if I have to shoot now it seems 7H seems a reasonable shot. >If I count the controls and the points it is a reasonable bet >pd has the HJ. > >Hans But does pard also hold the heart ten? If one, for the sake of argument, assumes that only one ruff is needed to make a grand slam, on the available information which grand slam is the best percentage chance? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 brian at meadows.pair.com Fri Oct 17 11:36:57 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:36:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> I just want to be allowed to exercise my own judgment >> that AKxxxxx - AKJ10 - x - x is a game force, > <...> > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> I took the above 15 HCP freak as an example, because >> that's a hand on which opening a strong 2C (not GF, but >> Benji) has been deemed a psyche by a Belgian AC, > > Richard Hills: > > Yet another semantic problem with the word "psyche". > While presumably Belgium has a regulation prohibiting > the psyching of strong artificial calls, it seems more > likely that the partnership had an agreement to play > "points-schmoints", hence this call was the different > illegality of concealed partnership understanding. > I would have said it looks more like a problem with the sanity of the Belgian appeal committee - and the Belgian regulators, *IF* the AC was applying the regulations correctly. As far as I learned to play Benjie Acol, the 2C bid shows an Acol Two in an unspecified suit - and barring an awful spade break, or early heart ruffs, Alain's hand sure as hell looks like eight playing tricks in spades to me. Yes, I can understand that some, if not most, authorities might want to pass a regulation barring you from opening an "8 playing tricks" Acol Two on KQJ10xxxxx x x xx but with substantial outside strength in Alain's example hand, ruling that you can't open that with an Acol Two (let alone calling it a psyche!) seems absolutely ludicrous. Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 17 13:30:17 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:30:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F87749.1040308@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >> I just want to be allowed to exercise my own judgment >> that AKxxxxx - AKJ10 - x - x is a game force, >> > > Richard Hills: > > I just want to be allowed to exercise my own judgment > that 9753 --- T7532 9753 is a game force (after all, > H.H. made 13 tricks in 7NT with these cards despite no > entry to R.R.'s dummy). > > But seriously folks, you (or your Regulating Authority) > has to draw the line somewhere. Do it if you wish, but please be serious in the choice of your drawing tools. Points aren't. > World champion Billy > Eisenberg once said, "If I open a game force, and the > opponents bid slam, they are not making". Alain's game > force fails that Eisenberg criterion, since there are > numerous layouts where the opponents can make a small > slam (or even a grand slam) in a minor. Nor does > Alain's game force fit the lesser criterion of (almost) > always making game, since "a priori" Alain's partner is > more likely to be short in the majors and long in the > minors, thus Alain's "game force" may often suffer the > indignity of scoring -500 in 4Sx. > > Ergo, playing Aussie Acol I would automatically open 1S > on Alain's hand. And a player decided to open the equivalent of an Acol 2-bid. Okay, let's say this isn't a good bid. That's not the point. The player wasn't penalized for having misbid. He was penalized for having grossly and deliberately misrepresented his hand by pretending it was a near-game force (akin to an Acol 2-bid) while he held only 15 points. NB : the hand qualifies for the Culbertson criterion for an opening 2S (game force) : more honor tricks (4) than losing tricks (3?) ; the main difference between your voluntarily absurd example and my 74 hand is that some will judge it the same way as I do, or think about it, without felling they're giving a voluntarily absurd answer. > (Another disadvantage of opening an > artificial 2C game force on Alain's hand is that if the > opponents pre-empt in a minor, it is almost impossible > for you to get the chance to mention your secondary > heart suit, a disadvantage if hearts is your best spot. > But if you bid spades naturally on the first round of > the auction, it is easier to mention or imply a heart > suit later.) > Perhaps. But that's irrelevant here. But if you really want to argue this way, please let me remind you that 2C (Benji)-2D-2S-3m-4H will show 64 majors, most probably 74, so there is a very good reason to choose 2C. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 17 13:39:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:39:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F83FF8.4010108@skynet.be> References: <48F83FF8.4010108@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48F8797F.6050808@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Richard Hills refutes: >> >> ...becomes a disclosable implicit understanding... >> >> ...hence subject to a HUM regulation for partnership >> understandings if an implicit HUM understanding... >> >> ...hence banned if HUMs are banned... >> >> What's the problem? >> >> > > The second step! > > HUMs do not apply to psyches. > > There can be a partnership understanding that a particular player has a > tendency to deviate from a partnership understanding, but that does not > make the deviation part of the system that is regulated. > AG : what do you think of the following argument : Pair X plays a 1S opening as 9-15 HCP, subject to R18 of course. A member of this pair just opened twice 1S on a 7-count and 6 spades. It can't be deemed a psyche, because it isn't a "gross misstatement".(only 2 off R18) Whence illegal opening it is. Such AC rulings have been given in Belgium. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 17 14:05:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:05:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> brian a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >> >>> I just want to be allowed to exercise my own judgment >>> that AKxxxxx - AKJ10 - x - x is a game force, >>> > > <...> > > >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >> >>> I took the above 15 HCP freak as an example, because >>> that's a hand on which opening a strong 2C (not GF, but >>> Benji) has been deemed a psyche by a Belgian AC, >>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Yet another semantic problem with the word "psyche". >> While presumably Belgium has a regulation prohibiting >> the psyching of strong artificial calls, it seems more >> likely that the partnership had an agreement to play >> "points-schmoints", hence this call was the different >> illegality of concealed partnership understanding. >> >> > > > I would have said it looks more like a problem with the sanity of the > Belgian appeal committee - and the Belgian regulators, *IF* the AC was > applying the regulations correctly. As far as I learned to play Benjie > Acol, the 2C bid shows an Acol Two in an unspecified suit - and > barring an awful spade break, or early heart ruffs, Alain's hand sure > as hell looks like eight playing tricks in spades to me. > > Yes, I can understand that some, if not most, authorities might want > to pass a regulation barring you from opening an "8 playing tricks" > Acol Two on KQJ10xxxxx x x xx but with substantial outside > strength in Alain's example hand, ruling that you can't open that with > an Acol Two (let alone calling it a psyche!) seems absolutely ludicrous. > > AG : but it's the kind of rulings you get when counting only schmoints. (oops, I said it) Now the same problem applies at the other end of the scale : counting points to determine whether a hand can be deemed an opening bid is about as ridiculous. Even R-points. Surely you will find some more or less sane bridge players (provided such a person exists) who will say that the first hand below is worth more than the second, to the extent that the first is an opening bid and the second isn't. Yet, using R19 will disallow the first no more and no less than the second. I even gave both hands the same number of Aces, Kings, Queens and Jacks. The problem isn't that we have to draw a line somewhere, as was said before ; I do agree with that ; it is that the line has to be a reasonably accurate divider. KQ109xx A109 xx xx KQ xxxx xxxxx Ax Yet using any of the following criteria makes a clear difference between those hands, and none can be deemed too complicated to be understood by the average-minus bridge player : - playing tricks - losing tricks - culbertsonian difference - ... Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 17 14:07:49 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:07:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:46:46 -0400, wrote: > Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): > > "Eggheads of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but > your yolks." > > Law 43B3: > > "If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 is > the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, > there is no rectification. Play continues as though no > irregularity had occurred. At the end of play see Law 12B1." > > WBF LC minutes, 10th October 2008, page 3: > > Law 43B3 - when referring to Law 12B1 the Director treats > both sides as offending and a split adjusted score is > awarded. > > If, having lost his rights, dummy draws attention to a[n > opponent's] revoke during the play, no penalty tricks are > transferred. However, the Director restores equity. > > Law 45F: > > "After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate > any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without > instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should > be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play > continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an > adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to > declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play > suggested." > > WBF LC minutes, 10th October 2008, page 3: > > Law 45F - Mr. Kooijman's proposal that the Director should > not adjust the score if [declarer] would have played the > indicated card anyway was agreed. Dummy is liable to a > procedural penalty. And just to clarify -- what am I supposed to do when dummy has not lost his rights and is the first to point out an irregularity such as a lead out of turn? From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 17 14:14:45 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:14:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F8797F.6050808@ulb.ac.be> References: <48F83FF8.4010108@skynet.be> <48F8797F.6050808@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48F881B5.1080701@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >> The second step! >> >> HUMs do not apply to psyches. >> >> There can be a partnership understanding that a particular player has a >> tendency to deviate from a partnership understanding, but that does not >> make the deviation part of the system that is regulated. >> > AG : what do you think of the following argument : > > Pair X plays a 1S opening as 9-15 HCP, subject to R18 of course. > A member of this pair just opened twice 1S on a 7-count and 6 spades. > It can't be deemed a psyche, because it isn't a "gross > misstatement".(only 2 off R18) > Whence illegal opening it is. > Of course! But that is just what I am saying above. If it is a psyche, it cannot be judged a HUM. Since this is not a psyceh (but a gray opening), it can be judged HUM, and it correctly was. > Such AC rulings have been given in Belgium. > > Best regards > Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 17 14:49:28 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:49:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Explaining that #$#@ 5Di bid In-Reply-To: <8163263.1224210596630.JavaMail.root@ps26> References: <8163263.1224210596630.JavaMail.root@ps26> Message-ID: The WBFLC has clarified my responsibilities when 1. My partner describes my bid as Blackwood and responds accordingly 2. As per demonstrable partnership agreement, my bid wasn't Blackwood. 3. I know what my partner's bid means by reference to other bids and meanings and agreements we have. 4. The opponents now want to know what my partner's bid would mean if it was Blackwood because my partner is declarer. "for example, if the reply to an opponent is that '5D shows diamonds preference', any reply to a further question ?what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.)" The problem is, I really wasn't expecting that answer. So I bid 4NT for the minors and partner incorrectly explains it as exclusion Blackwood. Partner then bids 5 Di. I know exactly what his response "means", because we play that 4NT is exclusion Blackwood over 3-level preempts. (The opps opened a weak two, and our partnership agreement is that 4NT is for the minors.) Now the opps are defending against 5 Di and want to know what his bid means. I don't have to tell them. I don't have to describe exclusion Blackwood or our particular treatment and understanding about it. Nada. Furthermore, since we in ACBL-land are supposed to volunteer relevant information without having the exactly right question, I assume I do not have to explain exlusion Blackwood following *any* question. So if they ask what 4NT means over a weak-two, I guess I don't have to answer. If I "volunteer" that it is exclusion Blackwood, I still do not have to explain what a 5 Di bid would then mean on that hypothetical auction. Of course, we have been over this before. I just wasn't expecting this answer. It wasn't all that popular when we discussed it. From john at asimere.com Fri Oct 17 14:55:12 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:55:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <007f01c9301e$b1bc9c90$1535d5b0$@nl> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Don't tell my relay possibilities are over.... > > But if I have to shoot now it seems 7H seems a reasonable shot. > If I count the controls and the points it is a reasonable bet pd has the > HJ. A club lead, removing the entry early, will be embarrassing. A Grand on a 3-3 or 4-2 break is not a great proposition, either, given it's imps. I think I'd prefer 7D where, at least, I can ruff a S loser and take the C finesse making when trumps are 4-3. Can I relay for the stiff SQ; that makes 6S a decent contract I think an invittional 4N should be enough.Where the heck do you expect me to park spade losers? John > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sent: vrijdag 17 oktober 2008 7:29 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Butler Pairs (imps against a datum) > Dlr: West > Vul: Both > > You, North, hold: > > AK543 > AKQ > AKQJ > 6 > > The uncontested auction proceeds: > > NORTH SOUTH > 1C strong 1H 4+ hearts, 8+ hcp > 1S relay 2C 4+ clubs > 2D relay 2H exactly 4 hearts, 5+ clubs > 2S relay 2NT singleton or void in spades > 3C relay 3H 1-4-2-6 > 3S relay 3NT exactly 2 controls (A = 2, K = 1) > ?? > > What rose do you name? > What other final contract do you consider naming? > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities > other > than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and > has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at > www.immi.gov.au. > See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Oct 17 15:01:00 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:01:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48F84285.5040807@t-online.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > >> But does pard also hold the heart ten? If one, for the sake of >> argument, assumes that only one ruff is needed to make a grand >> slam, on the available information which grand slam is the best >> percentage chance? >> >> > > 7D. Needs SQ and spades and diamonds 4-3. 7H will always fail on a S > lead, as no black suit can be established and cashed except with spades > 4-3 and hearts 3-3, so 7D is better, as it only needs a 4-3 break > instead of 3-3. there are other chances; I mentioned one elsewhere. 7D is my favourite too. John > > Best regards > Matthias > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From brian at meadows.pair.com Fri Oct 17 15:01:34 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:01:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> > AG : but it's the kind of rulings you get when counting only schmoints. > (oops, I said it) > > Now the same problem applies at the other end of the scale : counting > points to determine whether a hand can be deemed an opening bid is about > as ridiculous. Even R-points. > Yes, I remember all too clearly when the EBU first perpetrated its 'Rule of 19' idiocy, and suddenly I wasn't allowed to open a 4-3-3-3 11 HCP hand with a Precision 1D any more. My opponents could open a hand which was 1 HCP weaker with a mini 1NT, though. And I echo Nigel's complaints in this respect, certainly at the level at which I played the rule was applied with mathematical precision, never mind those TDs and experts who claimed the right to use "judgement". The EBU did subsequently realise the idiocy of this rule, and made it 'Rule of 19 or 11+ HCP", but it took them long enough. Brian. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 17 15:36:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:36:42 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Oct 17, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > brian a ?crit : > >> I would have said it looks more like a problem with the sanity of the >> Belgian appeal committee - and the Belgian regulators, *IF* the AC >> was >> applying the regulations correctly. As far as I learned to play >> Benjie >> Acol, the 2C bid shows an Acol Two in an unspecified suit - and >> barring an awful spade break, or early heart ruffs, Alain's hand sure >> as hell looks like eight playing tricks in spades to me. >> >> Yes, I can understand that some, if not most, authorities might want >> to pass a regulation barring you from opening an "8 playing tricks" >> Acol Two on KQJ10xxxxx x x xx but with substantial outside >> strength in Alain's example hand, ruling that you can't open that >> with >> an Acol Two (let alone calling it a psyche!) seems absolutely >> ludicrous. > > AG : but it's the kind of rulings you get when counting only > schmoints. > (oops, I said it) > > Now the same problem applies at the other end of the scale : counting > points to determine whether a hand can be deemed an opening bid is > about > as ridiculous. Even R-points. > > Surely you will find some more or less sane bridge players (provided > such a person exists) who will say that the first hand below is worth > more than the second, to the extent that the first is an opening > bid and > the second isn't. Yet, using R19 will disallow the first no more > and no > less than the second. I even gave both hands the same number of Aces, > Kings, Queens and Jacks. The problem isn't that we have to draw a line > somewhere, as was said before ; I do agree with that ; it is that the > line has to be a reasonably accurate divider. > > KQ109xx > A109 > xx > xx > > KQ > xxxx > xxxxx > Ax > > Yet using any of the following criteria makes a clear difference > between > those hands, and none can be deemed too complicated to be > understood by > the average-minus bridge player : > - playing tricks > - losing tricks > - culbertsonian difference > - ... In the U.S., the closest thing to a "standard" evaluation method is still the point-count scheme developed by Charles Goren back in his "Mr. Bridge" days (a half a century or so ago). It remains, by far, the most popular method among relatively inexperienced players here. FWIW, Alain's examples count to 11 and 9 "Goren points" respectively. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 17 15:55:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:55:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F881B5.1080701@skynet.be> References: <48F83FF8.4010108@skynet.be> <48F8797F.6050808@ulb.ac.be> <48F881B5.1080701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48F8993F.5040305@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>>> >>>> >>> The second step! >>> >>> HUMs do not apply to psyches. >>> >>> There can be a partnership understanding that a particular player has a >>> tendency to deviate from a partnership understanding, but that does not >>> make the deviation part of the system that is regulated. >>> >>> >> AG : what do you think of the following argument : >> >> Pair X plays a 1S opening as 9-15 HCP, subject to R18 of course. >> A member of this pair just opened twice 1S on a 7-count and 6 spades. >> It can't be deemed a psyche, because it isn't a "gross >> misstatement".(only 2 off R18) >> Whence illegal opening it is. >> >> > > Of course! > But that is just what I am saying above. > If it is a psyche, it cannot be judged a HUM. > Since this is not a psyceh (but a gray opening), it can be judged HUM, > and it correctly was. > AG : apart from the nonsensical idea that we allow an opening on 6 spades and 1 point, but disallow it with 7 points, "correctly" should be changed into "lawful", because judging whether such-or-such hand is a normal opener based only on its opint count isn't correct. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 17 16:13:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:13:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48F89D8B.2010201@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 17, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> brian a ?crit : >> >> >>> I would have said it looks more like a problem with the sanity of the >>> Belgian appeal committee - and the Belgian regulators, *IF* the AC >>> was >>> applying the regulations correctly. As far as I learned to play >>> Benjie >>> Acol, the 2C bid shows an Acol Two in an unspecified suit - and >>> barring an awful spade break, or early heart ruffs, Alain's hand sure >>> as hell looks like eight playing tricks in spades to me. >>> >>> Yes, I can understand that some, if not most, authorities might want >>> to pass a regulation barring you from opening an "8 playing tricks" >>> Acol Two on KQJ10xxxxx x x xx but with substantial outside >>> strength in Alain's example hand, ruling that you can't open that >>> with >>> an Acol Two (let alone calling it a psyche!) seems absolutely >>> ludicrous. >>> >> AG : but it's the kind of rulings you get when counting only >> schmoints. >> (oops, I said it) >> >> Now the same problem applies at the other end of the scale : counting >> points to determine whether a hand can be deemed an opening bid is >> about >> as ridiculous. Even R-points. >> >> Surely you will find some more or less sane bridge players (provided >> such a person exists) who will say that the first hand below is worth >> more than the second, to the extent that the first is an opening >> bid and >> the second isn't. Yet, using R19 will disallow the first no more >> and no >> less than the second. I even gave both hands the same number of Aces, >> Kings, Queens and Jacks. The problem isn't that we have to draw a line >> somewhere, as was said before ; I do agree with that ; it is that the >> line has to be a reasonably accurate divider. >> >> KQ109xx >> A109 >> xx >> xx >> >> KQ >> xxxx >> xxxxx >> Ax >> >> Yet using any of the following criteria makes a clear difference >> between >> those hands, and none can be deemed too complicated to be >> understood by >> the average-minus bridge player : >> - playing tricks >> - losing tricks >> - culbertsonian difference >> - ... >> > > In the U.S., the closest thing to a "standard" evaluation method is > still the point-count scheme developed by Charles Goren back in his > "Mr. Bridge" days (a half a century or so ago). It remains, by far, > the most popular method among relatively inexperienced players here. > FWIW, Alain's examples count to 11 and 9 "Goren points" respectively. > AG : wonderful ! Then why don't we implement a "rule of 11 Goren points" (or whatever quantity) ? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 17 16:35:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:35:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Explaining that #$#@ 5Di bid In-Reply-To: References: <8163263.1224210596630.JavaMail.root@ps26> Message-ID: <5963C37C-C2BB-48D6-9FCC-982624A494D4@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > The WBFLC has clarified my responsibilities when > > 1. My partner describes my bid as Blackwood and responds accordingly > 2. As per demonstrable partnership agreement, my bid wasn't Blackwood. > 3. I know what my partner's bid means by reference to other bids and > meanings and agreements we have. > 4. The opponents now want to know what my partner's bid would mean > if it > was Blackwood because my partner is declarer. > > "for example, if the reply to an opponent is that '5D shows diamonds > preference', any reply to a further question ?what would it mean if > 4NT > were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of > Law > 20F1.)" > > The problem is, I really wasn't expecting that answer. > > So I bid 4NT for the minors and partner incorrectly explains it as > exclusion Blackwood. Partner then bids 5 Di. I know exactly what his > response "means", because we play that 4NT is exclusion Blackwood over > 3-level preempts. (The opps opened a weak two, and our partnership > agreement is that 4NT is for the minors.) > > Now the opps are defending against 5 Di and want to know what his bid > means. I don't have to tell them. I don't have to describe exclusion > Blackwood or our particular treatment and understanding about it. > Nada. It does seem rather odd. The WBF has "clarified" your responsibilities specifically under L20F1, but do not comment on your responsibilities under L40A1(b). The latter requires that you "make available [your] partnership understandings... before commencing play". So your opponents have the right to learn everything you can tell them about your exclusion Blackwood understandings provided they ask "before commencing play", but if they wait until they discover a bona fide reason for wanting the information they are no longer entitled to get it. Perhaps "perverse" would be a better description than "odd". > Furthermore, since we in ACBL-land are supposed to volunteer relevant > information without having the exactly right question, I assume I > do not > have to explain exlusion Blackwood following *any* question. So if > they > ask what 4NT means over a weak-two, I guess I don't have to answer. > If I > "volunteer" that it is exclusion Blackwood, I still do not have to > explain > what a 5 Di bid would then mean on that hypothetical auction. We in ACBL-land are supposed to "be as helpful and forthcoming as possible" in reply to an opponent's inquiry. I very much doubt that TPTB intended this to mean that you should conceal specific agreements from your opponents "following any question" if they don't meet the specific criteria of L20F1 (which would make even "perverse" a serious underbid). It is far more sensible to presume that, pursuant to their power to "specify the manner in which this shall be done", the ACBL has decided that you may (and should) defer disclosure of the specific agreements not enumerated as subject to prior disclosure (via CC or pre-alert) until such time as the opponents perceive a need for the information. IOW, the WBF has not said that L20F1 forbids you to answer the question (indeed, they have said that you may), and the ACBL has, arguably, said that you should. To me, the mandate to be as helpful and forthcoming as possible means that if some Secretary Bird insists on his right to conceal his exclusion Blackwood understanding "following any question", I can exercise my right to let him know that he is no longer welcome at my game. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 17 17:16:36 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:16:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2008, at 9:01 AM, brian wrote: > Yes, I remember all too clearly when the EBU first perpetrated its > 'Rule of 19' idiocy, and suddenly I wasn't allowed to open a 4-3-3-3 > 11 HCP hand with a Precision 1D any more. My opponents could open a > hand which was 1 HCP weaker with a mini 1NT, though. And I echo > Nigel's complaints in this respect, certainly at the level at which I > played the rule was applied with mathematical precision, never mind > those TDs and experts who claimed the right to use "judgement". > > The EBU did subsequently realise the idiocy of this rule, and made it > 'Rule of 19 or 11+ HCP", but it took them long enough. On Oct 17, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : wonderful ! Then why don't we implement a "rule of 11 Goren > points" > (or whatever quantity) ? Well, for one thing, because it would upset Brian, as Goren point- count prescribes a one-point deduction for 4-3-3-3 distribution when bidding a suit, but not when bidding NT. Alain, of course, is being sarcastic (for those who may have missed it), as his basic argument, which I hoped to reinforce by introducing Goren points to the discussion, is that no one single evaluation method is sufficient to define "hand strength" determinatively. Even if we accept that Goren points are a better descriptor than pure Work points, they are by no means good enough for that purpose. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 17 18:07:16 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:07:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F8993F.5040305@ulb.ac.be> References: <48F83FF8.4010108@skynet.be> <48F8797F.6050808@ulb.ac.be> <48F881B5.1080701@skynet.be> <48F8993F.5040305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48F8B834.60506@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The second step! >>>> >>>> HUMs do not apply to psyches. >>>> >>>> There can be a partnership understanding that a particular player has a >>>> tendency to deviate from a partnership understanding, but that does not >>>> make the deviation part of the system that is regulated. >>>> >>>> >>> AG : what do you think of the following argument : >>> >>> Pair X plays a 1S opening as 9-15 HCP, subject to R18 of course. >>> A member of this pair just opened twice 1S on a 7-count and 6 spades. >>> It can't be deemed a psyche, because it isn't a "gross >>> misstatement".(only 2 off R18) >>> Whence illegal opening it is. >>> >>> >> Of course! >> But that is just what I am saying above. >> If it is a psyche, it cannot be judged a HUM. >> Since this is not a psyceh (but a gray opening), it can be judged HUM, >> and it correctly was. >> > AG : apart from the nonsensical idea that we allow an opening on 6 > spades and 1 point, but disallow it with 7 points, Don't forget that the opening with 6Sp and 7HCP was 1Sp, with 1P it was 1He! Gross deviation! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 17 18:12:58 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:12:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48F8B98A.5080707@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Alain, of course, is being sarcastic (for those who may have missed > it), as his basic argument, which I hoped to reinforce by introducing > Goren points to the discussion, is that no one single evaluation > method is sufficient to define "hand strength" determinatively. Even > if we accept that Goren points are a better descriptor than pure Work > points, they are by no means good enough for that purpose. > You are all forgetting one thing. The rule is not that you should use Goren points or not. The rule is that certain hands are considered too weak to open. The fact that certain other hands, in fact weaker, are being allowed to open is not important. The rule supposes that those even weaker hands would not be opened, but the rulemakers acknowledge that they have left open certain holes. What _I_ find ludicrous is that you can consider there to be rules which prohibit light openings, without determining which openings would be too light. I am certain Alain would not consider the following to be a good regulation: "You are allowed to open on all hands that AG would open, but not on any hand that AG would not". Yet, this is the only regulation that fits Alain's wishes. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 18 03:40:17 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:40:17 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <24826634.1224294017235.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> Robert Frick: And just to clarify -- what am I supposed to do when dummy has not lost his rights and is the first to point out an irregularity such as a lead out of turn? < +=+ Call the Director, perhaps? +=+ Free Games for all the family - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play ________________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 18 05:04:52 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:04:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <24826634.1224294017235.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <24826634.1224294017235.JavaMail.root@ps34.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:40:17 -0400, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Robert Frick: > And just to clarify -- what am I supposed to do when dummy has not lost > his rights and is the first to point out an irregularity such as a lead > out of turn? > < > +=+ Call the Director, perhaps? +=+ Laughing. Unfortunately, I am the director. And I am clueless how I should rule. The laws seem very clear that dummy cannot point out the irregularity, and there is no redress if dummy has lost his rights and does so. That leaves a tiny hole of what happens when dummy still has his rights and points out the irregularity. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 19 23:36:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:36:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>>And just to clarify -- what am I supposed to do when dummy >>>has not lost his rights and is the first to point out an >>>irregularity such as a lead out of turn? Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Call the Director, perhaps? +=+ Robert Frick: >Laughing. Unfortunately, I am the director. And I am clueless >how I should rule. > >The laws seem very clear that dummy cannot point out the >irregularity, Law 9A3, first sentence: "When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded." Law 43A1(b): "Except as Law 42 allows: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play." Robert Frick: >and there is no redress if dummy has lost his rights and does >so. That leaves a tiny hole of what happens when dummy still >has his rights and points out the irregularity. Richard Hills: Law 43B3 does not apply, since dummy has not also infracted Law 43A2. However, dummy is liable for a procedural penalty. Law 43B1: "Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2." Richard Hills: Also, if the score would have been different if dummy's infraction had not occurred (i.e. if dummy had waited until the legal time of the end of play to draw attention to the other side's irregularity), then the TD can use Law 12B1 and Law 12A1 to adjust the score. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 20 00:42:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:42:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >...I think I'd prefer 7D where, at least, I can ruff a S >loser and take the C finesse making when trumps are 4-3. Can >I relay for the stiff SQ; that makes 6S a decent contract... Richard Hills: The stiff SQ which makes 6S a decent contract also makes 7D the percentage contract, as 7D no longer needs a successful club finesse to make. Since pard promised at least 8 hcp, and since pard holds at most 8 hcp outside spades, the odds that pard's spade is the spade queen are better than the "a priori" 12.5% chance. At the table I bid 7D in the 4-2 fit. I was wondering if my call was a logical alternative, since no one else in the field chose such an unusual contract. Of course, no one else in the field was using a relay system (Law 16B1(b) "using the methods of the partnership"). Nor was anyone else in the field as imaginative as Matthias Berghaus or John (MadDog) Probst (Law 16B1(b) "among the class of players in question"). Good news / bad news. The bad news was that bad breaks doomed 7D. The good news was that the same bad breaks doomed all the small slams, so that failing in a freely bid grand cost only four imps against the Butler datum. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 20 01:22:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:22:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F83FF8.4010108@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills refutes: >>...becomes a disclosable implicit understanding... >> >>...hence subject to a HUM regulation for partnership >>understandings if an implicit HUM understanding... >> >>...hence banned if HUMs are banned... >> >>What's the problem? Herman De Wael petitio principii: >The second step! > >HUMs do not apply to psyches. Richard Hills refutes: Agreed. But HUMs do apply to implicit partnership understandings. Calling an arm a leg does not mean that it is one. Calling an implicit partnership understanding a psyche does not mean that it is one. Herman De Wael petitio principii: >There can be a partnership understanding that a >particular player has a tendency to deviate from a >partnership understanding, Richard Hills refutes: A contradiction in terms. What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? Herman De Wael petitio principii: >but that does not make the deviation part of the >system that is regulated. Law 40C1, second sentence, refutes: "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." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 20 01:48:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:48:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Code of Practice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8163263.1224210596630.JavaMail.root@ps26> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >An updated Code of Practice will be posted very soon. >Regulating authorities are urged to adopt it. Those which >adopt only parts of it are invited to say which parts they >do not apply. Richard Hills: Given that the full title of the CoP is "WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees", this WBF LC minute should, in my opinion, be included in the revised CoP. WBF LC minutes, 10th October 2008, page 4: "Law 93G [typo for 93C] - the power of modification given in this law is a right to modify the procedure in dealing with appeals. It does not extend to overriding the rights of contestants to appeal under Law 92A. If the Regulating Authority [and/or Tournament Organizer] makes no arrangement for an appeal to be heard (see Law 80B2(k)) the Director in charge shall hear and rule upon it under Law 93A." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 20 06:39:51 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:39:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:36:57 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >>>> And just to clarify -- what am I supposed to do when dummy >>>> has not lost his rights and is the first to point out an >>>> irregularity such as a lead out of turn? > > Grattan Endicott: > >>> +=+ Call the Director, perhaps? +=+ > > Robert Frick: > >> Laughing. Unfortunately, I am the director. And I am clueless >> how I should rule. >> >> The laws seem very clear that dummy cannot point out the >> irregularity, > > Law 9A3, first sentence: > > "When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention > to it during the play period but may do so after play of the > hand is concluded." > > Law 43A1(b): > > "Except as Law 42 allows: Dummy may not call attention to an > irregularity during play." > > Robert Frick: > >> and there is no redress if dummy has lost his rights and does >> so. That leaves a tiny hole of what happens when dummy still >> has his rights and points out the irregularity. > > Richard Hills: > > Law 43B3 does not apply, since dummy has not also infracted > Law 43A2. However, dummy is liable for a procedural penalty. I am not sure I would punish a dummy who pointed out an irregularity, when that action damaged the dummy's side. Isn't that the criterion for a pp? Anyway, that doesn't address the quetion of redress/rectification, which is what I care about. > > Law 43B1: > > "Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of > the limitations listed in A1 and A2." > > Richard Hills: > > Also, if the score would have been different if dummy's > infraction had not occurred (i.e. if dummy had waited until the > legal time of the end of play to draw attention to the other > side's irregularity), then the TD can use Law 12B1 and Law 12A1 > to adjust the score. Unfortunately, that doesn't help for the problem I mentioned. The call was that a defender had led out of turn, then dummy had stated that it wasn't his lead. If I apply the lead out of turn rectification, then the dummy's comment was only relevant if declarer would not have noticed the irregularity. How am I supposed to assess that? (In my case, dummy was an expert playing with a client.) If I am going to decide that declarer wouldn't have noticed, then I will have to figure out what would have happened if the lead had stood as is with no one noticing. Rather than me figure that out, why not just let them play that way? Of course, now I am applying the exact same rectification that the lawbook says occurs only when dummy has lost his rights. That is really awkward, at best. That's my problem. I have asked this on IBLF (http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3986&st=0&#entry35110). From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 07:35:42 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:35:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810192235k5983f2a1p335c68b1330b4273@mail.gmail.com> Has the opening lead been faced? If not, it is still the clarification period, and I would guess that the presumed dummy still has his rights to mention who the leader is supposed to be (based on the idea that he is not the dummy yet). If the lead has been faced prematurely, I wish the laws were clear that the dummy can call the director without penalty at that point. It seems common sense to me that a prematurely faced lead should not benefit the leading side. If the out-of-run opening lead has been made face down, and then faced after no objections, perhaps the dummy has lost his chance to help without cost to his side. An interesting question, Robert. If it is addressed in the laws, I have missed it. It is really three questions, based on the three cases I have listed above. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 20 08:34:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:34:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: >Yes, I remember all too clearly when the EBU first perpetrated >its 'Rule of 19' idiocy, and suddenly I wasn't allowed to open >a 4-3-3-3 11 HCP hand with a Precision 1D any more. My >opponents could open a hand which was 1 HCP weaker with a mini >1NT, though. Richard Hills: Last century the ABF opted for a lesser and more consistent idiocy. Its "Rule of 18" applied equally to suit openings and NT openings (thus when I designed my Symmetric Relay system - notes emailed on request - I arranged for suit openings to have a minimum of 10 hcp and a 1NT opening to have a minimum of 11 hcp, so that pard or myself did not accidentally open an unLawful 1-bid). Another pair playing a 10-12 hcp mini-1NT alleged that they never opened a 4333 10 hcp, but subsequent inspections of the hand records caused me to have some niggling doubts about the veracity of their protestations. Brain Meadows agrees with Nigel Guthrie: >And I echo Nigel's complaints in this respect, certainly at >the level at which I played the rule was applied with >mathematical precision, never mind those TDs and experts who >claimed the right to use "judgement". Herman De Wael agrees with Brian Meadows: >>What _I_ find ludicrous is that you can consider there to be >>rules which prohibit light openings, without determining >>which openings would be too light. >> >>I am certain Alain would not consider the following to be a >>good regulation: "You are allowed to open on all hands that >>AG would open, but not on any hand that AG would not". Yet, >>this is the only regulation that fits Alain's wishes. Richard Hills agrees with Herman De Wael: Perhaps the most accurate available method of evaluating whether a hand is worth an opening 1-bid (or an opening game force) is Edgar Kaplan's CCCC method. This arose when Edgar Kaplan asked Jeff Rubens to computer generate a number of game force hands, since Edgar and his partner wished to test a tweak in their game force methods. Rubens logically quibbled that he needed to know Edgar's hand evaluation parameters. Hence the "Caution, Complex Computer Count" CCCC method. But CCCC is so complex that if it was the basis for an Opening Bid or Game Force regulation, very few players could perform at the table the necessary calculations to determine whether or not their call was legal. Alain Gottcheiner's example Benjamin 2C (Acol Two, any suit): >>>AKxxxxx - AKJ10 - x - x Brian Meadows: >Yes, I can understand that some, if not most, authorities might >want to pass a regulation barring you from opening an "8 >playing tricks" Acol Two on KQJ10xxxxx x x xx but with >substantial outside strength in Alain's example hand, ruling >that you can't open that with an Acol Two (let alone calling it >a psyche!) seems absolutely ludicrous. Richard Hills: The ABF nowadays has more sensible rules on the legality of calls. Its rule on a Benjamin 2C (artificially showing an Acol Two, or possibly big and balanced) is that all options of such a completely artificial call must be "Strong - High card strength a king or greater than that of an average hand (i.e. 13+ HCP)", since otherwise the 2-bid would be classified as Brown Sticker. Of course, merely because points-schmoints Benjy 2C or Precision- ish 1C opening bids are legal to _use_ with a minimum of 13 hcp (or a natural opening bid of 1H is legal to use with a minimum of 8 hcp) is merely the first step for ABF schmointing partnerships. The partnership must also _disclose_ their schmointing style to their Walter the Walrus opponents, or else the bids revert to being illegal concealed partnership understandings. CPUs are illegal in both Australia and Belgium (but I agree with Brian that the Belgian AC should not have miscalled a CPU a psyche). Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 20 08:59:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:59:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810192235k5983f2a1p335c68b1330b4273@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >Has the opening lead been faced? If not, it is still the >clarification period, and I would guess that the presumed >dummy still has his rights to mention who the leader is >supposed to be (based on the idea that he is not the >dummy yet). Richard Hills: Correct, there is no dummy in the auction period. Law 22B. Jerry Fusselman: >If the lead has been faced prematurely, I wish the laws >were clear that the dummy can call the director without >penalty at that point. It seems common sense to me that a >prematurely faced lead should not benefit the leading >side. > >If the out-of-run opening lead has been made face down, >and then faced after no objections, perhaps the dummy has >lost his chance to help without cost to his side. Law 54A: "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer." Richard Hills: It is clear to me that, after an opening lead out of turn, the identity of dummy has not yet been determined. Ergo, either member of the declaring side may draw attention to the irregularity unless and until "Dummy becomes declarer". Jerry Fusselman: >An interesting question, Robert. If it is addressed in the >laws, I have missed it. It is really three questions, >based on the three cases I have listed above. Richard Hills: Four questions. There is also the case of dummy drawing attention to a defender's LOOT at tricks 2 to 13. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 20 09:17:13 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:17:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000e01c93283$e01d7020$a0585060$@nl> Richard Hills: The stiff SQ which makes 6S a decent contract also makes 7D the percentage contract, as 7D no longer needs a successful club finesse to make. Since pard promised at least 8 hcp, and since pard holds at most 8 hcp outside spades, the odds that pard's spade is the spade queen are better than the "a priori" 12.5% chance. HvS Some statistics: Take the following input for dealer: produce 10000 predeal north SAK543, HAKQ, DAKQJ, C6 predeal south CA southknown=shape(south, 1426) and hcp(south)>=8 condition southknown action average "QS" hascard(south, QS) Then it turns out that South will have the SQ 19.36% of the time. Not so much better.... From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Oct 20 10:29:22 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:29:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <004401c92271$917c48a0$b474d9e0$@nl> Message-ID: [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. ton: Well noticed, though once in a while I get close. The wbf-lc in Beijing accepted my approach and I have informed the rule®ulations committee. It might lead to a change. Imo there is no difference when playing without screens and the law covering this is simply L22. We need three passes! ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Oct 20 10:38:18 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:38:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: <48E131EC.5000006@ripe.net> Message-ID: 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 ton: Wait a moment. The Dutch Bridge Federation has its own regulations, not necessarily following what the wbf is doing. And I trust that this is such an occasion. (At this moment the federation does not follow this not discussed change in the wbf screen regulations) ton From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 20 10:53:01 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:53:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002e01c93291$4251beb0$c6f53c10$@nl> My last on the infamous 7D. As far as I can see to make 7D you need diamonds 4-3, and then either pd with the SQ and spades 4-3, or a clubfinesse but then also the HJ, because the clubfinesse is not enough to ditch two spades. This leads me to the following dealer program and the result is making less than 12%. I begin to suspect the name of the flower in the subject is actually the color of RH's glasses.... Hans ---- The dealer program ------ predeal north SAK543, HAKQ, DAKQJ, C6 predeal south CA diamondsbreak=shape(west, xx3x + xx4x) spadesok=hascard(south, QS) and shape(west,3xxx + 4xxx) clubfinesse=hascard(south, QC) and hascard(east, KC) and hascard(south, JH) allok=diamondsbreak and (spadesok or clubfinesse) condition shape(south, 1426) and hcp(south)>=8 action average "7D" allok From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Oct 20 11:56:37 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:56:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002e01c93291$4251beb0$c6f53c10$@nl> References: <002e01c93291$4251beb0$c6f53c10$@nl> Message-ID: <48FC55D5.4090608@t-online.de> Well, he asked for the best of the grand slams... not for the best contract. I wonder what that best contract is (probably best expressed as score expectation), on the information known by the time 4NT is reached (4NT has 10 top tricks, so we could relay to 4NT safely). Maybe you could give your program another whirl? Looking at the North hand my guess is that no relevant information would be found between 3 and 4Nt, but maybe Richard could clear that up? Best regards Matthias Hans van Staveren schrieb: > My last on the infamous 7D. As far as I can see to make 7D you need diamonds > 4-3, and then either pd with the SQ and spades 4-3, or a clubfinesse but > then also the HJ, because the clubfinesse is not enough to ditch two spades. > This leads me to the following dealer program and the result is making less > than 12%. > I begin to suspect the name of the flower in the subject is actually the > color of RH's glasses.... > > Hans > > ---- The dealer program ------ > predeal north SAK543, HAKQ, DAKQJ, C6 > predeal south CA > > diamondsbreak=shape(west, xx3x + xx4x) > spadesok=hascard(south, QS) and shape(west,3xxx + 4xxx) > clubfinesse=hascard(south, QC) and hascard(east, KC) and hascard(south, JH) > > allok=diamondsbreak and (spadesok or clubfinesse) > > condition shape(south, 1426) and hcp(south)>=8 > > action average "7D" allok > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 20 12:00:11 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:00:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills refutes: > >>> ...becomes a disclosable implicit understanding... >>> >>> ...hence subject to a HUM regulation for partnership >>> understandings if an implicit HUM understanding... >>> >>> ...hence banned if HUMs are banned... >>> >>> What's the problem? > > Herman De Wael petitio principii: > >> The second step! >> >> HUMs do not apply to psyches. > > Richard Hills refutes: > > Agreed. But HUMs do apply to implicit partnership understandings. > Calling an arm a leg does not mean that it is one. Calling an > implicit partnership understanding a psyche does not mean that it is > one. > And this is where the difference of opinion originates. Richard seems to agree that HUM regulations do not apply to psyches. let's for the moment agree that this is what they indeed to say, and do say. Richard also believes my 1He (let's for the moment not call it a psyche) is a partnership understanding, and that HUMs do apply to partnership understandings. Then, Richard has to agree that in order to make sense, there have to be some psyches that Richard does not call partnership understandings. Now I submit to him that every single player has some sort of "partnership understanding" with regards to psyches. Even a player who has never ever psyched in his life has an understanding "he has never ever psyched before". To say that this is not a partnership understanding would undermine the principle of full disclosure. To possibly say that the partner does not know this would introduce into the definition of "partnership understanding" something which is totally unverifiable, and, IMO, unnecessary. Anything that a partner could know whould be available to opponents. To possibly say that such information would not be important is to forget that there are always two criteria for score adjustment: missing knowledge and damage. If some piece of information is missing, the importance is not important for the "missing" criterium, it will be handled under the heading of "damage". So, all in all, I say that every single psyche contains "partnership understanding" and that therefore to say that HUMs deal with all partnership understandings is a negation of the saying that HUMs do not deal with psyches. Which, in itself, says nothing about my 1He opening. But it does break the link in Richard's chain. To say that I have partnership understanding, therefore my opening is banned as a HUM is simply not enough - with that reasoning all psychic weak openings are banned, whether I have said something about it or not. Richard needs to find another argument why my 1He opening is HUM. An argument that allows John Probst to open 1He on the same hand, but not me. I urge Richard to try. > Herman De Wael petitio principii: > >> There can be a partnership understanding that a particular player >> has a tendency to deviate from a partnership understanding, > > Richard Hills refutes: > > A contradiction in terms. What happens when an irresistible force > meets an immovable object? > > Herman De Wael petitio principii: > >> but that does not make the deviation part of the system that is >> regulated. > > Law 40C1, second sentence, refutes: > > "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." > MUST BE DISCLOSED. Indeed. But that is not the same as "become a part of system". > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Oct 20 12:01:30 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:01:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] (no subject) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Robert Frick: > And just to clarify -- what am I supposed to do when dummy has not > lost his rights and is the first to point out an irregularity such as > a lead out of turn? > < > +=+ Call the Director, perhaps? +=+ Laughing. Unfortunately, I am the director. And I am clueless how I should rule. The laws seem very clear that dummy cannot point out the irregularity, and there is no redress if dummy has lost his rights and does so. That leaves a tiny hole of what happens when dummy still has his rights and points out the irregularity. ton: This is a good question; just bei(ji)ng back, I don't bother about previous solutions and come up with the following: Dummy creates UI and the TD has a routine approach to handle this case: Play continues normally and if declarer chooses his option to have the irregularity rectified (I used this word without any hesitation, bravo) and the opponents feel damaged the TD has to decide whether there was a logical alternative for noticing the irregularity (which is not noticing it). This is theory, now the practise: I would allow declarer to choose this option (normally infractions are noticed, unless dummy tried to warn declarer who started to accept the irregularity, in which case the logical alternative is clear. And dummy's side should receive a procedural penalty. ton From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 20 12:28:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:28:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48FC5D4E.3050807@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Alain, of course, is being sarcastic (for those who may have missed > it), as his basic argument, which I hoped to reinforce by introducing > Goren points to the discussion, is that no one single evaluation > method is sufficient to define "hand strength" determinatively. Less sarcastic than you think. Even if Goren points aren't perfect, they're substantially better than Milton Work points. But one more thing trifles me : TFLB empowers OBs to regulate opening bids that are made with "one king below average strength". Is a 5332 9-count one king below averagz strength ? Is your average hand a 12-count ? Whance it appears that imposing L/18, and /a fortiori/ L/19, exceeds OBs' rights. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 20 12:32:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:32:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48F8B98A.5080707@skynet.be> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> <48F8B98A.5080707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48FC5E26.80000@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > I am certain Alain would not consider the following to be a good > regulation: "You are allowed to open on all hands that AG would open, > but not on any hand that AG would not". Yet, this is the only regulation > that fits Alain's wishes. > > They wouldn't be allowed many openings - I'm a notorious solid opener (at the 1-level at least). But apparently you misunderstood me. What I'd wish is that, if somebody opens a hand he deems worth an opening, and his opponents disagree, a kind of LA theory be used : if a substantial part of the player's peers would think about opening, then one may open it freely -subject to proper disclosure. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 20 12:41:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:41:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FC6075.9020204@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > The ABF nowadays has more sensible rules on the legality of > calls. Its rule on a Benjamin 2C (artificially showing an Acol > Two, or possibly big and balanced) is that all options of such a > completely artificial call must be "Strong - High card strength a > king or greater than that of an average hand (i.e. 13+ HCP)", > since otherwise the 2-bid would be classified as Brown Sticker. > > Of course, merely because points-schmoints Benjy 2C or Precision- > ish 1C opening bids are legal to _use_ with a minimum of 13 hcp > (or a natural opening bid of 1H is legal to use with a minimum of > 8 hcp) is merely the first step for ABF schmointing partnerships. > > The partnership must also _disclose_ their schmointing style to > their Walter the Walrus opponents That's not bad at all ! You have plenty of room on your CC to explain the different types of hand you'd open 2C (or whatever), and if you use playing tricks valuation (common amond Benjyists), it will appear. And you know what ? Belgian rules are very simiular. BUT ... many CC types still demand that you state a range, that's the first thing your opponents will notice, and stating "13-24" (or 4-37 for a Multi 2D, BTW) could be very misleading, hence counterproductive. A case of legal MI, I'd say. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 20 13:18:27 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:18:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48FC5E26.80000@ulb.ac.be> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> <48F8B98A.5080707@skynet.be> <48FC5E26.80000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48FC6903.1070403@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> I am certain Alain would not consider the following to be a good >> regulation: "You are allowed to open on all hands that AG would open, >> but not on any hand that AG would not". Yet, this is the only regulation >> that fits Alain's wishes. >> >> > They wouldn't be allowed many openings - I'm a notorious solid opener > (at the 1-level at least). > But apparently you misunderstood me. What I'd wish is that, if somebody > opens a hand he deems worth an opening, and his opponents disagree, a > kind of LA theory be used : if a substantial part of the player's peers > would think about opening, then one may open it freely -subject to > proper disclosure. > But that means a player can no longer be certain that his opening is legal. Remark that the LA argument does not hold water. By having given UI, the player's partner has created the situation in which the player is no longer certain if his call will be judged legal or not. In the case under discussion, a pair have done nothing wrong, yet a player could be making an illegal call without being able to check a priori whether it will be allowed. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 20 13:26:43 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:26:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003e01c932a8$2935dc60$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >>> but that does not make the deviation part of the system that is >>> regulated. >> >> Law 40C1, second sentence, refutes: >> >> "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." >> > > MUST BE DISCLOSED. Indeed. But that is not the same as "become > a part of system". > . > +=+ Something which is disclosed and dealt with in system regulations is covered in Law 40C1. In the case of a recent 1H opener third in hand in a WBF event the matter was considered by the Director to be covered in Appendix 4 to the WBF Systems Policy but, of course, was in any event (as I understand) not protested by high level opponents. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 20 13:36:52 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:36:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48FC6075.9020204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003f01c932a8$29788ab0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] BUT ... many CC types still demand that you state a range, that's the first thing your opponents will notice, and stating "13-24" (or 4-37 for a Multi 2D, BTW) could be very misleading, hence counterproductive. A case of legal MI, I'd say. +=+ As I Played Benjy for many years one could say "excludes all possibilities in the range 10-21 HCP. However, I did use losing trick count to value hands. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 20 14:50:03 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:50:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0810192235k5983f2a1p335c68b1330b4273@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005c01c932b2$61d38770$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > If the lead has been faced prematurely**, I wish the laws were clear > that the dummy can call the director without penalty at that point. > It seems common sense to me that a prematurely faced lead should not > benefit the leading side. > > If the out-of-run opening lead has been made face down, and then faced > after no objections, perhaps the dummy has lost his chance to help > without cost to his side. > > An interesting question, Robert. If it is addressed in the laws, I > have missed it. It is really three questions, based on the three > cases I have listed above. > +=+ It is quite clear that the moment the opening lead is faced the presumed Declarer and the presumed Dummy* lose their 'presumed' status. One of them is Dummy and the other is Declarer. Upon the facing of the opening lead, whether or not from the correct hand, Law 42B3 applies. If the lead faced is from the wrong defender presumed Declarer becomes Declarer and has the options in 54, the presumed Dummy becomes Dummy in the instant the lead is faced, but subsequently may exchange roles with Declarer under Law 54A. (*See definition 1 of 'Dummy') (** What is 'prematurely'? The laws contain no tolerance in the matter of a faced opening lead. At any time after the end of the auction a lead faced by either defender terminates the auction period - see Law 22B1.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 20 14:59:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:59:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48FC6903.1070403@skynet.be> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> <48F8B98A.5080707@skynet.be> <48FC5E26.80000@ulb.ac.be> <48FC6903.1070403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48FC80B7.7030006@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> But apparently you misunderstood me. What I'd wish is that, if somebody >> opens a hand he deems worth an opening, and his opponents disagree, a >> kind of LA theory be used : if a substantial part of the player's peers >> would think about opening, then one may open it freely -subject to >> proper disclosure. >> >> > > But that means a player can no longer be certain that his opening is legal.Remark that the LA argument does not hold water. By having given UI, the > player's partner has created the situation in which the player is no > longer certain if his call will be judged legal or not. > In the case under discussion, a pair have done nothing wrong, yet a > player could be making an illegal call without being able to check a > priori whether it will be allowed. > > True ! So: the choice is between a set of rules that compel you to play very bad bridge, and a less-well-defined rule which creates the occasional danger that you mention above. Or you could use the third way : letting players choose among several easy-to-understand valuation techniques (if necessary, more than one, as in "11 HCP or 7 losers"), and OBs define the lower limit for each of them, ensuring that they're equivalent for moderately-shaped hands. The players will have to stick to the valuation technique(s) they mentioned in their CC. No doubt you'll guess my preference here. Furthermore, using ANY threshold method for openings, or for strong openings, is a bit skewed, because you disallow players to use any of several bridge reasons that would be relevant to the deal, but don't use counting. For example, the identity of the long suit (Spades rule) or the availability of a descriptive rebid. I consider QJ9xx - xx - AJ9x - Kx as an obvious 1S opening bid, but wouldn't open 1D on xx - AJ9x - QJ9xx - Kx (1NT on windy days, perhaps). Counting both hands as "20 total" misses a big chunk of the game's subtility. Compelling people to do so doesn't help them play bridge. BTW, I use a very complicated valuation method for defining thresholds for strong actions (reverses, Acol 2s, game forces) and I'm fortunate enough to be able to use it quickly. I won't be allowed to use it officially, because it's impossible to explain in half a minute. But it works and no opponent ever questioned my choices (on a legal point of view, at least). If I had held the abovementioned hand : AKxxxxx - AKJ10 - x - x, I would have counted it as 25 points, within the range (23?-26) for a near-game-force (Acol 2S or Benji). Apparently, I could have been deemed to have psyched my strong opening. Of course, if I could use playing tricks or losing tricks or Culbertsonian difference to justify it, no problem at all would have been created. It's only sticking to HCP that causes the problem in this case. But there will surely be some players that would open a semi-strong or very strong 2-bid (or strong club, or Dynamic NT) on this hand but wouldn't if the long suits had been the minors, so even finely tuned valuation methods won't tell you everything about bridge players' decisions. Best regards Alain PS : for those who would ask themselves what on Earth it could be, Culbertsonian difference is the difference between your losers and your honor tricks It works fairly well for defining thresholds for unbalanced hands. Culbertson himself advocated opening a GF 2-bid when the difference was negative. Other authors have suggested 0 to ? for a near-game force (Acol 2, or 1-bid followed by jump-shift) and that an opening bid is always reasonable if the difference doesn't exceed 4. The typical (but reasonable) light shapely opener will often count as 5, so I guess the threshold for being allowed an opening would be 5. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 20 15:15:19 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:15:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003e01c932a8$2935dc60$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <003e01c932a8$2935dc60$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48FC8467.2000900@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] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > >>> >> MUST BE DISCLOSED. Indeed. But that is not the same as "become >> a part of system". >> > . > +=+ Something which is disclosed and dealt with in system regulations is > covered in Law 40C1. In the case of a recent 1H opener third in hand in > a WBF event the matter was considered by the Director to be covered in > Appendix 4 to the WBF Systems Policy but, of course, was in any event > (as I understand) not protested by high level opponents. > ~ G ~ +=+ > The problem is not, IMO, Grattan, whether the RA has the right to deal with any and all partnership understandings. The problem is whether the WBF, and by extension all NBO's who have copied the WBF wording, have in their current wording dealt with calls like mine. It is my firm belief that they ahve not. Let me again set out my step-by-step argumentation for that: 1- The WBF have stated that psyches are not covered under the heading "light openings". 2- Any psyche is subject to a piece of partnership understanding ("this player has, in the past, deviated from our written system, this many times in this particular manner and circumstances"). 3- Therefore, if such a piece of information is enough to render the psyche systemic, and to have it covered under the regulation, all psyches are so covered. Add to this that such a regulation would be the same as saying psqyching is forbidden, which is in direct vioaltion of the laws, and so would be an illegal regulation. I leave it to greater minds than mine to tell me in what way my 1He has other attributes which make it systemic regardless of what is said above. In particular, I would like to see what these TDs would do if John Probst opened a H1H. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 20 15:15:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:15:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003f01c932a8$29788ab0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48FC6075.9020204@ulb.ac.be> <003f01c932a8$29788ab0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48FC8454.2060202@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > > > > BUT ... many CC types still demand that you state a range, that's the > first thing your opponents will notice, and stating "13-24" (or 4-37 for > a Multi 2D, BTW) could be very misleading, hence counterproductive. A > case of legal MI, I'd say. > > +=+ As I Played Benjy for many years one could say "excludes all > possibilities in the range 10-21 HCP. However, I did use losing trick > count to value hands. > AG ... and they wouldn't let you do it. IIRC, the LTC was the player's argument for opening 2C in the forementioned hand, and it was brushed aside by the AC, and apparently that was "lawful". Take those 3 hands. AQ10xx KJ109 AQx x AJ109xx AQ98 Kx x KQJ9xxx AJ109 x x All 3 would have been counted as "4? losers with good assets", which is a classical minimum for an opening Strong Club when using LTC. Yet, if you wrote that you play "16 +", opening such would be allowed on the first hand only, and they won't allow you to skip the HCP box. Now, you could say "16? + HCP or 4? - losers", but they'll still insist that you give HCP ranges. The fact that it would be ridiculous to write "11 +" for a Strong Club appearently isn't felt as a liability, so you'll write "11 +" and specifiy "16? + or 4? - losers", and that's legal, but do you think it will help oppnents or confuse them ? BTW, my own count for those hands gives, from top to bottom, : 21? ; 21 ; 21, in each case with a fraction of a point to spare for those useful 9's, making each of them a minimum 1C opener (21). Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 20 15:17:01 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:17:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48FC5D4E.3050807@ulb.ac.be> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> <48FC5D4E.3050807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <48FC84CD.8080105@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > But one more thing trifles me : TFLB empowers OBs to regulate opening > bids that are made with "one king below average strength". > Is a 5332 9-count one king below averagz strength ? Is your average hand > a 12-count ? > This rule is no longer in TFNLB Herman. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 20 15:19:48 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:19:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "ton" Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 03:29 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? > > > [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." This seems a bit tenuous to me. It states without qualification that removing bidding cards from the tray constitutes a pass. if, in fact the auction had ended in the normal legal way [PPP] the removal of the bidding cards in such case [the normal case] would constitute an irregular call after the auction ending pass. As a personal note, I am all for saving time- indeed it is appropriate that such picking up of the cards during an as yet unfinished auction [where the player ostensibly will have a call coming] constitute a pass at his [to be turn]. Additionally, I think it is important [there being anecdotes of misunderstandings about the actual auction] for the other side of the table to have the opportunity to see the bidding cards played across the screen [the bidding tray sent over to the other side after the auction ending pass] and that necessitates players with screens putting their passes on the tray before picking them up. regards roger pewick > [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. > > > ton: > Well noticed, though once in a while I get close. The wbf-lc in Beijing > accepted my approach and I have informed the rule®ulations committee. > It > might lead to a change. > Imo there is no difference when playing without screens and the law > covering > this is simply > L22. We need three passes! > > ton From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 20 15:56:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:56:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> On Oct 20, 2008, at 6:00 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Herman De Wael petitio principii: >> >>> but that does not make the deviation part of the system that is >>> regulated. >> >> Law 40C1, second sentence, refutes: >> >> "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." > > MUST BE DISCLOSED. Indeed. But that is not the same as "become a > part of > system". But isn't "then form part of the partnership's methods" exactly the same as "become a part of system"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 20 16:25:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:25:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48FC5E26.80000@ulb.ac.be> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> <48F8B98A.5080707@skynet.be> <48FC5E26.80000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <295DC510-B1EF-4AF1-83AF-E61250402F84@starpower.net> On Oct 20, 2008, at 6:32 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> I am certain Alain would not consider the following to be a good >> regulation: "You are allowed to open on all hands that AG would open, >> but not on any hand that AG would not". Yet, this is the only >> regulation >> that fits Alain's wishes. > > They wouldn't be allowed many openings - I'm a notorious solid opener > (at the 1-level at least). > But apparently you misunderstood me. What I'd wish is that, if > somebody > opens a hand he deems worth an opening, and his opponents disagree, a > kind of LA theory be used : if a substantial part of the player's > peers > would think about opening, then one may open it freely -subject to > proper disclosure. If somebody opens a hand he deems worth an opening, what's the problem? What I'd wish is that players be free to "deem" for themselves. Why should the regulators get to "deem"? Why should the Law implicitly assume that some regulator's notion of what constitutes an opening bid is superior to yours, mine, or that of the man behind the tree? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 20 17:08:30 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:08:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c932c6$301d26a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested > On Oct 20, 2008, at 6:00 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > But isn't "then form part of the partnership's methods" exactly the > same as "become a part of system"? > +=+ Yes, of course it is. Herman is on the hook and wriggling. ~ G ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 17:51:45 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:51:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <295DC510-B1EF-4AF1-83AF-E61250402F84@starpower.net> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> <48F8B98A.5080707@skynet.be> <48FC5E26.80000@ulb.ac.be> <295DC510-B1EF-4AF1-83AF-E61250402F84@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810200851w23031c80xf6c67f1ecd3af6a@mail.gmail.com> Eric Landau wrote: > > If somebody opens a hand he deems worth an opening, what's the problem? > > What I'd wish is that players be free to "deem" for themselves. > > Why should the regulators get to "deem"? Why should the Law > implicitly assume that some regulator's notion of what constitutes an > opening bid is superior to yours, mine, or that of the man behind the > tree? > Well, in the ACBL, the GCC is designed, I believe, to lighten the load of preparation. While one could design methods to combat first- and second-seat openings of 1 of a suit on KJxx-Jxxx-xxx-Qx, these have been made GCC illegal to save preparation time. (Unfortunately, GCC does not distinguish between 1st- and 3rd-seat openings.) But I seem to recall a conversation with the ACBL office in Memphis perhaps ten years ago that opening 1S on AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void is "an acceptable exception" to needing 8 HCP to open 1 of a suit. From that conversation, and also from some Internet discussions, it appears to me that the ACBL allows opening 1 of a suit with fewer than 8 HCP on rare hands that clearly, in a professional's eye, or in a computer analysis, have a trick-taking potential that exceeds an average hand (such as Axx KJxx Qxxx xx) as well as defensive potential that about equals an average hand. (I.e., Axxxxxx-xxxxx-xx-void is not good enough to open 1 of a suit due to poor defense, even though the trick-taking potential is more than adequate.) Anyway, that's the conclusion I came to. I don't mind being corrected. Eric and others may know better than I. I have no problem with a regulation that recognizes a difference between good hand evaluation and mechanical HCP counting to the exclusion of all else. A player who cannot see the difference between KJxx-Jxxx-xxx-Qx and AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void should avoid opening either hand. But if a opening-bid regulation ignores the difference between these two hands, then it should be changed. If an SO deems that AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void cannot be opened 1 of a suit, it distorts bidding methods too much for my taste. In that case, what do you do with this hand? If you take a weaker action than opening 1S, you risk missing game if you play standard duplicate-bridge methods with semi-light openings. Jerry Fusselman From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Oct 20 18:00:30 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:00:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> Message-ID: <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> "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." >> MUST BE DISCLOSED. Indeed. But that is not the same as "become a >> part of >> system". > > But isn't "then form part of the partnership's methods" exactly the > same as "become a part of system"? > No it doesn't - not in the sense of system regulations. IMO. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 20 22:11:19 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:11:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Which law covers incomplete auction? Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:29:22 -0400, ton wrote: > > [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. > > > ton: > Well noticed, though once in a while I get close. The wbf-lc in Beijing > accepted my approach and I have informed the rule®ulations committee. > It > might lead to a change. > Imo there is no difference when playing without screens and the law > covering > this is simply > L22. We need three passes! > > ton > I suspect that starting to put away one's bidding cards means "I am passing assuming everyone else is passing". There isn't a lot of difference, but this meaning seems to work better when there is. For example: S W N E 1Sp P 3Sp P 4Sp PABC PABC It is unlikely that West wants to bid. But if West does want to bid, it would be awkward if putting away bidding cards was converted to a pass and East's pass counted as accepting North's pass. Or if West bids, I think the players who were putting away their bidding cards would think they have a right to take them back out and make bids themselves. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 20 22:25:20 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:25:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can a coincidence be karmic? Today I had a defender's LOOT, first noted by dummy. I followed Ed Ruppert's suggestion to ask declarer if she had noticed the lead out of turn. I wasn't so fond of doing that. But declarer didn't seem uncertain and the opponent's didn't complain, so I went with allowing the LOOT rectifications and ignoring that the dummy had pointed out the irregularity. I hadn't read Ton's posting, but I think the dummy pointed out the irregularity quickly so it would have come to the same thing. I am not sure about pp. In addition to never using them, it seems that pp's are not supposed to be used for rectification. Would we give a pp if dummy lost a trick because of pointing out the irregularity when it occurs? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 20 23:37:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:37:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005c01c932b2$61d38770$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ It is quite clear that the moment the opening lead is faced the presumed Declarer and the presumed Dummy* lose their 'presumed' status. One of them is Dummy and the other is Declarer. Upon the facing of the opening lead, whether or not from the correct hand, Law 42B3 applies. If the lead faced is from the wrong defender presumed Declarer becomes Declarer and has the options in 54, the presumed Dummy becomes Dummy in the instant the lead is faced, but subsequently may exchange roles with Declarer under Law 54A. (*See definition 1 of 'Dummy') (** What is 'prematurely'? The laws contain no tolerance in the matter of a faced opening lead. At any time after the end of the auction a lead faced by either defender terminates the auction period - see Law 22B1.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sure it is clear, but is it quite clear? The second sentence in the Definition of Declarer states: "He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn)." Given the dictionary definition of "but" as meaning an over-riding exception, an obtuse person (such as myself) might erroneously believe that declarer has not yet become declarer (and hence dummy has not yet become dummy) until the Law 54A option has been resolved. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Oct 21 00:13:46 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:13:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Verdict? In-Reply-To: <000201c932c6$301d26a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <000201c932c6$301d26a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48FD029A.6010703@talktalk.net> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Yes, of course it is. Herman is on the hook and wriggling. [Nigel] - Grattan alleges that Herman (a senior director) deliberately and consistently breaks the rules. - Wayne alleges that Geir Helgemo (world champion player) deliberately and consistently breaks the rules. The WBF know of these allegations. Two obvious questions. - When will the WBF reveal the result of their investigations into these public allegations? - Whatever the WBF verdict into such high profile cases, will the WBF amend (or better drop) unpopular rules that are widely broken and rarely enforced. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 21 00:19:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:19:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48FC8467.2000900@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael syllogism: >Let me again set out my step-by-step argumentation for that: > >1- The WBF have stated that psyches are not covered under >the heading "light openings". > >2- Any psyche is subject to a piece of partnership >understanding ("this player has, in the past, deviated from >our written system, this many times in this particular >manner and circumstances"). > >3- Therefore, if such a piece of information is enough to >render the psyche systemic, and to have it covered under the >regulation, all psyches are so covered. Richard Hills quibbles: In my opinion, the flaw in Herman's syllogism is in item 2. In times past some of my alleged psyches were actually CPU pseudo-psyches, because I had attempted to allegedly psyche too frequently, creating a piece of partnership understanding. Nowadays my attempted psyches are both rarer and varied (non- repetitive, as opposed to the monotonous Herman 1H*), hence my "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents", and thus my attempted psyches are now legal actual psyches (therefore neither explicit nor implicit partnership understandings). And as discussed earlier in this thread, Herman's attempted reductio ad absurdum "all psyches are so covered" or "one psyche in a lifetime" is refuted by the WBF Code of Practice extensive discussion on the four criteria which (when all are fulfilled) determine an alleged psyche is an actual psyche. * I vaguely recall an amusing blml posting by Herman about him opening 1H not vul vs vul in third seat, and an _opponent_ alerted Herman's 1H so that Herman's _partner_ would not be disadvantaged. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 21 00:31:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:31:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48FC6075.9020204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >BUT ... many CC types still demand that you state a range, >that's the first thing your opponents will notice, and >stating "13-24" (or 4-37 for a Multi 2D, BTW) could be very >misleading, hence counterproductive. A case of legal MI, >I'd say. Richard Hills: Yes and no. The first thing opponents will notice on the well-designed ABF System Card is the Pre-Alert box on the front page. So a pair using points-schmoints evaluation (rather than Walter the Walrus rigid devotion to 4-3-2-1 Work points) can avoid giving _illegal_ MI by writing POINTS-SCHMOINTS in block capitals in the Pre-Alert box - as is the case for my Dorothy Acol system cards. 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 Tue Oct 21 00:49:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:49:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Verdict? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48FD029A.6010703@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Yes, of course it is. Herman is on the hook and wriggling. Nigel Guthrie: >- Grattan alleges that Herman (a senior director) deliberately >and consistently breaks the rules. Richard Hills: Careful Nigel; an obtuse person might conclude that you are defaming both Grattan and Herman. (a) Grattan is merely asserting that Herman has misinterpreted the rules, and Herman is now splitting hairs ("on the hook and wriggling") in an attempt by Herman to justify his incorrect interpretation. (b) Deliberately and consistently breaking the rules to gain a score advantage is cheating. But Herman _unintentionally_ breaks the rules (due to his misinterpretations), so Herman is definitely not a cheat. Nigel Guthrie: >- Wayne alleges that Geir Helgemo (world champion player) >deliberately and consistently breaks the rules. The WBF know of >these allegations. Two obvious questions. >- When will the WBF reveal the result of their investigations >into these public allegations? Grattan Endicott, "Mr Burn suggested ..." thread: >>+=+ Something which is disclosed and dealt with in system >>regulations is covered in Law 40C1. In the case of a recent >>1H opener third in hand in a WBF event the matter was >>considered by the Director to be covered in Appendix 4 to the >>WBF Systems Policy but, of course, was in any event (as I >>understand) not protested by high level opponents. >> ~ 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 Tue Oct 21 01:12:26 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:12:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48FC6075.9020204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810201612l79265626g4f4c7aeb7fad3220@mail.gmail.com> Richard wrote: > a pair using points-schmoints evaluation (rather than Walter > the Walrus rigid devotion to 4-3-2-1 Work points) can avoid > giving _illegal_ MI by writing POINTS-SCHMOINTS in block > capitals in the Pre-Alert box - as is the case for my Dorothy > Acol system cards. > > What's the problem? > The problem is that "POINTS-SCHMOINTS" is vague and almost meaningless. The alternative is what---a complete and totally idiotic slavery to 4-3-2-1? I can imagine the conversation 4-3-2-1 slaves must have with their partners: "Sorry partner, I knew that game was likely a good bet, but with my mere 11 HCP, I could not deceive the opponents, and I had to invite instead." Are we bridge players or robots? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 21 01:20:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:20:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Name of the Rose [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48FC55D5.4090608@t-online.de> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >>I begin to suspect the name of the flower in the subject >>is actually the color of RH's glasses.... Matthias Berghaus: >Well, he asked for the best of the grand slams... not for >the best contract. I wonder what that best contract is >(probably best expressed as score expectation), on the >information known by the time 4NT is reached (4NT has 10 >top tricks, so we could relay to 4NT safely). Maybe you >could give your program another whirl? Looking at the >North hand my guess is that no relevant information would >be found between 3 and 4Nt, but maybe Richard could clear >that up? Richard Hills: I agree that 7D is an odds-against contract; which is why I posed the question - I wondered if bidding that grand was a logical alternative on first thoughts (which it was), despite needing Rose-coloured glasses after more careful analysis. The only relevant information discovered between 3NT and 4NT is confirmation that pard holds the queen of clubs. Given that information, it seems to me to be close as to whether the best contract is the cold 4NT or the pushy small slam of 6D. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 01:46:08 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:46:08 +1300 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <26914112.1223954325062.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> References: <26914112.1223954325062.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810201646x61719bbdmefd98677a644d0dd@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/14 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk : > +=+ Perhaps it was deemed to fit section 2 of Appendix 4 to the Sytems Policy. > ~ Nowhere in section 2 of Appendix 4 of the System Policy does it say that if the gross violations are below the requirements for a HUM will the bid not be considered a HUM. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 01:58:31 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:58:31 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/21 Herman De Wael : > Eric Landau wrote: >>>> >>>> "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." >>> MUST BE DISCLOSED. Indeed. But that is not the same as "become a >>> part of >>> system". >> >> But isn't "then form part of the partnership's methods" exactly the >> same as "become a part of system"? >> > > No it doesn't - not in the sense of system regulations. IMO. > Why on earth not? So if I play 10-12 1NT but repeatedly open 9 counts that is ok because by repetition it has become part of my methods but it is not part of my system in a way that can be regulated by the system regulations. Herman that is absurd. I don't think the ACBL would agree with you. Wayne From john at asimere.com Tue Oct 21 04:33:47 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:33:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be><02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net><48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested > 2008/10/21 Herman De Wael : >> Eric Landau wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "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." >>>> MUST BE DISCLOSED. Indeed. But that is not the same as "become a >>>> part of >>>> system". >>> >>> But isn't "then form part of the partnership's methods" exactly the >>> same as "become a part of system"? >>> >> >> No it doesn't - not in the sense of system regulations. IMO. >> > > Why on earth not? > > So if I play 10-12 1NT but repeatedly open 9 counts that is ok because > by repetition it has become part of my methods but it is not part of > my system in a way that can be regulated by the system regulations. It's a disclosure problem and a frequency problem. I fairly carefully control the frequency of my 1NT overcall, holding a long H suit and a bad hand. If I were to explain the method then it probably would be illegal, since you could explain; for example; "15-17, or a weak hand with long H when the parity of his 3 smallest cards is all odd". Now that is NOT my method, but what my method does is to keep my 1NT call to a point where 1) it has lowish frequency compared with the natural call; 2) has lowish frequency as a call showing H and a bad hand.since most of these hands get passed 3) every now and then I bid 1NT with spades or diamonds or clubs, which my opponents moan about because I've psyched my psych. Partner does alert my 1NT and does explain "15-17 and sometimes //about 10% of these// when he holds a long H suit and a weak hand he does it and sometimes he does it on other hands too" I am confident I am home free using this method. I am concerned that Herman's method is illegal since he opens all herman H hands. I think it would be legal if he passed some of them; perhaps opening 1S instead some of the time :) > > Herman that is absurd. I don't think the ACBL would agree with you. > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Oct 21 04:45:27 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:45:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Verdict? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FD4247.9030400@talktalk.net> [richard.hills] (b) Deliberately and consistently breaking the rules to gain a score advantage is cheating. But Herman _unintentionally_breaks the rules (due to his misinterpretations), so Herman is definitely not a cheat. [Nigel] I don't accuse Herran de Weil or Geir Helgemo of anything. I was commenting on the public allegations of others. I should have clearly stated that their reported actions seem deliberate. Naturally, I accept that they may misinterpret the rules. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Something which is disclosed and dealt with in system regulations is covered in Law 40C1. In the case of a recent1H opener third in hand in a WBF event the matter was considered by the Director to be covered in Appendix 4 to theWBF Systems Policy but, of course, was in any event (as I understand) not protested by high level opponents. [Nige1] The director should investigate an allegation of which he is made aware in any manner. Wayne and BBO commentators drew attention, not just to an *isolated* incident, but to a sustained *pattern* of behaviour. And opponents may have been unaware of this at the time. If the commentators' allegations are at all credible, they require urgent investigation by responsible authority. Similarly, Herman admits to a consistent pattern of behaviour, which if illegal, demands high level official action. An obstinate refusal to investigate a serious public allegation of habitual illegal behaviour is tantamount to condoning that behaviour, not just for a privileged elite, but also for the rest of us. Players may accept that alternative if the WBF *officially* drops such unnecessary regulation. Otherwise, less sophisticated players who naively follow the rule-book will continue to suffer an unfair extra handicap compared with "inside track" secretary birds, who know which rules they can safely ignore. From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 04:52:14 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:52:14 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/21 John (MadDog) Probst : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:58 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested > > >> 2008/10/21 Herman De Wael : >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "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." >>>>> MUST BE DISCLOSED. Indeed. But that is not the same as "become a >>>>> part of >>>>> system". >>>> >>>> But isn't "then form part of the partnership's methods" exactly the >>>> same as "become a part of system"? >>>> >>> >>> No it doesn't - not in the sense of system regulations. IMO. >>> >> >> Why on earth not? >> >> So if I play 10-12 1NT but repeatedly open 9 counts that is ok because >> by repetition it has become part of my methods but it is not part of >> my system in a way that can be regulated by the system regulations. > > It's a disclosure problem and a frequency problem. I fairly carefully > control the frequency of my 1NT overcall, holding a long H suit and a bad > hand. If I were to explain the method then it probably would be illegal, > since you could explain; for example; "15-17, or a weak hand with long H > when the parity of his 3 smallest cards is all odd". Now that is NOT my > method, but what my method does is to keep my 1NT call to a point where 1) > it has lowish frequency compared with the natural call; 2) has lowish > frequency as a call showing H and a bad hand.since most of these hands get > passed 3) every now and then I bid 1NT with spades or diamonds or clubs, > which my opponents moan about because I've psyched my psych. Partner does > alert my 1NT and does explain "15-17 and sometimes //about 10% of these// > when he holds a long H suit and a weak hand he does it and sometimes he does > it on other hands too" > > I am confident I am home free using this method. > > I am concerned that Herman's method is illegal since he opens all herman H > hands. I think it would be legal if he passed some of them; perhaps opening > 1S instead some of the time :) > This doesn't make sense to me at all. Lets stick to the Herman style psyche or the Helgemo example where the infrequent hand type would be a HUM for example. The logic should be the same for other sorts of agreements. Further lets assume that there is a partnership understanding as in John's example. Then an "understanding" to make a bid on some legal set of hands e.g. open 1H on 5+ hearts and 11+ hcp, but also to open the hand on some other hands with "shortage" in hearts and or seven or fewer hcp is a HUM whatever the frequency of the weaker shorter options. That is a psyche is only a psyche when there is no partnership understanding. Whenever their is a partnership understanding you are subject to the normal HUM (or other) system regulations. From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 05:01:55 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:01:55 +1300 Subject: [blml] Verdict? In-Reply-To: <48FD029A.6010703@talktalk.net> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <000201c932c6$301d26a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48FD029A.6010703@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810202001i1719e6c4o85f29a30cda4c56f@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/21 Nigel Guthrie : > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Yes, of course it is. Herman is on the hook and wriggling. > > [Nigel] > - Grattan alleges that Herman (a senior director) deliberately and consistently breaks the rules. > - Wayne alleges that Geir Helgemo (world champion player) deliberately and consistently breaks the rules. > The WBF know of these allegations. Two obvious questions. > - When will the WBF reveal the result of their investigations into these public allegations? > - Whatever the WBF verdict into such high profile cases, will the WBF amend (or better drop) unpopular rules that are widely broken and rarely enforced. > I am not sure I made that allegation. I simply asked the question given the comments of others which suggested a partnership understanding. I concur with Nigel that there needs to be some investigation of whether or not this pair have an illegal partnership understanding. I do not know the answer to that question. I do not accept Grattan's argument that there is something in Appendix Four of the system regulations that would allow a HUM partnership understanding that is otherwise not allowed in this event. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 21 05:58:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:58:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst is confident: >.....2) has lowish frequency as a call showing H and a bad >hand, since most of these hands get passed 3) every now and >then I bid 1NT with spades or diamonds or clubs, which my >opponents moan about because I've psyched my psych. Partner >does alert my 1NT and does explain "15-17 and sometimes >//about 10% of these// when he holds a long H suit and a >weak hand he does it and sometimes he does it on other >hands too" > >I am confident I am home free using this method..... Richard (CrazyCat) Hills is doubtful: Under the ambiguous 1997 Lawbook the non-strong options of John's 1NT were arguably non-regulable psyches. But under the less ambiguous 2007 Lawbook, John's partner has "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" (Law 40C1), so John's partner correctly "disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system" (Law 40C1), but this also means that John's multi-1NT is "part of the partnership's methods" (Law 40C1) and hence the Regulating Authority may deem the multi-1NT to be a call "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" (Law 40B1(a)) and thus a special partnership understanding which it will "allow conditionally" (Law 40B2(a)) in only one elite tournament. And, of course, the singular elite tournament in which John's methods fit like a glove is the South Canberra walk-in pairs. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 21 05:56:37 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:56:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Verdict? References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net><000201c932c6$301d26a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48FD029A.6010703@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <009b01c93336$aa217620$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 11:13 PM Subject: [blml] Verdict? > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Yes, of course it is. Herman is on the hook and wriggling. > > [Nigel] > - Grattan alleges that Herman (a senior director) deliberately > and consistently breaks the rules. < +=+ I do not allege this much. I have absolutely no evidence that Herman acts in this way. His tortuous arguments on blml on the subject I regard as so much hot air. It is for Directors to apply the law in tournaments when they have evidence of irregularities. ~ G ~ +=+ ( I know nothing about Herman's status as a director. I do not meet him in that guise.) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 21 06:15:47 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:15:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Verdict? References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be><02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net><000201c932c6$301d26a0$0202a8c0@Mildred><48FD029A.6010703@talktalk.net> <2a1c3a560810202001i1719e6c4o85f29a30cda4c56f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009d01c93336$aaa23ee0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Verdict? > > I do not accept Grattan's argument that there is something > in Appendix Four of the system regulations that would allow > a HUM partnership understanding that is otherwise not > allowed in this event. > +=+ I have not commented upon the justification for the apparent interpretation. I have made no argument but have merely drawn attention to it. Incidentally, the Director would unlikely be aware of any comment on BBO etc. External comment, outside of the tournament, does not necessarily draw a matter to the attention of the Director. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 21 06:02:15 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:02:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be><02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net><48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009c01c93336$aa61da80$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested > 2008/10/21 Herman De Wael : >> Eric Landau wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form >>>>> part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance >>>>> with the regulations governing disclosure of system." >>>> MUST BE DISCLOSED. Indeed. But that is not the same as "become a >>>> part of >>>> system". >>> >>> But isn't "then form part of the partnership's methods" exactly the >>> same as "become a part of system"? >>> >> >> No it doesn't - not in the sense of system regulations. IMO. >> > > Why on earth not? > > So if I play 10-12 1NT but repeatedly open 9 counts that is ok because > by repetition it has become part of my methods but it is not part of > my system in a way that can be regulated by the system regulations. > > Herman that is absurd. I don't think the ACBL would agree with you. > +=+ The argument has become fatuous. Enough. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 21 06:21:59 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:21:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? References: <26914112.1223954325062.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> <2a1c3a560810201646x61719bbdmefd98677a644d0dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009e01c93336$aae4ed30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a HUM? > 2008/10/14 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk : >> +=+ Perhaps it was deemed to fit section 2 of Appendix 4 to >> the Systems Policy. >> ~ > > Nowhere in section 2 of Appendix 4 of the System Policy does it say > that if the gross violations are below the requirements for a HUM will > the bid not be considered a HUM. > +=+ Whether the Systems Committee will eventually express an opinion on this I do not know. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 21 06:36:00 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:36:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <009f01c93336$ab255190$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > +=+ It is quite clear that the moment the opening lead is faced the > presumed Declarer and the presumed Dummy* lose their 'presumed' > status. One of them is Dummy and the other is Declarer. Upon the > facing of the opening lead, whether or not from the correct hand, > Law 42B3 applies. If the lead faced is from the wrong defender > presumed Declarer becomes Declarer and has the options in 54, the > presumed Dummy becomes Dummy in the instant the lead is faced, > but subsequently may exchange roles with Declarer under Law 54A. > (*See definition 1 of 'Dummy') > (** What is 'prematurely'? The laws contain no tolerance in the > matter of a faced opening lead. At any time after the end of the auction > a lead faced by either defender terminates the auction period - see Law > 22B1.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Sure it is clear, but is it quite clear? The second sentence in the > Definition of Declarer states: > > "He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A > when the opening lead is made out of turn)." > > Given the dictionary definition of "but" as meaning an over-riding > exception, an obtuse person (such as myself) might erroneously > believe that declarer has not yet become declarer (and hence dummy > has not yet become dummy) until the Law 54A option has been resolved. > +=+ If you examine carefully the text of Law 54A you will find that it refers to a declarer and a dummy who are already in being. They have their status from the instant, after the end of the auction, that either defender faces a lead. The 'but', therefore, refers to something other than their status. Yes, if you read without obtuseness it is plain, quite clear. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Oct 21 07:32:13 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:32:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48FC8467.2000900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081021163041.01c1aec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> > Richard: >Nowadays my attempted psyches are both rarer and varied (non- >repetitive, as opposed to the monotonous Herman 1H*), hence my >"partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than >have the opponents", and thus my attempted psyches are now >legal actual psyches (therefore neither explicit nor implicit >partnership understandings). Nowadays my psyches are mostly misbids where I have forgotten parts of the "system", Cheers Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 21 07:52:56 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:52:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009f01c93336$ab255190$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ If you examine carefully the text of Law 54A you will find that it refers to a declarer and a dummy who are already in being. They have their status from the instant, after the end of the auction, that either defender faces a lead. The 'but', therefore, refers to something other than their status. Yes, if you read without obtuseness it is plain, quite clear. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Curses! Convinced by logic! But when examining the text of Law 22B1 and Law 54E it is quite clear that a opening lead out of turn by the presumed declaring side does not create a declarer and dummy who are already in being, but rather the auction period continues. Indeed, the presumed declaring side may not even end up as the actual declaring side. After the Law 54E infraction, the presumptive declarer or the presumptive dummy may correct MI under Law 20F5(b)(ii). The Director may deem that the MI is sufficiently consequential to allow the presumptive defender who last passed the option to change her call under Law 21B1. And if the pass is changed to some other call (except for an illegal redouble), then the presumed defending side may become the eventual declaring 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 Oct 21 08:26:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:26:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810200851w23031c80xf6c67f1ecd3af6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [big snip] >If an SO deems that AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void cannot be opened >1 of a suit, it distorts bidding methods too much for my >taste. In that case, what do you do with this hand? If >you take a weaker action than opening 1S, you risk missing >game if you play standard duplicate-bridge methods with >semi-light openings. Richard Hills: Even if a 1S opening bid as dealer was legal in Australia, I would still choose an opening pass. There is zero risk of missing game, since one of your three opponents will have enough values to start the bidding. And listening to unforced calls from partner and opponents makes it easier to deduce whether 6S is a good contract. But opening 1S instead increases the risk you will miss the par contract of 6S, instead arriving in 4S or 7S. Eric Landau: >>What I'd wish is that players be free to "deem" for >>themselves. >> >>Why should the regulators get to "deem"? Why should the >>Law implicitly assume that some regulator's notion of >>what constitutes an opening bid is superior to yours, >>mine, or that of the man behind the tree? Richard Hills: Two answers. In large events organised by the ACBL, they have to consider the greatest good of the greatest number. ACBL little old ladies may be disconcerted by a visiting Aussie opening a 1H 0-7 hcp fert on 432 432 432 5432. In small events privately organised by Eric Landau, open slather partnership understandings (but with full disclosure) would be a legal Condition of Contest. 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 21 09:15:03 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:15:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005101c9334c$c00cdf90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > +=+ If you examine carefully the text of Law 54A you will > find that it refers to a declarer and a dummy who are already > in being. They have their status from the instant, after the end > of the auction, that either defender faces a lead. The 'but', > therefore, refers to something other than their status. Yes, if > you read without obtuseness it is plain, quite clear. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Curses! Convinced by logic! > > But when examining the text of Law 22B1 and Law 54E it is quite > clear that a opening lead out of turn by the presumed declaring > side does not create a declarer and dummy who are already in > being, but rather the auction period continues. > +=+ The auction period ends when *either* defender faces an opening lead at a time after the end of the auction. See Law 22B1. This fact is consistent with recognition in Law 54A that Declarer and Dummy already exist before Law 54 is applied. If the lead is out of turn 22B1 refers the Director to Law 54; it says nothing to deny the end of the auction period (and there is no 'but'). The two Laws are consistent one with the other. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 21 09:23:51 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:23:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48FC84CD.8080105@skynet.be> References: <48F85CB9.6070102@meadows.pair.com> <48F87F95.3020906@ulb.ac.be> <48F88CAE.7040400@meadows.pair.com> <4E6B3156-B3D7-4915-B4A6-A562573B1A6F@starpower.net> <48FC5D4E.3050807@ulb.ac.be> <48FC84CD.8080105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <48FD8387.2090103@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> But one more thing trifles me : TFLB empowers OBs to regulate opening >> bids that are made with "one king below average strength". >> Is a 5332 9-count one king below averagz strength ? Is your average hand >> a 12-count ? >> >> > > This rule is no longer in TFNLB > > Does it mean that L/18 has become legal last september ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 21 09:30:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:30:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FD84FF.5020701@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >> BUT ... many CC types still demand that you state a range, >> that's the first thing your opponents will notice, and >> stating "13-24" (or 4-37 for a Multi 2D, BTW) could be very >> misleading, hence counterproductive. A case of legal MI, >> I'd say. >> > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and no. > > The first thing opponents will notice on the well-designed > ABF System Card is the Pre-Alert box on the front page. So > a pair using points-schmoints evaluation (rather than Walter > the Walrus rigid devotion to 4-3-2-1 Work points) can avoid > giving _illegal_ MI by writing POINTS-SCHMOINTS in block > capitals in the Pre-Alert box - as is the case for my Dorothy > Acol system cards. > > What's the problem? > > The problem is that in many countries, you are compelled to express ranges in points on your SC. The problem is that rules specifying what you're allowed to do explicitly use points, so you can't get rid of them. The problem is that players using this approach may be deemed to have psyched their strong opening and fielded it. My feeling is that it's a BIG set of problems. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 21 09:33:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:33:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <009e01c93336$aae4ed30$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <26914112.1223954325062.JavaMail.root@ps32.mc.tiscali.sys> <2a1c3a560810201646x61719bbdmefd98677a644d0dd@mail.gmail.com> <009e01c93336$aae4ed30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48FD85AF.6060402@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Let us then be up and doing, > With a heart for any fate, > Still achieving, still pursuing, > Learn to labour and to wait." > [H.W. Longfellow] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:46 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a HUM? > > > >> 2008/10/14 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk : >> >>> +=+ Perhaps it was deemed to fit section 2 of Appendix 4 to >>> the Systems Policy. >>> ~ >>> >> Nowhere in section 2 of Appendix 4 of the System Policy does it say >> that if the gross violations are below the requirements for a HUM will >> the bid not be considered a HUM. >> >> > +=+ Whether the Systems Committee will eventually express an opinion > on this I do not know. ~ G ~ +=+ > > AG: I don't think this will be possible, since some HUMs dictate an opening with 0 HCP (the so-called Fert ssytems), so that "below the requirements for a HUM opening" is void of sense. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 21 09:35:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:35:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009f01c93336$ab255190$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <009f01c93336$ab255190$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48FD8655.9000702@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Let us then be up and doing, > With a heart for any fate, > Still achieving, still pursuing, > Learn to labour and to wait." > [H.W. Longfellow] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 10:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> +=+ It is quite clear that the moment the opening lead is faced the >> presumed Declarer and the presumed Dummy* lose their 'presumed' >> status. One of them is Dummy and the other is Declarer. Upon the >> facing of the opening lead, whether or not from the correct hand, >> Law 42B3 applies. If the lead faced is from the wrong defender >> presumed Declarer becomes Declarer and has the options in 54, the >> presumed Dummy becomes Dummy in the instant the lead is faced, >> but subsequently may exchange roles with Declarer under Law 54A. >> (*See definition 1 of 'Dummy') >> (** What is 'prematurely'? The laws contain no tolerance in the >> matter of a faced opening lead. At any time after the end of the auction >> a lead faced by either defender terminates the auction period - see Law >> 22B1.) >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Sure it is clear, but is it quite clear? The second sentence in the >> Definition of Declarer states: >> >> "He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A >> when the opening lead is made out of turn)." >> >> Given the dictionary definition of "but" as meaning an over-riding >> exception, an obtuse person (such as myself) might erroneously >> believe that declarer has not yet become declarer (and hence dummy >> has not yet become dummy) until the Law 54A option has been resolved. >> >> > +=+ If you examine carefully the text of Law 54A you will > find that it refers to a declarer and a dummy who are already > in being. They have their status from the instant, after the end > of the auction, that either defender faces a lead. The 'but', > therefore, refers to something other than their status. Yes, if > you read without obtuseness it is plain, quite clear. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > AG : I'm not the right person to give English lessons, but ISTM that "but" might mark an opposition as well as an exception. Elton John to Prince William : "Would you mind not interrupting me ? You might be a Prince, but I'm a Queen" From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 21 09:40:38 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:40:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FD8776.50306@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Jerry Fusselman: > > [big snip] > > >> If an SO deems that AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void cannot be opened >> 1 of a suit, it distorts bidding methods too much for my >> taste. In that case, what do you do with this hand? If >> you take a weaker action than opening 1S, you risk missing >> game if you play standard duplicate-bridge methods with >> semi-light openings. >> > > Richard Hills: > > Even if a 1S opening bid as dealer was legal in Australia, > I would still choose an opening pass. There is zero risk > of missing game, since one of your three opponents will > have enough values to start the bidding. > > And listening to unforced calls from partner and opponents > makes it easier to deduce whether 6S is a good contract. > But opening 1S instead increases the risk you will miss > the par contract of 6S, instead arriving in 4S or 7S. > AG :I don't think that's the essence of the debate. You both just demonstrated that judgments might vary about opening some hand in a constructive way. The important point is that some sensible players will consider that opening a natural, constructive 1S is the right way to bid this hand, and Jerry feels -as I do- that OBs shouldn't be allowed to decide that their judgment that it isn't must prevail. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 21 09:53:17 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:53:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> Richard, you are actually agreeing with me - but I understand it is too problematic to do so in as few words as that. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael syllogism: > >> Let me again set out my step-by-step argumentation for that: >> >> 1- The WBF have stated that psyches are not covered under the >> heading "light openings". >> >> 2- Any psyche is subject to a piece of partnership understanding >> ("this player has, in the past, deviated from our written system, >> this many times in this particular manner and circumstances"). >> >> 3- Therefore, if such a piece of information is enough to render >> the psyche systemic, and to have it covered under the regulation, >> all psyches are so covered. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > In my opinion, the flaw in Herman's syllogism is in item 2. > > In times past some of my alleged psyches were actually CPU > pseudo-psyches, because I had attempted to allegedly psyche too > frequently, creating a piece of partnership understanding. > > Nowadays my attempted psyches are both rarer and varied (non- > repetitive, as opposed to the monotonous Herman 1H*), hence my > "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have > the opponents", and thus my attempted psyches are now legal actual > psyches (therefore neither explicit nor implicit partnership > understandings). > > And as discussed earlier in this thread, Herman's attempted reductio > ad absurdum "all psyches are so covered" or "one psyche in a > lifetime" is refuted by the WBF Code of Practice extensive discussion > on the four criteria which (when all are fulfilled) determine an > alleged psyche is an actual psyche. > Richard agrees with me in saying that more is needed. He calls this "more" monotonous as opposed to non-repetitive. So let us compare my psyches with those of John Probst. I am fairly certain that there are situations which have come up more than once, and psyches that John has attempted more than once. Of course John has performed far more psyches than I have, and of an infinite variety. Is Richard trying to say that if I would do other psyches besides, my H1H would be acceptable? No? I would not think so. So then we start looking at any one of John's psyches. We find a situation in which he opens something which might be a HUM, and we ask him if he has done this particular thing before. He tells us he has. Now what? Richard, you may call my psyche monotonous, but that is only because you on blml have heard far more about them than any of my partners. I tell you how often it happens - about once every nine months. What do you call monotonous about that? We have come some way already, Richard. You tell me there is more needed than just the fact that something can be said about psyching frequency. Now can we try and pin-point what it is that is needed? > * I vaguely recall an amusing blml posting by Herman about him > opening 1H not vul vs vul in third seat, and an _opponent_ alerted > Herman's 1H so that Herman's _partner_ would not be disadvantaged. > > :-) > Very funny - I don't remember anything like that happening though. > > Best wishes > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 21 09:57:14 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:57:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48FD8B5A.9000501@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: >>> But isn't "then form part of the partnership's methods" exactly the >>> same as "become a part of system"? >>> >> No it doesn't - not in the sense of system regulations. IMO. >> > > Why on earth not? > Because the system regulations are (or should be) written differently than that. The system regulations explicitely say that psyches are not covered. The system regulations use other words about what is covered. The scope of the system regulations is smaller than the scope of what needs to be disclosed. And if they don't, they should. Because otherwise the system regulations boil down to a ban on psyching, something which is illegal according to the laws. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 21 10:04:49 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:04:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be><02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net><48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48FD8D21.10702@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > It's a disclosure problem and a frequency problem. I fairly carefully > control the frequency of my 1NT overcall, holding a long H suit and a bad > hand. If I were to explain the method then it probably would be illegal, > since you could explain; for example; "15-17, or a weak hand with long H > when the parity of his 3 smallest cards is all odd". Now that is NOT my > method, but what my method does is to keep my 1NT call to a point where 1) > it has lowish frequency compared with the natural call; 2) has lowish > frequency as a call showing H and a bad hand.since most of these hands get > passed 3) every now and then I bid 1NT with spades or diamonds or clubs, > which my opponents moan about because I've psyched my psych. Partner does > alert my 1NT and does explain "15-17 and sometimes //about 10% of these// > when he holds a long H suit and a weak hand he does it and sometimes he does > it on other hands too" > > I am confident I am home free using this method. > I share your confidence. > I am concerned that Herman's method is illegal since he opens all herman H > hands. I think it would be legal if he passed some of them; perhaps opening > 1S instead some of the time :) > OK, so let's say I do. I open 80% of the suitable 1H hands 1H, and in addition I open 20% of the suitable 1S hands (that is - short spades) 1S. Is that OK then? Why would it be any different from my previous story? I am still opening just the one time and you need to rule - how can you check that there was once in the past year this 20% that I did not open 1H? And yet, the explanation that my opponents are due contains the words "he's opened 1He third in hand 0-3 on a doubleton before". But both Richard and John have now spoken about monotony. OK, I'll change my explanation suitably (and will act accordingly). Am I off the hook now? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 21 10:06:41 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:06:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48FD8D91.1060106@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > That is a psyche is only a psyche when there is no partnership > understanding. Whenever their is a partnership understanding you are > subject to the normal HUM (or other) system regulations. > That is absurd Wayne, because (as I wrote before) any psyche has partnership understanding. Even "he has never ever psyched in his life before" (a very valid piece of information to which the opponents are entitled IMO) is partnership understanding. You cannot define psyches this way. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 21 10:12:06 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:12:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FD8ED6.8070002@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst is confident: > >> .....2) has lowish frequency as a call showing H and a bad >> hand, since most of these hands get passed 3) every now and >> then I bid 1NT with spades or diamonds or clubs, which my >> opponents moan about because I've psyched my psych. Partner >> does alert my 1NT and does explain "15-17 and sometimes >> //about 10% of these// when he holds a long H suit and a >> weak hand he does it and sometimes he does it on other >> hands too" >> >> I am confident I am home free using this method..... > > Richard (CrazyCat) Hills is doubtful: > > Under the ambiguous 1997 Lawbook the non-strong options of > John's 1NT were arguably non-regulable psyches. > > But under the less ambiguous 2007 Lawbook, John's partner > has "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the > opponents" (Law 40C1), so John's partner correctly "disclosed > in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of > system" (Law 40C1), but this also means that John's multi-1NT > is "part of the partnership's methods" (Law 40C1) and hence > the Regulating Authority may deem the multi-1NT to be a call > "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" (Law 40B1(a)) and thus a > special partnership understanding which it will "allow > conditionally" (Law 40B2(a)) in only one elite tournament. > No Richard, wrong again. If the partnership understanding is of the sort "once in XXX, he deviates from our agreements" then that is a partnership understanding which CAN NOT be regulated, since that would mean banning the deviation which is explicitely allowed by L40C. I realize that there is a very fine line between a deviation and a multi-bid, but we need to draw that line, because without it, all regulations lead to the banning of psyches altogether. I think relative frequency and systemic handling of the different options are two ways in which deviations and multi-bids can be distinguished. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 21 11:02:53 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:02:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48FD84FF.5020701@ulb.ac.be> References: <48FD84FF.5020701@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000301c9335b$cd38c4e0$67aa4ea0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ................... > The problem is that in many countries, you are compelled to express > ranges in points on your SC. > The problem is that rules specifying what you're allowed to do > explicitly use points, so you can't get rid of them. > The problem is that players using this approach may be deemed to have > psyched their strong opening and fielded it. This thread is about HUM or not HUM. HUM is about agreements/understandings and is a matter of regulation. The regulations specify strict criteria for deciding whether an agreement/understanding is HUM or not. One such criterion can be the HCP strength of a hand. Subjective evaluation of this strength is not included with the HUM criteria. A system description is an entirely different matter; it describes the conventions/agreements that exist within a partnership. It is (I believe) generally understood that when a particular call is described with HCP limit(s), such limit(s) may be varied according to the player's feeling of the general quality of his hand. So discussing the absolute HCP limits in a regulation with the arguments that the HCP limits given in a system description is more of guidance is IMO meaningless. And as a side point: The HUM regulations that I know do not specify any specific HCP scale for evaluating the HCP strength of a hand. They simply refer to the strength of a hand that lacks the HCP value of a King to have the same HCP value as a hand with one honor card of each rank. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 21 11:40:38 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:40:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c9335b$cd38c4e0$67aa4ea0$@no> References: <48FD84FF.5020701@ulb.ac.be> <000301c9335b$cd38c4e0$67aa4ea0$@no> Message-ID: <48FDA396.4020004@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > And as a side point: The HUM regulations that I know do not specify any > specific HCP scale for evaluating the HCP strength of a hand. They simply > refer to the strength of a hand that lacks the HCP value of a King to have > the same HCP value as a hand with one honor card of each rank. > AG : interesting. Some tell me this consideration is now out of TNFLB, so what will those regulations become ? BTW, Belgian regulations specify that a system that doesn't comply with R/18 in 1st/2nd hand for 1-in-suit openings will be considered a HUM, so your generalization doesn't hold : there indeed exist HUM / HCP regulations. And the distinguo you make still doesn't explain to me why I'mcompelled to state my Strong Club ranges in points rather than tricks or losers, and why opening a Strong Club on a 9-trick 13-count might be deemed a psyche. Regards Alain From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 12:52:54 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:52:54 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <48FD8D91.1060106@skynet.be> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> <48FD8D91.1060106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810210352j35de3118n77af0df70b7a1097@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/21 Herman De Wael : > Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >> That is a psyche is only a psyche when there is no partnership >> understanding. Whenever their is a partnership understanding you are >> subject to the normal HUM (or other) system regulations. >> > > That is absurd Wayne, because (as I wrote before) any psyche has > partnership understanding. Even "he has never ever psyched in his life > before" (a very valid piece of information to which the opponents are > entitled IMO) is partnership understanding. > > You cannot define psyches this way. > A psychic call is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length." This only makes sense to me if this with with reference to one's system. If your partnership understanding is 5+ hearts 11-20 hcp OR some 0-4 hcp then opening on a 2-count is a not a mistatement it is part of your system. From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 21 13:58:46 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:58:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810210352j35de3118n77af0df70b7a1097@mail.gmail.com> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> <48FD8D91.1060106@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810210352j35de3118n77af0df70b7a1097@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000401c93374$5fc5ef00$1f51cd00$@no> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows .............. > A psychic call is "a deliberate and gross > misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length." > > This only makes sense to me if this with with reference to one's system. Precisely > If your partnership understanding is 5+ hearts 11-20 hcp OR some 0-4 > hcp then opening on a 2-count is a not a mistatement it is part of > your system. Sure it is. But the agreement can still be HUM if it fits the definition in the relevant regulation. Note: The bid is according to the agreements. It is the agreement and not the bid that is HUM! Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 21 15:36:16 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:36:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <000401c93374$5fc5ef00$1f51cd00$@no> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> <48FD8D91.1060106@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810210352j35de3118n77af0df70b7a1097@mail.gmail.com> <000401c93374$5fc5ef00$1f51cd00$@no> Message-ID: <48FDDAD0.90500@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran wrote : > > Note: The bid is according to the agreements. It is the agreement and not > the bid that is HUM! > AG : or at least it should be so. However, not complying by L/18 is considered HUM in many countries, and below-18 opening bids have been penalized because they were made, not because they were agreed upon. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 21 15:40:30 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75527EE6-43FC-4FCE-B475-4D9242E5DCBB@starpower.net> On Oct 20, 2008, at 6:31 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> BUT ... many CC types still demand that you state a range, >> that's the first thing your opponents will notice, and >> stating "13-24" (or 4-37 for a Multi 2D, BTW) could be very >> misleading, hence counterproductive. A case of legal MI, >> I'd say. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and no. > > The first thing opponents will notice on the well-designed > ABF System Card is the Pre-Alert box on the front page. So > a pair using points-schmoints evaluation (rather than Walter > the Walrus rigid devotion to 4-3-2-1 Work points) can avoid > giving _illegal_ MI by writing POINTS-SCHMOINTS in block > capitals in the Pre-Alert box - as is the case for my Dorothy > Acol system cards. > > What's the problem? Apparently there isn't any in Australia. But here in ACBL-land this would be treated as inadequate disclosure (L40A1(b)), which makes taking a "points-shmoints" approach to bidding effectively illegal. There was a system around a few decades ago (developed, IIRC, by players in New York) called "Animal Acol", a very straightforward, natural system, which, however, ignored HCP altogether and defined the ranges for its calls strictly by LTC. It can no longer be played legally in the ACBL. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 21 16:08:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:08:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1E7576A2-0A27-4625-822F-5B41918B4D6E@starpower.net> On Oct 21, 2008, at 2:26 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >>> What I'd wish is that players be free to "deem" for >>> themselves. >>> >>> Why should the regulators get to "deem"? Why should the >>> Law implicitly assume that some regulator's notion of >>> what constitutes an opening bid is superior to yours, >>> mine, or that of the man behind the tree? > > Richard Hills: > > Two answers. > > In large events organised by the ACBL, they have to consider > the greatest good of the greatest number. ACBL little old > ladies may be disconcerted by a visiting Aussie opening a 1H > 0-7 hcp fert on 432 432 432 5432. > > In small events privately organised by Eric Landau, open > slather partnership understandings (but with full disclosure) > would be a legal Condition of Contest. I am not here advocating an "anything goes" approach to systems regulation. What I am advocating is adherence to the principle that systems regulations "must not restrict style and judgment, only method" [L40B2(a)]. I do not object to the ACBL banning me from using 1H to show 0-7 with any distribution. I would, however, object to the ACBL telling me that I may use 1H to show 0-7 with any distribution, but may not choose to make that call with QJ/QJ/Jxxx/Jxxxx. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 21 16:24:18 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:24:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <48FDA396.4020004@ulb.ac.be> References: <48FD84FF.5020701@ulb.ac.be> <000301c9335b$cd38c4e0$67aa4ea0$@no> <48FDA396.4020004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Oct 21, 2008, at 5:40 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> And as a side point: The HUM regulations that I know do not >> specify any >> specific HCP scale for evaluating the HCP strength of a hand. They >> simply >> refer to the strength of a hand that lacks the HCP value of a King >> to have >> the same HCP value as a hand with one honor card of each rank. > > AG : interesting. Some tell me this consideration is now out of TNFLB, > so what will those regulations become ? > > BTW, Belgian regulations specify that a system that doesn't comply > with > R/18 in 1st/2nd hand for 1-in-suit openings will be considered a > HUM, so > your generalization doesn't hold : there indeed exist HUM / HCP > regulations. > > And the distinguo you make still doesn't explain to me why > I'mcompelled > to state my Strong Club ranges in points rather than tricks or losers, > and why opening a Strong Club on a 9-trick 13-count might be deemed a > psyche. The 1997 FLB referred to "a hand of a King or more below average strength". That language is gone, as it would be patently redundant given the broad expansion of the RA's powers under L40 in the 2008 FLB. It has, unfortunately, been replaced in the ACBL by an RA election pursuant to L40B (#3 in the ACBL edition of TFLB) that replaces the 1997 langauge with "fewer than 8 high-card points". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 21 16:15:52 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:15:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> <48FD8D91.1060106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007c01c9338d$e6edf6d0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested > > That is absurd Wayne, because (as I wrote before) any psyche has > partnership understanding. Even "he has never ever psyched in his life > before" (a very valid piece of information to which the opponents are > entitled IMO) is partnership understanding. > > You cannot define psyches this way. > +=+ The laws say that the partner must have "no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 21 16:56:01 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:56:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <009f01c93336$ab255190$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48FD8655.9000702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007d01c9338d$e730a520$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 8:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Let us then be up and doing, > With a heart for any fate, > Still achieving, still pursuing, > Learn to labour and to wait." > [H.W. Longfellow] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 10:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> +=+ It is quite clear that the moment the opening lead is faced the >> presumed Declarer and the presumed Dummy* lose their 'presumed' >> status. One of them is Dummy and the other is Declarer. Upon the >> facing of the opening lead, whether or not from the correct hand, >> Law 42B3 applies. If the lead faced is from the wrong defender >> presumed Declarer becomes Declarer and has the options in 54, the >> presumed Dummy becomes Dummy in the instant the lead is faced, >> but subsequently may exchange roles with Declarer under Law 54A. >> (*See definition 1 of 'Dummy') >> (** What is 'prematurely'? The laws contain no tolerance in the >> matter of a faced opening lead. At any time after the end of the auction >> a lead faced by either defender terminates the auction period - see Law >> 22B1.) >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Sure it is clear, but is it quite clear? The second sentence in the >> Definition of Declarer states: >> >> "He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A >> when the opening lead is made out of turn)." >> >> Given the dictionary definition of "but" as meaning an over-riding >> exception, an obtuse person (such as myself) might erroneously >> believe that declarer has not yet become declarer (and hence dummy >> has not yet become dummy) until the Law 54A option has been resolved. >> >> > +=+ If you examine carefully the text of Law 54A you will > find that it refers to a declarer and a dummy who are already > in being. They have their status from the instant, after the end > of the auction, that either defender faces a lead. The 'but', > therefore, refers to something other than their status. Yes, if > you read without obtuseness it is plain, quite clear. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > AG : I'm not the right person to give English lessons, but ISTM that "but" might mark an opposition as well as an exception. Elton John to Prince William : "Would you mind not interrupting me ? You might be a Prince, but I'm a Queen" +=+ I suggest that the 'but' in the definition relates to the fact that subsequent to becoming Declarer and Dummy the partners may exchange roles as a consequence of Declarer's action under Law 54. Until (and unless) that happens Declarer is Declarer and Dummy is Dummy. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 21 17:16:08 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:16:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810210352j35de3118n77af0df70b7a1097@mail.gmail.com> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> <48FD8D91.1060106@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810210352j35de3118n77af0df70b7a1097@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48FDF238.7010307@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2008/10/21 Herman De Wael : >> Wayne Burrows wrote: >>> That is a psyche is only a psyche when there is no partnership >>> understanding. Whenever their is a partnership understanding you are >>> subject to the normal HUM (or other) system regulations. >>> >> That is absurd Wayne, because (as I wrote before) any psyche has >> partnership understanding. Even "he has never ever psyched in his life >> before" (a very valid piece of information to which the opponents are >> entitled IMO) is partnership understanding. >> >> You cannot define psyches this way. >> > > A psychic call is "a deliberate and gross > misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length." > Of course I know that. > This only makes sense to me if this with with reference to one's system. > Of course. > If your partnership understanding is 5+ hearts 11-20 hcp OR some 0-4 > hcp then opening on a 2-count is a not a mistatement it is part of > your system. > No - My system stays 11-20. My partnership understanding is that I sometimes deviate from that system. If the mere fact of having such an understanding makes the psyche part of the system, then there are no psyches left! You also have with any player you play with, some form of partnership understanding. "Wayne has performed 0/1/27 psyches in the past year". There is no fundamental difference between that partnership understanding and mine. Or maybe there is - we are trying to find out what the fundamental difference ought to be. But the mere fact of having an "understanding" cannot be enough. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 21 17:22:07 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:22:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <000401c93374$5fc5ef00$1f51cd00$@no> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> <48FD8D91.1060106@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810210352j35de3118n77af0df70b7a1097@mail.gmail.com> <000401c93374$5fc5ef00$1f51cd00$@no> Message-ID: <48FDF39F.1020601@skynet.be> Sven clouds the issue by using the wrong words. Sven Pran wrote: > > Sure it is. > But the agreement can still be HUM if it fits the definition in the relevant > regulation. > > Note: The bid is according to the agreements. It is the agreement and not > the bid that is HUM! > I have no agreements whatsoever concerning psyches! The word to use nowadays is understandings. I admit to having understandings - or rather, to be judged to be having understandings. Most of my partners have no knowledge of what type of psyche I do - some do know that I perform infinitely more psyches than the average Belgian who performs zero of them. But I am willing to play under full disclosure, and that means that I want to tell my opponents, after the hand, everything there is to know about my psyching tendencies. If they feel they are damaged and call the director, my defence is NOT going to be "my partner doesn't know". He could know, and my opponents are therefore entitled to know. Why do you make me the bad guy here? Lots of psychers admit to no previous habits. If you insist on bannign my psyches because I freely admit to having psyched before, I will no longer so admit. What is in the good of the game? The writers of regulations have often stated that they do not want to ban light openings, only agreements to open lightly. A psyche, without agreement to do so, must be admissible. If you do not admit anyone who has psyched before to do so again, you are effectively banning psyches. > Regards Sven > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 21 18:14:53 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:14:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <007c01c9338d$e6edf6d0$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> <48FD8D91.1060106@skynet.be> <007c01c9338d$e6edf6d0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48FDFFFD.7010606@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >> > +=+ The laws say that the partner must have "no more reason to be > aware of the deviation than have the opponents". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Yes Grattan, but what does that mean precisely? "no more reason to be aware". So a player is allowed to be aware that his partner psyches occasionally, as long as the opponents know this too. A player must also be allowed to know that his partner psyches in certain situations, but not in others. A player must even be allowed to know in which direction his partner would psyche in those situations. All provided his opponents know this as well. So simply based on this, if I put on my CC that I have previously opened 1He third on 0-3, my opponents are informed and this condition is satisfied. OK? Now suppose this is not on my CC. Is this a piece of MI, which can be rectified if the TD believes that damage was caused by the omission? Or does this immediately turn into some form of cheating? (of course I know that some pairs might resort to objectionable tactics, but if that is not the case, do we rule MI or is there another middle form?) Herman. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Oct 21 19:44:45 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:44:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Verdict? In-Reply-To: <009b01c93336$aa217620$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net><000201c932c6$301d26a0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48FD029A.6010703@talktalk.net> <009b01c93336$aa217620$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48FE150D.7050006@talktalk.net> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I do not allege this much. I have absolutely no evidence that Herman acts in this way. His tortuous arguments on blmlon the subject I regard as so much hot air. It is for Directors to apply the law in tournaments when they have evidence of irregularities. (I know nothing about Herman's status as a director. I do not meet him in that guise.) [Nigel] Herman's web-site establishes his status as a director. http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/hermtd.html - Herman's public admissions confirmed by colleagues provide evidence of habits that Grattan alleges infringe the rules of Bridge. - FWIW I agree with Grattan that Herman's confessed behaviour breaks the rules. - There also seems to be witness evidence for the allegations against Geir Helgemo. - I disagree with Grattan that the WBF should refrain from investigating public allegations against high-profile bridge-players. From john at asimere.com Tue Oct 21 19:56:11 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:56:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <009f01c93336$ab255190$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 5:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Let us then be up and doing, > With a heart for any fate, > Still achieving, still pursuing, > Learn to labour and to wait." > [H.W. Longfellow] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 10:37 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy's Riots [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> +=+ It is quite clear that the moment the opening lead is faced the >> presumed Declarer and the presumed Dummy* lose their 'presumed' >> status. One of them is Dummy and the other is Declarer. Upon the >> facing of the opening lead, whether or not from the correct hand, >> Law 42B3 applies. If the lead faced is from the wrong defender >> presumed Declarer becomes Declarer and has the options in 54, the >> presumed Dummy becomes Dummy in the instant the lead is faced, >> but subsequently may exchange roles with Declarer under Law 54A. >> (*See definition 1 of 'Dummy') >> (** What is 'prematurely'? The laws contain no tolerance in the >> matter of a faced opening lead. At any time after the end of the auction >> a lead faced by either defender terminates the auction period - see Law >> 22B1.) >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Sure it is clear, but is it quite clear? The second sentence in the >> Definition of Declarer states: >> >> "He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A >> when the opening lead is made out of turn)." >> >> Given the dictionary definition of "but" as meaning an over-riding >> exception, an obtuse person (such as myself) might erroneously >> believe that declarer has not yet become declarer (and hence dummy >> has not yet become dummy) until the Law 54A option has been resolved. >> My Japanese group perpetrated a new one on me today. OLOOT; N: "OK, I'll be dummy" ; S: "I don't want to declare the hand, can I be dummy" Is the new declarer in the position of executing L54A too? After all there is a OLOOT and it's still a OLOOT :) I ruled, reasonably confidently, that by saying she wished to be dummy as dummy she had no rights save those explicitly granted (I might allow a change of mind if we were working our way through the options following Nakatani's and Geller's excellent translation and original dummy hadn't spoken out of turn.). It's fun chasing the law down in a language I don't speak where many of them have little English :) > +=+ If you examine carefully the text of Law 54A you will > find that it refers to a declarer and a dummy who are already > in being. They have their status from the instant, after the end > of the auction, that either defender faces a lead. The 'but', > therefore, refers to something other than their status. Yes, if > you read without obtuseness it is plain, quite clear. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Oct 21 20:01:55 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:01:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48FD8776.50306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Jerry Fusselman: > > [big snip] > > >> If an SO deems that AKxxxx-xxxx-xxx-void cannot be opened >> 1 of a suit, it distorts bidding methods too much for my >> taste. In that case, what do you do with this hand? If >> you take a weaker action than opening 1S, you risk missing >> game if you play standard duplicate-bridge methods with >> semi-light openings. >> > > Richard Hills: > > Even if a 1S opening bid as dealer was legal in Australia, > I would still choose an opening pass. There is zero risk > of missing game, since one of your three opponents will > have enough values to start the bidding. > > And listening to unforced calls from partner and opponents > makes it easier to deduce whether 6S is a good contract. > But opening 1S instead increases the risk you will miss > the par contract of 6S, instead arriving in 4S or 7S. > AG :I don't think that's the essence of the debate. You both just demonstrated that judgments might vary about opening some hand in a constructive way. The important point is that some sensible players will consider that opening a natural, constructive 1S is the right way to bid this hand, and Jerry feels -as I do- that OBs shouldn't be allowed to decide that their judgment that it isn't must prevail. Every now and then The Portland Club (you might have heard of the club) sends a team to play in one of my events. They are incapable of filling in an EBU convention card as they have no idea what points are :) For them 1NT is an opening bid that expresses a desire to play in 1NT and 1S is a desire to play in 1S. They gravely explain this to me whenever they come to play. Am I required to ban those who promulgate the laws of Bridge from their own game? cheers John. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 21 20:45:06 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:45:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? References: <1E7576A2-0A27-4625-822F-5B41918B4D6E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003501c933ad$2736c770$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a HUM? <<> I am not here advocating an "anything goes" approach to systems > regulation. What I am advocating is adherence to the principle that > systems regulations "must not restrict style and judgment, only > method" [L40B2(a)]. > > I do not object to the ACBL banning me from using 1H to show 0-7 with > any distribution. I would, however, object to the ACBL telling me > that I may use 1H to show 0-7 with any distribution, but may not > choose to make that call with QJ/QJ/Jxxx/Jxxxx. > +=+ If someone sets up a bridge game I see no reason why he/she should not prescribe what methods are acceptable in it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 21:47:39 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:47:39 +1300 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: <003501c933ad$2736c770$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <1E7576A2-0A27-4625-822F-5B41918B4D6E@starpower.net> <003501c933ad$2736c770$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810211247u37c6084bw1b2b739a335c9ccf@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/22 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Let us then be up and doing, > With a heart for any fate, > Still achieving, still pursuing, > Learn to labour and to wait." > [H.W. Longfellow] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:08 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a HUM? > > <<> I am not here advocating an "anything goes" approach to systems >> regulation. What I am advocating is adherence to the principle that >> systems regulations "must not restrict style and judgment, only >> method" [L40B2(a)]. >> >> I do not object to the ACBL banning me from using 1H to show 0-7 with >> any distribution. I would, however, object to the ACBL telling me >> that I may use 1H to show 0-7 with any distribution, but may not >> choose to make that call with QJ/QJ/Jxxx/Jxxxx. >> > +=+ If someone sets up a bridge game I see no reason why > he/she should not prescribe what methods are acceptable in > it. Therein lies a fallacy. The 2007 laws invest power in national organizations as regulating authorities. In most cases those regulating authorities do not set up the vast majority of bridge games which are played. From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 21:56:13 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:56:13 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <48FDF39F.1020601@skynet.be> References: <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> <48FD8D91.1060106@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810210352j35de3118n77af0df70b7a1097@mail.gmail.com> <000401c93374$5fc5ef00$1f51cd00$@no> <48FDF39F.1020601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810211256q668ca314wa4ecf34c261a755e@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/22 Herman De Wael : > Sven clouds the issue by using the wrong words. > > Sven Pran wrote: >> >> Sure it is. >> But the agreement can still be HUM if it fits the definition in the relevant >> regulation. >> >> Note: The bid is according to the agreements. It is the agreement and not >> the bid that is HUM! >> > > I have no agreements whatsoever concerning psyches! > The word to use nowadays is understandings. The WBF system policy still uses the word "agreement" in the definition of HUM: "For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement:" If your partnership agreement is that you open hands a king or more below an average hand then your system is defined by that systems policy as a HUM for WBF events. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 21 23:20:20 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:20:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 80A1(c) (was HUM?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810211247u37c6084bw1b2b739a335c9ccf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ If someone sets up a bridge game I see no reason why >>he/she should not prescribe what methods are acceptable in >>it. Wayne Burrows: >Therein lies a fallacy. > >The 2007 laws invest power in national organizations as >regulating authorities. In most cases those regulating >authorities do not set up the vast majority of bridge games >which are played. Law 80A1(c): "The Regulating Authority under these laws is for any other tournament or event the National Bridge Organization in whose territory the tournament takes place." Richard Hills: It seems to me that if I organise a private game of a 2-table individual of my friends in my kitchen, then I become the "National Bridge Organization" with my "territory" being my kitchen. If, however, I play at the ABF-affiliated South Canberra bridge club, because it is ABF-affiliated it is in the "territory" of the ABF, thus the ABF is the "National Bridge Organization" and the South Canberra bridge club is merely the "Tournament Organizer". Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 22 00:00:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:00:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Verdict? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48FE150D.7050006@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: Herman's web-site establishes his status as a director. http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/bridge/hermtd.html Richard Hills: Herman's website also notes his interest in the science- fiction of Isaac Asimov. In his short story "Reason" (collected in the book "I Robot"), one of Asimov's characters said: "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates." Fortunately Herman has always acknowledged that the WBF Drafting Committee has the authority to establish the postulates which are the official Duplicate Laws, and that the WBF Laws Committee has the authority to establish the postulates which are the official interpretations of the Duplicate Laws. (Once the decisions of those two bodies have been ratified by the ultimate authority of the WBF Executive.) Hence Herman will no doubt want to avoid misleading casual visitors to his website, and thus will update his webpage "The De Wael school of thought" by adding a clarification that the WBF LC carefully considered that school of thought in October 2008, but then officially promulgated a postulate rejecting 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 22 01:31:02 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:31:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Explaining that #$#@ 5Di bid In-Reply-To: References: <8163263.1224210596630.JavaMail.root@ps26> Message-ID: Partner alerts and incorrectly explains you 4NT as being exclusion Blackwood, when really it is for the minors. Partner responds 5 Di. The opponents, now on lead, want to know what 5 Di would mean if it was a Blackwood response. You of course do not tell them. Then they ask, "What is exclusion Blackwood?" Must you explain this? Suppose for the sake of the discussion, that answering this question will give away what partner meant with his 5 Di bid. (Does it matter whether or not the phrase "exclusion Blackwood" is on your card? Of course, if you think they should "volunteer" the intended meaning of the 5 Di bid, your vote on this is not relevant. Sorry Eric! > From the WBFLC: "for example, if the reply to an opponent is that '5D > shows diamonds > preference', any reply to a further question ?what would it mean if 4NT > were Blackwood ?? is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law > 20F1.)" From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 22 01:51:51 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:51:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? References: <1E7576A2-0A27-4625-822F-5B41918B4D6E@starpower.net><003501c933ad$2736c770$0202a8c0@Mildred> <2a1c3a560810211247u37c6084bw1b2b739a335c9ccf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003f01c933d9$345dc490$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a HUM? > 2008/10/22 Grattan : >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************** >> "Let us then be up and doing, >> With a heart for any fate, >> Still achieving, still pursuing, >> Learn to labour and to wait." >> [H.W. Longfellow] >> >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Landau" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:08 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Is this a HUM? >> >> <<> I am not here advocating an "anything goes" approach to systems >>> regulation. What I am advocating is adherence to the principle that >>> systems regulations "must not restrict style and judgment, only >>> method" [L40B2(a)]. >>> >>> I do not object to the ACBL banning me from using 1H to show 0-7 with >>> any distribution. I would, however, object to the ACBL telling me >>> that I may use 1H to show 0-7 with any distribution, but may not >>> choose to make that call with QJ/QJ/Jxxx/Jxxxx. >>> >> +=+ If someone sets up a bridge game I see no reason why >> he/she should not prescribe what methods are acceptable in >> it. > > > Therein lies a fallacy. > > The 2007 laws invest power in national organizations as regulating > authorities. In most cases those regulating authorities do not set up > the vast majority of bridge games which are played. > +=+ In some cases the Regulating Authority is the NBO; in other cases the Regulating Authority is a club committee etc (sometimes operating within accepted NBO arrangements, sometimes independently). For reasons convenient to them these bodies often acquiesce in adopting systems regulations within NBO guidelines. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 22 01:59:04 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:59:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80A1(c) (was HUM?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004001c933d9$34a2e3e0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 80A1(c) (was HUM?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > >>>+=+ If someone sets up a bridge game I see no reason why >>>he/she should not prescribe what methods are acceptable in >>>it. > > Wayne Burrows: > >>Therein lies a fallacy. >> >>The 2007 laws invest power in national organizations as >>regulating authorities. In most cases those regulating >>authorities do not set up the vast majority of bridge games >>which are played. > > Law 80A1(c): > > "The Regulating Authority under these laws is > for any other tournament or event the National Bridge > Organization in whose territory the tournament takes place." > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that if I organise a private game of a 2-table > individual of my friends in my kitchen, then I become the > "National Bridge Organization" with my "territory" being my > kitchen. > > If, however, I play at the ABF-affiliated South Canberra > bridge club, because it is ABF-affiliated it is in the > "territory" of the ABF, thus the ABF is the "National Bridge > Organization" and the South Canberra bridge club is merely > the "Tournament Organizer". > +=+ And see Law 80A3.+=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 22 02:19:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:19:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> Message-ID: Isaac Asimov (1920-1992): "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you pick the proper postulates." Herman De Wael asserted: >If the partnership understanding is of the sort "once in >XXX, he deviates from our agreements" then that is a >partnership understanding which CAN NOT be regulated, since >that would mean banning the deviation which is explicitly >allowed by L40C. Law 40B1(b) first sentence: "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding." Richard Hills postulate: Since "agreements" are "partnership understandings", Herman is asserting the having-his-cake-and-eating-it-too argument that a pair can have a mutual partnership understanding on a deviation from their mutual partnership understanding. My Asimovian postulate is that once a pair has a mutual partnership understanding which is a different two-way option from their previous one-way partnership understanding, then their previous one-way partnership understanding has been deleted and replaced by their new two-way partnership understanding. Law 40C1 phrase: "...implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods..." Herman De Wael: >So then we start looking at any one of John's psyches. We >find a situation in which he opens something which might >be a HUM, and we ask him if he has done this particular >thing before. He tells us he has. Now what? Richard Hills: Semantic confusion in blml debate is caused by bandying the term "psyche" about too freely. My Asimovian postulate would be "one of John's alleged psyches". And not relevant whether John has done it before. Once more with feeling: "A unilateral action by one partner is not necessarily a pre- existing mutual explicit or implicit understanding of both partners." What is relevant is if John's partner has remembered John doing it before, and/or if John's partner has an expectation that John might do it. That is, does a mutual partnership understanding exist? In the example John gave the answer is clearly Yes, since John's partner explained the partnership understanding. Hence my Asimovian postulate is that John's alleged psyche is actually a pseudo-psyche which is part of John's methods when John plays with that particular non-amnesiac partner. And my Asimovian postulate defining a true psyche (or a true misbid) is that it is legally non-disclosable under Law 40C2: "Other than the above [Law 40C1] no player has any obligation to disclose to opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 22 02:33:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:33:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Code of Practice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >An updated Code of Practice will be posted very soon. >Regulating authorities are urged to adopt it. Those which >adopt only parts of it are invited to say which parts they >do not apply. Richard Hills: The ACBL version of the new Lawbook contains some tweaks compared to the WBF version. One of the tweaks was the deletion of this paragraph from the Preface: "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them. In addition, the Appeals process has been improved considerably by the introduction of the 'Code of Practice for Appeals Committees', to which attention is drawn." This suggests that the ACBL powers-that-be think that ACBL TDs are imperfect (so do not deserve praise), but ACBL ACs are perfect (so do not need guidance). :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 22 03:11:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:11:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] Explaining that #$#@ 5Di bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Example from WBF LC minutes, October 2008: >>(An "alternative" call is not the same call with another >>meaning - for example, if the reply to an opponent is that >>"5D shows diamonds preference", any reply to a further >>question "what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood ?" is >>given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.) Robert Frick: >Partner alerts and incorrectly explains your 4NT as being >exclusion Blackwood, when really it is for the minors. >Partner responds 5 Di. The opponents, now on lead, Richard Hills: And now, of course, you correct pard's misexplanation of 4NT in accordance with Law 20F5(b)(ii). Robert Frick: >want to know what 5 Di would mean if it was a Blackwood >response. You of course do not tell them. > >Then they ask, "What is exclusion Blackwood?" > >Must you explain this? Suppose for the sake of the >discussion, that answering this question will give away what >partner meant with his 5 Di bid. (Does it matter whether or >not the phrase "exclusion Blackwood" is on your card? > >Of course, if you think they should "volunteer" the intended >meaning of the 5 Di bid, your vote on this is not relevant. >Sorry Eric! Introduction: "Established usage has been retained in regard to 'may' do (failure to do it is not wrong), ..... 'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized)" Richard Hills: It seems to me that "should volunteer" is a contradiction in terms, and in my opinion the WBF LC was using the word "voluntarily" as a synonym for the Introduction's word "may". Law 41B (Review of Auction and Questions) cross-references Laws 20F2 and 20F3. Law 20F3 cross-references Laws 20F1 and 20F2. And Law 20F2 states "...Explanations should be given on a like basis to [20F]1..." Hence the WBF Law 20F1 example applies with equal force to the Law 41B clarification period. But... Law 40B2(a), third sentence: "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods." Richard Hills: Eric Landau has made a strong argument that the ACBL "other methods of disclosure" regulation requires ACBL partnerships to answer any question about their methods at any time. (With the obvious exception that an ACBLer who repeatedly asks the same question is infracting Law 74B1, "paying insufficient attention to the game".) If Eric has correctly divined the intent of that ACBL pursuant- to-Law regulation, then that would over-ride the default set by the WBF interpretation of Law 20F1. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 22 03:43:19 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:43:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Code of Practice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:33:42 -0400, wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > >> An updated Code of Practice will be posted very soon. >> Regulating authorities are urged to adopt it. Those which >> adopt only parts of it are invited to say which parts they >> do not apply. > > Richard Hills: > > The ACBL version of the new Lawbook contains some tweaks > compared to the WBF version. One of the tweaks was the > deletion of this paragraph from the Preface: > > "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the > expertise and experience of Directors, which has been > recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities > given to them. In addition, the Appeals process has been > improved considerably by the introduction of the 'Code of > Practice for Appeals Committees', to which attention is > drawn." > > This suggests that the ACBL powers-that-be think that ACBL > TDs are imperfect (so do not deserve praise), but ACBL ACs > are perfect (so do not need guidance). > > :-) To be fair to the ACBL, they entitle their preface: Preface to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2008 NORTH AMERICAN EDITION So there is no pretense that they are using the WBF preface. Their publication also contains 9 "Elections" by the ACBL Board of Directors at the end of the book, and some footnotes during the laws directing readers to the Elections. From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 05:34:40 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:34:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com> > Richard Hills postulate: > > Since "agreements" are "partnership understandings", Herman > is asserting the having-his-cake-and-eating-it-too argument > that a pair can have a mutual partnership understanding on > a deviation from their mutual partnership understanding. > And Herman is right. Perhaps a different way of looking at it will help you see it. If you understand probability, you might be able to follow the following careful explanation. (Often I think that the major weakness in BLML arguments is a fundamental misunderstanding of what probability is, and particularly, what subjective probability is.) Let p be your probability that partner would psych in the situation under study. It is the probability that you hold without looking at your hand---just based on the auction so far. Let q be the opponent's probability that your partner psyched. Again, that probability should be determined based on the auction so far, and not the updated probability using estimator's hand. I guess we tend to assume that q is about the same for all opponents. Make it the q for a reasonably experienced and wise opponent. Now Grattan has clearly stated that, provided p <= q, there is no CPU or MI even if a psych has taken place. I am paraphrasing Grattan, of course, but I hope my restatement of the situation has captured the meaning of his statement perfectly. Often people say that p must be zero, or it is a CPU. Apparently Richard is arguing this. But that is wrong thinking. You only need to make sure that p <= q. Now, Herman's point is that you can agree to some small frequency p, and provided it does not exceed q, it is still legal. After all, no one here says that psyching is always illegal. If is sometimes allowed, then it sometimes happens, and that means that any person with even marginal understanding of probability should realize that p > 0 in that case. You are allowed to agree that p = 0, but you are also allowed to agree that p > 0, provided p <= q. Some will argue, even after reading this, that all agreements must be p = 0. But that is an exercise in pure doublethink. Only someone without understanding of probability could say such a thing. If something sometimes happens, it has a positive probability. If something might happen, it has a positive probability. And even if your partner agreed not to psych, you might well know that he could possibly psych, and your understanding in that case is p > 0. So Herman is right, you can have an agreement or understanding that p > 0, but it must satisfy p <= q. He is not trying any sort of a trick with cake. I think he wants us to stop feeling like we must engage in doublethink whenever we think about psychs, You have a CPU if and only if p > q. End of my little dissertation. :-) ----------------------------------------------------- But what I wonder about is the other side. Grattan has stated that as long as p <= q, you are fine. But why is that? Suppose that p = 0 and q < 0? Would that really be fair disclosure? It seems to me the ideal full-disclosure requirement is that p = q. There are cases of pairs who have agreed to p = 0 in all situations but carefully hide that fact so that the opponents don't know too much about your methods. Several BLMLers have made exactly that recommendation. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 22 07:47:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:47:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Abraham Lincoln, American emancipator (1809-1865): "When you have got an elephant by the hind legs, and he is trying to run away, it is best to let him run." Jerry Fusselman suggested: >And Herman is right. Perhaps a different way of looking at it >will help you see it. If you understand probability, you >might be able to follow the following careful explanation. > >(Often I think that the major weakness in BLML arguments is a >fundamental misunderstanding of what probability is, and >particularly, what subjective probability is.) Richard Hills: I agree that Directors and Appeals Committees often make fundamental errors in determining "demonstrably suggested" and "logical alternatives" by seeing all 52 cards and the subsequent auction and play --- when what is relevant is the player's subjective assessment of her 13 cards, her subjective assessment of the authorised information from the auction to date, and her subjective assessment of what any unauthorised information demonstrably suggests. See this blml posting and its plot-twist sequels: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2004-May/015234.html Jerry Fusselman suggested: >Let p be your probability that partner would psych in the >situation under study. Richard Hills: J is for just a minute. What is a psyche?* [* To avoid the confusion caused by the loaded semantics of the word "psyche" (which has different colloquial meanings for different blmlers), for the remainder of this posting I have substituted the neutral word "elephant" instead.] If you have a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding that a particular call has a particular meaning, then it is not an elephant no matter how low the probability is. For example, my partnership's very low probability 4NT Acol Blackwood. Law 40A1(a) Likewise, if you have a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding that one partner's notionally 15-17 hcp 1NT will sometimes instead be comical with a weighting towards heartily comical, then the comical aspects are not an elephant no matter how low the probability is. Law 40A1(a). In my opinion Jerry's discussion of probability is relevant, but not for Law 40A1(a), instead only for the specific Law 40C1 situation when a new implicit partnership understanding may (or may not) be created. Jerry Fusselman attempted Grattanical paraphrase: >It is the probability that you hold without looking at your hand >---just based on the auction so far. Let q be the opponent's >probability that your partner elephanted. Again, that >probability should be determined based on the auction so far, >and not the updated probability using estimator's hand. I guess >we tend to assume that q is about the same for all opponents. >Make it the q for a reasonably experienced and wise opponent. > >Now Grattan has clearly stated that, provided p <= q, there is no >CPU or MI even if an elephant has taken place. I am paraphrasing >Grattan, of course, but I hope my restatement of the situation >has captured the meaning of his statement perfectly. Law 40C1, first sentence: "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." **If and only if** R.R. has deviated from the H.H.-R.R. announced understandings, but opponents Papa and Karapet already know exactly how and why R.R. has deviated, then H.H. does not have to inform his opponents a second time about the new H.H.-R.R. implicit partnership understanding, so no MI or CPU has been caused by H.H. Jerry Fusselman suggested: >Often people say that p must be zero, or it is a CPU. Apparently >Richard is arguing this. But that is wrong thinking. You only >need to make sure that p <= q. Richard Hills: If regular opponents know your system better than you do, so are aware that your 4NT Acol Blackwood bid should have been alerted, your failure to alert 4NT is not misinformation (but may attract a procedural penalty, due to you infracting the Law 40B2(a) alerting procedures). Jerry Fusselman suggested: >Now, Herman's point is that you can agree to some small frequency >p, and provided it does not exceed q, it is still legal. Richard Hills attempted Herman & Jerry paraphrase: Now Herman's point is that you can have a mutual partnership understanding of some small frequency p, and provided that it does not exceed q, the mutual partnership understanding is also not the mutual partnership understanding, but instead an elephant. Jerry Fusselman suggested: >After all, no one here says that elephanting is always illegal. >If elephanting is sometimes allowed, then it sometimes happens, >and that means that any person with even marginal understanding of >probability should realize that p > 0 in that case. > >You are allowed to agree that p = 0, but you are also allowed to >agree that p > 0, provided p <= q. > >Some will argue, even after reading this, that all agreements must >be p = 0. But that is an exercise in pure doublethink. Only >someone without understanding of probability could say such a >thing. If something sometimes happens, it has a positive >probability. If something might happen, it has a positive >probability. > >And even if your partner agreed not to elephant, you might well >know that he could possibly elephant, and your understanding in >that case is p > 0. > >So Herman is right, you can have an agreement or understanding that >p > 0, but it must satisfy p <= q. He is not trying any sort of a >trick with cake. I think he wants us to stop feeling like we must >engage in doublethink whenever we think about elephants. > >You have a CPU if and only if p > q. > >End of my little dissertation. :-) Richard Hills dissents to the dissertation: No, you have concealed partnership understanding(s) / misinformation whenever the opponents have been _actually_ misinformed. To assert that the opponents have been "probably not" misinformed will butter no parsnips if I was the pachydermic Director. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 22 08:38:04 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:38:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003701c93410$c22efc30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Now Grattan has clearly stated that, provided p <= q, there is no CPU > or MI even if a psych has taken place. I am paraphrasing Grattan, of > course, but I hope my restatement of the situation has captured the > meaning of his statement perfectly. > > Often people say that p must be zero, or it is a CPU. Apparently > Richard is arguing this. But that is wrong thinking. You only need > to make sure that p <= q. > +=+ This is an incomplete account of the matter, I suggest. There is a value for p, more than 0% and less than 100%, that we may call 'u'. It demarcates the boundary which, if overstepped, calls for disclosure as part of the partnership's methods. The relationship of u to q is immaterial. Value u is a product of partnership experience or mutual awareness. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 22 09:08:02 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:08:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007201c93414$ef040c60$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 6:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > I agree that Directors and Appeals Committees often make > fundamental errors in determining "demonstrably suggested" and > "logical alternatives" by seeing all 52 cards and the subsequent > auction and play --- when what is relevant is the player's > subjective assessment of her 13 cards, her subjective assessment > of the authorised information from the auction to date, and her > subjective assessment of what any unauthorised information > demonstrably suggests. > +=+ This may 'often' be a matter of perception. Those who comment do not share with equal intimacy the Director's (or AC's) on-the-spot absorption of the players' immediate reactions, verbalizations, and the insight they afford. ~ G ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 22 09:44:27 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:44:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <48FDDAD0.90500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <134548.79782.qm@web87116.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 21/10/08, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >... not complying by > L/18 is > considered HUM in many countries, and below-18 opening bids > have been > penalized because they were made, not because they were > agreed upon. > Well, there may be no 'agreement' to violate L/18, but the opening bid may be on a hand that both members of a partnership agree is an opening bid and would open. On this forum and on others people often give examples of hands that are not R/18 but would be considered by most to be opening bids. Perhaps the Rule of 18 needs to be supplememted, perhaps by an alternative of a maximum number of losers. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 22 10:36:11 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:36:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FEE5FB.7000900@skynet.be> I've read more Asimov than you, Richard! richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Isaac Asimov (1920-1992): > > "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason - if you > pick the proper postulates." > > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> If the partnership understanding is of the sort "once in XXX, he >> deviates from our agreements" then that is a partnership >> understanding which CAN NOT be regulated, since that would mean >> banning the deviation which is explicitly allowed by L40C. > > Law 40B1(b) first sentence: > > "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a > partnership understanding." > In what way does this contradict what I am saying? > Richard Hills postulate: > > Since "agreements" are "partnership understandings", Herman is > asserting the having-his-cake-and-eating-it-too argument that a pair > can have a mutual partnership understanding on a deviation from their > mutual partnership understanding. > No, that is you who is asserting this - I am agreeing with you because it is not the crux of the matter. Yes, knowledge such as "Herman has in the past opened in third seat on 0-3" is "partnership understanding", even whether partner realizes it or not. And yes, under the new laws, RAs have the right to regulate any partnership understanding. But I fail to see how they can regulate knowledge from the past. And I want to add that some regulations would be contrary to the laws and therefore illegal. > My Asimovian postulate is that once a pair has a mutual partnership > understanding which is a different two-way option from their previous > one-way partnership understanding, then their previous one-way > partnership understanding has been deleted and replaced by their new > two-way partnership understanding. > And my postulate is that if you treat any psyche from the past as a two-way partnership understanding and then regulate it, you are effectively banning psyches. Which would be an illegal regulation. > Law 40C1 phrase: > > "...implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's > methods..." > Even if I were to agree with that - where does it say in the system regulation that these special kinds of implicit understandings are also being regulated? > Herman De Wael: > >> So then we start looking at any one of John's psyches. We find a >> situation in which he opens something which might be a HUM, and we >> ask him if he has done this particular thing before. He tells us he >> has. Now what? > > Richard Hills: > > Semantic confusion in blml debate is caused by bandying the term > "psyche" about too freely. My Asimovian postulate would be "one of > John's alleged psyches". > Change it as you will - we both know what we are talking of. > And not relevant whether John has done it before. Once more with > feeling: > So it's not relevant if John has done it before but Herman is banned from doing something because he has done it before? > "A unilateral action by one partner is not necessarily a pre- > existing mutual explicit or implicit understanding of both partners." > And have you any information that my H1H is not unilateral? I am quite certain that John's partners are much more tuned to the occasional psyche than mine. > > What is relevant is if John's partner has remembered John doing it > before, and/or if John's partner has an expectation that John might > do it. That is, does a mutual partnership understanding exist? In > the example John gave the answer is clearly Yes, since John's partner > explained the partnership understanding. > And in my case it's clearly no - what are you trying to prove? > Hence my Asimovian postulate is that John's alleged psyche is > actually a pseudo-psyche which is part of John's methods when John > plays with that particular non-amnesiac partner. > So John's psyches are also banned? > And my Asimovian postulate defining a true psyche (or a true misbid) > is that it is legally non-disclosable under Law 40C2: > > "Other than the above [Law 40C1] no player has any obligation to > disclose to opponents that he has deviated from his announced > methods." > So John, you have just been called a cheat by this antipodean. No, not in so many words, but your actions are being compared to mine, found worse, and you know the words Richard has in the past called me. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 22 10:43:53 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:43:53 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003701c93410$c22efc30$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com> <003701c93410$c22efc30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48FEE7C9.5030006@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > >> >> Often people say that p must be zero, or it is a CPU. Apparently >> Richard is arguing this. But that is wrong thinking. You only need >> to make sure that p <= q. >> > +=+ This is an incomplete account of the matter, I suggest. There is a > value for p, more than 0% and less than 100%, that we may call 'u'. It > demarcates the boundary which, if overstepped, calls for disclosure as > part of the partnership's methods. The relationship of u to q is immaterial. > Value u is a product of partnership experience or mutual awareness. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan is right in practice, but not in theory. In theory, every little piece of partnership understanding must be disclosed - so the value of p must be given on the SC, regardless of how low it is. In practice however, there is a value of u below which p can be said to be "general bridge knowledge", so that the non-mention on the SC need not be regarded with disdain. But I urge Grattan to take a look at the specific case of Flanders, where psyching is almost unknown. I know of no other regular player at my club who does it (a few in neighbouring clubs). Hence, around here, the valu of u is very small. I see it as my duty to put on my SC that I psyche about once a year. OK, Grattan? Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 22 11:37:23 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:37:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com><003701c93410$c22efc30$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48FEE7C9.5030006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00b501c93429$ce011250$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > But I urge Grattan to take a look at the specific case of Flanders, > where psyching is almost unknown. I know of no other regular player at > my club who does it (a few in neighbouring clubs). Hence, around here, > the valu of u is very small. I see it as my duty to put on my SC that I > psyche about once a year. > > OK, Grattan? > +=+ I am tempted to ask whether they 'psyche' in Wallonie! But while I contemplate the question 'OK' is something for local determination. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 22 12:56:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:56:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00b501c93429$ce011250$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com><003701c93410$c22efc30$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48FEE7C9.5030006@skynet.be> <00b501c93429$ce011250$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <48FF06DF.4090801@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > +=+ I am tempted to ask whether they 'psyche' in Wallonie! > A little bit more. There seems to be a cultural difference indeed : many Flemish players like bashing, whiile many Walloons think they're bidding subtly. And that translates into differences in systems and treatments. Perhaps psyching isn't very much compatible with bashing (too dangerous ?) As an example : if you're accustomed to opening 1D on KJxx - x - AQJxxx - xx and raising 1S to 4S, you'll be delighted to know that we call this 'a Flemish raise'. But if 1S was some subtle answer on a 3-card suit in a difficult hand ... Best regards Alain Best regards From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 22 13:43:21 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:43:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00b501c93429$ce011250$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com><003701c93410$c22efc30$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48FEE7C9.5030006@skynet.be> <00b501c93429$ce011250$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c9343b$63144f40$293cedc0$@com> Mr Burn thinks he must be missing something. The WBF says: Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. Why can't I play this way in Flanders? David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 22 14:57:40 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:57:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com> References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5D15F2FC-B940-46BB-8DDD-74BF80D98F8D@starpower.net> On Oct 21, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> Richard Hills postulate: >> >> Since "agreements" are "partnership understandings", Herman >> is asserting the having-his-cake-and-eating-it-too argument >> that a pair can have a mutual partnership understanding on >> a deviation from their mutual partnership understanding. > > And Herman is right. Perhaps a different way of looking at it will > help you see it. If you understand probability, you might be able to > follow the following careful explanation. > > (Often I think that the major weakness in BLML arguments is a > fundamental misunderstanding of what probability is, and particularly, > what subjective probability is.) It is only a weakness if we assume that the authors of the law presumed a fundamental understanding of what subjective probability is on the part of their readers. Do we -- should we -- really require that degree of psycho-mathematical sophistication -- which Jerry finds absent even in the relatively rarefied air of BLML -- in order to read and apply the laws correctly? > Let p be your probability that partner would psych in the situation > under study. It is the probability that you hold without looking at > your hand---just based on the auction so far. Let q be the opponent's > probability that your partner psyched. Again, that probability should > be determined based on the auction so far, and not the updated > probability using estimator's hand. I guess we tend to assume that q > is about the same for all opponents. Make it the q for a reasonably > experienced and wise opponent. > > Now Grattan has clearly stated that, provided p <= q, there is no CPU > or MI even if a psych has taken place. I am paraphrasing Grattan, of > course, but I hope my restatement of the situation has captured the > meaning of his statement perfectly. > > Often people say that p must be zero, or it is a CPU. Apparently > Richard is arguing this. But that is wrong thinking. You only need > to make sure that p <= q. > > Now, Herman's point is that you can agree to some small frequency p, > and provided it does not exceed q, it is still legal. > > After all, no one here says that psyching is always illegal. If is > sometimes allowed, then it sometimes happens, and that means that any > person with even marginal understanding of probability should realize > that p > 0 in that case. > > You are allowed to agree that p = 0, but you are also allowed to agree > that p > 0, provided p <= q. > > Some will argue, even after reading this, that all agreements must be > p = 0. But that is an exercise in pure doublethink. Only someone > without understanding of probability could say such a thing. If > something sometimes happens, it has a positive probability. If > something might happen, it has a positive probability. > > And even if your partner agreed not to psych, you might well know that > he could possibly psych, and your understanding in that case is p > 0. > > So Herman is right, you can have an agreement or understanding that p >> 0, but it must satisfy p <= q. He is not trying any sort of a trick > with cake. I think he wants us to stop feeling like we must engage > in doublethink whenever we think about psychs, > > You have a CPU if and only if p > q. > > End of my little dissertation. :-) The problem is that Jerry defines q as "the opponent's probability that your partner psyched". But these are not some Platonic-ideal opponents. The "opponents" referred to in L40C are those two folks sitting to your right and left. In general, we have no idea what their relevant "subjective probability" is. All we can know for sure is that q>=0. And if we solve q>=0, p<=q, 0<=(p,q)<=1 for p... Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 22 15:11:46 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:11:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <48FEE5FB.7000900@skynet.be> References: <48FEE5FB.7000900@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2008, at 4:36 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > And my postulate is that if you treat any psyche from the past as a > two-way partnership understanding and then regulate it, you are > effectively banning psyches. Which would be an illegal regulation. Obviously not, as that is precisely what the ACBL's published guidelines call for, and TPTB at the WBF have not seen fit to take exception. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Oct 22 16:08:57 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:08:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov Message-ID: <48FF33F9.8070205@aol.com> Herman wrote: "I've read more Asimov than you, Richard." Leaving the question of relevance aside (so that no new endless thread will be started) I wonder how Herman can possibly know how much Asimov Richard has read. Have they exchanged lists of the books each has read? If Richard has read everything written by Asimov it would seem unlikely that Herman has read more. Anyway, this is the sort of arrogance by a few of its adherents that disturbs me in blml. Herman will probably say it was meant humorously. That wasn't apparent in my eyes at least and then the comment was only superfluous. JE From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 22 18:00:14 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:00:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov In-Reply-To: <48FF33F9.8070205@aol.com> References: <48FF33F9.8070205@aol.com> Message-ID: <48FF4E0E.2070605@skynet.be> I have read all of Asimov's fiction and quite a lot of his non-fiction. But not everything, of course, not all 500+. And Jeff is right, it was meant as fun, and did not show up as such. And it's irrelevant. Jeff Easterson wrote: > Herman wrote: "I've read more Asimov than you, Richard." > > Leaving the question of relevance aside (so that no new endless thread > will be started) I wonder how Herman can possibly know how much Asimov > Richard has read. Have they exchanged lists of the books each has read? > If Richard has read everything written by Asimov it would seem > unlikely that Herman has read more. > > Anyway, this is the sort of arrogance by a few of its adherents that > disturbs me in blml. > > Herman will probably say it was meant humorously. That wasn't apparent > in my eyes at least and then the comment was only superfluous. JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Wed Oct 22 19:14:34 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:14:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <475AFF7091D1410FB7A60A2449385925@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] snip > > So Herman is right, you can have an agreement or understanding that p >> 0, but it must satisfy p <= q. He is not trying any sort of a trick > with cake. I think he wants us to stop feeling like we must engage > in doublethink whenever we think about psychs, > > You have a CPU if and only if p > q. > > End of my little dissertation. :-) > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > But what I wonder about is the other side. Grattan has stated that as > long as p <= q, you are fine. But why is that? Suppose that p = 0 > and q < 0? Would that really be fair disclosure? It seems to me the > ideal full-disclosure requirement is that p = q. There are cases of > pairs who have agreed to p = 0 in all situations but carefully hide > that fact so that the opponents don't know too much about your > methods. Several BLMLers have made exactly that recommendation. > > Jerry Fusselman Excellent stuff Jerry. In complete agreement. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Oct 22 19:20:13 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:20:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be><2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com> <003701c93410$c22efc30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Let us then be up and doing, > With a heart for any fate, > Still achieving, still pursuing, > Learn to labour and to wait." > [H.W. Longfellow] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> Now Grattan has clearly stated that, provided p <= q, there is no CPU >> or MI even if a psych has taken place. I am paraphrasing Grattan, of >> course, but I hope my restatement of the situation has captured the >> meaning of his statement perfectly. >> >> Often people say that p must be zero, or it is a CPU. Apparently >> Richard is arguing this. But that is wrong thinking. You only need >> to make sure that p <= q. >> > +=+ This is an incomplete account of the matter, I suggest. There is a > value for p, more than 0% and less than 100%, that we may call 'u'. It > demarcates the boundary which, if overstepped, calls for disclosure as > part of the partnership's methods. The relationship of u to q is > immaterial. > Value u is a product of partnership experience or mutual awareness. and I think there's a further value "S" above which psychic frequency is such that the likelihood is so high that partner will be aware of the possibility, completely absent any knowledge of previous specificic auctions. My gut feel is about one hand in 20 give or take a few. If you psyche 3 times in a session and thrice more the next I'll probably want to ask you about it, though I will be satisfied by sensible bridge reasons. john > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Oct 22 19:26:07 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:26:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov References: <48FF33F9.8070205@aol.com> <48FF4E0E.2070605@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Herman/Asimov >I have read all of Asimov's fiction and quite a lot of his non-fiction. > But not everything, of course, not all 500+. > And Jeff is right, it was meant as fun, and did not show up as such. > And it's irrelevant. > > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Herman wrote: "I've read more Asimov than you, Richard." >> >> Leaving the question of relevance aside (so that no new endless thread >> will be started) I wonder how Herman can possibly know how much Asimov >> Richard has read. Have they exchanged lists of the books each has read? >> If Richard has read everything written by Asimov it would seem >> unlikely that Herman has read more. >> >> Anyway, this is the sort of arrogance by a few of its adherents that >> disturbs me in blml. It's this sort of leaping on journalistic hyperbole when it is evident that this is what it is which disturbs me in blml. Who gives a f**k whether Richard or herman has read the more Asimov; the rhetorical cnstruction conveyed the intent of the author rather than the literal message. perhaps some cultures are too underdeveloped to comprehend that .... flame away.. John >> >> Herman will probably say it was meant humorously. That wasn't apparent >> in my eyes at least and then the comment was only superfluous. JE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Oct 22 23:52:32 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:52:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com> <003701c93410$c22efc30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081023085121.01e03b70@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 04:20 AM 23/10/2008, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Grattan" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:38 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > also > ************************************** > > "Let us then be up and doing, > > With a heart for any fate, > > Still achieving, still pursuing, > > Learn to labour and to wait." > > [H.W. Longfellow] > > > > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:34 AM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > >> > >> Now Grattan has clearly stated that, provided p <= q, there is no CPU > >> or MI even if a psych has taken place. I am paraphrasing Grattan, of > >> course, but I hope my restatement of the situation has captured the > >> meaning of his statement perfectly. > >> > >> Often people say that p must be zero, or it is a CPU. Apparently > >> Richard is arguing this. But that is wrong thinking. You only need > >> to make sure that p <= q. > >> > > +=+ This is an incomplete account of the matter, I suggest. There is a > > value for p, more than 0% and less than 100%, that we may call 'u'. It > > demarcates the boundary which, if overstepped, calls for disclosure as > > part of the partnership's methods. The relationship of u to q is > > immaterial. > > Value u is a product of partnership experience or mutual awareness. > >and I think there's a further value "S" above which psychic frequency is >such that the likelihood is so high that partner will be aware of the >possibility, completely absent any knowledge of previous specificic >auctions. My gut feel is about one hand in 20 give or take a few. If you >psyche 3 times in a session and thrice more the next I'll probably want to >ask you about it, though I will be satisfied by sensible bridge reasons. >john If my partner psyched 3 times in the last session, I would be alerting his every bid in the next. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 23 00:00:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:00:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >>>Herman wrote: "I've read more Asimov than you, Richard." >>> >>>Leaving the question of relevance aside (so that no new >>>endless thread will be started) Richard Hills: I suspect that this thread may become an endless thread. :-) Jeff Easterson: >>>I wonder how Herman can possibly know how much Asimov >>>Richard has read. Have they exchanged lists of the books >>>each has read? >>> >>>If Richard has read everything written by Asimov it would >>>seem unlikely that Herman has read more. Richard Hills: I started reading Isaac Asimov when I was 12 years old, in 1972, and continued reading all of his works available in Australia until Isaac Asimov's untimely death from AIDS (via an unscreened blood transfusion during heart surgery) in 1992. I can highly recommend "Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humour", a collection of funny jokes with erudite commentary. I believe that it is currently out of print, but it is well worthwhile trying to track down a second-hand copy. Jeff Easterson: >>>Anyway, this is the sort of arrogance by a few of its >>>adherents that disturbs me in blml. >>> >>>Herman will probably say it was meant humorously. That >>>wasn't apparent in my eyes at least and then the comment >>>was only superfluous. Herman De Wael: >>I have read all of Asimov's fiction Richard Hills: Including his Lucky Starr novels, originally written under the pseudonym of Paul French? In his autobiography, Isaac Asimov relates an amusing anecdote about Paul French. In a minor 1950s science-fiction magazine, its book reviewer always flamed Isaac Asimov's latest science-fiction novel. Apparently this was a ploy to stoke controversy and boost sales, since the editor of the minor science-fiction magazine offered Asimov space for a right of reply, thus hoping for a flame war. Fortunately, when Asimov read the latest book review column, he noticed the book reviewer praising Paul French's latest book. So Asimov dryly wrote in his right of reply that the reviewer did like Isaac Asimov's writings, provided that he was unaware that Isaac Asimov had written them. Herman De Wael: >>and quite a lot of his non-fiction. But not everything, of >>course, not all 500+. >> >>And Jeff is right, it was meant as fun, and did not show up as >>such. And it's irrelevant. John Probst flame: >It's this sort of leaping on journalistic hyperbole when it is >evident that this is what it is which disturbs me in blml. Who >gives a f**k whether Richard or Herman has read the more Asimov; >the rhetorical construction conveyed the intent of the author >rather than the literal message. Perhaps some cultures are too >underdeveloped to comprehend that .... flame away.. Herman De Wael flame: >>So John, you have just been called a cheat by this antipodean. >>No, not in so many words, but your actions are being compared >>to mine, found worse, and you know the words Richard has in the >>past called me. Richard Hills fire extinguisher: Deliberately and consistently breaking the rules to gain a score advantage is cheating. But, in my opinion, Herman and John _unintentionally_ break the rules (due to, in my opinion, Herman and John misinterpreting the Laws - albeit in slightly different ways), so Herman and John are definitely not cheats. That is, definitely not cheats in actuality as well as definitely not cheats in my opinion. Law 40C1 phrase: "...implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods..." Herman De Wael thought-provoking question: >>Even if I were to agree with that - where does it say in the >>system regulation that these special kinds of implicit >>understandings are also being regulated? Richard Hills asserting blml purpose and netiquette: Now this is one of the prime purposes of blml, subjecting varying interpretations of Law to proving grounds via pertinent testing of weak spots. It is true that Law 40C1 merely says that "the partnership's methods" must be disclosed, and Law 40C1 does _not_ say that "the partnership's methods" may be regulated. Ergo, if one looks at Law 40C1 in isolation, then the John Probst half-and-half belief (his partner disclosing John's multi-1NT, but John asserting that his multi-1NT is not regulable) is a fully correct interpretation of Law. But should Law 40C1 be read in isolation from the rest of Law 40? If not, can some part of Law 40C1 "partnership's methods" have a one-to-one correspondence with Law 40B2(a) "special partnership understandings", and hence be disallowable by the Regulating Authority? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 23 02:35:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:35:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1E7576A2-0A27-4625-822F-5B41918B4D6E@starpower.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>In large events organised by the ACBL, they have to consider >>the greatest good of the greatest number. ACBL little old >>ladies may be disconcerted by a visiting Aussie opening a 1H >>0-7 hcp fert on 432 432 432 5432. Eric Landau: >I am not here advocating an "anything goes" approach to >systems regulation. What I am advocating is adherence to the >principle that systems regulations "must not restrict style >and judgment, only method" [L40B2(a)]. > >I do not object to the ACBL banning me from using 1H to show >0-7 with any distribution. I would, however, object to the >ACBL telling me that I may use 1H to show 0-7 with any >distribution, but may not choose to make that call with >QJ/QJ/Jxxx/Jxxxx. Richard Hills: Well, in my style and judgement AKQJ AKQJ AK KJ9 is a 0-7 hcp any distribution 1H opening, since it holds zero defensive tricks against the opponents' grand slam in clubs (Duke of Cumberland hand). 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 02:45:14 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:45:14 +1300 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1E7576A2-0A27-4625-822F-5B41918B4D6E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810221745u20966549y619006e30541e0a9@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/23 : > Richard Hills: > >>>In large events organised by the ACBL, they have to consider >>>the greatest good of the greatest number. ACBL little old >>>ladies may be disconcerted by a visiting Aussie opening a 1H >>>0-7 hcp fert on 432 432 432 5432. > > Eric Landau: > >>I am not here advocating an "anything goes" approach to >>systems regulation. What I am advocating is adherence to the >>principle that systems regulations "must not restrict style >>and judgment, only method" [L40B2(a)]. >> >>I do not object to the ACBL banning me from using 1H to show >>0-7 with any distribution. I would, however, object to the >>ACBL telling me that I may use 1H to show 0-7 with any >>distribution, but may not choose to make that call with >>QJ/QJ/Jxxx/Jxxxx. > > Richard Hills: > > Well, in my style and judgement AKQJ AKQJ AK KJ9 is a 0-7 hcp > any distribution 1H opening, since it holds zero defensive > tricks against the opponents' grand slam in clubs (Duke of > Cumberland hand). > > What's the problem? > No problem. If you wish to play like that Richard you should be allowed to. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Oct 23 02:50:47 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:50:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Verdict? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FFCA67.3020804@talktalk.net> Please would Wayne Burrows (or anybody else who witnessed the Helgemo incident) post the relevant BBO *chat log* From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 23 03:09:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:09:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Abraham Lincoln, American emancipator (1809-1865): "When you have got an elephant* by the hind legs, and he is trying to run away, it is best to let him run." Richard Hills: [* To avoid the confusion caused by the loaded semantics of the word "psyche" (which has different colloquial meanings for different blmlers), for the remainder of this posting I have substituted the neutral word "elephant" and its synonyms instead.] "A unilateral action by one partner is not necessarily a pre- existing mutual explicit or implicit understanding of both partners." Herman De Wael asked: >And have you any information that my H1H is not unilateral? >I am quite certain that John's partners are much more tuned >to the occasional elephant than mine. Richard Hills: On the evidence provided to blml by Herman and John, it seems that in some of their partnerships their partner is unawares of their elephantine tendencies, so that any loxodonta call in those partnerships is fully legal under Law 40A3, Law 40C1 and Law 40C2. But in one of John's other partnerships his partner is fully aware of proboscidean possibilities of John's multi-1NT, going so far as to alert and explain, hence John's 1NT ***in that particular partnership*** may or may not be legal, depending on what Regulating Authority rules have been created pursuant to Law 40B2(a) and 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." What's the pachydermic 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 03:14:00 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:14:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] Verdict? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48FFCA67.3020804@talktalk.net> References: <48FFCA67.3020804@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810221814x227d9acap47f86722ccd7e28@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/23 Nigel Guthrie : > Please would Wayne Burrows (or anybody else who witnessed the Helgemo > incident) > post the relevant BBO *chat log* > I have very little more than what I have already published. cascade: Helgemo opens very light jbgood: they do that in 3rd pos That is all that was said in the commentary. I said the following to Jon ->jbgood: openings on 7hcp by partnership agreement seems to be a HUM by definition but did not get a reply. After my comment in the commentary I had one spectator start a private conversation with me. This is the private conversation I had: Spectator: its third hand, a normal approach in Norway->Spectator: it seems to meet the definition of HUM if made by partnership agreement Spectator: :) Spectator: I never said it was the right thing to do, just that it is common to do in Norway :) ->Spectator: if that light is common i think it becomes a partnership agreement and then subject to regulation and HUMs are not allowed in this event as far as I can tell Spectator: it is on their CC, so opponents do know about it Spectator: even on HH cc's it tells, and even described on the first page of the CC under special notes, very light third hand openers Spectator: but you could tell that Helness dident realy care, as he X'ed :) ->Spectator: i cant see that on the convention card for this event Spectator: hm, that was strange, have to check my self now Spectator: true, must have been left out for some reason, maybe they have find out not to use them Spectator: and then Helgemo just tried a psych -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 03:16:48 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:16:48 +1300 Subject: [blml] Verdict? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810221814x227d9acap47f86722ccd7e28@mail.gmail.com> References: <48FFCA67.3020804@talktalk.net> <2a1c3a560810221814x227d9acap47f86722ccd7e28@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810221816o283a89b3u42afb8ced02f348b@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/23 Wayne Burrows : > 2008/10/23 Nigel Guthrie : >> Please would Wayne Burrows (or anybody else who witnessed the Helgemo >> incident) >> post the relevant BBO *chat log* >> > > I have very little more than what I have already published. > > cascade: Helgemo opens very light > jbgood: they do that in 3rd pos > > That is all that was said in the commentary. > > I said the following to Jon > ->jbgood: openings on 7hcp by partnership agreement seems to be a HUM > by definition > > but did not get a reply. > > After my comment in the commentary I had one spectator start a private > conversation with me. This is the private conversation I had: > My first comment to the spectator was incorrectly formated in the earlier post. Spectator: its third hand, a normal approach in Norway ->Spectator: it seems to meet the definition of HUM if made by partnership agreement Spectator: :) Spectator: I never said it was the right thing to do, just that it is common to do in Norway :) ->Spectator: if that light is common i think it becomes a partnership agreement and then subject to regulation and HUMs are not allowed in this event as far as I can tell Spectator: it is on their CC, so opponents do know about it Spectator: even on HH cc's it tells, and even described on the first page of the CC under special notes, very light third hand openers Spectator: but you could tell that Helness dident realy care, as he X'ed :) ->Spectator: i cant see that on the convention card for this event Spectator: hm, that was strange, have to check my self now Spectator: true, must have been left out for some reason, maybe they have find out not to use them Spectator: and then Helgemo just tried a psych -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 23 07:10:53 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:10:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00c101c934cd$bcc24c80$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > What's the pachydermic problem? > +=+ This correspondence should be trunk-ated. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Oct 23 09:31:33 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:31:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49002855.7010507@meadows.pair.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> In large events organised by the ACBL, they have to consider >>> the greatest good of the greatest number. ACBL little old >>> ladies may be disconcerted by a visiting Aussie opening a 1H >>> 0-7 hcp fert on 432 432 432 5432. > > Eric Landau: > >> I am not here advocating an "anything goes" approach to >> systems regulation. What I am advocating is adherence to the >> principle that systems regulations "must not restrict style >> and judgment, only method" [L40B2(a)]. >> >> I do not object to the ACBL banning me from using 1H to show >> 0-7 with any distribution. I would, however, object to the >> ACBL telling me that I may use 1H to show 0-7 with any >> distribution, but may not choose to make that call with >> QJ/QJ/Jxxx/Jxxxx. > > Richard Hills: > > Well, in my style and judgement AKQJ AKQJ AK KJ9 is a 0-7 hcp > any distribution 1H opening, since it holds zero defensive > tricks against the opponents' grand slam in clubs (Duke of > Cumberland hand). > > What's the problem? > > Why should there be a problem? If you judge that hand to be worth a 0-7 HCP fert, then it should (IMO) be your absolute right to do so. What was that about "opponents are entitled to a description of your agreements, not of your hand"? As long as you fully disclose your tendency to somewhat pessimistic hand assessments, then that should be perfectly fine. Brian. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 23 10:14:24 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:14:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49003260.40907@skynet.be> Some non-Asimov comments below! richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > I started reading Isaac Asimov when I was 12 years old, in > 1972, and continued reading all of his works available in > Australia until Isaac Asimov's untimely death from AIDS (via > an unscreened blood transfusion during heart surgery) in 1992. > As I turned 12 only in 1973, and my English wasn't good enough then (I read The Lord of the Rings at age 16 and nothing non-English since) Richard beat me by a few years. > I can highly recommend "Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humour", a > collection of funny jokes with erudite commentary. I believe > that it is currently out of print, but it is well worthwhile > trying to track down a second-hand copy. > I may have been wrong in my original comment - I haven't read that one yet. > Herman De Wael: > >>> I have read all of Asimov's fiction > > Richard Hills: > > Including his Lucky Starr novels, originally written under the > pseudonym of Paul French? Of course. > In his autobiography, Isaac Asimov > relates an amusing anecdote about Paul French. In a minor > 1950s science-fiction magazine, its book reviewer always flamed > Isaac Asimov's latest science-fiction novel. Apparently this > was a ploy to stoke controversy and boost sales, since the > editor of the minor science-fiction magazine offered Asimov > space for a right of reply, thus hoping for a flame war. > > Fortunately, when Asimov read the latest book review column, he > noticed the book reviewer praising Paul French's latest book. > So Asimov dryly wrote in his right of reply that the reviewer > did like Isaac Asimov's writings, provided that he was unaware > that Isaac Asimov had written them. > I must try that ruse sometimes. Maybe Richard will agree to something I post under an alias! > Herman De Wael: > >>> and quite a lot of his non-fiction. But not everything, of >>> course, not all 500+. >>> >>> And Jeff is right, it was meant as fun, and did not show up as >>> such. And it's irrelevant. > > John Probst flame: > >> It's this sort of leaping on journalistic hyperbole when it is >> evident that this is what it is which disturbs me in blml. Who >> gives a f**k whether Richard or Herman has read the more Asimov; >> the rhetorical construction conveyed the intent of the author >> rather than the literal message. Perhaps some cultures are too >> underdeveloped to comprehend that .... flame away.. > > Herman De Wael flame: > >>> So John, you have just been called a cheat by this antipodean. >>> No, not in so many words, but your actions are being compared >>> to mine, found worse, and you know the words Richard has in the >>> past called me. > > Richard Hills fire extinguisher: > > Deliberately and consistently breaking the rules to gain a score > advantage is cheating. But, in my opinion, Herman and John > _unintentionally_ break the rules (due to, in my opinion, Herman > and John misinterpreting the Laws - albeit in slightly different > ways), so Herman and John are definitely not cheats. That is, > definitely not cheats in actuality as well as definitely not > cheats in my opinion. > Of course, once John and I have been tought by the great Richard that we are wrong in our interpretation - if we still persist ... > Law 40C1 phrase: > > "...implicit understandings which then form part of the > partnership's methods..." > > Herman De Wael thought-provoking question: > >>> Even if I were to agree with that - where does it say in the >>> system regulation that these special kinds of implicit >>> understandings are also being regulated? > > Richard Hills asserting blml purpose and netiquette: > > Now this is one of the prime purposes of blml, subjecting varying > interpretations of Law to proving grounds via pertinent testing > of weak spots. > > It is true that Law 40C1 merely says that "the partnership's > methods" must be disclosed, and Law 40C1 does _not_ say that "the > partnership's methods" may be regulated. > > Ergo, if one looks at Law 40C1 in isolation, then the John Probst > half-and-half belief (his partner disclosing John's multi-1NT, > but John asserting that his multi-1NT is not regulable) is a > fully correct interpretation of Law. > Thank you. > But should Law 40C1 be read in isolation from the rest of Law 40? > Maybe not, but the ensueing regulation should certainly be read in isolation! > If not, can some part of Law 40C1 "partnership's methods" have a > one-to-one correspondence with Law 40B2(a) "special partnership > understandings", and hence be disallowable by the Regulating > Authority? > But my point was not (initially) that they are or are not disallowable. My point was that they are not disallowed! The language of the system regulation should make a difference between "system" and "psyche", and this includes psyches about which some partnership understanding (as to frequency) exists. I said "should" here. Maybe the literal text does not make such a difference. Funny actually - we have never yet looked at the WBF regulations in this thread! But my point is irrespective of the text of the regulation: if my H1H is banned by some regulation, then that regulation probably bans all psyches, and hence is an illegal regulation. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 23 10:16:47 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:16:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <490032EF.90401@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Abraham Lincoln, American emancipator (1809-1865): > > "When you have got an elephant* by the hind legs, and he is > trying to run away, it is best to let him run." > > Richard Hills: > > [* To avoid the confusion caused by the loaded semantics of > the word "psyche" (which has different colloquial meanings for > different blmlers), for the remainder of this posting I have > substituted the neutral word "elephant" and its synonyms > instead.] > > "A unilateral action by one partner is not necessarily a pre- > existing mutual explicit or implicit understanding of both > partners." > > Herman De Wael asked: > >> And have you any information that my H1H is not unilateral? >> I am quite certain that John's partners are much more tuned >> to the occasional elephant than mine. > > Richard Hills: > > On the evidence provided to blml by Herman and John, it seems > that in some of their partnerships their partner is unawares > of their elephantine tendencies, so that any loxodonta call in > those partnerships is fully legal under Law 40A3, Law 40C1 and > Law 40C2. > > But in one of John's other partnerships his partner is fully > aware of proboscidean possibilities of John's multi-1NT, going > so far as to alert and explain, hence John's 1NT ***in that > particular partnership*** may or may not be legal, depending > on what Regulating Authority rules have been created pursuant > to Law 40B2(a) and 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." > > What's the pachydermic problem? > The problem is that I don't like hiding behind the particular non-knowledge of my partner's. I prefer to explain my tendencies to my opponents, not my partners. And as TD, I prefer not to need to believe a partner who says "I know nothing". It's difficult enough as it is to keep track of the psyches of a single player, let alone about who his partner was at the time. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 23 13:51:12 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:51:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49003260.40907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003601c93505$a8445950$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> > I said "should" here. Maybe the literal text does not make such a > difference. Funny actually - we have never yet looked at the WBF > regulations in this thread! > But my point is irrespective of the text of the regulation: if my H1H is > banned by some regulation, then that regulation probably bans all > psyches, and hence is an illegal regulation. > +=+ Ah! Many moons ago I pointed to the WBF Appendix 4. I saw no comment on what that said. Nor do I necessarily say it bans Herman's reputed practice - I think it probably does not, but calls for disclosure. Herman's particular elephant is of a particular species - white perhaps, or short memoried. Something rather rare and exotic for sure .... and unwilling to go away. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 23 14:58:56 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:58:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003601c93505$a8445950$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <49003260.40907@skynet.be> <003601c93505$a8445950$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000301c9350f$1c78a520$5569ef60$@com> [GE] Ah! Many moons ago I pointed to the WBF Appendix 4. I saw no comment on what that said. [DALB] If by the WBF Appendix 4, Grattan means this: Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. then I drew attention to it recently and asked why it did not apply in Flanders. I received a private message from Richard Hills to the effect that he had also remarked on the contents of Appendix 4, and argued that it was, as far as I remember (I do not have his message on this computer) an attempt by the WBF to permit certain HUMs without actually appearing to do so. I did not understand this, since it seems to me instead to be a perfectly sensible policy for allowing roughly the amount of psychic bidding one wants to allow, and stipulating the required levels of disclosure. It is of course illegal, but as Mr Burn suggested some time ago, so is everything else. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 23 15:04:10 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:04:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20081023085121.01e03b70@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <48FD8A6D.7050004@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0810212034r54bec69cvd65346e02b56dcf7@mail.gmail.com> <003701c93410$c22efc30$0202a8c0@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20081023085121.01e03b70@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <5F7315BD-2254-4EB4-ADC2-5F533FA7F8EB@starpower.net> On Oct 22, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > If my partner psyched 3 times in the last session, I would be alerting > his every bid in the next. If you were playing in an ACBL event, you might not get to do that. Unless there's been a change in policy of which I'm unaware, three psychs during one session are to be considered as presumptive evidence of a deliberate attempt to "disrupt the contest". It would have been up to you and your partner make the case for why you shouldn't be ejected. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 23 15:24:20 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:24:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2008, at 8:35 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> I do not object to the ACBL banning me from using 1H to show >> 0-7 with any distribution. I would, however, object to the >> ACBL telling me that I may use 1H to show 0-7 with any >> distribution, but may not choose to make that call with >> QJ/QJ/Jxxx/Jxxxx. > > Richard Hills: > > Well, in my style and judgement AKQJ AKQJ AK KJ9 is a 0-7 hcp > any distribution 1H opening, since it holds zero defensive > tricks against the opponents' grand slam in clubs (Duke of > Cumberland hand). > > What's the problem? The conflation of deviations based on "style and judgment" with (unexepected) "deliberate and gross misstatement[s]", perhaps? Of course, since, if TFLB is to be taken at face value, neither may be prohibited (L40A3, L40B2(a), L40C1), perhaps there's no problem after all. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 23 15:58:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:58:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] Is this a HUM? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <490082FD.5010503@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 22, 2008, at 8:35 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > >> Eric Landau: >> >> >>> I do not object to the ACBL banning me from using 1H to show >>> 0-7 with any distribution. I would, however, object to the >>> ACBL telling me that I may use 1H to show 0-7 with any >>> distribution, but may not choose to make that call with >>> QJ/QJ/Jxxx/Jxxxx. >>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Well, in my style and judgement AKQJ AKQJ AK KJ9 is a 0-7 hcp >> any distribution 1H opening, since it holds zero defensive >> tricks against the opponents' grand slam in clubs (Duke of >> Cumberland hand). >> >> What's the problem? >> The problem, ISTM, is that you'll be allowed to make occasinal pessimistic evaluations, especially if specified on your CC, but you'll be disallowed to make the occasional optimistic evaluation that KJ109 - A10 - J1098 - 1098 is a 10-count, and opening it will be penalized /per se/ for failure to comply by L/18. Also, there is a general tendency to assume that when a player undergrades an 18-count to a 15-17 NT, it's his concern, but when a player upgrades a 14-count to a 15-17 NT, there is, at best, MI, and at worst, a CPU. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 23 23:14:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:14:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn, August 9th 2008: [snip] >By and large, if a director has ruled on the basis of facts >that he has tried to establish close to the time the incident >occurred, a committee should incline to rely on what the >director has determined. [snip] >We might have been wrong. But there is no legal or meta-legal >principle involved here. Richard Hills, August 11th 2008: The legal principle is in the WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of evidence presented." The meta-legal question is whether an Appeals Committee is entitled to over-rule the Director when the basis of the appeal is not the Director having an incomplete collection of (conflicting) evidence, but is rather the Director having a complete collection of (conflicting) evidence which was then _incorrectly evaluated_ by the Director. * * * 2007 EBL Appeals, number 17 Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Grattan Endicott (England), PO Sundelin (Sweden) Contract: Two Spades, played by North Play: Declarer made 7 out of 11 tricks, these are the final two cards, with dummy [South] on play: J --- --- Q --- 9 --- T --- --- 98 --- --- --- 93 --- Result: 9 tricks, NS +140 (after the Director's ruling) The Facts: The D3 and C8 were played, North and East still having to play to trick 12. North [declarer] called the Director, claiming that East had played the H10 after he had played the CQ. The Director: Asked all four players (with the screen down) what they had seen: East said that North had hesitated, and he had not seen which card he had played. He had then shown both his cards. North said that he had put the CQ on the table, and that East had put the HT on the table. South said that East had put the HT on the table and then taken it back. West said that both North and East had been waving their two cards in the air. Based on these versions, the Director decided that the CQ and HT had been played. Ruling: 9 tricks to North/South Relevant Laws: Law 45C1 East/West appealed. Present: All players The Players: East explained that declarer had played slowly, and that they were already one or two minutes over time. North played the diamond from the table and hesitated with the two cards in his hand. East then showed both cards and pointed to his S9. He said North had never put a card on the table, but showing both cards. East found that a player trying to take tricks like that destroys bridge. North said East's story was fiction. He had put the CQ on the table, and East had put the HT on the table. East did not point to anything, nor did he say anything. North thought East had made a mistake and was trying to get out of it. South confirmed North's version of events. The Committee: Had great difficulty in deciding which of the two versions, totally contradictory, to believe. The Director was recalled and asked why he had ruled in favour of North/South. Basically this was because North's and South's stories coincided, whereas East's and West's stories were slightly different. West had not mentioned his partner pointing at the SJ. In the end, the Committee decided to award the score that best resembled the bridge result, not least because all four players at the table knew that East had to make his S9. The Committee's decision: Director's ruling adjusted: 8 tricks to North/South Deposit: Returned Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 23 16:54:19 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:54:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49003260.40907@skynet.be><003601c93505$a8445950$0202a8c0@Mildred> <000301c9350f$1c78a520$5569ef60$@com> Message-ID: <000201c9356c$93077790$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Herman/Asimov [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > I did not understand this, since it seems to me instead to be a perfectly sensible policy for allowing roughly the amount of psychic bidding one wants to allow, and stipulating the required levels of disclosure. It is of course illegal, but as Mr Burn suggested some time ago, so is everything else. > ______________________________________________ +=+ The argument that it is 'illegal' depends upon the view taken of Law 40B1(a). If declared a special partnership understanding this understanding may be allowed, disallowed, or allowed conditionally as 40B2(a) provides. I believe that any understanding that is regulated under 40B2(a) is ipso facto a special partnership understanding, although I prefer to see a statement to this effect in the system regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 24 08:31:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:31:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <48FEE7C9.5030006@skynet.be> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >>Let p be your probability that partner would psych in the >>situation under study. >> >>It is the probability that you hold without looking at >>your hand --- just based on the auction so far. Let q be >>the opponent's probability [snip] >>Often people say that p must be zero, or it is a CPU. >>Apparently Richard is arguing this. Richard Hills: Yes and no. If one has a Law 40A1(a) pre-existing mutual partnership understanding that one's partner uses a multi- 1NT overcall which is mostly 15-17 hcp but is sometimes comical with a weighting towards heartily comical, then for the weighted heartily comical aspects p equals zero. For a Law 40C1 new implicit partnership understanding possibly (or possibly not) created by many (or not created by few) "repeated deviations" (for example "repeatedly deviating" with a pass when system calls for a weighted heartily comical 1NT overcall instead), then p does _not_ equal zero but equals 'u' instead. See Grattan Endicott's comment below. Note: The opposite of a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) is not a psyche, but instead a revealed partnership understanding (RPU). Since a psyche is a deliberate and gross misstatement of partnership methods, and since a misbid is an unintentional and gross mistatement of partnership methods, neither a true psyche nor a true misbid can be defined as a partnership understanding. Burn, De Wael, Frick, Fusselman and Probst might suggest that this Note is "petitio principii" - begging the question - since those five gentleman have differing (but different) views on this topic, ranging from Burn's: "It is of course illegal, but as Mr Burn suggested some time ago, so is everything else." to De Wael's: "Any psyche is subject to a piece of partnership understanding" and to Fusselman's: >>But that is wrong thinking. You only need to make sure that >>p <= q. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ This is an incomplete account of the matter, I suggest. >There is a value for p, more than 0% and less than 100%, that >we may call 'u'. It demarcates the boundary which, if >overstepped, calls for disclosure as part of the partnership's >methods. The relationship of u to q is immaterial. Value u is >a product of partnership experience or mutual awareness. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Maybe this analogy will pertinently elucidate Grattan's thesis. In 1965 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were scientists working for "Ma" Bell, the American telephone monopoly, on the project of trying to make telephone calls quieter. As part of their investigations they were measuring radio emissions from the ring of gas surrounding the Milky Way and working with the first Telstar communication satellite. Since they wanted to reduce noisy static in long-distance phone calls, they were testing Ma Bell's long-distance circuits by sending and receiving phone calls with a radio telescope. But they could not get rid of all the background static, which their analysis showed seemed to come uniformly from all parts of the sky. Of course, the eventual solution to their problem was simple. Their radio telescope was covered uniformly with "a white dielectric material" - pigeon droppings! "When someone says 'of course' that means that that proposition is highly debatable." Since Penzias and Wilson were scientists, they did not take the lazy route of using an "of course" argument. (Unlike some blmlers who use lazy arguments which boil down to, "Of course interpretation X must be true, otherwise I can never take my preferred action Y".) So Penzias and Wilson undertook pigeon poo mucky maintenance, scraping all of the white dielectric material off their radio telescope - thus winning the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978! Yes, the eventual solution to their problem was indeed simple. Their radio telescope had detected the 2.735 degrees Kelvin background radiation residue from the Big Bang at the start of the universe (not at the end of pigeons). Likewise, in this auction: Dealer LHO 1S 3C (1) (1) Announced methods is a Ghestem overcall, with the alleged partnership understanding of showing 5/5 in the red suits. There is uniform background radiation, more than 0.000%, but not necessarily more than 2.735%, that LHO has forgotten the Ghestem convention and is perhaps pre-empting with long clubs. Three Grattanical possibilities: (a) The LHO-RHO partnership has a concealed mutual implicit understanding to play the two-way Metsehg convention. The only ten times LHO has had a chance to bid 3C previously in the new LHO-RHO partnership, LHO has randomly remembered correctly five times, but has randomly bid 3C with long clubs the other five times. 50.000% is more than a Grattanical 'u' of say 2.735%. (b) The LHO-RHO partnership has a revealed mutual explicit understanding to play the one-way Ghestem convention, The only one hundred times LHO has had a chance to bid 3C previously in the Auld Lang Syne partnership, LHO has randomly remembered correctly ninety-nine times, but has randomly bid 3C with long clubs the other one time. 1.000% is less than a Grattanical 'u' of say 2.735%. (c) RHO plays Ghestem with another partner, but LHO refuses to play such a silly convention. Misinformation, 'u' does not apply. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Fri Oct 24 11:05:58 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:05:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49018FF6.70306@skynet.be> I admire the way Richard presents his arguments and comes up with interesting analogies. Analogies that aren't always to the point, alas. Many comments interjected: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman: > > [snip] > >>> Let p be your probability that partner would psych in the >>> situation under study. >>> >>> It is the probability that you hold without looking at your hand >>> --- just based on the auction so far. Let q be the opponent's >>> probability > > [snip] > >>> Often people say that p must be zero, or it is a CPU. Apparently >>> Richard is arguing this. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and no. If one has a Law 40A1(a) pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding that one's partner uses a multi- 1NT overcall which is > mostly 15-17 hcp but is sometimes comical with a weighting towards > heartily comical, then for the weighted heartily comical aspects p > equals zero. > Richard falls into the same trap again and again. He equates a deviation with a two-way system. Of course there is no longer any deviation from that two-way system any more. Here, Richard concludes that p must equal zero then. But that means he forgets the fact that even when considering it as a two-way system, the parameter p is an interesting piece of information that the opponents are required to know. > For a Law 40C1 new implicit partnership understanding possibly (or > possibly not) created by many (or not created by few) "repeated > deviations" (for example "repeatedly deviating" with a pass when > system calls for a weighted heartily comical 1NT overcall instead), > then p does _not_ equal zero but equals 'u' instead. See Grattan > Endicott's comment below. > > Note: The opposite of a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) is > not a psyche, but instead a revealed partnership understanding (RPU). > Since a psyche is a deliberate and gross misstatement of partnership > methods, and since a misbid is an unintentional and gross mistatement > of partnership methods, neither a true psyche nor a true misbid can > be defined as a partnership understanding. > Again, Richard refuses to see that even true psyches and true misbids come with their values of p, non-zero. That value could be known to partner and should be revealed to opponents. If Richard insists on calling any bid which has a non-zero value of p a partnership understanding, and refuses to allow for psyches and misbids to be also partnership understandings, then Richard is simply reducing the class of things he keeps calling misbids and psyches, to an empty class. Now, I don't mind that Richard calls these things PU, I am enclined to do so myself, and the laws seem to indicate that we should; But then we should realise that psyches and misbids fall within the more-encompassing class of PUs. And it also means that there is something else, call it "system", against which psyches and misbids are judged as presenting a "gross misstatement". > Burn, De Wael, Frick, Fusselman and Probst might suggest that this > Note is "petitio principii" - begging the question - since those five > gentleman have differing (but different) views on this topic, ranging > from Burn's: > > "It is of course illegal, but as Mr Burn suggested some time ago, so > is everything else." > > to De Wael's: > > "Any psyche is subject to a piece of partnership understanding" > > and to Fusselman's: > >>> But that is wrong thinking. You only need to make sure that p <= >>> q. > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ This is an incomplete account of the matter, I suggest. There >> is a value for p, more than 0% and less than 100%, that we may call >> 'u'. It demarcates the boundary which, if overstepped, calls for >> disclosure as part of the partnership's methods. The relationship >> of u to q is immaterial. Value u is a product of partnership >> experience or mutual awareness. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Maybe this analogy will pertinently elucidate Grattan's thesis. > [quite interesting piece of well-known science history snipped] > > Likewise, in this auction: > > Dealer LHO 1S 3C (1) > > (1) Announced methods is a Ghestem overcall, with the alleged > partnership understanding of showing 5/5 in the red suits. > > There is uniform background radiation, more than 0.000%, but not > necessarily more than 2.735%, that LHO has forgotten the Ghestem > convention and is perhaps pre-empting with long clubs. > > Three Grattanical possibilities: > > (a) The LHO-RHO partnership has a concealed mutual implicit > understanding to play the two-way Metsehg convention. The only ten > times LHO has had a chance to bid 3C previously in the new LHO-RHO > partnership, LHO has randomly remembered correctly five times, but > has randomly bid 3C with long clubs the other five times. 50.000% is > more than a Grattanical 'u' of say 2.735%. > The system is Ghestem, the misbid is true, and p is 50%. > (b) The LHO-RHO partnership has a revealed mutual explicit > understanding to play the one-way Ghestem convention, The only one > hundred times LHO has had a chance to bid 3C previously in the Auld > Lang Syne partnership, LHO has randomly remembered correctly > ninety-nine times, but has randomly bid 3C with long clubs the other > one time. 1.000% is less than a Grattanical 'u' of say 2.735%. > The system is Ghestem, the misbid is true, and p is 1%. There is no fundamental difference between the two cases. In both, the opponents are entitled to the system, and to the value of p. In the second case, the value of p is sufficiently low to permit the non-telling of it as falling under General Bridge Knowledge. In the first case, the value of p is too high to permit such non-telling, and we have a case of MI. Not as to the exact nature of the hand, but to the frequency of forgetting. > (c) RHO plays Ghestem with another partner, but LHO refuses to play > such a silly convention. Misinformation, 'u' does not apply. > The system is not Ghestem (presumably), the misbid is false. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 24 12:50:59 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:50:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49018FF6.70306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c935c6$7b57fb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >I admire the way Richard presents his arguments and comes up with > interesting analogies. Analogies that aren't always to the point, alas. > > Many comments interjected: > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Jerry Fusselman: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Let p be your probability that partner would psych in the >>>> situation under study. >>>> >>>> It is the probability that you hold without looking at your hand >>>> --- just based on the auction so far. Let q be the opponent's >>>> probability >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Often people say that p must be zero, or it is a CPU. Apparently >>>> Richard is arguing this. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Yes and no. If one has a Law 40A1(a) pre-existing mutual partnership >> understanding that one's partner uses a multi- 1NT overcall which is >> mostly 15-17 hcp but is sometimes comical with a weighting towards >> heartily comical, then for the weighted heartily comical aspects p >> equals zero. >> > > Richard falls into the same trap again and again. He equates a deviation > with a two-way system. Of course there is no longer any deviation from > that two-way system any more. > Here, Richard concludes that p must equal zero then. But that means he > forgets the fact that even when considering it as a two-way system, the > parameter p is an interesting piece of information that the opponents > are required to know. > >> For a Law 40C1 new implicit partnership understanding possibly (or >> possibly not) created by many (or not created by few) "repeated >> deviations" (for example "repeatedly deviating" with a pass when >> system calls for a weighted heartily comical 1NT overcall instead), >> then p does _not_ equal zero but equals 'u' instead. See Grattan >> Endicott's comment below. >> >> Note: The opposite of a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) is >> not a psyche, but instead a revealed partnership understanding (RPU). >> Since a psyche is a deliberate and gross misstatement of partnership >> methods, and since a misbid is an unintentional and gross mistatement >> of partnership methods, neither a true psyche nor a true misbid can >> be defined as a partnership understanding. >> > > Again, Richard refuses to see that even true psyches and true misbids > come with their values of p, non-zero. That value could be known to > partner and should be revealed to opponents. If Richard insists on > calling any bid which has a non-zero value of p a partnership > understanding, and refuses to allow for psyches and misbids to be also > partnership understandings, then Richard is simply reducing the class of > things he keeps calling misbids and psyches, to an empty class. > > Now, I don't mind that Richard calls these things PU, I am enclined to > do so myself, and the laws seem to indicate that we should; But then we > should realise that psyches and misbids fall within the > more-encompassing class of PUs. > > And it also means that there is something else, call it "system", > against which psyches and misbids are judged as presenting a "gross > misstatement". > >> Burn, De Wael, Frick, Fusselman and Probst might suggest that this >> Note is "petitio principii" - begging the question - since those five >> gentleman have differing (but different) views on this topic, ranging >> from Burn's: >> >> "It is of course illegal, but as Mr Burn suggested some time ago, so >> is everything else." >> >> to De Wael's: >> >> "Any psyche is subject to a piece of partnership understanding" >> >> and to Fusselman's: >> >>>> But that is wrong thinking. You only need to make sure that p <= >>>> q. >> >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>> +=+ This is an incomplete account of the matter, I suggest. There >>> is a value for p, more than 0% and less than 100%, that we may call >>> 'u'. It demarcates the boundary which, if overstepped, calls for >>> disclosure as part of the partnership's methods. The relationship >>> of u to q is immaterial. Value u is a product of partnership >>> experience or mutual awareness. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Maybe this analogy will pertinently elucidate Grattan's thesis. >> > > [quite interesting piece of well-known science history snipped] > >> >> Likewise, in this auction: >> >> Dealer LHO 1S 3C (1) >> >> (1) Announced methods is a Ghestem overcall, with the alleged >> partnership understanding of showing 5/5 in the red suits. >> >> There is uniform background radiation, more than 0.000%, but not >> necessarily more than 2.735%, that LHO has forgotten the Ghestem >> convention and is perhaps pre-empting with long clubs. >> >> Three Grattanical possibilities: >> >> (a) The LHO-RHO partnership has a concealed mutual implicit >> understanding to play the two-way Metsehg convention. The only ten >> times LHO has had a chance to bid 3C previously in the new LHO-RHO >> partnership, LHO has randomly remembered correctly five times, but >> has randomly bid 3C with long clubs the other five times. 50.000% is >> more than a Grattanical 'u' of say 2.735%. >> > > The system is Ghestem, the misbid is true, and p is 50%. > >> (b) The LHO-RHO partnership has a revealed mutual explicit >> understanding to play the one-way Ghestem convention, The only one >> hundred times LHO has had a chance to bid 3C previously in the Auld >> Lang Syne partnership, LHO has randomly remembered correctly >> ninety-nine times, but has randomly bid 3C with long clubs the other >> one time. 1.000% is less than a Grattanical 'u' of say 2.735%. >> > > The system is Ghestem, the misbid is true, and p is 1%. > > There is no fundamental difference between the two cases. In both, the > opponents are entitled to the system, and to the value of p. In the > second case, the value of p is sufficiently low to permit the > non-telling of it as falling under General Bridge Knowledge. In the > first case, the value of p is too high to permit such non-telling, and > we have a case of MI. Not as to the exact nature of the hand, but to the > frequency of forgetting. > >> (c) RHO plays Ghestem with another partner, but LHO refuses to play >> such a silly convention. Misinformation, 'u' does not apply. >> > > The system is not Ghestem (presumably), the misbid is false. > >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 > > Herman. > +=+ Guerre bacteriologique. +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 24 13:17:04 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:17:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4901AEB0.70403@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > The legal principle is in the WBF Code of Practice, page 6: > > "The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume > initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is > overturned only on the basis of evidence presented." > AG : doesn't it conflict with the suggestion made to TDs, in UI cases, to be stern on the OS to avoid losing time and let the AC disentangle the problem if needed ? From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 24 13:30:28 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:30:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c935c6$7b57fb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <49018FF6.70306@skynet.be> <000a01c935c6$7b57fb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4901B1D4.1060906@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: >> > +=+ Guerre bacteriologique. +=+ > You would do better, Grattan, to take some interest. This is important. It identifies a fundamental difference of opinion, and I imagine both Richard and myself are interested in who has the correct one. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 24 14:12:07 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49018FF6.70306@skynet.be><000a01c935c6$7b57fb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> <4901B1D4.1060906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901c935d1$cda5c540$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan wrote: >>> >> +=+ Guerre bacteriologique. +=+ >> > > You would do better, Grattan, to take some interest. > This is important. > It identifies a fundamental difference of opinion, and I imagine both > Richard and myself are interested in who has the correct one. > > Herman. > +=+ To be rebuked by Herman. Ah, quel hommage inattendu.... I will study the bacteria - but only comment if I have something to say. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 24 14:40:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:40:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c935d1$cda5c540$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <49018FF6.70306@skynet.be><000a01c935c6$7b57fb10$0202a8c0@Mildred> <4901B1D4.1060906@skynet.be> <001901c935d1$cda5c540$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4901C229.6040804@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Let us then be up and doing, > With a heart for any fate, > Still achieving, still pursuing, > Learn to labour and to wait." > [H.W. Longfellow] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:30 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> Grattan wrote: >> >>> +=+ Guerre bacteriologique. +=+ >>> >>> >> You would do better, Grattan, to take some interest. >> This is important. >> It identifies a fundamental difference of opinion, and I imagine both >> Richard and myself are interested in who has the correct one. >> >> Herman. >> >> > +=+ To be rebuked by Herman. Ah, quel hommage inattendu.... > I will study the bacteria From imbeciles to bacilli ? (yes, the former is an antonym of the latter) From adam at tameware.com Fri Oct 24 17:51:20 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:51:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ Cases with Commentary In-Reply-To: <694eadd40810240849g2bfac9cq11efca9978e6711e@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40810240849g2bfac9cq11efca9978e6711e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40810240851of7ae1eakd3df9d7ffc29c7f6@mail.gmail.com> Comments on the NABC+ cases from Las Vegas are now posted at http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/LasVegas2008.html -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sun Oct 26 04:43:23 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:43:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] My comments on the Las Vegas Non-NABC+ cases Message-ID: <694eadd40810252043x41e8fd72h7d934f41887d53f5@mail.gmail.com> The cases are posted here: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/LasVegas2008.html Here are my draft comments. Counter-comments and corrections are welcome, as always. Please start a new thread with the case number in the subject. 1. This appeal had no merit. 2. West's testimony shows a profound misunderstanding of the laws. It doesn't matter why he hesitated, or whether his hand somehow warranted a hesitation. The fact that he did hesitate, for whatever reason, severely restricts his partner's options. An AWMW might have helped educate EW ? I doubt anything else would have an effect. Their appeal had not a shred of merit. 3. A closer decision than it might seem. "Preemptive" is not a synonym for "weak," and were 2d a limit raise or better East might still have chosen 3d. If the actual agreement were "less than a limit raise" I'd let the score stand. Since the actual agreement seems to have been "less than a game force" I agree with the TD and Panel's rulings. 4. Pass seems logical enough to me. As Edgar Kaplan put it on a different case, "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often." In fact pass was right on this deal, had West found a spade lead. A poll of two players is not enough to establish that there is no logical alternative to an action. One need not restrict the poll to 5C bidders. Most of us can put ourselves in the place of someone who made a different call than we would have. 5. The panel's decision puzzles me. It seems likely that a player who fumbles with the "Pass" card before doubling is unsure whether double is the best call. Is the fumble consistent with a holding that includes, say, S KQJ? The panel's rules may preclude them from exercising bridge judgment directly, but they have the option of continuing to consult with players until they get an answer that makes sense. I would adjust the EW score to +300 and leave NS with ?650, a score they earned through their egregiously poor defense. 6. The AWMW was appropriate. 7. How did the slow 5H bid suggest 6H? The wording of law 16 suggests that the TD must demonstrate why a call is suggested ? he did not do so. I agree with the Panel's ruling. 8. Nice work by the Panel, taking North at his word when he claimed he would double 2H for a heart lead. The AWMW was well deserved. 9. Good work all around. 10. We should focus our attention on the losing alternative. Per the quote in my comments on case 4, would a club lead have been obviously foolish, an egregious error, absurd? No, a club would be right quite often. Looking at it this way it's easy to see that the case has no merit. Did NS really think they should be allowed to ask an unnecessary question about a bid and then profit through the lead of that suit? They're lucky to remain anonymous. This appeal had no merit ? see my comments on Non-NABC+ case 20. 11. I don't understand the basis for the TD's ruling, in particular why it was considered "two to one." I understand and agree with the basis for the panel's ruling. Luckily both rulings were the same. 12. The facts of the case are not clear to me, and were they clear I expect I'd find the whole thing depressing. No comment. 13. South volunteered an explanation when none was requested? That's a violation of procedure that ought to be well understood by a player with 800 MPs. It deserved a procedural penalty. Besides that I agree with the rulings. 14. It surprises me that the ACBL allows a 1C opening to show 4S in this event. As for the appeal, it had not a shred of merit. I'd have adjusted the score and assessed a PP against EW for fragrant use of UI. 15. This case is impossible to decide fairly because of the ACBL's untenable policy regarding the use of the Stop card. I've posted a proposal to remedy the situation on my web site: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html 16. A well deserved AWMW. I'm surprised that a Panel can consist of a single member. Was this necessary due the nature of the event, a compact KO? 17. The ruling seems reasonable, though the write-up ought to state whether the appeal was found to have merit. I don't understand why the panel was comprised of a single member. 18. Good work by the panel to correct an injustice. 19. The discussion of accusations of unethical behavior does not belong here. It's not even an issue of whether South was unconsciously influenced by the UI. As Michael Rosenberg has pointed out, the laws *require* South to be influenced by the UI! She must go out of her way to avoid an action that could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI, and she can do so only if she's aware of the UI and figures out what, if anything, it suggests. When South fails in her responsibility to do so we adjust the score, but there is not even a hint that the reason for doing so is some ethical failing. As for the ruling, South explained that her second choice was the diamond queen, so the TD's ruling of EW +660 looks right to me. This appeal had no merit. 20. The fact that some players bid with no UI does not give this appeal merit. North had UI that prohibited him from bidding when Pass would have been logical, and Pass was clearly logical. 21. I see no UI here. Just as Major Suit Stayman asks for a 4-card major but does not promise both majors, Minor Suit Stayman asks for a 4-card minor but does not promise both minors. North's Pass was an eloquent indication that South could hold a diamond signoff. I prefer the TD's ruling to the Panel's. 22. I wouldn't pass 4H with the South hand. I would cue-bid 4S, or perhaps just jump to slam. If the opponents don't guess to lead a diamond I can make a grand slam opposite AKxxxxx of hearts and out. If South cues 4S North will surely try 5D. Even after a pass of 4H and a double by West South would have no reason to pull. He should consider a redouble since he might be missing a slam, but reject it due to the risk of driving EW into Spades. I'd adjust the score for both sides to NS down a bazillion in 6H doubled, and in addition assess a PP against NS for blatant use of UI. South seems to consider the Alert system as a device to help keep him from suffering the deserved results of forgetting his system. I disagree with the TD's ruling and I find the Panel's ruling unfathomable. Had an AC made a ruling like that we'd be hearing more calls to dismantle the AC system. 23. I agree with the TD and Panel rulings. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 07:58:46 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:58:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 1 Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810252358v63de9678s3bfd073ca9a034a6@mail.gmail.com> Adam Wildavsky: > > 1. This appeal had no merit. > Agreed. Polisher must have missed that 4SF (4th suit forcing) was on their convention card. I would like to know whether it was 4SF to game or one round. Suppose that it was to game. What seems to be missing from everyone's analysis is the consideration of West's UI due to East's failure to alert. As so often happens at the table, when a forcing bid is known to have been misunderstood through UI, the UI possessor's next action is to illegally bang out game or slam, knowing that a lower bid might be passed or otherwise misinterpreted. I would ask West why 4SF, then the jump to game. After 4SF, why not 3H instead of 4H to give partner an option to cue bid for slam? Is it because partner bid 2S and showed a minimum? West is not allowed to know that. For example, if West-East play last train, then 3H is the only option, and West deserves a big PP for blatant use of UI. Another Polisner comment I don't understand is "Remember, this is a MI case and not a UI case." What makes it so? A better slogan is, "Remember, in an MI case, don't ignore UI." Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 08:04:06 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 02:04:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 1 Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810260004l77e588bfj894f705c0c36dfa1@mail.gmail.com> Adam Wildavsky: > > 1. Looks right to me. > Polisher must have missed that 4SF (4th suit forcing) was on their convention card. I would like to know whether it was 4SF to game or one round. Suppose that it was to game. What seems to be missing from everyone's analysis is the consideration of West's UI due to East's failure to alert. As so often happens at the table, when a forcing bid is known to have been misunderstood through UI, the UI possessor's next action is to illegally bang out game or slam, knowing that a lower bid might be passed or otherwise misinterpreted. I would ask West why 4SF, then the jump to game. After 4SF, why not 3H instead of 4H to give partner an option to cue bid for slam? Is it because partner bid 2S and showed a minimum? West is not allowed to know that. For example, if West-East play last train, then 3H is the only option, and West deserves a big PP for blatant use of UI. Another Polisner comment I don't understand is "Remember, this is a MI case and not a UI case." What makes it so? A better slogan is, "Remember, in an MI case, don't ignore UI." Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 08:08:37 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 02:08:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 1 In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810252358v63de9678s3bfd073ca9a034a6@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0810252358v63de9678s3bfd073ca9a034a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810260008q71deaf71tddd081a42719b37b@mail.gmail.com> I got the title wrong. The case I was writing about is not the NON---it the the NABC+ case 1. Please unsend this thread. On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Adam Wildavsky: >> >> 1. This appeal had no merit. >> > > Agreed. Adam's comment quoted above is for the Non-NABC+; I apologize, Adam, for my mixup. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 09:47:06 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 03:47:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 1 In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810260008q71deaf71tddd081a42719b37b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0810252358v63de9678s3bfd073ca9a034a6@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0810260008q71deaf71tddd081a42719b37b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810260147x41926665w60dad0c387acaa25@mail.gmail.com> Well, now I do have a thought or two about Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 1. I agree with Adam that the appeal has no merit. Did they poll the two players that tried the five level and ask whether they would give serious consideration to passing? If they would seriously consider passing, then it seems a slam-dunk to me that the appeal has no merit. Also, consider this: If East had passed quickly over 4S, would North-South have a case that West should have pushed to the 5 level? I think not, which proves to me that the appeal has no merit. In The Decision, I like the language, "The panel judged pass to be a LA to the call chosen by West, which was demonstrably suggested by the BIT." I like the phrase "was demonstrably suggested." I understand it fairly well, I think. Later in The Decision, they muddled it up, in my view, with this: "West chose from among logical alternatives one that could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI." "Could have been demonstrably suggested"---what does that mean? Either it is demonstrable or not. How do "could have been demonstrable" and "was demonstrable" differ? But the language at the end of Law 16B1(a) is "West chose from among logical alternatives one that could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI." I think the law would be clearer if "was" replaces "could have been." Otherwise, I am afraid of rulings accidentally appearing where I pass and double could have been suggested, but if I double, then pass could have been suggested. Would anyone like to 'splain the reason for the language that appears in the law? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 19:36:54 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:36:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 14 Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810261136g54f06e7fl649d8e826d2d9c63@mail.gmail.com> Adam Wildavsky: > > 14. It surprises me that the ACBL allows a 1C opening to show 4S in > this event. As for the appeal, it had not a shred of merit. I'd have > adjusted the score and assessed a PP against EW for fragrant use of > UI. > I agree with Adam. And it surprised me as well that 1C showing four spades was allowed, but I think I know why. One could define balancing as "making a call in position where passing would end the auction." GCC explicitly allows conventional calls when balancing. Not everyone calls fourth-seat actions balancing, but it seems reasonable to me. It seems clear from the case that they only use 1C to show four spades for fourth-seat openers, for one of the pair forgot the agreement. Therefore, it may well be legal even under GCC. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 26 22:14:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:14:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] David Burn (was Cincinnatus) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4901AEB0.70403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The legal principle is in the WBF Code of Practice, page 6: >> >>"The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume >>initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is >>overturned only on the basis of evidence presented." Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : doesn't it conflict with the suggestion made to TDs, in UI >cases, to be stern on the OS to avoid losing time and let the >AC disentangle the problem if needed ? Richard Hills: Yes. Yes. Yes. Merely because the indubitably great Edgar Kaplan made a 1980s suggestion that the TD should automatically rule harshly against the (alleged) offending side does not imply that Pope Kaplan has made an "ex cathedra" infallible statement which is now dogma for all eternity. See also the legal principle laid down in the preceding paragraph of the WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in a judgemental matter, having consulted appropriately, that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. The desire is that the Director shall not rule automatically in favour of the non- offending side when he is in no doubt that a true judgement requires him to rule otherwise." And the new instructions to the Director under the new Law 12B1: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b)." 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 Sun Oct 26 23:27:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:27:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c935d1$cda5c540$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ To be rebuked by Herman. Ah, quel hommage inattendu.... I will study the bacteria - but only comment if I have something to say. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: I of course comment if I have nothing to say. See below. The satirical British magazine "Private Eye" used to have a feature named "Pedants' Corner". This provoked extensive correspondence from two tribes of pedants, one tribe arguing for "Pedant's Corner", the other tribe arguing that the original placement of the apostrophe was correct. So "Private Eye" now runs an entirely different feature with an entirely different name - "Pedantry Corner". Likewise, the Definition of Psychic Call states that it is "a deliberate and gross misstatement", but a misstatement of what? There are (at least) four entirely different interpretations provoking extensive correspondence to blml. A misstatement of: (a) Announced partnership understanding - the populist interpretation - that is, to be a psyche it must be undisclosed and may or may not be an actual partnership understanding, or (b) Fielded partnership understanding - the apparent EBU interpretation - that is, an illegal concealed partnership understanding metamorphoses into a legal psyche if the CPUer's partner then chooses to take entirely normal non-fielding actions, or (c) Normal partnership understanding - the WBF Systems / Probst interpretation - that is, to be a psyche it must be abnormal, and may or may not be an actual partnership understanding, but must be disclosed if actually a partnership understanding, or (d) Actual partnership understanding - the plural* pedants' interpretation - that is, to be a true psyche it need not be disclosed (as for all true psyches Law 40C2 applies), because for all true psyches "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" (Law 40C1). What's the interpretation? Best wishes Richard James Hills * Pedant's proofread - "plural" is a tautological** adjective when preceding a plural noun with a possessive apostrophe. ** Practical proofread - tautology is often useful (as in Law 90) to clarify what may otherwise be misunderstood. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 27 02:35:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:35:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 14 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810261136g54f06e7fl649d8e826d2d9c63@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910): "Shakespeare is crude, immoral, vulgar and senseless." Adam Wildavsky: >14. It surprises me that the ACBL allows a 1C opening to show >4S in this event. As for the appeal, it had not a shred of >merit. I'd have adjusted the score and assessed a PP against >EW for fragrant use of UI. William Shakespeare (1564-1616), slightly modified: "Use of UI by any other name would smell as sweet." Matchpoint pairs Dlr: South Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass(1) Pass 1C Pass 1S Pass 2C Pass Pass(2) X Pass 2H 2S (3) Pass ? (1) Did not open a weak two in spades. (2) Despite matchpoint scoring, did not think that 2S had a higher overall score expectation than 2C. (3) In the context of the complete auction so far, this is apparently a pass-or-correct bid (pard, do you think 8 tricks in 2S for +110 is easier to attain than 9 tricks in 3C for +110?). You, East, hold: 73 K9 T53 AKQ873 Is 3C your only logical alternative? I would vote Yes. But I am not a peer of East. However, two peers of East given the above authorised information did vote for 3C. Hence the appeal did have multiple shreds of merit, so East's 3C was fragrant - not flagrant - thus no PP from me. (But given that four peers of East voted for the non-suggested pass, I join Adam Wildavsky in ruling a score adjustment.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 27 05:22:20 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:22:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40810252043x41e8fd72h7d934f41887d53f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ACBL Appeals Panel (AP): [snip] >>Since two of the players polled bid, an appeal without >>>merit warning (AWMW) was not issued. Adam Wildavsky: >20. The fact that some players bid with no UI does not >give this appeal merit. North had UI that prohibited him >from bidding when Pass would have been logical, and Pass >was clearly logical. Richard Hills: "Clearly logical" is _no longer_ identical to "clearly a logical alternative". See the new Law 16B1(b). Suppose that the ACBL AP had instead written: "Since all six of the players polled unanimously chose the same bid as the appellants, therefore an appeal without merit warning (AWMW) was not issued and also the appeal was upheld." Pass is still "clearly logical", but should a PP be applied to the winning appellants for a non-infraction??? To me a big problem is that, in both this case and case 12, the six players were not polled until the ACBL AP chose to do so _after_ a pair chose to appeal the ACBL TD's ruling. At the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge (comparable to, but smaller than, ACBL NABCs) it is policy for an ABF TD to poll peers _before_ the ABF TD decides which way to rule, then the TD tells the (alleged) offending side and the (alleged) non-offending side the outcome of the poll during the description of the TD's ruling. This policy has several desirable outcomes: (a) TD rulings are more accurate, and (b) AC rulings of "meritless appeal" are more accurate if: (i) the (alleged) non-offending and appealing side _already knew before appealing_ that a poll has shown that there was _only one_ logical alternative, or (ii) the (alleged) offending and appealing side _already knew before appealing_ that a poll has shown that there was _an alternative non-suggested_ logical alternative. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 27 08:05:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:05:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810260147x41926665w60dad0c387acaa25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: [big snip] >"Could have been demonstrably suggested"---what does that >mean? Either it is demonstrable or not. How do "could have >been demonstrable" and "was demonstrable" differ? > >But the language at the end of Law 16B1(a) is "West chose >from among logical alternatives one that could have been >demonstrably suggested by the UI." > >I think the law would be clearer if "was" replaces "could >have been." Otherwise, I am afraid of rulings accidentally >appearing where I pass and double could have been suggested, >but if I double, then pass could have been suggested. Would >anyone like to 'splain the reason for the language that >appears in the law? Richard Hills two cents worth: Like all blmlers, I am not in any way an authority unless and until I am quoting from: (a) the Lawbook, (b) the WBF LC minutes, (c) ABF / EBU / ACBL / WBF etc regulations, or (d) the WBF Code of Practice (which has been fully adopted as a regulation by the WBF, and partially adopted as a regulation by the EBU and ABF). But my two cents worth unofficial guess is that a change to "was demonstrably suggested" would have the unintended consequence of reverting to 1950s Law. That is, the TD would have the impossible task of determining the actual player's state of mind before applying Law 16. Hence the 1950s Old Black Magic would return with a vengeance. My four cents worth unofficial guess is that the reverse problem applied with the 1975 Lawbook's wording "could have been suggested" (no "demonstrably" adverb). That allowed the exploded theory "If it hesitates, shoot it!" since any choice of any logical alternative which was rub-of-the-green successful "could have been suggested" by the UI. What's the sin tax? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 27 09:16:18 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:16:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <490578D2.4000903@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > +=+ To be rebuked by Herman. Ah, quel hommage inattendu.... > I will study the bacteria - but only comment if I have > something to say. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > I of course comment if I have nothing to say. See below. > > > Likewise, the Definition of Psychic Call states that it is "a > deliberate and gross misstatement", but a misstatement of what? > There are (at least) four entirely different interpretations > provoking extensive correspondence to blml. A misstatement of: > > (a) Announced partnership understanding - the populist > interpretation - that is, to be a psyche it must be undisclosed > and may or may not be an actual partnership understanding, or > > (b) Fielded partnership understanding - the apparent EBU > interpretation - that is, an illegal concealed partnership > understanding metamorphoses into a legal psyche if the CPUer's > partner then chooses to take entirely normal non-fielding > actions, or > > (c) Normal partnership understanding - the WBF Systems / Probst > interpretation - that is, to be a psyche it must be abnormal, > and may or may not be an actual partnership understanding, but > must be disclosed if actually a partnership understanding, or > > (d) Actual partnership understanding - the plural* pedants' > interpretation - that is, to be a true psyche it need not be > disclosed (as for all true psyches Law 40C2 applies), because > for all true psyches "partner has no more reason to be aware of > the deviation than have the opponents" (Law 40C1). > > What's the interpretation? > I have no idea what any of the four alternatives are supposed to mean, so let me explain what I believe a psyche is: It is (of course) a gross misstatement of pre-existing partnership agreements (and I deliberately use a different word than understanding). There may exist knowledge as to the frequency and nature of the misstatements that a particular player has in the past brought to his agreements. That knowledge need not be present in the mind of the partner for it to be part of "partnership understandings", and therefore disclosable to opponents. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Herman. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 09:59:33 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:59:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40810252043x41e8fd72h7d934f41887d53f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810270159v5404dc19r409bbef015807507@mail.gmail.com> Richard's suggested policy is really excellent. Richard Hills wrote: > ACBL Appeals Panel (AP): > > [snip] > >>>Since two of the players polled bid, an appeal without >>>>merit warning (AWMW) was not issued. > > Adam Wildavsky: > >>20. The fact that some players bid with no UI does not >>give this appeal merit. North had UI that prohibited him >>from bidding when Pass would have been logical, and Pass >>was clearly logical. > > Richard Hills: > > "Clearly logical" is _no longer_ identical to "clearly a > logical alternative". See the new Law 16B1(b). > I suspect Adam means "logical" as shorthand for "logical alternative." I can see no reason for him to make any distinction between the two, since logical alternatives are key. Were the new laws in effect in Las Vegas? > Suppose that the ACBL AP had instead written: > > "Since all six of the players polled unanimously chose the > same bid as the appellants, therefore an appeal without > merit warning (AWMW) was not issued and also the appeal was > upheld." > > Pass is still "clearly logical", but should a PP be applied > to the winning appellants for a non-infraction??? > Even if all six chose 3D, that does not guarantee they win the case, as you probably realize. Here is Law 16B1(b).: (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. So even if the six chose 3D, if three of them give serious consideration to passing and it is judged that some might select it, then the appellants should not win. Richard's suggested policy is really excellent: > To me a big problem is that, in both this case and case 12, > the six players were not polled until the ACBL AP chose to > do so _after_ a pair chose to appeal the ACBL TD's ruling. > > At the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge (comparable to, but > smaller than, ACBL NABCs) it is policy for an ABF TD to poll > peers _before_ the ABF TD decides which way to rule, then > the TD tells the (alleged) offending side and the (alleged) > non-offending side the outcome of the poll during the > description of the TD's ruling. > > This policy has several desirable outcomes: > > (a) TD rulings are more accurate, and > > (b) AC rulings of "meritless appeal" are more accurate if: > > (i) the (alleged) non-offending and appealing side > _already knew before appealing_ that a poll has > shown that there was _only one_ logical > alternative, or > > (ii) the (alleged) offending and appealing side _already > knew before appealing_ that a poll has shown that > there was _an alternative non-suggested_ logical > alternative. > What is your protocol for polling? Do you have the steps worked out to get the maximum benefit from polling? For example, do you try to find players who play or understand the pair's methods and would have made their earlier calls? Is a later step in the polling asking what UI might suggest? Jerry Fusselman From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 10:33:48 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:33:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 8 Message-ID: Agree with all comments, but disagree on the final decision. On a D lead there's 10 tricks for declarer on the automatic double heart finesse. On a non-D lead declarer can establish the CK as an 11th trick, thus I'd rule 11 tricks on a heart lead. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 10:36:34 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:36:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas non-NABC+ case 9 Message-ID: hmm. Bidding again with the east hand after making a jump overcall over a weak 2 would never occur to me, having already shown a good hand. Thus I think an AWMW is called for. (As west, I'd rather have bid 6H than passing - a slam invite is about right with the hand IMO.) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 10:39:34 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:39:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas non-NABC+ case 22 Message-ID: Didn't anyone spot that norht was a passed hand here??? I'd never consider anything but 5C over 4H holding the south hand. To me, both the peers in the poll, the TD and the AC (and Adam) are way off here. This is clearly a result stands case IMO. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 27 12:50:13 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:50:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 1 In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810252358v63de9678s3bfd073ca9a034a6@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0810252358v63de9678s3bfd073ca9a034a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4905AAF5.4090006@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > What seems to be missing from everyone's analysis is the consideration > of West's UI due to East's failure to alert. As so often happens at > the table, when a forcing bid is known to have been misunderstood > through UI, the UI possessor's next action is to illegally bang out > game or slam, knowing that a lower bid might be passed or otherwise > misinterpreted. I would ask West why 4SF, then the jump to game. > After 4SF, why not 3H instead of 4H to give partner an option to cue > bid for slam? Is it because partner bid 2S and showed a minimum? > West is not allowed to know that. > AG: I disagree. If 1S was natural, 4 cards and encouraging but not forcing (I suppose this is the meaning if not 4SF), then 2S showed 4 cards and limits the hand (with 4414 and 15-16 HCP one would bid 3S ; I assume strong NT) ; for the same reason (playing strong NTs), 2S over the 4SA is quite limited ; so the bid after the non-alert and after the alert carries the same sense. Furthermore, 4SF followed by a jump to game has a precise sense in many partnerhips : it is a picture jump, showing only marginally above a game force, but with good trumps, and usually shows the need of a control in the 4th suit. That's a fair description of West's hand. To put it another way, that's the obvious bid over 2S. The remaining question is : does South have to enquire after this highly suspect sequence, where the East said there is a Spade fit, then West says no ? I'd say he should, at a certain level. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 27 22:36:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:36:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas non-NABC+ case 22 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Roma locuta est. Causa est finita." Harald Skj?ran: >Didn't anyone spot that North was a passed hand here??? > >I'd never consider anything but 5C over 4H holding the >South hand. To me, both the peers in the poll, the TD and >the AC (and Adam) are way off here. This is clearly a >result stands case IMO. Richard Hills quibbles: A Law 16B1(b) "logical alternative" is not necessarily a "logical" alternative. Peers (not non-peer Harald Skj?ran) have the final say, thus the Appeals Panel is automatically correct in their subsequent ruling about South's "logical alternatives". Of course, the Director was automatically incorrect in failing to poll peers. On the other hand, I think that the score-adjustment ruling by the Appeals Panel is bizarre. This split score seems to follow the ACBL cultural tradition that a slight error by the non-offending side, which the AP picks up with 20-20 hindsight, is automatically deemed to be a Law 12C1(b) wild or gambling action. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 27 22:59:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:59:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810270159v5404dc19r409bbef015807507@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >Even if all six chose 3D, that does not guarantee they win >the case, as you probably realize. Richard Hills: Nope, I do not realise that (apart from the trivial exception of a 1936 Literary Digest error in polling, e.g. accidentally polling friends of one side who have prior knowledge of the controversy). 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." Jerry Fusselman: >So even if the six chose 3D, if three of them give serious >consideration to passing and it is judged that some might >select it, then the appellants should not win. Richard Hills: In my non-official opinion, I think that Jerry has failed to correctly interpret "of whom it is judged some might select it". My non-official opinion is that the "judged" is informed by the poll, and "select it" means "select it at the table". So if six out of six polled vote for 3D, then zero out of those six would "select" a non-3D call at the table. But I agree with Jerry that if one of six would choose a non-3D call at the table, and a further two of six (while preferring 3D) would seriously consider a non-3D call, then that non-3D call may be a logical alternative. This depends, of course, upon local regulations. For example, the Australia / New Zealand Law 16B1(b) regulation states: "For the purpose of this Law, a significant number is defined as more than one in four players. This would mean that up to three logical alternatives might exist as, in order to be defined as a logical alternative it should be judged that more than 25% of players would take the action. In this situation the director will need to consider [under 16B1(a)] if the extraneous information would provide additional reasons for choosing the logical alternative selected at the table. "On the other hand if it is judged that more than 75% of the class of players in question using the same partnership methods, would select the same action as that taken by the player in receipt of the unauthorised information, then the Director shall proceed on the basis that no other logical alternative actions exist. This would lead to a ruling that the table result stands." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 28 01:16:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:16:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <490578D2.4000903@skynet.be> Message-ID: Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): "A politician is a man who approaches every problem with an open mouth." Herman De Wael: >.....so let me explain what I believe a psyche is: >It is (of course) "When someone says 'of course' that means that that proposition is highly debatable." Herman De Wael: >a gross misstatement of pre-existing partnership agreements >(and I deliberately use a different word than understanding). Law 40B1(b), first sentence: "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding." Herman De Wael: >There may exist knowledge as to the frequency and nature of >the misstatements that a particular player has in the past >brought to his agreements. Richard Hills nuance: Abstract "knowledge" which has never-ever been known to the particular player's partner is not relevant for the purposes of Law. 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)." Law 40C1, first sentence: "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. Richard Hills nuance: On the other hand, there may exist _mutual partnership_ knowledge as to the frequency and nature of the misstatements that a particular player has in the past brought to her _mutual partnership understandings_. But now partner has "more reason to be aware", so those over-frequent "mis- statements" metamorphose into "statements" of new implicit partnership understandings. Law 40C1, second sentence: "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." Herman De Wael: >That knowledge need not be present in the mind of the >partner for it to be part of "partnership understandings", >and therefore disclosable to opponents. Richard Hills nuance: That knowledge need not be _currently_ present in the mind of the partner for it to be part of "partnership understandings", and therefore disclosable to opponents. However, at some pre- existing time the Law 40A1(a) word "discussion" and/or the Law 40A1(a) word "mutual" must have been applicable, since Law 40A1(a) is the _definition_ of "partnership understandings". [To the best of my two cents worth unofficial belief, the Drafting Committee usually followed the policy that if a Lawful term was prominently defined in the main text of the 2007 Lawbook, it would tend not to be duplicated in the 2007 (Chapter 1) Definitions. Another prominent example would be the definition of "logical alternative" in Law 16, but not also duplicated in the 2007 (Chapter 1) Definitions.] A unilateral misstatement by one partner is not a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit understanding of both partners. 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 28 01:50:11 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:50:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000901c93897$24fb35b0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [To the best of my two cents worth unofficial belief, the > Drafting Committee usually followed the policy that if a > Lawful term was prominently defined in the main text of the > 2007 Lawbook, it would tend not to be duplicated in the 2007 > (Chapter 1) Definitions. Another prominent example would be > the definition of "logical alternative" in Law 16, but not > also duplicated in the 2007 (Chapter 1) Definitions.] > +=+ Five cents worth. True as to policy, not necessarily applied consistently - someone's weighty opinion could transcend general policy on occasion. +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 28 03:12:32 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:12:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think one reason for deliberately violating one's own agreements is being "logical with an illogical system". Is this legal, in the sense that the opponents do not have any protection from mistaken explanations? I am thinking not. The simplest example is 1H P 1NT(1) P 2C(2) (1) forcing (2) Explained as per agreement as showing 3 or more clubs. However, the player is 4-5-2-2, without enough points to bid 2S and not enough hearts to bid 2H. The players, in this example, did not think enough about their system. I am thinking that "relevant inferences from choice of action" kicks in. The point is that if the opponents knew all of the unreasonable agreements, they could know that 2C might just be a two-card suit. An interesting one came up today. P P 1C P 1D P 1NT(1) P P P 1. The opps asked if opener would bypass a 4-card major. Partner said no. But she in fact had a 4-card major. The partnership agreement seemed to be that opener does not bypass a 4-card major in this situation. However, at least in the mind of the opener, the 1D bid by a passed hand denied a 4-card major. If true, it is an illogical system. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 03:26:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:26:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >I think one reason for deliberately violating one's own >agreements is being "logical with an illogical system". Is >this legal, in the sense that the opponents do not have any >protection from mistaken explanations? I am thinking not. > >The simplest example is > >West North East South >1H P 1NT(1) P >2C(2) > >(1) forcing >(2) Explained as per agreement as showing 3 or more clubs. >However, the player is 4-5-2-2, without enough points to >bid 2S and not enough hearts to bid 2H. The players, in >this example, did not think enough about their system. [snip] Richard Hills: As TD I would not rule "no agreement" but rather "agreement to have a hole in one's system", so I would rule the failure to disclose the hole to the opponents as misinformation. But, if this was the first time that the hole had come to the attention of East-West (perhaps they are a newly formed partnership), then North-South are _not entitled_ to know how West would choose to _resolve_ the hole. Under Law 40A3 West may freely decide to choose a rebid of Pass, 2C, 2D, 2H or 2S, whichever West judges has the best cost-benefit ratio. Approximately four decades ago, Edgar Kaplan was playing against a Blue Team pair in a Bermuda Bowl. As the ultimate uber-nerd, Edgar had carefully analysed the book on Blue Team methods (indomitably superseding his handicap of being unable to read Italian), and had deduced that in a certain rare sequence there was a hole in Blue Team methods. So when Norman Kay asked a question when that rare sequence came up at the table, a Blue Team player unintentionally gave a misexplanation, due to that Blue Team player being then unaware of the hole. But Edgar Kaplan, when it was his turn to call, solved the problem with a series of Socratic questions, causing the Blue Team player to correct his misinformation and thus enlighten Norman Kay. Four decades later such a "Kaplan Question" is now illegal. The new 2007 Law 20G1: "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at tameware.com Tue Oct 28 05:12:13 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:12:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas non-NABC+ case 22 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd40810272112k1b868f86q208a8f6a1e43263b@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > Didn't anyone spot that north was a passed hand here??? > I'd never consider anything but 5C over 4H holding the south hand. To > me, both the peers in the poll, the TD and the AC (and Adam) are way > off here. This is clearly a result stands case IMO. Yes, I missed it completely. Thanks for pointing it out! I'll have to rethink my opinion. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 05:40:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:40:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810270159v5404dc19r409bbef015807507@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >Were the new laws in effect in Las Vegas? Richard Hills: No. But an ACBL regulation under the old 1997 Laws also defined "logical alternative" as not necessarily "logical", since the ACBL reg used a key criterion of what "peers" would do. This was much to the disgruntlement of gafiated blmler Marvin French, who argued that a logical alternative was ipso facto logical, and hence the ACBL's interpretation of the 1997 Lawbook was an inadequate basis for what Marv deemed an illegal regulation. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 06:22:46 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:22:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 1 Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810272222u44720580nd1f7ebcc73551e3a@mail.gmail.com> The Las Vegas appeals are at http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/LasVegas2008.html The bidding sequence in Las Vegas NABC+ case 1 is, without competition, 1C - 1D; 1H - 1S; 2S - 4S; all pass. The bidding sequence in Las Vegas Non NABC+ case 1 is, with competition: 1C - 1D -1H - 1S; 2H - 4S - P - P; 5C - 5S - all pass. Since Alain refers to the call of 2S, he is referring to Las Vegas NABC+ case 1. I regret my part in the confusion, but dadgummit, why can't the ABCL just number them all from 1 to 37? That would aid dyslexics like me. Because Alain is referring to Las Vegas NABC+ case 1, I have changed the subject line. On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : >> >> What seems to be missing from everyone's analysis is the consideration >> of West's UI due to East's failure to alert. As so often happens at >> the table, when a forcing bid is known to have been misunderstood >> through UI, the UI possessor's next action is to illegally bang out >> game or slam, knowing that a lower bid might be passed or otherwise >> misinterpreted. I would ask West why 4SF, then the jump to game. >> After 4SF, why not 3H instead of 4H to give partner an option to cue >> bid for slam? Is it because partner bid 2S and showed a minimum? >> West is not allowed to know that. >> > AG: I disagree. If 1S was natural, 4 cards and encouraging but not > forcing (I suppose this is the meaning if not 4SF), then 2S showed 4 > cards and limits the hand (with 4414 and 15-16 HCP one would bid 3S ; I > assume strong NT) ; for the same reason (playing strong NTs), 2S over > the 4SA is quite limited ; so the bid after the non-alert and after the > alert carries the same sense. This analysis misses two points, rather crucial. The second sentence under Facts is "E/W had 4th suit forcing on their convention cards." I don't think exploring what the meaning of 1S would be if not playing 4SF is relevant here. West meant 1S and 4SF, and besides, the convention card says that they play 4SF, so he must continue to believe that East understood 1S as 4SF. Also, I wrote at the top, "I would like to know whether it was 4SF to game or one round. Suppose that it was to game." So my premise is that 4SF is forcing to game, not one round. You are discussing a different case; not really disagreeing with me at all. I think Alain's reference to 4SA is a typo for 4SF. > Furthermore, 4SF followed by a jump to game has a precise sense in many > partnerhips : it is a picture jump, showing only marginally above a game > force, but with good trumps, and usually shows the need of a control in > the 4th suit. That's a fair description of West's hand. To put it > another way, that's the obvious bid over 2S. > Well, okay, I think we agree that we need to know which kind of 4SF was present here. (The ACBL convention card for 4SF has checkable boxes for One Round and To Game.) I play and understand the version that forces to game, but I admit that Hardy recommends the version that only forces for one round. There is also a possible exemption of the sequence 1C-1D-1H-1S from 4SF principles---i.e., maybe some good players say they play 4SF even though they use 1S natural. The latter consideration clearly does not apply here. West meant 1S artificial and the convention card does not contradict it. > The remaining question is : does South have to enquire after this highly > suspect sequence, where the East said there is a Spade fit, then West > says no ? I'd say he should, at a certain level. > Good point on the MI aspect. I was emphasizing the UI aspect. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 06:34:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:34:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] What happens not in Vegas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810270159v5404dc19r409bbef015807507@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: Richard's suggested policy is really excellent: Richard Hills: >To me a big problem is that, in both this case and case 14, >the six players were not polled until the ACBL AP chose to >do so _after_ a pair chose to appeal the ACBL TD's ruling. > >At the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge (comparable to, but >smaller than, ACBL NABCs) it is policy for an ABF TD to poll >peers _before_ the ABF TD decides which way to rule, then >the TD tells the (alleged) offending side and the (alleged) >non-offending side the outcome of the poll during the >description of the TD's ruling. > >This policy has several desirable outcomes: > >(a) TD rulings are more accurate, and > >(b) AC rulings of "meritless appeal" are more accurate if: > > (i) the (alleged) non-offending and appealing side > _already knew before appealing_ that a poll has > shown that there was _only one_ logical > alternative, or > > (ii) the (alleged) offending and appealing side _already > knew before appealing_ that a poll has shown that > there was _an alternative non-suggested_ logical > alternative. Jerry Fusselman: What is your protocol for polling? Do you have the steps worked out to get the maximum benefit from polling? Richard Hills: >The minimum protocol is for all Directors at the venue to >consult amongst themselves. In cases involving logical >alternatives for experts, the Directors may also elect to >poll experts in teams-of-six who are sitting out this >particular session, thus able to provide assessments which >are unbiased by knowledge of the complete deal. Jerry Fusselman: For example, do you try to find players who play or understand the pair's methods and would have made their earlier calls? Richard Hills: >Only rarely a problem, since few partnerships play exotic >systems such as Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on >request). > >Almost all Aussie experts are lazy and also often change >their regular partners, so almost all Aussie experts >perforce play more-or-less natural methods (no budding >Meckwells here, so no hope of Australia winning the Bermuda >Bowl for at least a generation), albeit often with a >superstructure of Brown Sticker two-bids. Jerry Fusselman: Is a later step in the polling asking what UI might suggest? Richard Hills: >Definitely discussed amongst the Directing group, perhaps a >poll might be taken of expert players. > >(Indeed, while Australia's Chief Director was away in >Beijing earlier this month, the Canberra Bridge Club deputy >sheriff took the initiative in polling non-involved experts >as to what a particular hesitation demonstrably suggested. >An easy assessment for me when asked, as it was an obvious >case of Hesitation Blackwood.) > >Since a few years ago I was a mere lowly trainee Director at >the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge, my answers above are >tentative, bearing perhaps a vague resemblance to the truth. > >Just as Howard Schenken was the second-best American expert >of the 1950s, so Laurie Kelso is the second-best Australian >Director of the 2000s. Laurie is also a blml lurker, so he >can more accurately answer Jerry's questions if he chooses >to unlurk. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 28 06:39:56 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:39:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0810270159v5404dc19r409bbef015807507@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810272239i40a183c0u83566d479335a3b7@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:40 PM, wrote: > Jerry Fusselman asked: > >>Were the new laws in effect in Las Vegas? > > Richard Hills: > > No. > > But an ACBL regulation under the old 1997 Laws also > defined "logical alternative" as not necessarily > "logical", since the ACBL reg used a key criterion > of what "peers" would do. > I am sorry, Richard, but I have no idea what you are talking about. (Is it something from BLML's past?) I see Logical as just a shortened version of Logical Alternative. They seem the same. What makes you think that anyone considers them different? And why would anyone make a distinction, when Logical Alternatives are all that matter? And I don't understand your position with the polling either. Suppose that all six say "I consider it a tossup between passing and bidding 3D, but I think I would try 3D." Would you still say that passing is not a logical alternative? If so, it seems to me that you want the Probst cheat to prosper. To me, in this case, it is obvious that pass is a logical alternative. Or put another way, suppose that you are faced with the choice in question. And suppose that you already know what all six peers will say: "I consider it just about a tossup between passing and bidding 3D, but I think I would try 3D." Now, will you take the low-scoring option (which you know to be low-scoring because of UI) of pass or the high-scoring option of 3D? I.e., are you a Probst cheater? I would choose pass, and I adjust the score for someone who chose 3D. This is a serious question, because otherwise your suggested protocol for polling peers is excellent. Jerry Fusselman From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 28 07:07:31 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:07:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810272239i40a183c0u83566d479335a3b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0810270159v5404dc19r409bbef015807507@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0810272239i40a183c0u83566d479335a3b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c938c3$77511330$65f33990$@com> [JF] I am sorry, Richard, but I have no idea what you are talking about. [DALB] Don't worry - neither does anyone else. Disraeli called Gladstone a "sophisticated rhetorician intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity". This was a bit unfair on Gladstone, but Richard wasn't alive at the time, so Disraeli chose the only target he could. David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 28 07:33:14 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:33:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] What happens not in Vegas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002301c938c7$2c8682f0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What happens not in Vegas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Laurie is also a blml lurker, so he can more accurately answer Jerry's questions if he chooses to unlurk. > +=+ There is quite a lot of Laurie to lurk. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 07:35:45 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:35:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810272239i40a183c0u83566d479335a3b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >I see Logical as just a shortened version of Logical >Alternative. They seem the same. What makes you >think that anyone considers them different? Richard Hills: The dictionary definition of "logical" has not even the slightest resemblance to the 2007 Law 16B1(b) definition of "logical alternative". For the 1997 Lawbook the then coordinator, Edgar Kaplan, chose to leave "logical alternative" without any internal Law 16 definition, hence the pre-2008 confusion caused by people choosing to read external dictionaries. Using "logical" as shorthand for "LA" even now may subtly influence one's thought processes in the wrong direction of the Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "logical a, in conformance with the laws of logic, rightly deducible, defensible on the grounds of consistency, capable of reasoning correctly" How many blmlers fulfil this dictionary definition of "logical"? Definitely not me, but all my calls are nevertheless 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 28 09:43:27 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:43:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000a01c938d9$a24c7c30$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] < > For the 1997 Lawbook the then coordinator, Edgar > Kaplan, chose to leave "logical alternative" without > any internal Law 16 definition, hence the pre-2008 > confusion caused by people choosing to read external > dictionaries. > +=+ This is unfair on Edgar. At the time there was no proposal about a definition. Something was said in the CoP. It was really only when it was discovered the ACBL and Zone 1 were close in their ideas on the definition that we could venture to bring it within the law book - after consulting with NBOs. And Ralph Cohen did most of the coordination of the 1997 text. ~ G ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 28 09:53:22 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:53:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> Richard, Richard - you are deliberately refusing to agree with anything I say. I am trying to let you see that my points of view are not as different from yours, and you just jump on any word you find jumpable-onto. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965): > > "A politician is a man who approaches every problem with an > open mouth." > > Herman De Wael: > >> .....so let me explain what I believe a psyche is: >> It is (of course) > > "When someone says 'of course' that means that that proposition > is highly debatable." > a gross misstatement : highly debatable. Of course. > Herman De Wael: > >> a gross misstatement of pre-existing partnership agreements >> (and I deliberately use a different word than understanding). > > Law 40B1(b), first sentence: > > "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is > a partnership understanding." > But I am not defining a partnership understanding! I am defining a psyche! Richard is the one who asked the question what the gross misstatement was against - so I just tried to explain my point of view. Please Richard, allow me to use the words that I want then, and don't go criticizing it. A psyche is a gross misstatement of donkeys (we've had elephants before - time to redress the balance). > Herman De Wael: > >> There may exist knowledge as to the frequency and nature of >> the misstatements that a particular player has in the past >> brought to his agreements. > > Richard Hills nuance: > > Abstract "knowledge" which has never-ever been known to the > particular player's partner is not relevant for the purposes > of Law. > Isn't it? Richard is apparently of the opinion that if a player says "I've never done this before" or if his partner says "he's never done that with me", we simply believe that and we allow the psyche to go through. But if anyone says "yeah, I've done that once before, three years ago", they are to be hung and quartered. Richard is therefore punishing the honest player, while defending the right to psyche, but only allowing the dishonest players to do so. I'd rather you'd just come out and say it: you want to ban all psyches. > 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)." > Exactly. > Law 40C1, first sentence: > > "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. > No MORE reason. So if the opponents also know about it, the partner is allowed to know that psyches are possible. > Richard Hills nuance: > > On the other hand, there may exist _mutual partnership_ > knowledge as to the frequency and nature of the misstatements > that a particular player has in the past brought to her > _mutual partnership understandings_. But now partner has > "more reason to be aware", so those over-frequent "mis- > statements" metamorphose into "statements" of new implicit > partnership understandings. > NO HE HASN'T! Not if the opponents know it as well!!!!! > Law 40C1, second sentence: > > "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." > Exactly. Must be disclosed! > Herman De Wael: > >> That knowledge need not be present in the mind of the >> partner for it to be part of "partnership understandings", >> and therefore disclosable to opponents. > Yes, that is my firm view. I want to go a little further than you in asking that some knowledge be present in opponents even if it is not present in partner's mind. After all, we'll never know what partner knows, will we? And so I prefer not to rely on him telling us he did not know. > Richard Hills nuance: > > That knowledge need not be _currently_ present in the mind of > the partner for it to be part of "partnership understandings", > and therefore disclosable to opponents. However, at some pre- > existing time the Law 40A1(a) word "discussion" and/or the Law > 40A1(a) word "mutual" must have been applicable, since Law > 40A1(a) is the _definition_ of "partnership understandings". > What is the difference? How can knowledge be other than currently present. You mean he forgot it? How can you check? > [To the best of my two cents worth unofficial belief, the > Drafting Committee usually followed the policy that if a > Lawful term was prominently defined in the main text of the > 2007 Lawbook, it would tend not to be duplicated in the 2007 > (Chapter 1) Definitions. Another prominent example would be > the definition of "logical alternative" in Law 16, but not > also duplicated in the 2007 (Chapter 1) Definitions.] > > A unilateral misstatement by one partner is not a pre-existing > mutual explicit or implicit understanding of both partners. > > What's the problem? > Yes indeed? what is the problem? Richard has tried to prove that there exist psyches that the partner has absolutely no knowledge about. Well, he's right of course. My hypothetical Zambian-Afghan partnership has no such knowledge. Well, they hadn't when I first used the example. But by now, they are on their second outing. Our Aghan friend now knows that his Zambian partner did not psyche when they first met 10 months ago. That is knowledge. It is part of partnership experience. The opponents are entitled to know it. Richard is deluding himself if he believes that with the definition he is going for, psyches are still in existence. Richard has not banned psyches, he has just wiped out the word from our vocabulary. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 28 09:55:53 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:55:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4906D399.9030902@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > I think one reason for deliberately violating one's own agreements is > being "logical with an illogical system". Is this legal, in the sense that > the opponents do not have any protection from mistaken explanations? I am > thinking not. > > The simplest example is > > 1H P 1NT(1) P > 2C(2) > > (1) forcing > (2) Explained as per agreement as showing 3 or more clubs. However, the > player is 4-5-2-2, without enough points to bid 2S and not enough hearts > to bid 2H. The players, in this example, did not think enough about their > system. > > I am thinking that "relevant inferences from choice of action" kicks in. > The point is that if the opponents knew all of the unreasonable > agreements, they could know that 2C might just be a two-card suit. > Indeed. My explanation of the 2C bid is "could be 3-card" But my explanation of 2H in this sequence would be "6-card or 4-5-2-2 minimum". If other pairs play it differently, they need to explain it differently. If they haven't agreed on one or the other system, they also need to say so. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Oct 28 09:58:08 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:58:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4906D420.6030907@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> I think one reason for deliberately violating one's own >> agreements is being "logical with an illogical system". Is >> this legal, in the sense that the opponents do not have any >> protection from mistaken explanations? I am thinking not. >> >> The simplest example is >> >> West North East South >> 1H P 1NT(1) P >> 2C(2) >> >> (1) forcing >> (2) Explained as per agreement as showing 3 or more clubs. >> However, the player is 4-5-2-2, without enough points to >> bid 2S and not enough hearts to bid 2H. The players, in >> this example, did not think enough about their system. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > As TD I would not rule "no agreement" but rather "agreement > to have a hole in one's system", so I would rule the failure > to disclose the hole to the opponents as misinformation. > > But, if this was the first time that the hole had come to > the attention of East-West (perhaps they are a newly formed > partnership), then North-South are _not entitled_ to know how > West would choose to _resolve_ the hole. Under Law 40A3 West > may freely decide to choose a rebid of Pass, 2C, 2D, 2H or > 2S, whichever West judges has the best cost-benefit ratio. > Indeed - the information content of "2C might be 2 cards because we haven't discussed what to do with 4522" is different from "2C might be 2 cards if we have 4522". And of course it is the correct one which must be disclosed. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 28 10:35:34 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:35:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4906DCE6.8050604@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I think one reason for deliberately violating one's own agreements is > being "logical with an illogical system". Is this legal, in the sense that > the opponents do not have any protection from mistaken explanations? I am > thinking not. > > The simplest example is > > 1H P 1NT(1) P > 2C(2) > > (1) forcing > (2) Explained as per agreement as showing 3 or more clubs. However, the > player is 4-5-2-2, without enough points to bid 2S and not enough hearts > to bid 2H. The players, in this example, did not think enough about their > system. > AG : some would rebid 2H unless they're very poor. This 2H bis isn't alertable, but its nature would be revealed on enquiry. Very few, in fact, would 'invent' a 2C bid. Some would give MI by saying '3+' because they don't remember this specific -discussed- example, but not because their partners would have made a fancy -unsystemic- bid. I'm more concerned about the possible UI from embarrass followed by a 2H bid. More uncommon, but still possible, is the case where a rare type of hand is unbiddable. Those who play 5-card S/H/D and 2-card clubs will have a problem on holding 4.4.4.1 I know one pair who wrote on their SC 'with 4.4.4.1, choose between 1C,1D and 1H and don't take this into account' ; how should this be explained ? (don't we have there the difference between agreement -we know it- and understanding -we take it into account ?) > I am thinking that "relevant inferences from choice of action" kicks in. > The point is that if the opponents knew all of the unreasonable > agreements, they could know that 2C might just be a two-card suit. > > An interesting one came up today. > > P P 1C P > 1D P 1NT(1) P > P P > > 1. The opps asked if opener would bypass a 4-card major. Partner said no. > But she in fact had a 4-card major. The partnership agreement seemed to be > that opener does not bypass a 4-card major in this situation. However, at > least in the mind of the opener, the 1D bid by a passed hand denied a > 4-card major. If true, it is an illogical system. > How many of us do play a perfect system ? The conjunction of '1D = no major unless quite strong' and '1NT = no major' is perhaps inferior, or perhaps it isn't (in systems where 1D can be rather light, to be able to escape in a 4-3 at the 1-level). And if it isn't, it doesn't mean nobody plays it. Playing an inferior system isn't subject to penalties /per se./ Most probably, ther right answer would be 'well, he shouldn't have any major, and we don't have the tools for detecting it, but he's made it before'. Compare with opening 1NT including a 5-card major in non-puppet, non-relay systems : it's the player's fancy to hide it. Now, after this has happened twice, it should be revealed, but the honest response remains 'he shouldn't, but he just might'. Or perhaps 'I said him not to do it, but he keeps doing it' (yes, personal experience). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 28 10:50:14 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:50:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4906E056.4050004@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > As TD I would not rule "no agreement" but rather "agreement > to have a hole in one's system", so I would rule the failure > to disclose the hole to the opponents as misinformation. > AG : and that's why the two examples given by Robert are rather dissimilar. The 'hole in the system' situation will perforce create MI when the precise type of non-covered hand happens. The 'illogical' situation doesn't in itself create MI : if a pair genuinely plays that 1D denies a major, and that 1NT denies it, too, there isn't any atom of MI in explaining it that way. If a pair plays that answers to Stayman are 2H,2S, and 2NT, never 2D, that's obviously inferior and illogical, but where's the infraction ? If, by a series of Socratic questions, you made them realize it, their explanation would nevertheless be 100% faithful to the system. This isn't true in the 'hole' situation'. One live case was in the ECC championships in Birmingham, in 1980, where I kibitzed the pairs event and this dialog happened at one table : 1C - alert - yes, please ? - 11 to 19, no 5-card major, not the weak NT type, but could be short in clubs. - what's the difference between 1C and 1D ? - 1D doesn't exist in our system. You can't gainsay this pair played an inferior system ; does it make their explanations wrong ? Wouldn't the opponent who chosed not to believe them, because that's inferior, make up a trap for himself ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 28 10:59:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:59:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas NABC+ case 1 In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810272222u44720580nd1f7ebcc73551e3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0810272222u44720580nd1f7ebcc73551e3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4906E281.6090604@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : >> >>> What seems to be missing from everyone's analysis is the consideration >>> of West's UI due to East's failure to alert. As so often happens at >>> the table, when a forcing bid is known to have been misunderstood >>> through UI, the UI possessor's next action is to illegally bang out >>> game or slam, knowing that a lower bid might be passed or otherwise >>> misinterpreted. I would ask West why 4SF, then the jump to game. >>> After 4SF, why not 3H instead of 4H to give partner an option to cue >>> bid for slam? Is it because partner bid 2S and showed a minimum? >>> West is not allowed to know that. >>> >>> >> AG: I disagree. If 1S was natural, 4 cards and encouraging but not >> forcing (I suppose this is the meaning if not 4SF), then 2S showed 4 >> cards and limits the hand (with 4414 and 15-16 HCP one would bid 3S ; I >> assume strong NT) ; for the same reason (playing strong NTs), 2S over >> the 4SA is quite limited ; so the bid after the non-alert and after the >> alert carries the same sense. >> > > This analysis misses two points, rather crucial. The second sentence > under Facts is "E/W had 4th suit forcing on their convention cards." > I don't think exploring what the meaning of 1S would be if not playing > 4SF is relevant here. West meant 1S and 4SF, and besides, the > convention card says that they play 4SF, so he must continue to > believe that East understood 1S as 4SF. > So there isn't really any problem. 2S means 44 majors and a minimum, and 4H is an obvious bid. MI is possible ; UI isn't. > Also, I wrote at the top, "I would like to know whether it was 4SF to > game or one round. Suppose that it was to game." I don't see anything wrong about it ; in a strong NT context, 2S still means a minimum (would bid 3S in lieu of 2S with a 15+ 3-suited hand, and not rebid 1H with 18+). While they are differences, say, between the relative meanings of 2NT and 3NT over a GF vs a non-GF 4SF, meanings of suit rebids are seldom affected. You might always imagine that 2S was a kind of 'mini-maxi' two way-bid, but there isn't anything to support that. > So my premise is > that 4SF is forcing to game, not one round. You are discussing a > different case; not really disagreeing with me at all. > > I think Alain's reference to 4SA is a typo for 4SF. > > Of course. > Well, okay, I think we agree that we need to know which kind of 4SF > was present here. Not IMOBO, as said above. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 28 11:06:34 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:06:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810272239i40a183c0u83566d479335a3b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0810270159v5404dc19r409bbef015807507@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0810272239i40a183c0u83566d479335a3b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4906E42A.1080007@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:40 PM, wrote: > >> Jerry Fusselman asked: >> >> >>> Were the new laws in effect in Las Vegas? >>> >> Richard Hills: >> >> No. >> >> But an ACBL regulation under the old 1997 Laws also >> defined "logical alternative" as not necessarily >> "logical", since the ACBL reg used a key criterion >> of what "peers" would do. >> >> > > I am sorry, Richard, but I have no idea what you are talking about. > (Is it something from BLML's past?) I see Logical as just a shortened > version of Logical Alternative. They seem the same. What makes you > think that anyone considers them different? AG : I think the locution 'Logical Alternative' means 'a bid some would have made', even if it's an inferior, hence illogical, bid. Thinking that every locution can be analyzed and taken litterally is wrong. Where's the meat in mincemeat ? A 'chauve-souris' means literally 'bald mouse' but it's a bat. Best regards Alain From lskelso at ihug.com.au Tue Oct 28 13:35:29 2008 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:35:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] What happens not in Vegas [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0810270159v5404dc19r409bbef015807507@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9j6e$80kal3@outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out4.iinet.net.au> Richard can at times be a little bit parochial :-) The concept of polling uninvolved players as part of the consultation/ruling process is a global phenomena and certainly not something restricted to the antipodes. These principles are embodied in the WBF Code of Practice and the objective as always is to try to provide the best possible ruling. At 04:34 PM 28/10/2008, Richard Hills wrote: >Jerry Fusselman: > >Richard's suggested policy is really excellent: > >Richard Hills: > > >At the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge (comparable to, but > >smaller than, ACBL NABCs) it is policy for an ABF TD to poll > >peers _before_ the ABF TD decides which way to rule, then > >the TD tells the (alleged) offending side and the (alleged) > >non-offending side the outcome of the poll during the > >description of the TD's ruling. > > > >This policy has several desirable outcomes: > > > >(a) TD rulings are more accurate, and > > >Jerry Fusselman: > >What is your protocol for polling? Do you have the steps >worked out to get the maximum benefit from polling? > >Richard Hills: > > >The minimum protocol is for all Directors at the venue to > >consult amongst themselves. In cases involving logical > >alternatives for experts, the Directors may also elect to > >poll experts in teams-of-six who are sitting out this > >particular session, thus able to provide assessments which > >are unbiased by knowledge of the complete deal. Experts as well as the player's peers may be polled as an aid to producing a considered ruling that is based upon sound bridge judgment. The scenarios presented and the questions asked will vary depending upon the circumstances. Some of the areas where help might be solicited would include the determining of logical alternatives, ascertaining whether an action was suggested, help with the analysis of alternative lines of play and help with unfamiliar and/or unusual bidding methods etc. >Jerry Fusselman: > >For example, do you try to find players who play or >understand the pair's methods and would have made their >earlier calls? We would want to ask players who understand the pair's methods, (but they would not necessarily need to play or endorse those particular methods). In Richard's (snipped) example, it would be pointless polling someone about an issue concerning a symmetric relay sequence if they did not have some concept of end-signals and zooming! >Jerry Fusselman: > >Is a later step in the polling asking what UI might suggest? > >Richard Hills: > > >Definitely discussed amongst the Directing group, perhaps a > >poll might be taken of expert players. > > The issue as to whether the particular option chosen was demonstrably suggested over others is often more difficult to resolve than just a simple question about LAs - hence input via wide consultation now becomes even more necessary. > > > >Just as Howard Schenken was the second-best American expert > >of the 1950s, so Laurie Kelso is the second-best Australian > >Director of the 2000s. Laurie is also a blml lurker, so he > >can more accurately answer Jerry's questions if he chooses > >to unlurk. Embarrassed into responding would be a more accurate description. Laurie From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 23:04:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:04:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> Message-ID: Anagram of William Ewart Gladstone: "Wild agitator! Means well." Herman De Wael: >Richard, Richard - you are deliberately refusing to agree >with anything I say. Richard Hills: Not so, I agree with many of Herman's conclusions. Argumentum ad logicam. Queen Victoria, diary entry on Gladstone: "He addresses Me as if I was a public meeting." Herman De Wael: >I am trying to let you see that my points of view are not >as different from yours, and you just jump on any word you >find jumpable-onto. W.E. Gladstone (1809-1898): "I am sorry to say that I have a long speech fermenting in me, and I feel as a loaf might in the oven." Richard Hills: Yes, I pedantically jump on words when (in my opinion) the right conclusion is reached by using the wrong and possibly misleading semantics. See the parallel thread debating the huge gulf between the dictionary definition of "logical" (which has been the basis of many flawed TD and AC rulings) and the bridge definition of "logical alternative". Herman De Wael: >Richard is apparently of the opinion that if a player says >"I've never done this before" or if his partner says "he's >never done that with me", we simply believe that and we >allow the psyche to go through. Richard Hills: Pedantic and semantic quibble. Not "psyche", but rather "alleged psyche". Law 85 "balance of probabilities" tests the allegation. Actions by the alleged psycher's partner subsequent to the alleged psyche (for example, the partner choosing a non-logical alternative which just happens to fit like a glove with the alleged psycher's actual cards) help determine the tilting of the scales of justice. Herman De Wael: >But if anyone says "yeah, I've done that once before, >three years ago", they are to be hung and quartered. > >Richard is therefore punishing the honest player, while >defending the right to psyche, but only allowing the >dishonest players to do so. W.E. Gladstone, four times Prime Minister of Great Britain: "There never was a Churchill from John of Marlborough down that had either morals or principles." Herman De Wael: >I'd rather you'd just come out and say it: you want to ban >all psyches. Medley Teams (three 10-board matches per session, imps converted into WBF VPs, must partner a different team-mate in each match) North-South play Dorothy Acol, but given the Conditions of Contest North is not Dorothy on this board. Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Nixon Hills --- 1D Pass ? You, Hills, hold: QT9 --- Q62 KT86542 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Oct 28 23:16:22 2008 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:16:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4362044543D94DBD9DD12BD8547173DF@MARVLAPTOP> The problem of how to handle psychs goes away if they are treated the same as falsecards. No one would think to inquire about a possible falsecard, and no opponent would respond. Of course psych bids are a bit different, because the partner may be aware, despite lack of strong evidence, that a bid or double is a possible psych . However, if there is no conceivable way that the partner could use that knowledge, or there is a way but he doesn't use it, then there should be no need to Alert the possibility. A major suit response over a takeout double must be raised even when a 1NT rebid would be just as logical. Otherwise collusion would be rightfully suspected. But if RHO doubles the bid for business, opener is not obligated to raise with good support, because the logic of the auction reveals an almost certain psych. That is common knowledge, not a special partnership agreement, even if it happens a thousand times. If an agreement is not *special,* no amount of partnership experience makes it special. Psychs are part of the game, even though the ACBL hates them. In my time psychs were almost as frequent as falsecards and went unpenalized unless there was evidence of catering to the possible psych when evidence was lacking. Players with any experience coped with them as best they could and did not go bawling to the TD if they were fooled. Well, some did, but the TD would say (Probst-like), "Why are you wasting my time?" We even had psych tendencies marked in boxes on the convention card: Never, Rare, Occasional, or Frequent. Thinking that would both condone and encourage a practice it hated, the ACBL removed this sensible disclosure from the CC. So I just checked the markCup of 1997 Laws to reflect the new 2007 Laws, and I see that Law 75A, B, and C were not shown for the 1997 Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Oct 29 00:00:52 2008 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:00:52 -0800 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <4362044543D94DBD9DD12BD8547173DF@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <6632627838524C0488506763A684376D@MARVLAPTOP> I sent this accidentally, as it was not finished.Please ignore it for now. I was unaware that L40 has replaced L75 A B and C. More later. - Marv > The problem of how to handle psychs goes away if they are treated > the same as falsecards. No one would think to inquire about a > possible falsecard, and no opponent would respond. Of course psych > bids are a bit different, because the partner may be aware, > despite > lack of strong evidence, that a bid or double is a possible psych > . > However, if there is no conceivable way that the partner could use > that knowledge, or there is a way but he doesn't use it, then > there > should be no need to Alert the possibility. > > A major suit response over a takeout double must be raised even > when > a 1NT rebid would be just as logical. Otherwise collusion would be > rightfully suspected. But if RHO doubles the bid for business, > opener is not obligated to raise with good support, because the > logic of the auction reveals an almost certain psych. > That is common knowledge, not a special partnership agreement, > even if it happens a thousand times. If an agreement is not > *special,* no amount of partnership experience makes it special. > > Psychs are part of the game, even though the ACBL hates them. In > my > time psychs were almost as frequent as falsecards and went > unpenalized unless there was evidence of catering to the possible > psych when evidence was lacking. Players with any experience coped > with them as best they could and did not go bawling to the TD if > they were fooled. Well, some did, but the TD would say > (Probst-like), "Why are you wasting my time?" > > We even had psych tendencies marked in boxes on the convention > card: > Never, Rare, Occasional, or Frequent. Thinking that would both > condone and encourage a practice it hated, the ACBL removed this > sensible disclosure from the CC. > > So I just checked the markCup of 1997 Laws to reflect the new 2007 > Laws, and I see that Law 75A, B, and C were not shown for the 1997 > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 29 02:17:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:17:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810272239i40a183c0u83566d479335a3b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >Suppose that all six say "I consider it a tossup between >passing and bidding 3D, but I think I would try 3D." >Would you still say that passing is not a logical >alternative? Richard Hills: Under the Aussie regulation interpreting Law 16B1(b), yes I would still say that pass is not a logical alternative. The ABF rule defines the Law 16B1(b) concluding phrase "some might select it" as meaning that more than 25% of the class of player using the methods of the partnership would make that call at the table if zero UI existed. The ABF regulation helpfully notes, for the arithmetically challenged, that this means that there are a maximum of three logical alternatives available for an Aussie player at any one time. Jerry Fusselman: >If so, it seems to me that you want the Probst cheat to >prosper. Richard Hills: I am but a humble servant of the ABF and WBF; what I may or may not _want_ will not again become relevant until the WBF Coordinator again calls for suggestions in the next decade on an even-newer Lawbook. But if it so happens that the six peers polled each vote for a different call, then under ABF regs none of these six alternatives are logical alternatives, thus Law 16 is not relevant in Australia. However..... The stricter Law 73C will then apply, preventing any Old Black Magic by an Aussie version of a Probst cheat. Law 73C Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner: When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Oct 29 02:47:14 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:47:14 +1300 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0810272239i40a183c0u83566d479335a3b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810281847q21da707aw4342852a7c439460@mail.gmail.com> > But if it so happens that the six peers polled each vote > for a different call, then under ABF regs none of these six > alternatives are logical alternatives, thus Law 16 is not > relevant in Australia. Polling only six players is far too small of a sample to determine reliably the logical alternatives using the Australian 25% rule. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 29 04:05:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:05:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810281847q21da707aw4342852a7c439460@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Aussie / Kiwi Law 16B1(b) regulation, second paragraph: "On the other hand if it is judged that more than 75% of the class of players in question using the same partnership methods, would select the same action as that taken by the player in receipt of the unauthorised information, then the Director shall proceed on the basis that no other logical alternative actions exist. This would lead to a ruling that the table result stands." Wayne Burrows: >Polling only six players is far too small of a sample to >determine reliably the logical alternatives using the >Australian 25% rule. Opinion poll, Wikipedia article: "...a poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population...The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people. In practice pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500-1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls..." Richard Hills: So, as an Aussie TD, if I wish to accurately determine whether Charlie the Chimp choosing a demonstrably suggested logical alternative was a legal choice of the only logical alternative, I have to poll 1,000 other Third Chimpanzees. And if the result of the poll is 76% in favour of Charlie the Chimp, as an Aussie TD I must note that the favourable result for Charlie is borderline, with the 3% margin of error possibly being decisive, thus polling a further 9,000 Third Chimpanzees is needed. And if after a poll of 10,000 then Charlie's supporters have dwindled to 73%, I can with reliable confidence join Wayne Burrows and Jerry Fusselman in ruling that the "Probst cheat" Charlie the Chimp has indeed committed an infraction. Or..... As an Aussie TD, I might (perhaps) save time by ruling under Law 85B, Facts Not Determined "If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 29 06:18:32 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:18:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0810272239i40a183c0u83566d479335a3b7@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810281847q21da707aw4342852a7c439460@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002301c93986$1caefa00$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> But if it so happens that the six peers polled each vote >> for a different call, then under ABF regs none of these six >> alternatives are logical alternatives, thus Law 16 is not >> relevant in Australia. > > Polling only six players is far too small of a sample to determine > reliably the logical alternatives using the Australian 25% rule. > +=+ Notionally therefore the Director must expand his sample to envisage the response of say 24 players, and allow that among these he would discover a number of replies that do not figure in his minimal sample. If the expansion can include a proportion that would use the call in question logic insists that it may vary in other respects too. 25% is a remarkably high determinant level for the phrase 'of whom some' which, as to language, would be satisfied with maybe as little as 3%. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 29 07:44:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:44:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4906DCE6.8050604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >More uncommon, but still possible, is the case where a >rare type of hand is unbiddable. Those who play 5-card >S/H/D and 2-card clubs will have a problem on holding >4.4.4.1 > >I know one pair who wrote on their SC 'with 4.4.4.1, >choose between 1C,1D and 1H and don't take this into >account' ; how should this be explained ? [snip] Richard Hills: It should be explained in accordance with the implicit understanding(s) they developed over time. Do they implicitly follow Hideous Hog style, choosing a lead- directing opening of the weakest of their three four- card suits? An Aussie player proudly invented a home-grown hybrid system which merged the worst features of Precision and Acol. The front of his card read: 1C = 16+ hcp, any shape 1D = 11-15 hcp, 4+ diamonds 1H = 11-15 hcp, 4+ hearts 1S = 11-15 hcp, 4+ spades 1NT= 12-14 hcp, balanced I immediately asked him what was their partnership understanding when holding exactly 15 hcp and exactly 3334 shape, but he refused to answer. Not that this obvious but trivial concealed partnership understanding made any difference, since his Second Worst System in the World meant that his team lost a blitz to my team. David Burn: >>Disraeli called Gladstone a "sophisticated rhetorician >>intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity". >>This was a bit unfair on Gladstone, but Richard wasn't >>alive at the time, so Disraeli chose the only target >>he could. At the first debate amongst Democratic presidential primary candidates, way back when on April 27th 2007, moderator Brian Williams cited criticism of Senator Joe Biden's "uncontrolled verbosity" and tendency to be a "gaffe machine", then asked: "Senator Biden, words have, in the past, gotten you in trouble. Words that were borrowed and words that some found hateful. Can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, Senator?" Senator Joe Biden: "Yes." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 29 09:42:57 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:42:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001001c939a2$6a4c72d0$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > "Senator Biden, words have, in the past, gotten you in > trouble. Words that were borrowed and words that some > found hateful. Can you reassure voters in this country > that you would have the discipline you would need on > the world stage, Senator?" > > Senator Joe Biden: > > "Yes." > +=+ Reassurance is easily available on the tongue. Hearers variously would assess the value of the reassurance variously. Such also is the experience of sceptical subscribers to this list. ~ G ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 29 11:33:52 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:33:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> You've done it again, Richard. You jump on one word and refuse to answer the whole post. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Anagram of William Ewart Gladstone: > > "Wild agitator! Means well." > > Herman De Wael: > >> Richard, Richard - you are deliberately refusing to agree >> with anything I say. > > Richard Hills: > > Not so, I agree with many of Herman's conclusions. Not so - but then you don't agree on anything I wrote in this thread. > > Yes, I pedantically jump on words when (in my opinion) the > right conclusion is reached by using the wrong and possibly > misleading semantics. See the parallel thread debating the > huge gulf between the dictionary definition of "logical" > (which has been the basis of many flawed TD and AC rulings) > and the bridge definition of "logical alternative". > Yes, you jump on words - and not on whole pieces of argument. Hooray, Richard has agreed with something. But will he act on it? > Herman De Wael: > >> Richard is apparently of the opinion that if a player says >> "I've never done this before" or if his partner says "he's >> never done that with me", we simply believe that and we >> allow the psyche to go through. > > Richard Hills: > > Pedantic and semantic quibble. Not "psyche", but rather > "alleged psyche". Again, he jumps on the word "believe" and says he will investigate. But he does not comment on my wider issue - that we should not need to investigate whether a player has done it before - that is not what creates a psyche or not. > Law 85 "balance of probabilities" tests > the allegation. Actions by the alleged psycher's partner > subsequent to the alleged psyche (for example, the partner > choosing a non-logical alternative which just happens to > fit like a glove with the alleged psycher's actual cards) > help determine the tilting of the scales of justice. > > Herman De Wael: > >> But if anyone says "yeah, I've done that once before, >> three years ago", they are to be hung and quartered. >> >> Richard is therefore punishing the honest player, while >> defending the right to psyche, but only allowing the >> dishonest players to do so. > > W.E. Gladstone, four times Prime Minister of Great Britain: > > "There never was a Churchill from John of Marlborough down > that had either morals or principles." > I have absolutely no idea what this quote means in the context of my allegation of what Richard does: punishing the honest player. Does this mean Richard agrees with me or does it mean he has found not easy way out? > Herman De Wael: > >> I'd rather you'd just come out and say it: you want to ban >> all psyches. > > Medley Teams (three 10-board matches per session, imps > converted into WBF VPs, must partner a different team-mate > in each match) > And then he comes up with an example I am too tired to read. So presumably that means he does not agree with what I impute to him, but he does not wish to take the correct step of agreeing with my previous argumentation. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 29 12:47:27 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:47:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c93986$1caefa00$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0810272239i40a183c0u83566d479335a3b7@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810281847q21da707aw4342852a7c439460@mail.gmail.com> <002301c93986$1caefa00$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49084D4F.9090906@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Let us then be up and doing, > With a heart for any fate, > Still achieving, still pursuing, > Learn to labour and to wait." > [H.W. Longfellow] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >>> But if it so happens that the six peers polled each vote >>> for a different call, then under ABF regs none of these six >>> alternatives are logical alternatives, thus Law 16 is not >>> relevant in Australia. >>> >> Polling only six players is far too small of a sample to determine >> reliably the logical alternatives using the Australian 25% rule. >> >> > +=+ Notionally therefore the Director must expand his sample > to envisage the response of say 24 players AG : nowhere in the rules is it written how the TD or AC could find 24 playersof the same level and past experience and using the same methods as the player under scrutiny. Well, perhaps that's why it is said 'judged', not 'established', that some would etc.. > , and allow that among > these he would discover a number of replies that do not figure in > his minimal sample. If the expansion can include a proportion > that would use the call in question logic insists that it may vary in > other respects too. > 25% is a remarkably high determinant level for the phrase > 'of whom some' which, as to language, would be satisfied with > maybe as little as 3%. AG : which, this time, would require polling 33 peers of the player. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 29 13:13:00 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:13:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] You've done it again, Richard. You jump on one word and refuse to answer the whole post. > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: Anagram of William Ewart Gladstone: "Wild agitator! Means well." > Richard, Richard - you are deliberately refusing to agree with anything I say. Richard Hills: Not so, I agree with many of Herman's conclusions. > Not so - but then you don't agree on anything I wrote in this thread. Yes, I pedantically jump on words when (in my opinion) the right conclusion is reached by using the wrong and possibly misleading semantics. See the parallel thread debating the huge gulf between the dictionary definition of "logical" (which has been the basis of many flawed TD and AC rulings) and the bridge definition of "logical alternative". Yes, you jump on words - and not on whole pieces of argument. Hooray, Richard has agreed with something. But will he act on it? Herman De Wael: > Richard is apparently of the opinion that if a player says "I've never done this before" or if his partner says "he's never done that with me", we simply believe that and we allow the psyche to go through. >> Richard Hills: > Pedantic and semantic quibble. Not "psyche", but rather "alleged psyche". Again, he jumps on the word "believe" and says he will investigate. But he does not comment on my wider issue - that we should not need to investigate whether a player has done it before - that is not what creates a psyche or not. Law 85 "balance of probabilities" tests the allegation. Actions by the alleged psycher's partner subsequent to the alleged psyche (for example, the partner choosing a non-logical alternative which just happens to fit like a glove with the alleged psycher's actual cards) help determine the tilting of the scales of justice. > : But if anyone says "yeah, I've done that once before, three years ago", they are to be hung and quartered. > Richard is therefore punishing the honest player, while defending the right to psyche, but only allowing the dishonest players to do so. W.E. Gladstone, four times Prime Minister of Great Britain: > "There never was a Churchill from John of Marlborough down that had either morals or principles." > I have absolutely no idea what this quote means in the context of my allegation of what Richard does: punishing the honest player. Does this mean Richard agrees with me or does it mean he has found not easy way out? < Herman De Wael: I'd rather you'd just come out and say it: you want to ban all psyches. < Medley Teams (three 10-board matches per session, imps converted into WBF VPs, must partner a different team-mate in each match) < > And then he comes up with an example I am too tired to read. > So presumably that means he does not agree with what I impute to him, > but he does not wish to take the correct step of agreeing with my > previous argumentation. > +=+ Such a mish-mash of confusing statements. Could we try to understand one point at a time? And what is the ultimate point we are asked to consider? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [W.E. Gladstone, four times Prime Minister of Great Britain .... And regular after-dark wanderer in the more insalubrious parts of London, giving solace to 'fallen' women.} From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 29 14:20:01 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:20:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> OK Grattan, let me try once again: Grattan wrote: >> > +=+ Such a mish-mash of confusing statements. Could we try to > understand one point at a time? And what is the ultimate point we > are asked to consider? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Richard asked a very good question: A psyche is a gross deviation from "something". What is that something? He gave 4 possibilities that I did not really understand. I tried to give my answer. I'll try again. A psyche is a gross deviation from pre-arranged agreements. I use the word agreement in its every-day sense, not in the sense of the 1997 laws. The word has disappeared from the 2007 laws. The 2007 laws speak of understandings. It is my firm opinion that there can be partnership understandings regarding psyches. Those understandings are disclosable. That does not mean, however, that the understandings become part of the agreements - because then there can be no more deviations from the agreements. As far as the HUM regulations are concerned, these cannot relate to partnership understandings. Otherwise, every psuche falls under its cloak, and the regulation simply forbids psyching, which cannot be what is wanted. Therefore, HUM regulations only relate to agreements, not to all understandings. I have so far not spoken out (in this thread - I have in others) as to how one distinguishes agreements from all understandings. As far as the laws are concerned, that is not really important, since all the laws are concerned with is disclosure, and all understandings must be disclosed. But for the HUM regulations, this is in fact important, so that we can see under what regulation the H1H (Herman 1 heart) and the H1H (Helgemo 1 heart) fall. Is there anything wrong with my analysis? Please do not attack individual words, like "agreement". This word has no legal meaning for the moment, and I find the use of "donkey" too silly. Herman. From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Oct 29 14:30:54 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:30:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0810290630x4e6feaa4ma7fb039fc761de31@mail.gmail.com> I'd argue that there is a much simplier way to skin the cat: 1. Explictly recognize that players can have agreements about mixed strategies 2. Change the HUM regulations to sanction such agreements -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 29 15:18:08 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:18:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2008, at 2:35 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman: > >> I see Logical as just a shortened version of Logical >> Alternative. They seem the same. What makes you >> think that anyone considers them different? > > Richard Hills: > > The dictionary definition of "logical" has not even > the slightest resemblance to the 2007 Law 16B1(b) > definition of "logical alternative". > > For the 1997 Lawbook the then coordinator, Edgar > Kaplan, chose to leave "logical alternative" without > any internal Law 16 definition, hence the pre-2008 > confusion caused by people choosing to read external > dictionaries. > > Using "logical" as shorthand for "LA" even now may > subtly influence one's thought processes in the > wrong direction of the Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > "logical a, in conformance with the laws of logic, > rightly deducible, defensible on the grounds of > consistency, capable of reasoning correctly" > > How many blmlers fulfil this dictionary definition > of "logical"? Definitely not me, but all my calls > are nevertheless logical alternatives. There is some ambiguity of language here. Calling B a "logical alternative" could mean either that B is logically an alternative or that B is both logical and an alternative. I think we need the former interpretation for L16B to make sense. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 29 15:20:16 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:20:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c939d1$77928950$66b79bf0$@no> May I as a "simple soul" offer my understanding of the terms "partnership understanding", "HUM" and "psyches"? "Partnership understanding" includes _everything_ needed to understand the meaning of a particular call (or play). This includes specific agreements as well as general understandings from that partnership experience, and also knowledge of sources from which partner has obtained his personal experience. Every relevant piece of such partnership understanding must be disclosed when explanation of an auction is requested. Example: What do I mean when I bid "one heart"? That depends on my "partnership understanding"; the term "one heart" does not have any intrinsic meaning in any national language (except as a statement to the effect that the player has just one single heart which obviously is not the meaning of that term when used in an auction). The term has a specific meaning in the bridge language and that meaning can be derived from the actual partnership understanding. Once a partnership understanding exists it may have to be tested for legality against the HUM rules. So if according to partnership understanding the opening bid of 1H can be made with a hand of less strength than a hand that according to the partnership understanding can be passed then this partnership understanding is HUM. The bid may still be accepted as a psyche, but only if it qualifies as such by the special requirements for a call to be accepted as a psyche. A psyche is by definition a gross deviation from partnership understanding, thus a partnership understanding may never include any specification of the tendency for a player to "psyche". (Such inclusion would make that specification part of the understanding, and adhering to this specification would therefore not be a deviation from the agreements but rather observation of the understanding). Having a call accepted as a psyche is actually a privilege on this specific occasion to having deviated from the partnership understandings without any consequence in the form of rectification or penalty. In order to be accepted as a psyche a call must meet certain qualifications; simplified the call must have been at least as big a surprise to partner as it was to opponents. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 29. oktober 2008 14:20 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > OK Grattan, let me try once again: > > Grattan wrote: > >> > > +=+ Such a mish-mash of confusing statements. Could we try to > > understand one point at a time? And what is the ultimate point we > > are asked to consider? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Richard asked a very good question: > A psyche is a gross deviation from "something". What is that something? > He gave 4 possibilities that I did not really understand. > I tried to give my answer. I'll try again. > > A psyche is a gross deviation from pre-arranged agreements. > I use the word agreement in its every-day sense, not in the sense of the > 1997 laws. The word has disappeared from the 2007 laws. > The 2007 laws speak of understandings. > It is my firm opinion that there can be partnership understandings > regarding psyches. Those understandings are disclosable. > That does not mean, however, that the understandings become part of the > agreements - because then there can be no more deviations from the > agreements. > > As far as the HUM regulations are concerned, these cannot relate to > partnership understandings. Otherwise, every psuche falls under its > cloak, and the regulation simply forbids psyching, which cannot be what > is wanted. Therefore, HUM regulations only relate to agreements, not to > all understandings. > > I have so far not spoken out (in this thread - I have in others) as to > how one distinguishes agreements from all understandings. As far as the > laws are concerned, that is not really important, since all the laws are > concerned with is disclosure, and all understandings must be disclosed. > > But for the HUM regulations, this is in fact important, so that we can > see under what regulation the H1H (Herman 1 heart) and the H1H (Helgemo > 1 heart) fall. > > Is there anything wrong with my analysis? > > Please do not attack individual words, like "agreement". This word has > no legal meaning for the moment, and I find the use of "donkey" too silly. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 29 15:26:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:26:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <67CF3410-E001-4266-99F4-E2053D090AE1@starpower.net> On Oct 28, 2008, at 4:53 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Abstract "knowledge" which has never-ever been known to the >> particular player's partner is not relevant for the purposes >> of Law. > > Isn't it? > Richard is apparently of the opinion that if a player says "I've never > done this before" or if his partner says "he's never done that with > me", > we simply believe that and we allow the psyche to go through. But if > anyone says "yeah, I've done that once before, three years ago", they > are to be hung and quartered. Not even the psych-phobic ACBL has a problem with someone who says, "Yeah, I've done that once before, three years ago." To get a partnership hung and quartered, even in the ACBL, requires someone to say, "Yeah, partner's done that once before, three years ago." Which is, I believe, Richard's point here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Oct 29 15:36:17 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:36:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <490874E1.6000908@meadows.pair.com> Grattan wrote: > > +=+ Such a mish-mash of confusing statements. <...> IMO, it would certainly make deciphering some BLML messages rather easier if we could eliminate all the non-standard quoting. Brian. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 29 15:57:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:57:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system In-Reply-To: <4906D420.6030907@skynet.be> References: <4906D420.6030907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5040301B-F3C6-4AE3-8E24-A36D908B8D20@starpower.net> On Oct 28, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Robert Frick: >> >>> I think one reason for deliberately violating one's own >>> agreements is being "logical with an illogical system". Is >>> this legal, in the sense that the opponents do not have any >>> protection from mistaken explanations? I am thinking not. >>> >>> The simplest example is >>> >>> West North East South >>> 1H P 1NT(1) P >>> 2C(2) >>> >>> (1) forcing >>> (2) Explained as per agreement as showing 3 or more clubs. >>> However, the player is 4-5-2-2, without enough points to >>> bid 2S and not enough hearts to bid 2H. The players, in >>> this example, did not think enough about their system. >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> As TD I would not rule "no agreement" but rather "agreement >> to have a hole in one's system", so I would rule the failure >> to disclose the hole to the opponents as misinformation. >> >> But, if this was the first time that the hole had come to >> the attention of East-West (perhaps they are a newly formed >> partnership), then North-South are _not entitled_ to know how >> West would choose to _resolve_ the hole. Under Law 40A3 West >> may freely decide to choose a rebid of Pass, 2C, 2D, 2H or >> 2S, whichever West judges has the best cost-benefit ratio. > > Indeed - the information content of "2C might be 2 cards because we > haven't discussed what to do with 4522" is different from "2C might > be 2 > cards if we have 4522". > > And of course it is the correct one which must be disclosed. Jerry is asking about players who "did not think enough" to realize they have a hole in their system. If the realization that the partnership has no understanding about what to do with 4-5-2-2 were sufficiently salient to be mentioned in disclosure it would already have been discussed and resolved. Having no agreement (as because one has simply overlooked the existence of the hole) is *not* the same as having an agreement not to define a systemic call for that hand, which is, in effect, and agreement to select the closest systemic approximation. Disclosure of the latter should be along the lines of, "2C normally shows 3+, but he might choose it with 4-5-2-2 since we have no systemic call with that holding." "2C might be two cards if we have 4-5-2-2" sounds more like an agreement to bid 2C with 4-5-2-2. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 29 16:07:53 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:07:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c939d8$25c35fd0$714a1f70$@com> [HdW] As far as the HUM regulations are concerned, these cannot relate to partnership understandings. [DALB] The trouble is that they can't relate to anything else. Nor is it possible to claim, as Herman appears to me to be attempting to claim, that there is a difference between agreements and understandings. There is not, for the Law says that: Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. Now, the WBF Systems Policy says that a method is a HUM if: By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. If it is "standard in Norway" to open 1H on a seven count in third (or any other) position, then it is standard in Norway to play a HUM. You cannot say "well, we agree to open with 10+ but we understand that we will sometimes have seven", because an agreement is an understanding (and an understanding is an agreement, since Law 40A1 is called "Players' Systemic Agreements", despite Herman's rather cavalier assertion that the word "agreement" does not appear in the Laws). That is why Mr Burn suggested that whatever the EBU did would be illegal. If you open 1H on a seven count (or a two count) with sufficient regularity that your partner understands you will sometimes do so, then you have an (implicit) agreement that a 1H opening is 7+, (or 2+) and not 10+ as your explicit agreements indicate. You must disclose this to the opponents, which does not of itself cause a problem. What does cause a problem is that your understanding is now subject to regulation. The WBF regulations mean that you are now playing a HUM. The EBU regulations mean that you are now playing an illegal method. If it were legal to ban psyching, this would not matter. But it is not legal to ban psyching, provided that the tendency to psyche is properly disclosed (so that the opponents have as much reason as partner does to be aware of the possibility of deviation). As I remarked before, I think that the WBF policy on psychic bidding is a step towards a possible resolution of the difficulty with the EBU position: Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. Who knows - it might even work in Norway. Of course, it requires rather more vigilant policing than may be possible for all events by all NBOs. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 29 16:10:45 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:10:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system In-Reply-To: <4906DCE6.8050604@ulb.ac.be> References: <4906DCE6.8050604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <9ED25809-467D-4553-9DD3-1E637BF4F07D@starpower.net> On Oct 28, 2008, at 5:35 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > More uncommon, but still possible, is the case where a rare type of > hand > is unbiddable. Those who play 5-card S/H/D and 2-card clubs will > have a > problem on holding 4.4.4.1 > I know one pair who wrote on their SC 'with 4.4.4.1, choose between > 1C,1D and 1H and don't take this into account' ; how should this be > explained ? In more detail. Presumably one is supposed to open 1D or 1H if the suit is "good enough", with some (disclosable) agreement as to what that means (e.g. can stand a 2-level raise on xxx), otherwise 1C. "Don't take this into account" means that responses and rebids are defined on the presumption that partner will always have a five-, or two-, card suit for his bid, i.e. an agreement not to try to "field" 4-4-4-1 hands. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 29 16:32:55 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:32:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c939d1$77928950$66b79bf0$@no> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> <000201c939d1$77928950$66b79bf0$@no> Message-ID: <49088227.1000700@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > Once a partnership understanding exists it may have to be tested for > legality against the HUM rules. So if according to partnership understanding > the opening bid of 1H can be made with a hand of less strength than a hand > that according to the partnership understanding can be passed then this > partnership understanding is HUM. > AG : once again, I'm at odds with the combination of this and HCP count. If I state that I might well open 1H on Ax - AQ109x - xxx - xxx but might pass Qx - Jxxxx - KQJ - Qxx, and if partner knows it, I'm playing a HUM. That's because the measure unit for strength can only be HCPs. And even if other strength factors are taken ito account, big problems still exist ; notice that Sven's definition includes the word 'can', which will create many complications if there are hands that I might open 1H or not, according to external circumstances. For exemple, if I say "we open all 12-18 hands including 5+ hearts with 1H, and may do so with 10-11", implying that sometimes I might open on KJ - AQ109x - xxx - xxx, but at some other times I might pass on KQ - AQ109x - xxx - xxx (because of state of the match, who opponents are etc.), then I'm playing a HUM according to Sven's definition : there is a hand that I can open, which is by all criteria weaker than another hand that I can pass. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 29 17:11:21 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:11:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <4362044543D94DBD9DD12BD8547173DF@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <4362044543D94DBD9DD12BD8547173DF@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <9B44BAB6-4517-42ED-A8DF-BE8143D703CF@starpower.net> On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > A major suit response over a takeout double must be raised even when > a 1NT rebid would be just as logical. Otherwise collusion would be > rightfully suspected. But if RHO doubles the bid for business, > opener is not obligated to raise with good support, because the > logic of the auction reveals an almost certain psych. > That is common knowledge, not a special partnership agreement, > even if it happens a thousand times. If an agreement is not > *special,* no amount of partnership experience makes it special. No amount of partnership experience makes an understanding "special". And no amount of common knowledge makes an understanding "not special". Under the 2008 laws, only the "opinion of the Regulating Authority" gets to determine whether an understanding is special or not special, and TFLB offers no constraints on their "opinion". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 29 17:19:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:19:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c939d8$25c35fd0$714a1f70$@com> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> <000001c939d8$25c35fd0$714a1f70$@com> Message-ID: <49088D24.1020503@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [HdW] > > As far as the HUM regulations are concerned, these cannot relate to > partnership understandings. > > [DALB] > > The trouble is that they can't relate to anything else. Nor is it possible > to claim, as Herman appears to me to be attempting to claim, that there is a > difference between agreements and understandings. There is not, for the Law > says that: > > Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership > understanding. > AG : surely everobody will realize that this is not a proof at all. Saying that an agreement is perforce an understanding doesn't mean that the two are equals. The converse (all understandings are agreements) might be false. In my personal view, an agreement is everything we know about the system, and an understanding is everything about the system which we take into account. In that case, an agreement would indeed automatically be an understanding, but there is indeed a difference between those. And of course that's why making a similar psyche a second time is possible. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 29 17:34:34 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:34:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c939d1$77928950$66b79bf0$@no> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> <000201c939d1$77928950$66b79bf0$@no> Message-ID: <4908909A.6040607@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > A psyche is by definition a gross deviation from partnership understanding, > thus a partnership understanding may never include any specification of the > tendency for a player to "psyche". (Such inclusion would make that > specification part of the understanding, and adhering to this specification > would therefore not be a deviation from the agreements but rather > observation of the understanding). > Sven refutes the existence of any and all psyches. The sentence "Sven has never ever psyched in his life" is a piece of partnership understanding. Therefore, even the first psyche that Sven does is part of his partnership understanding, by Sven's definition. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 29 17:38:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:38:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c939d8$25c35fd0$714a1f70$@com> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> <000001c939d8$25c35fd0$714a1f70$@com> Message-ID: <4908919A.2080303@skynet.be> David has completely missed the boat. David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > As far as the HUM regulations are concerned, these cannot relate to > partnership understandings. > > [DALB] > > The trouble is that they can't relate to anything else. Nor is it possible > to claim, as Herman appears to me to be attempting to claim, that there is a > difference between agreements and understandings. There is not, for the Law > says that: > > Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership > understanding. > The word agreement is not to be found in L40A1a. I have used the word agreement in its normal sense. One might call agreement those that are arrived at explicitely. And I said that agreements are a subset of understandings. All this was clearly spelt out but David falls into the Richardian disease of picking one word (in this case one sentence) and jumping on it. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 29 17:43:04 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:43:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <67CF3410-E001-4266-99F4-E2053D090AE1@starpower.net> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <67CF3410-E001-4266-99F4-E2053D090AE1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49089298.70102@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Not even the psych-phobic ACBL has a problem with someone who says, > "Yeah, I've done that once before, three years ago." To get a > partnership hung and quartered, even in the ACBL, requires someone to > say, "Yeah, partner's done that once before, three years ago." Which > is, I believe, Richard's point here. > > Maybe it is Richard's point - it's certainly yours now. But this gets us into very troubled waters. Let's suppose we have a record of all the bids a player makes (not a very unlikely supposition in a few years time). A player makes a psyche and we go through his history and find a similar psyche three years ago. Do we agree that this frequency (although indeed low) is disclosable information? Does it matter whether partner remembers? Do we really want to have to ask partner if he remembered? Troubled waters indeed. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 29 18:03:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:03:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c939d8$25c35fd0$714a1f70$@com> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> <000001c939d8$25c35fd0$714a1f70$@com> Message-ID: <000001c939e8$512ba320$f382e960$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn .............. > If it is "standard in Norway" to open 1H on a seven count in third (or any > other) position, then it is standard in Norway to play a HUM. I shall not claim to be an expert on "Norwegian standards" for opening bids in the third hand (or for that's sake in any position), but I do have some knowledge and experience on the matter from directing at various levels. And to my knowledge the "standard" when a player decides to open a weak hand (regardless of his position) is to open it with a bid at the two-level or even higher, not at the one-level. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Oct 29 20:39:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:39:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <49089298.70102@skynet.be> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <67CF3410-E001-4266-99F4-E2053D090AE1@starpower.net> <49089298.70102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <35B1CF6C-47F0-44A4-85CF-D4C31101D71B@starpower.net> On Oct 29, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Not even the psych-phobic ACBL has a problem with someone who says, >> "Yeah, I've done that once before, three years ago." To get a >> partnership hung and quartered, even in the ACBL, requires someone to >> say, "Yeah, partner's done that once before, three years ago." Which >> is, I believe, Richard's point here. > > Maybe it is Richard's point - it's certainly yours now. I never claimed or suggested that it was mine. I merely reported it as being the ACBL's, which I neither represent nor necessarily agree with. > But this gets us into very troubled waters. > > Let's suppose we have a record of all the bids a player makes (not a > very unlikely supposition in a few years time). > A player makes a psyche and we go through his history and find a > similar > psyche three years ago. Regardless of whose point it is, this continues to miss it. That we go through a player's history and find a similar psych three years ago has no bearing whatsoever *unless* he was playing with (or perhaps against) his current partner. > Do we agree that this frequency (although indeed low) is disclosable > information? Given the correction above, the ACBL's position is that it is a partnership understanding based on the single previous occurence. Under some circumstances, that might indeed make it disclosable, but if it was a genuine "gross misstatement" it is far more likely to be considered an illegal understanding, so the issue of disclosure doesn't arise. I do not assert that the ACBL's position is either sensible or legal; L40C1 refers to "repeated deviations". > Does it matter whether partner remembers? Not to the ACBL. ISTM, though, that whether "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" [L40C1] does depend on what partner remembers, so, again, I do not agree with the logic of the ACBL's position. > Do we really want to have to ask partner if he remembered? Of course we do, IMO, although here, again, the ACBL's position is otherwise. How can we possibly tell who "has more reason to be aware of the deviation" without investigating their respective degrees of awareness? > Troubled waters indeed. Disclaimer: What I have reported here is the ACBL's position under the three previous versions of the laws (1975 through 2007). It is possible that it has been changed in consequence of the adoption of the 2008 laws, but I am personally not aware of any such official action. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 29 22:33:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:33:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At the first debate amongst Democratic presidential primary candidates, way back when on April 27th 2007, moderator Brian Williams cited criticism of Senator Joe Biden's "uncontrolled verbosity" and tendency to be a "gaffe machine", then asked: "Senator Biden, words have, in the past, gotten you in trouble. Words that were borrowed and words that some found hateful. Can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, Senator?" Senator Joe Biden: "Yes." +=+ Reassurance is easily available on the tongue. Hearers variously would assess the value of the reassurance variously. Such also is the experience of sceptical subscribers to this list. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Maybe. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Oct 29 23:21:49 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:21:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000c01c93a14$c3ad20f0$2401a8c0@p41600> pass... lnb **************************************** Did you hear about the jewish kamikaze pilot who crashed his plane into his brother's scrapyard. **************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] logical bids in an illogical system [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > At the first debate amongst Democratic presidential > primary candidates, way back when on April 27th 2007, > moderator Brian Williams cited criticism of Senator Joe > Biden's "uncontrolled verbosity" and tendency to be a > "gaffe machine", then asked: > > "Senator Biden, words have, in the past, gotten you in > trouble. Words that were borrowed and words that some > found hateful. Can you reassure voters in this country > that you would have the discipline you would need on > the world stage, Senator?" > > Senator Joe Biden: > > "Yes." > > +=+ Reassurance is easily available on the tongue. > Hearers variously would assess the value of the > reassurance variously. Such also is the experience of > sceptical subscribers to this list. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Maybe. > > > > -------------------------------------------------- ------------------ > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > -------------------------------------------------- ------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1753 - Release Date: 10/28/2008 9:20 PM From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 30 00:00:55 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:00:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <35B1CF6C-47F0-44A4-85CF-D4C31101D71B@starpower.net> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <67CF3410-E001-4266-99F4-E2053D090AE1@starpower.net> <49089298.70102@skynet.be> <35B1CF6C-47F0-44A4-85CF-D4C31101D71B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4908EB27.5070901@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 29, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Not even the psych-phobic ACBL has a problem with someone who says, >>> "Yeah, I've done that once before, three years ago." To get a >>> partnership hung and quartered, even in the ACBL, requires someone to >>> say, "Yeah, partner's done that once before, three years ago." Which >>> is, I believe, Richard's point here. >> Maybe it is Richard's point - it's certainly yours now. > > I never claimed or suggested that it was mine. I merely reported it > as being the ACBL's, which I neither represent nor necessarily agree > with. > >> But this gets us into very troubled waters. >> >> Let's suppose we have a record of all the bids a player makes (not a >> very unlikely supposition in a few years time). >> A player makes a psyche and we go through his history and find a >> similar >> psyche three years ago. > > Regardless of whose point it is, this continues to miss it. That we > go through a player's history and find a similar psych three years > ago has no bearing whatsoever *unless* he was playing with (or > perhaps against) his current partner. > I don't think it does matter, but suppose it does. So we find that it was with the same partner. Do you see my point now? Do you really want it to matter if the partner remembers it? >> Do we agree that this frequency (although indeed low) is disclosable >> information? > > Given the correction above, the ACBL's position is that it is a > partnership understanding based on the single previous occurence. > Under some circumstances, that might indeed make it disclosable, but > if it was a genuine "gross misstatement" it is far more likely to be > considered an illegal understanding, so the issue of disclosure > doesn't arise. I do not assert that the ACBL's position is either > sensible or legal; L40C1 refers to "repeated deviations". > Illegal understanding. There's the third crime again. I'll write that one up later. >> Does it matter whether partner remembers? > > Not to the ACBL. ISTM, though, that whether "partner has no more > reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" [L40C1] > does depend on what partner remembers, so, again, I do not agree with > the logic of the ACBL's position. > Since that law was written some time later than the position you are talking about, maybe that's not fair. >> Do we really want to have to ask partner if he remembered? > > Of course we do, IMO, although here, again, the ACBL's position is > otherwise. How can we possibly tell who "has more reason to be > aware of the deviation" without investigating their respective > degrees of awareness? > But do we want to trust a partner who has a good reason to state he did not remember? >> Troubled waters indeed. > > Disclaimer: What I have reported here is the ACBL's position under > the three previous versions of the laws (1975 through 2007). It is > possible that it has been changed in consequence of the adoption of > the 2008 laws, but I am personally not aware of any such official > action. > good disclaimer. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 30 00:04:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:04:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >I'd rather you'd just come out and say it: you want to ban >all psyches. Medley Teams (three 10-board matches per session, imps converted into WBF VPs, must partner a different team-mate in each match) North-South play Dorothy Acol, but given the Conditions of Contest North is not Dorothy on this board. Dlr: North Vul: North-South K873 Q2 AJ954 A3 AJ4 652 AKJ97653 T84 K T873 9 QJ7 QT9 --- Q62 KT86542 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Nixon Hills --- 1D Pass 1S (1) 4H 4S (2) Pass Pass Pass (1) Deliberate and gross (25%) misstatement of spade length (2) Roy Nixon had 2.735 degrees Kelvin cosmic background radiation awareness that I sometimes deviated from announced methods in a variety of ways, but at this time and in this auction I assert that Roy had no more reason to be aware of my deviation than had my opponents. Law 85 "balance of probabilities" support for my assertion is the prior evidence that Roy and I were a new partnership brought together by the event's CoC, and the subsequent evidence that Roy apparently naively raised my psyche to the four- level with only four-card support. North-South +620 +=+ Such a mish-mash of confusing statements. Could we try to understand one point at a time? And what is the ultimate point we are asked to consider? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [W.E. Gladstone, four times Prime Minister of Great Britain ....And regular after-dark wanderer in the more insalubrious parts of London, giving solace to 'fallen' women.] Richard Hills: One point is that a Gladstonian quantum of solace was in fact an act of charity, not an act of physical conjugation. (Most unlikely to be assessed as true under the Law 85 "balance of probabilities" for a 21st century politician, e.g. former Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards.) Another point is that Herman asserts that I want to ban all psyches. Since I successfully psyched on Tuesday (see above), then of course I only want to ban all psyches from next week onwards. :-) The ultimate point is described by Sven Pran: [snip] >>A psyche is by definition a gross deviation from partnership >>understanding, thus a partnership understanding may never >>include any specification of the tendency for a player to >>"psyche". (Such inclusion would make that specification part >>of the understanding, and adhering to this specification >>would therefore not be a deviation from the agreements but >>rather observation of the understanding). [snip] Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 30 01:26:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:26:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 20 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>Using "logical" as shorthand for "LA" even now may >>subtly influence one's thought processes in the >>wrong direction of the Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >> >>"logical a, in conformance with the laws of logic, >>rightly deducible, defensible on the grounds of >>consistency, capable of reasoning correctly" >> >>How many blmlers fulfil this dictionary definition >>of "logical"? Definitely not me, but all my calls >>are nevertheless logical alternatives. Eric Landau: >There is some ambiguity of language here. Richard Hills: Yes. Eric Landau: >Calling B a "logical alternative" could mean either >that B is logically an alternative or that B is both >logical and an alternative. Richard Hills: Neither. Eric Landau: >I think we need the former interpretation for L16B >to make sense. Richard Hills: No. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Oct 30 01:43:43 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:43:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081030114044.01c0ee88@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 10:04 AM 30/10/2008, you wrote: >Herman De Wael: > > >I'd rather you'd just come out and say it: you want to ban > >all psyches. > >Medley Teams (three 10-board matches per session, imps >converted into WBF VPs, must partner a different team-mate >in each match) > >North-South play Dorothy Acol, but given the Conditions of >Contest North is not Dorothy on this board. > >Dlr: North >Vul: North-South > > K873 > Q2 > AJ954 > A3 >AJ4 652 >AKJ97653 T84 >K T873 >9 QJ7 > QT9 > --- > Q62 > KT86542 > >The bidding went: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Nixon Hills >--- 1D Pass 1S (1) >4H 4S (2) Pass Pass >Pass > >(1) Deliberate and gross (25%) misstatement of spade length IBTD. I belong to the school that believes that you should bid spades if you have them.. and also if you don't. This is hardly a psyche, I thought the answer was going to be 3NT, or at least 1NT. I think that would have been a psyche. Regards, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 30 03:31:40 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:31:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20081030114044.01c0ee88@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: >>Medley Teams (three 10-board matches per session, imps >>converted into WBF VPs, must partner a different team-mate >>in each match) >> >>North-South play Dorothy Acol, but given the Conditions of >>Contest North is not Dorothy on this board. >> >>Dlr: North >>Vul: North-South >> >> K873 >> Q2 >> AJ954 >> A3 >>AJ4 652 >>AKJ97653 T84 >>K T873 >>9 QJ7 >> QT9 >> --- >> Q62 >> KT86542 >> >>The bidding went: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Nixon Hills >>--- 1D Pass 1S (1) >>4H 4S (2) Pass Pass >>Pass >> >>(1) Deliberate and gross (25%) misstatement of spade length. Tony Musgrove: >IBTD. I belong to the school that believes that you should >bid spades if you have them.. and also if you don't. This is >hardly a psyche, I thought the answer was going to be 3NT, or >at least 1NT. I think that would have been a psyche. Richard Hills: Tony has unearthed a new and interesting point on this thread with his comment "hardly a psyche". In times gone past, if a psyche would otherwise be legal, one could always elect to call that psyche, except for a really ridiculous psychic call which would infract the Law 74B1 requirement to avoid "paying insufficient attention to the game". But under the new Lawbook, any deliberate call (psychic or otherwise) must obey the much more onerous conditions of the revised 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." Ergo, it is no longer sufficient to automatically psyche an opening bid of 1H with a yarborough, rather than choosing a systemic Pass. One is now required by Law 72A to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of their relative merits before one decides upon which deliberate call to make. On the above deal, the Dorothy Acol systemic call for the South cards was a raise to 2D, which would probably have led to a contract of 5D -100. But the cost-benefit analysis suggested that South's luscious ten and nine of spades, plus the heart void, made South's hand ideal for a Moysian fit in spades. And so it proved, with exactly ten tricks available in both spades and diamonds. 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 30 04:37:02 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:37:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:04:42 -0500, wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> I'd rather you'd just come out and say it: you want to ban >> all psyches. > > Medley Teams (three 10-board matches per session, imps > converted into WBF VPs, must partner a different team-mate > in each match) > > North-South play Dorothy Acol, but given the Conditions of > Contest North is not Dorothy on this board. > > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > K873 > Q2 > AJ954 > A3 > AJ4 652 > AKJ97653 T84 > K T873 > 9 QJ7 > QT9 > --- > Q62 > KT86542 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Nixon Hills > --- 1D Pass 1S (1) > 4H 4S (2) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Deliberate and gross (25%) misstatement of spade length I am not very fond of the "psych" terminology. One reason for intentionally misdescribing your hand is that you hope the confusion and damage to the opponents will be more than the confusion damage to partner. That is the conventional reason for the traditional psyching. This is a tactical bid. You don't intend to confuse anyone. It could also be plausibly described as a hole in your system, or you not knowing your system. You do not have a good bid for showing 3-0-3-7 distribution in this situation. If the 1H response had meant, in your system, that you had 3-0-3-7 distribution, you would have happily bid 1H. From adam at tameware.com Thu Oct 30 04:46:06 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:46:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Las Vegas Non-NABC+ case 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd40810292046n514a125fu6da3c9974f7dbd37@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Agree with all comments, but disagree on the final decision. On a D > lead there's 10 tricks for declarer on the automatic double heart > finesse. On a non-D lead declarer can establish the CK as an 11th > trick, thus I'd rule 11 tricks on a heart lead. Well spotted -- thanks! I've updated my comments as follows: 8. Nice work by the Panel, taking North at his word when he claimed he would double 2H for a heart lead. Any non-diamond lead against 3NT would result in 11 tricks, though, not 10, since declarer will know to play for the CA onside. In any case the AWMW was well deserved. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 30 04:49:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:49:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >This is a tactical bid. Richard Hills: Meaningless, no such animal according to the fabulous Lawbook. What bidding textbooks call "tactical bids" fall into one of three categories according to Law: (a) no mutual partnership understanding, or (b) deviation from mutual partnership understanding, or (c) concealed mutual partnership understanding. The first two categories are legal, the third is not. 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Oct 30 05:20:18 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:20:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20081030114044.01c0ee88@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081030151915.01d4ac78@mail.optusnet.com.au> Richard: >On the above deal, the Dorothy Acol systemic call for the South >cards was a raise to 2D, which would probably have led to a >contract of 5D -100. But the cost-benefit analysis suggested >that South's luscious ten and nine of spades, plus the heart >void, made South's hand ideal for a Moysian fit in spades. >And so it proved, with exactly ten tricks available in both >spades and diamonds. > >What's the problem? No problem, but also no psyche Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 30 08:59:42 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:59:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4909696E.4040006@skynet.be> Richard, what are you trying to show? richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> I'd rather you'd just come out and say it: you want to ban >> all psyches. > > Medley Teams (three 10-board matches per session, imps > converted into WBF VPs, must partner a different team-mate > in each match) > > North-South play Dorothy Acol, but given the Conditions of > Contest North is not Dorothy on this board. > > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > K873 > Q2 > AJ954 > A3 > AJ4 652 > AKJ97653 T84 > K T873 > 9 QJ7 > QT9 > --- > Q62 > KT86542 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Nixon Hills > --- 1D Pass 1S (1) > 4H 4S (2) Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Deliberate and gross (25%) misstatement of spade length > Well, not very gross, but that's not my point. > (2) Roy Nixon had 2.735 degrees Kelvin cosmic background > radiation awareness that I sometimes deviated from announced > methods in a variety of ways, but at this time and in this > auction I assert that Roy had no more reason to be aware of > my deviation than had my opponents. Law 85 "balance of > probabilities" support for my assertion is the prior > evidence that Roy and I were a new partnership brought > together by the event's CoC, and the subsequent evidence > that Roy apparently naively raised my psyche to the four- > level with only four-card support. > > North-South +620 > > +=+ Such a mish-mash of confusing statements. Could we try > to understand one point at a time? And what is the ultimate > point we are asked to consider? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > [W.E. Gladstone, four times Prime Minister of Great Britain > ....And regular after-dark wanderer in the more insalubrious > parts of London, giving solace to 'fallen' women.] > > Richard Hills: > > One point is that a Gladstonian quantum of solace was in fact > an act of charity, not an act of physical conjugation. (Most > unlikely to be assessed as true under the Law 85 "balance of > probabilities" for a 21st century politician, e.g. former > Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards.) > I have no idea what all this is supposed to show. > Another point is that Herman asserts that I want to ban all > psyches. Since I successfully psyched on Tuesday (see above), > then of course I only want to ban all psyches from next week > onwards. :-) > But why do you call this a psyche? And why don't you call my H1H a psyche? You have addressed neither issue here. For one thing, you have not told us how often in the past you have rebid 1S over 1D when holding 3 spades and zero hearts (and too few diamonds and too many clubs and too few points for anything else). Never had such a hand before? Are you sure? Never bid this before? Are we sure? Does it matter? The only thing that matters is that you are apparently inventive and courageous enough to bid 1S on a hand like this. I believe that this inventiveness and courageousness are character traits that your opponents are entitled to be aware of. At the same time, they are traits that your partner may well be aware of, and as such, one could say that he might have more reason to suspect a psyche. Am I saying there is something fishy here? Not at all! I believe that whatever there is as partnership understanding between you and your partner is: a) very small b) below the threshold of GBK c) non-damaging if the opponents aren't made aware of the info. But you cannot claim that there is zero partnership understanding. Now I will readily agree that my H1H carries more partnership understanding than this example, but all you have done so far is to criticize me for there being any PU. My point is that there are no cases with zero PU, so a mere qualitative criterium of existence of PU cannot be workable. There needs to be more before you can start calling a psyche something else. > The ultimate point is described by Sven Pran: > > [snip] > >>> A psyche is by definition a gross deviation from partnership >>> understanding, thus a partnership understanding may never >>> include any specification of the tendency for a player to >>> "psyche". (Such inclusion would make that specification part >>> of the understanding, and adhering to this specification >>> would therefore not be a deviation from the agreements but >>> rather observation of the understanding). > > [snip] > And Sven is wrong for the same reasons I have outlined above. Every psyche carries some PU! > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 30 09:01:17 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:01:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <490969CD.7040605@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > On the above deal, the Dorothy Acol systemic call for the South > cards was a raise to 2D, which would probably have led to a > contract of 5D -100. But the cost-benefit analysis suggested > that South's luscious ten and nine of spades, plus the heart > void, made South's hand ideal for a Moysian fit in spades. > And so it proved, with exactly ten tricks available in both > spades and diamonds. > > What's the problem? > You have just proven Tony's point that this is not a psyche at all! > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills Herman. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Oct 30 09:04:03 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:04:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c939d8$25c35fd0$714a1f70$@com> References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> <000001c939d8$25c35fd0$714a1f70$@com> Message-ID: On 29/10/2008, David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > As far as the HUM regulations are concerned, these cannot relate to > partnership understandings. > > [DALB] > > The trouble is that they can't relate to anything else. Nor is it possible > to claim, as Herman appears to me to be attempting to claim, that there is a > difference between agreements and understandings. There is not, for the Law > says that: > > Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership > understanding. > > Now, the WBF Systems Policy says that a method is a HUM if: > > By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with > values a king or more below average strength. > > If it is "standard in Norway" to open 1H on a seven count in third (or any > other) position, then it is standard in Norway to play a HUM. The Norwegian Laws Committee is very clear that opening 1H on a 5-card suit and 7hcp is considered to be HUM. Which meand you can't do this unless you're playing in an event were HUM's are allowed and you're SC tells that you've playing a HUM system (and the thrid hand opening style is properly disclosed, of course). Opening 1H on a doubleton and a 3-count, if this is not by agreement, is a psyche. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran >You cannot say > "well, we agree to open with 10+ but we understand that we will sometimes > have seven", because an agreement is an understanding (and an understanding > is an agreement, since Law 40A1 is called "Players' Systemic Agreements", > despite Herman's rather cavalier assertion that the word "agreement" does > not appear in the Laws). > > That is why Mr Burn suggested that whatever the EBU did would be illegal. If > you open 1H on a seven count (or a two count) with sufficient regularity > that your partner understands you will sometimes do so, then you have an > (implicit) agreement that a 1H opening is 7+, (or 2+) and not 10+ as your > explicit agreements indicate. > > You must disclose this to the opponents, which does not of itself cause a > problem. What does cause a problem is that your understanding is now subject > to regulation. The WBF regulations mean that you are now playing a HUM. The > EBU regulations mean that you are now playing an illegal method. If it were > legal to ban psyching, this would not matter. But it is not legal to ban > psyching, provided that the tendency to psyche is properly disclosed (so > that the opponents have as much reason as partner does to be aware of the > possibility of deviation). > > As I remarked before, I think that the WBF policy on psychic bidding is a > step towards a possible resolution of the difficulty with the EBU position: > > Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of > the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can > be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The > understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from > partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to > opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may > call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail > of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant > partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure > methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. > > Who knows - it might even work in Norway. Of course, it requires rather more > vigilant policing than may be possible for all events by all NBOs. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 30 11:20:50 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:20:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <9B44BAB6-4517-42ED-A8DF-BE8143D703CF@starpower.net> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <4362044543D94DBD9DD12BD8547173DF@MARVLAPTOP> <9B44BAB6-4517-42ED-A8DF-BE8143D703CF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49098A82.8060604@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > > >> A major suit response over a takeout double must be raised even when >> a 1NT rebid would be just as logical. Otherwise collusion would be >> rightfully suspected. But if RHO doubles the bid for business, >> opener is not obligated to raise with good support, because the >> logic of the auction reveals an almost certain psych. >> That is common knowledge, not a special partnership agreement, >> even if it happens a thousand times. If an agreement is not >> *special,* no amount of partnership experience makes it special. >> > > No amount of partnership experience makes an understanding > "special". And no amount of common knowledge makes an understanding > "not special". Under the 2008 laws, only the "opinion of the > Regulating Authority" gets to determine whether an understanding is > special or not special, and TFLB offers no constraints on their > "opinion". > > AG : I thnik that, once agin, some are guilty of excessive faith in their analysis of locutions. It seems natural that, in this sentence, "special" does not mean "extraordinary, abnormal" but the locution should be taken as meaning "agreement that's not general, going beyond common knowledge". Which means nothing "makes it special", apart from the fact that it differs from the 'default value'. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 30 11:40:12 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:40:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <4362044543D94DBD9DD12BD8547173DF@MARVLAPTOP><9B44BAB6-4517-42ED-A8DF-BE8143D703CF@starpower.net> <49098A82.8060604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c93a7b$e51dbe90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested > Under the 2008 laws, only the "opinion of the Regulating Authority" > gets to determine whether an understanding is special or not special, > and TFLB offers no constraints on their "opinion". > > AG : I thnik that, once agin, some are guilty of excessive faith in their analysis of locutions. It seems natural that, in this sentence, "special" does not mean "extraordinary, abnormal" but the locution should be taken as meaning "agreement that's not general, going beyond common knowledge". Which means nothing "makes it special", apart from the fact that it differs from the 'default value'. +=+ It is a term of the art. Law 40B1(a) specifies what the RA must opine to determine that a partnership understanding is a 'special partnership understanding'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 30 11:37:34 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:37:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49098E6E.4070009@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Robert Frick: > > >> This is a tactical bid. >> > > Richard Hills: > > Meaningless, no such animal according to the fabulous > Lawbook. What bidding textbooks call "tactical bids" > fall into one of three categories according to Law: > > (a) no mutual partnership understanding, or > (b) deviation from mutual partnership understanding, or > (c) concealed mutual partnership understanding. > > The first two categories are legal, the third is not. > What's the problem? > So you're saying that tactical bids don't exist, then distinguish three subtypes ? Stayman does exist, even though TFLB doesn't mention it (IIRC). If a player says his bid was of the "tactical bid" kind, we'd rather know what this means in common bridge language, or we would have a hard time deciding whather he infinged any law or not. If a word has a meaning common to a group, then a definition exists, regarding of whether dictionaries mention it. I'm worried about the recent trend on blml, to discard any element one wouldn't want to be important by saying that it can't exist, if necessary after altering its meaning. This could rapidly lead to heavy mutual incomprehension. Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 30 12:24:28 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:24:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vague question, vague answer Message-ID: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> The Dutch NAC just ruled on one of my rulings, and they disagreed with me, with which I agree. What happened: Bidding West 1D, North 2C, East double At this point South asks his teammate, pointing at the double: "Does this promise 4-4 majors?" West replies: "Usually it does" Of course this question is wrong. Of course the answer was vague and/or wrong. East actually had 4-0 in the majors, and no other systemic bid. There was a case for damage if you decide the answer is wrong. In the end I decided the answer was wrong and gave an adjusted score. Half my colleague directors disagreed with me, but hey, I was the chief-TD. Now the AC also disagreed with me, ruling no violation of law. In retrospect I agree. I'm interested in the text of their decision, but will get that (much) later. Hans van Staveren From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 30 12:35:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:35:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <000601c93a7b$e51dbe90$0202a8c0@Mildred> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <4362044543D94DBD9DD12BD8547173DF@MARVLAPTOP><9B44BAB6-4517-42ED-A8DF-BE8143D703CF@starpower.net> <49098A82.8060604@ulb.ac.be> <000601c93a7b$e51dbe90$0202a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49099C07.3030002@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ************************************** > "Let us then be up and doing, > With a heart for any fate, > Still achieving, still pursuing, > Learn to labour and to wait." > [H.W. Longfellow] > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested > > > >> Under the 2008 laws, only the "opinion of the Regulating Authority" >> gets to determine whether an understanding is special or not special, >> and TFLB offers no constraints on their "opinion". >> >> >> > AG : I thnik that, once agin, some are guilty of excessive faith in > their analysis of locutions. > It seems natural that, in this sentence, "special" does not mean > "extraordinary, abnormal" but the locution should be taken as meaning > "agreement that's not general, going beyond common knowledge". > Which means nothing "makes it special", apart from the fact that it > differs from the 'default value'. > > +=+ It is a term of the art. Law 40B1(a) specifies what the RA > must opine to determine that a partnership understanding is a > 'special partnership understanding'. > Okay about this, but the fact that there exists a definition for the locution 'special partnership understanding' doesn't allow us to analyze it and use litteral definitions for its components. To the contrary, there is an obvious risk that the meaning, as intended by the Lawmakers, be serioulsly distorted. Perhaps I fell in that trap, too, but I really think that 'not readily understood' and 'going beyond common knowledge' are fairly similar. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 30 13:28:05 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:28:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vague question, vague answer In-Reply-To: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> References: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> Message-ID: <4909A855.2050504@skynet.be> Hans is usually not so schizophrenic: Hans van Staveren wrote: > The Dutch NAC just ruled on one of my rulings, and they disagreed with me, > with which I agree. > see? > What happened: > > Bidding > West 1D, North 2C, East double > > At this point South asks his teammate, pointing at the double: "Does this > promise 4-4 majors?" > West replies: "Usually it does" > > Of course this question is wrong. Of course the answer was vague and/or > wrong. East actually had 4-0 in the majors, and no other systemic bid. > Well, of course this depends much on intonation and actual words, not easily translated into english, perhaps. But: The question is not vague, it is very clear. A clear answer would have been "no". BY saying "usually", one is also quite clear - that is an answer "yes, but ...". Now in my mind, if one asks "does that promise 4-4" and the answer is "yes, but", that means it can also be 5-3 or 4-3 or perhaps even 4-2. But not 4-0. This answer is not vague, it is simply wrong. If indeed the bid is systemic (in the sense that no other bid describes the hand better) then the answer is wrong. It should have been "no, it promises only one of the majors". > There was a case for damage if you decide the answer is wrong. In the end I > decided the answer was wrong and gave an adjusted score. Half my colleague > directors disagreed with me, but hey, I was the chief-TD. > Now the AC also disagreed with me, ruling no violation of law. > What law? They rule "no MI"? > In retrospect I agree. I'm interested in the text of their decision, but > will get that (much) later. > I'm interested too. > Hans van Staveren > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 30 13:37:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:37:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vague question, vague answer In-Reply-To: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> References: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> Message-ID: <4909AA7E.6040602@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > The Dutch NAC just ruled on one of my rulings, and they disagreed with me, > with which I agree. > > What happened: > > Bidding > West 1D, North 2C, East double > > At this point South asks his teammate, pointing at the double: "Does this > promise 4-4 majors?" > West replies: "Usually it does" > > Of course this question is wrong. Of course the answer was vague and/or > wrong. East actually had 4-0 in the majors, and no other systemic bid. > AG : apparently this is one more case of coping with holes in the system. I'd like to add some words about this. IMNSHO, there are three possible reactions when one ascertains the existence of a hole. Let's take an example : you play strong club, strong NT, 4+ majors, 3+ diamonds, and 2C promises 6+ clubs (not an uncommon set of agreements). The problem hand is 3325 with less strength than a 1NT opening bid. a) you decide what to do with that type of hand (in Blue Club, 1NT may be shaded with this exact pattern) and take it into account in developing relevant bidding sequences. Then there is no hole anymore, just a slightly different set of agreements.Explain it as such. b) you decide that, if this hand type happens, you'll find something in a pinch, for example "make the least lie between 1NT, 2C and 1D, or perhaps pass with only 12". But partner won't take this into account and will always bid "as if". The problem with this is : how do you explain this to opponents ? It isn't easy to have in mind all possible slight deviations. I'm not too worried abot the word "usually", as long as partner will act in accordance with the usual meaning. c) you refuse to decide anything. Is that different from b) ? Will it have an impact on the explanations ? Opinions welcome. Notice that situations of type b) make the bread and butter of bidding contests, and that imperfect doubles are one of the most common cases. For exammple, holding 10xx - AJx - xx - KJxxx, the choice is between an imperfect 1NT (where is the stopper ?), an imperfect double (promises 4 hearts), ai imperfect 2C (too weak) or a pass that won't solve anything even if partner reopens. Most will choose the imperfect double. Their partners will always answer 2H holding 4, which means they'll discard those extreme cases. Is it enough to answer "most of the time it promises 4, but there are awkward cases where he'll do it with 3", or do you have to list those cases, risking forgetting some ? As an AC member, I would allow the former, expecially as opponents may enquire about other possible bids, and deduce the problem cases themselves, the most important being that they be made aware of the possibility. Best regards Aalin From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 30 14:24:59 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:24:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vague question, vague answer In-Reply-To: <4909A855.2050504@skynet.be> References: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> <4909A855.2050504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <01a001c93a92$eaff83e0$c0fe8ba0$@nl> Well, I wasn't so sure I was doing the right thing. And the question is wrong, since one should not suggest, just ask. Given the right question: "What does this double mean", the answer would have undoubtedly been the ever so vague "negative". Given that the pair had no special agreements about negative doubles that would have been an accurate answer. Now it happens that on certain hands(I think East had a strong 4045) you just have to double and sort out the mess later. South of course had a solid heart suit and was to chicken to bid 4H straight away. He temporized with 2H and came in later with 4H damaging his side. Hans From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 30 14:36:54 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:36:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <49098A82.8060604@ulb.ac.be> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <4362044543D94DBD9DD12BD8547173DF@MARVLAPTOP> <9B44BAB6-4517-42ED-A8DF-BE8143D703CF@starpower.net> <49098A82.8060604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <372ED5BC-D267-4418-83B2-376C97A5730E@starpower.net> On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:20 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> No amount of partnership experience makes an understanding >> "special". And no amount of common knowledge makes an understanding >> "not special". Under the 2008 laws, only the "opinion of the >> Regulating Authority" gets to determine whether an understanding is >> special or not special, and TFLB offers no constraints on their >> "opinion". > > AG : I thnik that, once agin, some are guilty of excessive faith in > their analysis of locutions. > It seems natural that, in this sentence, "special" does not mean > "extraordinary, abnormal" but the locution should be taken as meaning > "agreement that's not general, going beyond common knowledge". > Which means nothing "makes it special", apart from the fact that it > differs from the 'default value'. Like the "specialness" of a particular agreement, this is true if and only if the RA says it is. An RA can and might decide to define as "special" as anything that differs from its respective "default value". But they can only do so meaningfully if they are prepared to define "default values" for every situation. For an RA with a large and diverse membership, with a wide variety of systems and approaches favored by various partnerships, that would entail a very large number of arbitrary and perhaps capricious choices. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 30 20:58:44 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:58:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? Message-ID: <200810301957.MAA01307@mailhub.irvine.com> Hi, everyone, It's been some time since I posted here, but because of a thread on r.g.b I was just made aware of a change in the 2007 Laws that seems broken to me, and I wanted others' opinions on whether this change was intended. 2007 Law 16C2 talks about UI from extraneous sources. 16C2 gives the director some options he may exercise before a call has been made. 16C3 also gives the director one of those options if UI is received *after* the first call of the auction. But in the case where extraneous UI is received before the first call but the Director isn't called until after, the Director doesn't appear to have any powers to resolve things (unless he relies on L84 or something). This would be a problem in a situation that happened to me a few years ago, in which I heard extraneous UI but had no way to know that it would affect me until the auction had already started. This wasn't a problem under 1997 Law 16B2, which doesn't limit the Director's options to the time before the first call. Here's the story, which I also posted on r.g.b: In a matchpoint event, at some point, a player at a table near me called the Director and said, "He hesitated and then bid six spades", in a clearly audible voice. I don't know whether he was speaking loudly because he was upset, or whether that was his normal voice. Probably the former. (As I recall it, he sounded upset.) Anyway, I didn't know what table number it was or what board they were playing. Next round, I picked up a flat 21-HCP hand or something with three good spades. Partner opened 1S, and I was trying to figure out how to handle the auction---not an easy problem depending on your methods. But then it dawned on me what most likely happened. This was the board on which the Director had been called. Most likely, a player bid Blackwood, got a response, maybe asked for kings (or not), then hesitated and bid 6S; then his partner went to 7S and they made it, causing his opponent to be understandably upset. Anyway, based on that I decided I should not be playing the hand, since I had a good idea 7S was on, and I called the Director and persuaded him to give everyone an average-plus. It appears that under the new Laws, the Director would not be able to do anything. If this is the case, the new Laws are broken. The UI I got is not something that I could have connected to any particular hand until the auction started, since I had no idea what board it was. So how should this be handled under the 2007 Laws? -- thanks, Adam From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Oct 30 22:17:22 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:17:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?New_Laws_don=27t_allow_UI_situation_to_be_?= =?iso-8859-15?q?resolved=3F?= In-Reply-To: <200810301957.MAA01307@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200810301957.MAA01307@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <1KvetO-0wqjx20@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> From: Adam Beneschan > It's been some time since I posted here, but because of a thread on > r.g.b I was just made aware of a change in the 2007 Laws that seems > broken to me, and I wanted others' opinions on whether this change was > intended. > > 2007 Law 16C2 talks about UI from extraneous sources. ?16C2 gives the > director some options he may exercise before a call has been made. > 16C3 also gives the director one of those options if UI is received > *after* the first call of the auction. ?But in the case where > extraneous UI is received before the first call but the Director isn't > called until after, the Director doesn't appear to have any powers to > resolve things (unless he relies on L84 or something). ?This would be > a problem in a situation that happened to me a few years ago, in which > I heard extraneous UI but had no way to know that it would affect me > until the auction had already started. ?This wasn't a problem under > 1997 Law 16B2, which doesn't limit the Director's options to the time > before the first call. ?Here's the story, which I also posted on > r.g.b: > > In a matchpoint event, at some point, a player at a table near me > called the Director and said, "He hesitated and then bid six spades", > in a clearly audible voice. ?I don't know whether he was speaking > loudly because he was upset, or whether that was his normal voice. > Probably the former. ?(As I recall it, he sounded upset.) ?Anyway, I > didn't know what table number it was or what board they were playing. > > Next round, I picked up a flat 21-HCP hand or something with three > good spades. ?Partner opened 1S, and I was trying to figure out how to > handle the auction---not an easy problem depending on your methods. > But then it dawned on me what most likely happened. ?This was the > board on which the Director had been called. ?Most likely, a player > bid Blackwood, got a response, maybe asked for kings (or not), then > hesitated and bid 6S; then his partner went to 7S and they made it, > causing his opponent to be understandably upset. ?Anyway, based on > that I decided I should not be playing the hand, since I had a good > idea 7S was on, and I called the Director and persuaded him to give > everyone an average-plus. > > It appears that under the new Laws, the Director would not be able to > do anything. ?If this is the case, the new Laws are broken. ?The UI I > got is not something that I could have connected to any particular > hand until the auction started, since I had no idea what board it was. > > So how should this be handled under the 2007 Laws? > I agree ... seems to be a complex sort of typo. Law 16 C2 speaks of the moment of TD's action ("before any call has been made") whereas Law 16 C3 mentions the moment of receipt of the UI ("received after the first call has been made"). This is like comparing apples and oranges and should be fixed IMHO. Peter From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 30 22:25:38 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:25:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? In-Reply-To: <200810301957.MAA01307@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200810301957.MAA01307@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001e01c93ad6$0e52a780$2af7f680$@no> On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Hi, everyone, > > It's been some time since I posted here, but because of a thread on > r.g.b I was just made aware of a change in the 2007 Laws that seems > broken to me, and I wanted others' opinions on whether this change was > intended. > > 2007 Law 16C2 talks about UI from extraneous sources. 16C2 gives the > director some options he may exercise before a call has been made. > 16C3 also gives the director one of those options if UI is received > *after* the first call of the auction. But in the case where > extraneous UI is received before the first call but the Director isn't > called until after, the Director doesn't appear to have any powers to > resolve things (unless he relies on L84 or something). This would be > a problem in a situation that happened to me a few years ago, in which > I heard extraneous UI but had no way to know that it would affect me > until the auction had already started. This wasn't a problem under > 1997 Law 16B2, which doesn't limit the Director's options to the time > before the first call. Here's the story, which I also posted on > r.g.b: > > In a matchpoint event, at some point, a player at a table near me > called the Director and said, "He hesitated and then bid six spades", > in a clearly audible voice. I don't know whether he was speaking > loudly because he was upset, or whether that was his normal voice. > Probably the former. (As I recall it, he sounded upset.) Anyway, I > didn't know what table number it was or what board they were playing. > > Next round, I picked up a flat 21-HCP hand or something with three > good spades. Partner opened 1S, and I was trying to figure out how to > handle the auction---not an easy problem depending on your methods. > But then it dawned on me what most likely happened. This was the > board on which the Director had been called. Most likely, a player > bid Blackwood, got a response, maybe asked for kings (or not), then > hesitated and bid 6S; then his partner went to 7S and they made it, > causing his opponent to be understandably upset. Anyway, based on > that I decided I should not be playing the hand, since I had a good > idea 7S was on, and I called the Director and persuaded him to give > everyone an average-plus. > > It appears that under the new Laws, the Director would not be able to > do anything. If this is the case, the new Laws are broken. The UI I > got is not something that I could have connected to any particular > hand until the auction started, since I had no idea what board it was. > > So how should this be handled under the 2007 Laws? You HEARD some remark, but you didn't actually RECEIVE any UI through this remark until you could associate the information conveyed through the remark with the board on which you just had started the auction. So L16C2(c) is perfectly applicable also in your case. I think this is a technicality, but it sure is proper. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 30 22:47:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:47:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200810301957.MAA01307@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [big snip] >I called the Director and persuaded him to give everyone >an average-plus. > >It appears that under the new Laws, the Director would not >be able to do anything. If this is the case, the new Laws >are broken. The UI I got is not something that I could >have connected to any particular hand until the auction >started, since I had no idea what board it was. > >So how should this be handled under the 2007 Laws? 2007 Law 16C3: "If such unauthorized information is received after the first call in the auction has been made and before completion of the play of the board the Director proceeds as in 2(c)." Richard Hills: In Adam's case, although the UI was _transmitted_ before the first call in Adam's auction, Adam did not meaningfully _receive_ the UI until after the first call. 2007 Law 16C2(c): "allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result" Richard Hills: So the Director erred in immediately awarding Ave+ to both sides. Adam Beneschan: >Next round, I picked up a flat 21-HCP hand or something >with three good spades. Partner opened 1S, and I was >trying to figure out how to handle the auction---not an >easy problem depending on your methods. Richard Hills: If Adam and his partner had been playing the Symmetric Relay system (notes emailed on request), then reaching a cold 7S is 100% guaranteed via relays. In such a case the unauthorised information that 7S is cold would never have affected the result, so the Director should not adjust the score. 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 adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 30 22:59:44 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:59:44 -0700 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:47:34 +1100." Message-ID: <200810302158.OAA02584@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > 2007 Law 16C3: > > "If such unauthorized information is received after the > first call in the auction has been made and before > completion of the play of the board the Director proceeds > as in 2(c)." > > Richard Hills: > > In Adam's case, although the UI was _transmitted_ before the > first call in Adam's auction, Adam did not meaningfully > _receive_ the UI until after the first call. > > 2007 Law 16C2(c): > > "allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to > award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized > information may have affected the result" > > Richard Hills: > > So the Director erred in immediately awarding Ave+ to both > sides. Well, he *would* have erred if the 2007 Laws had been in effect. The incident I mentioned took place in 1999 or so (Kansas City NABC---sorry, too lazy to look up the actual year). But I get the point you and Sven are both making, about how the word "receive" is to be interpreted. > Adam Beneschan: > > >Next round, I picked up a flat 21-HCP hand or something > >with three good spades. Partner opened 1S, and I was > >trying to figure out how to handle the auction---not an > >easy problem depending on your methods. > > Richard Hills: > > If Adam and his partner had been playing the Symmetric > Relay system (notes emailed on request), then reaching a > cold 7S is 100% guaranteed via relays. In such a case the > unauthorised information that 7S is cold would never have > affected the result, so the Director should not adjust the > score. > > What's the problem? Well, even in a relay system it may not be guaranteed; if I were the one doing the relaying, I may have had a choice at some point whether to keep relaying or break the relay, and the UI could have possibly affected my choice. Maybe breaking the relay would have been unlikely with a 3=4=4=2 hand, though. I don't know---I'm not familiar with the details of relay systems. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 30 23:11:19 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:11:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20081030151915.01d4ac78@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>On the above deal, the Dorothy Acol systemic call for >>the South cards was a raise to 2D, which would probably >>have led to a contract of 5D -100. But the cost-benefit >>analysis suggested that South's luscious ten and nine of >>spades, plus the heart void, made South's hand ideal for >>a Moysian fit in spades. And so it proved, with exactly >>ten tricks available in both spades and diamonds. >> >>What's the problem? Tony Musgrove: >No problem, but also no psyche Richard Hills: A deliberate and gross misstatement of system is a psyche. It does not matter that the purpose of this particular psyche was to fool partner into picking the winning final contract, instead of the traditional purpose of fooling the opponents into picking the losing final contract. On the other hand, perhaps Tony is quibbling about my assessment of "gross", and Tony is rather implying that my call was instead "style and judgement". Law 40B2(a), final sentence: "It may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 31 00:28:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:28:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200810302158.OAA02584@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>So the Director erred in immediately awarding Ave+ to both >>sides. Adam Beneschan: >Well, he *would* have erred if the 2007 Laws had been in >effect. The incident I mentioned took place in 1999 or so >(Kansas City NABC---sorry, too lazy to look up the actual >year). But I get the point you and Sven are both making, >about how the word "receive" is to be interpreted. Richard Hills: Yes, a better title for this thread would be "1997 Law 16B didn't resolve UI effectively", since Adam's Director had his hands tied under the 1997 Law 16B3: "forthwith award an artificial adjusted score". In my opinion the Drafting Committee added value when upgrading the 1997 Law 16B to the 2007 Law 16C, as there is now much more scope for a bridge result to be achieved by the players at the table. Adam Beneschan: >Well, even in a relay system it may not be guaranteed; if I >were the one doing the relaying, I may have had a choice at >some point whether to keep relaying or break the relay, and >the UI could have possibly affected my choice. Maybe >breaking the relay would have been unlikely with a 3=4=4=2 >hand, though. I don't know---I'm not familiar with the >details of relay systems. Richard Hills: The point of Law is that the TD does not adjust the score merely because a player makes a series of calls which are demonstrably suggested by the UI "7S is cold", and then eventually bids 7S. For at least one of those series of calls there has to be a logical alternative which results in a different contract. (And a lower-scoring contract, so the score cannot be adjusted to a cold 7NT. But a PP can be awarded if the player with the UI infracted Law by choosing a demonstrably suggested LA, when an alternative non-suggested LA existed whose adoption would have lead to the cold 7NT.) The off-topic point of system is that any sensibly designed relay system (or even the ridiculous relay system Ultimate Club, which is so meritless a method that it won the trivial tournament of the 1983 Bermuda Bowl) has sufficient bidding space to assess the relative merits of 6S and 7S when pard opens 1S and you are relaying with a 3-4-4-2 shape and 21 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 31 02:29:17 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:29:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? In-Reply-To: <001e01c93ad6$0e52a780$2af7f680$@no> References: <200810301957.MAA01307@mailhub.irvine.com> <001e01c93ad6$0e52a780$2af7f680$@no> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:25:38 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan >> Hi, everyone, >> >> It's been some time since I posted here, but because of a thread on >> r.g.b I was just made aware of a change in the 2007 Laws that seems >> broken to me, and I wanted others' opinions on whether this change was >> intended. >> >> 2007 Law 16C2 talks about UI from extraneous sources. 16C2 gives the >> director some options he may exercise before a call has been made. >> 16C3 also gives the director one of those options if UI is received >> *after* the first call of the auction. But in the case where >> extraneous UI is received before the first call but the Director isn't >> called until after, the Director doesn't appear to have any powers to >> resolve things (unless he relies on L84 or something). This would be >> a problem in a situation that happened to me a few years ago, in which >> I heard extraneous UI but had no way to know that it would affect me >> until the auction had already started. This wasn't a problem under >> 1997 Law 16B2, which doesn't limit the Director's options to the time >> before the first call. Here's the story, which I also posted on >> r.g.b: >> >> In a matchpoint event, at some point, a player at a table near me >> called the Director and said, "He hesitated and then bid six spades", >> in a clearly audible voice. I don't know whether he was speaking >> loudly because he was upset, or whether that was his normal voice. >> Probably the former. (As I recall it, he sounded upset.) Anyway, I >> didn't know what table number it was or what board they were playing. >> >> Next round, I picked up a flat 21-HCP hand or something with three >> good spades. Partner opened 1S, and I was trying to figure out how to >> handle the auction---not an easy problem depending on your methods. >> But then it dawned on me what most likely happened. This was the >> board on which the Director had been called. Most likely, a player >> bid Blackwood, got a response, maybe asked for kings (or not), then >> hesitated and bid 6S; then his partner went to 7S and they made it, >> causing his opponent to be understandably upset. Anyway, based on >> that I decided I should not be playing the hand, since I had a good >> idea 7S was on, and I called the Director and persuaded him to give >> everyone an average-plus. >> >> It appears that under the new Laws, the Director would not be able to >> do anything. If this is the case, the new Laws are broken. The UI I >> got is not something that I could have connected to any particular >> hand until the auction started, since I had no idea what board it was. >> >> So how should this be handled under the 2007 Laws? > > You HEARD some remark, but you didn't actually RECEIVE any UI through > this > remark until you could associate the information conveyed through the > remark > with the board on which you just had started the auction. So L16C2(c) is > perfectly applicable also in your case. I think that people distinguish when the receive information from when the information becomes meaningful or useful. So you cannot really equate the two. You even fail in your own paragraph, talking about a person conveyed through the remark. I don't see how it helps anyway. To me, the point is that that declarer should be able to assign an adjusted score when the matter is brought to his attention after the first call, when the players could not know they had useful UI for this hand until after the first call. I am about to make a decision, when I realize I have UI telling me the right answer. What am I supposed to do? I call the director. What is the director supposed to to? From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 05:05:55 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:05:55 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <49083C10.8000509@skynet.be> <001501c939c1$345a1500$0202a8c0@Mildred> <49086301.4020402@skynet.be> <000001c939d8$25c35fd0$714a1f70$@com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810302105h6e1370f6had9517d30123d777@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/30 Harald Skj?ran : > On 29/10/2008, David Burn wrote: >> [HdW] >> >> As far as the HUM regulations are concerned, these cannot relate to >> partnership understandings. >> >> [DALB] >> >> The trouble is that they can't relate to anything else. Nor is it possible >> to claim, as Herman appears to me to be attempting to claim, that there is a >> difference between agreements and understandings. There is not, for the Law >> says that: >> >> Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership >> understanding. >> >> Now, the WBF Systems Policy says that a method is a HUM if: >> >> By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with >> values a king or more below average strength. >> >> If it is "standard in Norway" to open 1H on a seven count in third (or any >> other) position, then it is standard in Norway to play a HUM. > > The Norwegian Laws Committee is very clear that opening 1H on a 5-card > suit and 7hcp is considered to be HUM. Which meand you can't do this > unless you're playing in an event were HUM's are allowed and you're SC > tells that you've playing a HUM system (and the thrid hand opening > style is properly disclosed, of course). > > Opening 1H on a doubleton and a 3-count, if this is not by agreement, > is a psyche. > > Is this an acknowledgement that Helgemo and Helness were playing a HUM in the recent world championships? -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 31 05:28:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:28:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Charles Schulz (1922-2000): Lucy: "Do you think anybody ever really changes?" Linus: "I've changed a lot in the last year." Lucy: "I mean for the better." Richard Hills: I have really changed my view about the obscurely infamous Reveley Ruling. In a private email, another blmler acutely observed that Law 16B1(b) logical alternatives are only relevant to Law 16B rulings (UI from partner), not to Law 16C rulings (UI from other sources). Hence, if you are bidding in a Law 16C2(c) auction, the more relaxed standard of Law 16A3 applies: "No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." Under Law 16B it may be illegal to choose the call you would have always chosen in the absence of UI. Therefore under Law 16B Reveley Rulings are also illegal. But under Law 16C2(c) and Law 16A3 it is always legal to choose the call you would always have chosen in the absence of UI, since "no player may base" has a different meaning to "may not choose from among logical alternatives". Law 16C2(d) says "award an artificial adjusted score." But Law 16C2(c) says, inter alia, "standing ready to award an adjusted score". (With the word "artificial" deleted.) Since both sides in Law 16C2(c) rulings are non- offending - in Adam's case the offending player was the Stentor at the adjacent table infracting Law 90B3 - it is possible for a Reveley Ruling split score to be assigned. For example: Adam and partner: 7S, +2210 Adam's opponents: 6S, -1460 Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 31 06:19:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:19:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran: >>The Norwegian Laws Committee is very clear that opening >>1H on a 5-card suit and 7hcp is considered to be HUM. >>Which means you can't do this unless you're playing in >>an event where HUM's are allowed and you're SC tells >>that you've playing a HUM system (and the third hand >>opening style is properly disclosed, of course). >> >>Opening 1H on a doubleton and a 3-count, if this is not >>by agreement, is a psyche. Wayne Burrows: >Is this an acknowledgement that Helgemo and Helness were >playing a HUM in the recent world championships? Richard Hills: What the Norwegian Laws Committee correctly names as a "disclosable HUM" the WBF Systems Committee incorrectly names as a "disclosable psyche". Sven Pran has correctly noted that the Definition of "psychic call" means that a disclosable psyche is a contradiction in terms. This Sven Pran interpretation of the Definition is consistent with the words "without prior announcement" in Law 40A3, and the words "no player has any obligation to disclose" in Law 40C2. So yes, Helgemo and Helness were using a disclosed HUM in the recent world championships, but a careful parsing of the WBF Systems Committee's regulation (substituting correct terminology for their misnomers) shows that Helgemo's particular HUM in Beijing was there a legal special partnership understanding. Walter Bagehot (1826-1877), describing Gladstone: "He believes, with all his heart and soul and strength, that there _is_ such a thing as truth; he has the soul of a martyr with the intellect of an advocate." Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 06:22:58 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:22:58 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/31 : > Harald Skj?ran: > >>>The Norwegian Laws Committee is very clear that opening >>>1H on a 5-card suit and 7hcp is considered to be HUM. >>>Which means you can't do this unless you're playing in >>>an event where HUM's are allowed and you're SC tells >>>that you've playing a HUM system (and the third hand >>>opening style is properly disclosed, of course). >>> >>>Opening 1H on a doubleton and a 3-count, if this is not >>>by agreement, is a psyche. > > Wayne Burrows: > >>Is this an acknowledgement that Helgemo and Helness were >>playing a HUM in the recent world championships? > > Richard Hills: > > What the Norwegian Laws Committee correctly names as a > "disclosable HUM" the WBF Systems Committee incorrectly > names as a "disclosable psyche". Sven Pran has correctly > noted that the Definition of "psychic call" means that a > disclosable psyche is a contradiction in terms. This > Sven Pran interpretation of the Definition is consistent > with the words "without prior announcement" in Law 40A3, > and the words "no player has any obligation to disclose" > in Law 40C2. > > So yes, Helgemo and Helness were using a disclosed HUM in > the recent world championships, but a careful parsing of > the WBF Systems Committee's regulation (substituting > correct terminology for their misnomers) shows that > Helgemo's particular HUM in Beijing was there a legal > special partnership understanding. > > Walter Bagehot (1826-1877), describing Gladstone: > > "He believes, with all his heart and soul and strength, > that there _is_ such a thing as truth; he has the soul of > a martyr with the intellect of an advocate." > This wasn't apparent in any regulations that I read. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 31 06:55:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:55:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>What the Norwegian Laws Committee correctly names as a >>"disclosable HUM" the WBF Systems Committee incorrectly >>names as a "disclosable psyche". Sven Pran has correctly >>noted that the Definition of "psychic call" means that a >>disclosable psyche is a contradiction in terms. This >>Sven Pran interpretation of the Definition is consistent >>with the words "without prior announcement" in Law 40A3, >>and the words "no player has any obligation to disclose" >>in Law 40C2. >> >>So yes, Helgemo and Helness were using a disclosed HUM in >>the recent world championships, but a careful parsing of >>the WBF Systems Committee's regulation (substituting >>correct terminology for their misnomers) shows that >>Helgemo's particular HUM in Beijing was there a legal >>special partnership understanding. Walter Bagehot (1826-1877), describing Gladstone: "He believes, with all his heart and soul and strength, that there _is_ such a thing as truth; he has the soul of a martyr with the intellect of an advocate." Wayne Burrows: >This wasn't apparent in any regulations that I read. Richard Hills: I fully agree that it wasn't readily apparent. One needs very careful parsing and substitution of many misnomers. Indeed, it was totally impenetrable to the mind of the towering intellectual David Burn, one whose wit and wisdom is equivalent not to Gladstone, but rather to the late and great Australian Prime Minister, William McMahon. See attached email originally sent privately to David Burn on 23rd October. Best wishes Richard James Hills Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au David Burn wrote (but ** inserted by RJBH): Mr Burn thinks he must be missing something. The WBF says: Understandings whereby from time to time there may be **gross violations** of the **normal** meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give **full detail** of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. Why can't I play this way in Flanders? * * * Hi, David What you may have missed is my posting (on the "Is this a HUM?" thread) of 14th October, in which I argue that the above WBF policy is a Condition of Contest which legalises a particular type of HUM in WBF events. See below. Richard Hills skewed worldview: Under the 1997 Lawbook one could justly say that HUM "agreements" were _not_ permitted in WBF events. Under the 2007 Lawbook (especially Laws 40A1 and 40C1) one could equally justly say that HUM "understandings" _are_ permitted in WBF events provided that the HUMs are: (a) a secondary option (gross violation) in a two-way call, (b) disclosed in full detail, and (c) abnormal (which in this context presumably means that the HUM is infrequent). But if a player _always_ opens a grotty 7 hcp plus a 5-card heart suit with 1H in third hand not vul versus vul, then that HUM fails the (c) abnormal test. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Oct 31 07:00:57 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:00:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills: > > Law 16C2(d) says "award an artificial adjusted > score." But Law 16C2(c) says, inter alia, > "standing ready to award an adjusted score". (With > the word "artificial" deleted.) > The reason for this paragraph is not easy to see. In Definitions: > Adjusted Score ? A score awarded by the Director (see Law 12). It is > either "artificial" or "assigned". How does the absence of the word "artificial" from 16C2(c) affect anything? The reason "artificial" appears in 16C2(d) is because in that case, the board has not been played and an assigned score, i.e., "a score [that] replaces the score obtained in play" is impossible because there is none. So I cannot see the reason for Richard to include the paragraph I quoted on the difference between (c) and (d). In (c), both kinds of adjusted scores, artificial and assigned, are possible. In (d), the only possible kind is artificial, because assigned adjusted scores are possible only when the hand has been played, and in (d) the hand has not been played. I.e., there is no prohibition whatsoever against artificial assigned scores in Law 16C2(c). I don't see any reason for the paragraph. -Jerry Fusselman From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 07:07:13 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:07:13 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810302307m7d4a883i4b0de234ca6d6ce1@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/31 : > Richard Hills: > >>>What the Norwegian Laws Committee correctly names as a >>>"disclosable HUM" the WBF Systems Committee incorrectly >>>names as a "disclosable psyche". Sven Pran has correctly >>>noted that the Definition of "psychic call" means that a >>>disclosable psyche is a contradiction in terms. This >>>Sven Pran interpretation of the Definition is consistent >>>with the words "without prior announcement" in Law 40A3, >>>and the words "no player has any obligation to disclose" >>>in Law 40C2. >>> >>>So yes, Helgemo and Helness were using a disclosed HUM in >>>the recent world championships, but a careful parsing of >>>the WBF Systems Committee's regulation (substituting >>>correct terminology for their misnomers) shows that >>>Helgemo's particular HUM in Beijing was there a legal >>>special partnership understanding. > > Walter Bagehot (1826-1877), describing Gladstone: > > "He believes, with all his heart and soul and strength, > that there _is_ such a thing as truth; he has the soul of > a martyr with the intellect of an advocate." > > Wayne Burrows: > >>This wasn't apparent in any regulations that I read. > > Richard Hills: > > I fully agree that it wasn't readily apparent. One needs > very careful parsing and substitution of many misnomers. > > Indeed, it was totally impenetrable to the mind of the > towering intellectual David Burn, one whose wit and wisdom > is equivalent not to Gladstone, but rather to the late and > great Australian Prime Minister, William McMahon. > > See attached email originally sent privately to David Burn > on 23rd October. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > David Burn wrote (but ** inserted by RJBH): > > Mr Burn thinks he must be missing something. The WBF says: > > Understandings whereby from time to time there may be **gross > violations** of the **normal** meanings of calls, and where > the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also > be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may > be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from > partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not > available to opponents. They must be listed on the card > amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and > the supplementary sheets must give **full detail** of > situations in which these violations may occur and of the > relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to > satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible > in any category of event. > > Why can't I play this way in Flanders? > > * * * > > Hi, David > > What you may have missed is my posting (on the "Is this a HUM?" > thread) of 14th October, in which I argue that the above WBF > policy is a Condition of Contest which legalises a particular > type of HUM in WBF events. See below. > > Richard Hills skewed worldview: > > Under the 1997 Lawbook one could justly say that HUM > "agreements" were _not_ permitted in WBF events. > > Under the 2007 Lawbook (especially Laws 40A1 and 40C1) one > could equally justly say that HUM "understandings" _are_ > permitted in WBF events provided that the HUMs are: > > (a) a secondary option (gross violation) in a two-way call, > (b) disclosed in full detail, and > (c) abnormal (which in this context presumably means that > the HUM is infrequent). > > But if a player _always_ opens a grotty 7 hcp plus a 5-card > heart suit with 1H in third hand not vul versus vul, then > that HUM fails the (c) abnormal test. > This was not the case for the Helgemo Helness agreement. In particular it was not disclosed on their convention card. For this sort of regulation to make any sense then "normal" and "gross" need to be defined. It is totally unsatisfactory when the boundaries between what is allowed and what is prohibited are so blurred that many players cannot tell where the boundary is leading to situations where potentially one or more pairs play a method that one or more pairs elect not to play believing that those methods are not allowed. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 07:35:46 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:35:46 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <49089298.70102@skynet.be> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <67CF3410-E001-4266-99F4-E2053D090AE1@starpower.net> <49089298.70102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810302335i1932a872k4376a9661f43a9ec@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/30 Herman De Wael : > Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Not even the psych-phobic ACBL has a problem with someone who says, >> "Yeah, I've done that once before, three years ago." To get a >> partnership hung and quartered, even in the ACBL, requires someone to >> say, "Yeah, partner's done that once before, three years ago." Which >> is, I believe, Richard's point here. >> >> > > Maybe it is Richard's point - it's certainly yours now. > But this gets us into very troubled waters. > > Let's suppose we have a record of all the bids a player makes (not a > very unlikely supposition in a few years time). > A player makes a psyche and we go through his history and find a similar > psyche three years ago. > > Do we agree that this frequency (although indeed low) is disclosable > information? > > Does it matter whether partner remembers? > > Do we really want to have to ask partner if he remembered? > > Troubled waters indeed. > Does it matter that after the bid three years ago our partnership discussed the bid and decided that it was a bad idea and agreed that we wouldn't do it again? -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 09:07:21 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:07:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <490ABCB9.7050804@skynet.be> I do not agree with Richard. I do not believe the Helgemo1H is a psyche. I do believe it is part of their system. I do believe it is a HUM. I believe the WBF are wrong if they decide it is not a HUM. Herman. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Harald Skj?ran: > >>> The Norwegian Laws Committee is very clear that opening >>> 1H on a 5-card suit and 7hcp is considered to be HUM. >>> Which means you can't do this unless you're playing in >>> an event where HUM's are allowed and you're SC tells >>> that you've playing a HUM system (and the third hand >>> opening style is properly disclosed, of course). >>> >>> Opening 1H on a doubleton and a 3-count, if this is not >>> by agreement, is a psyche. > > Wayne Burrows: > >> Is this an acknowledgement that Helgemo and Helness were >> playing a HUM in the recent world championships? > > Richard Hills: > > What the Norwegian Laws Committee correctly names as a > "disclosable HUM" the WBF Systems Committee incorrectly > names as a "disclosable psyche". Sven Pran has correctly > noted that the Definition of "psychic call" means that a > disclosable psyche is a contradiction in terms. This > Sven Pran interpretation of the Definition is consistent > with the words "without prior announcement" in Law 40A3, > and the words "no player has any obligation to disclose" > in Law 40C2. > > So yes, Helgemo and Helness were using a disclosed HUM in > the recent world championships, but a careful parsing of > the WBF Systems Committee's regulation (substituting > correct terminology for their misnomers) shows that > Helgemo's particular HUM in Beijing was there a legal > special partnership understanding. > > Walter Bagehot (1826-1877), describing Gladstone: > > "He believes, with all his heart and soul and strength, > that there _is_ such a thing as truth; he has the soul of > a martyr with the intellect of an advocate." > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Recruitment Section, Level 3 Blue, workstation 15 (first on left) > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 09:10:13 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:10:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810302335i1932a872k4376a9661f43a9ec@mail.gmail.com> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <67CF3410-E001-4266-99F4-E2053D090AE1@starpower.net> <49089298.70102@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810302335i1932a872k4376a9661f43a9ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <490ABD65.2060907@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2008/10/30 Herman De Wael : >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> Not even the psych-phobic ACBL has a problem with someone who says, >>> "Yeah, I've done that once before, three years ago." To get a >>> partnership hung and quartered, even in the ACBL, requires someone to >>> say, "Yeah, partner's done that once before, three years ago." Which >>> is, I believe, Richard's point here. >>> >>> >> Maybe it is Richard's point - it's certainly yours now. >> But this gets us into very troubled waters. >> >> Let's suppose we have a record of all the bids a player makes (not a >> very unlikely supposition in a few years time). >> A player makes a psyche and we go through his history and find a similar >> psyche three years ago. >> >> Do we agree that this frequency (although indeed low) is disclosable >> information? >> >> Does it matter whether partner remembers? >> >> Do we really want to have to ask partner if he remembered? >> >> Troubled waters indeed. >> > > Does it matter that after the bid three years ago our partnership > discussed the bid and decided that it was a bad idea and agreed that > we wouldn't do it again? > No it doesn't matter - since you apparently did not follow that agreement! Again, we would only have your partner's word for such an agreement! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 09:12:05 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:12:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vague question, vague answer In-Reply-To: <01a001c93a92$eaff83e0$c0fe8ba0$@nl> References: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> <4909A855.2050504@skynet.be> <01a001c93a92$eaff83e0$c0fe8ba0$@nl> Message-ID: <490ABDD5.9080505@skynet.be> Hans van Staveren wrote: > Well, I wasn't so sure I was doing the right thing. > > And the question is wrong, since one should not suggest, just ask. > > Given the right question: "What does this double mean", the answer would > have undoubtedly been the ever so vague "negative". Given that the pair had > no special agreements about negative doubles that would have been an > accurate answer. > And then a second question would follow: "do you always promise 4-4 in the other suits?" What this table did was dispense with the first question (to which they knew the answer) and go straight to the second one. A pefectly legitimat question, IMO. > Now it happens that on certain hands(I think East had a strong 4045) you > just have to double and sort out the mess later. > > South of course had a solid heart suit and was to chicken to bid 4H straight > away. He temporized with 2H and came in later with 4H damaging his side. > > Hans > Herman. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 31 09:32:34 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:32:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman ........ > Richard Hills: > > > > Law 16C2(d) says "award an artificial adjusted > > score." But Law 16C2(c) says, inter alia, > > "standing ready to award an adjusted score". (With > > the word "artificial" deleted.) > > > > The reason for this paragraph is not easy to see. > > In Definitions: > > > Adjusted Score - A score awarded by the Director (see Law 12). It is > > either "artificial" or "assigned". > > How does the absence of the word "artificial" from 16C2(c) affect > anything? The reason "artificial" appears in 16C2(d) is because in > that case, the board has not been played and an assigned score, i.e., > "a score [that] replaces the score obtained in play" is impossible > because there is none. > > So I cannot see the reason for Richard to include the paragraph I > quoted on the difference between (c) and (d). In (c), both kinds of > adjusted scores, artificial and assigned, are possible. In (d), the > only possible kind is artificial, because assigned adjusted scores are > possible only when the hand has been played, and in (d) the hand has > not been played. > > I.e., there is no prohibition whatsoever against artificial assigned > scores in Law 16C2(c). I don't see any reason for the paragraph. > > -Jerry Fusselman The bottom line from L16C2(c) is that it applies whenever the director is called to a table because of extraneous information has been received at that table from "other sources" and at least one call has been made. "Received" includes the situations where the extraneous information was actually "sent" before they started on the board but (acceptably) did not realize its impact and call the director until after making the first call on the board. Under L16C2(c) the director should (if he considers it at all possible) "allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result". At his discretion he is free to award either an artificial score (A+ to both sides) or an adjusted score (e.g. 7S= for declaring side and 6S+1 for defending side). I see no problem here? Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 31 09:42:40 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:42:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vague question, vague answer In-Reply-To: <4909A855.2050504@skynet.be> References: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> <4909A855.2050504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <490AC500.4010603@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > > Well, of course this depends much on intonation and actual words, not > easily translated into english, perhaps. But: The question is not vague, > it is very clear. A clear answer would have been "no". BY saying > "usually", one is also quite clear - that is an answer "yes, but ...". > Come on, Herman ! You're the most frequent user of probabilities on blml. What's wrong with answering "that double will provide 44+ mazjors 85% of the time, and at least one 4-card major 99% of the time" ? > Now in my mind, if one asks "does that promise 4-4" and the answer is > "yes, but", that means it can also be 5-3 or 4-3 or perhaps even 4-2. > But not 4-0. > From tha fact that the double promises 44+ majors in a vast majority of cases, you deduce that it always shows 42+ majors in other cases ? What kind of logic is that ? > This answer is not vague, it is simply wrong. > If indeed the bid is systemic (in the sense that no other bid describes > the hand better) then the answer is wrong. It should have been "no, it > promises only one of the majors". > Nope. This answer is too vague. The correct answer is : "it promises at least one 4-card major, and most of the times both". I guess it's even more than that : American style, it promises at least 44 majors, or one major and 4-card raise, in which case nothing can be inferred about the other major. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 10:32:16 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:32:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vague question, vague answer In-Reply-To: <490AC500.4010603@ulb.ac.be> References: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> <4909A855.2050504@skynet.be> <490AC500.4010603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <490AD0A0.7090009@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> Well, of course this depends much on intonation and actual words, not >> easily translated into english, perhaps. But: The question is not vague, >> it is very clear. A clear answer would have been "no". BY saying >> "usually", one is also quite clear - that is an answer "yes, but ...". >> > Come on, Herman ! You're the most frequent user of probabilities on > blml. What's wrong with answering "that double will provide 44+ mazjors > 85% of the time, and at least one 4-card major 99% of the time" ? > Yes, that's what should have been said. >> Now in my mind, if one asks "does that promise 4-4" and the answer is >> "yes, but", that means it can also be 5-3 or 4-3 or perhaps even 4-2. >> But not 4-0. >> > From tha fact that the double promises 44+ majors in a vast majority of > cases, you deduce that it always shows 42+ majors in other cases ? What > kind of logic is that ? > Not logic, language. "usually 4-4" is "4-4 or 4-3". "usually two 4-card suits" is "sometimes only one". "usually" could mean either, I choose the first, but maybe some disagree. But anyway, the opponents chose the first as well, and they are the ones who are damaged - the player should have made clear what he meant by "usually". BTW, the question was "4-4?" not "both majors?". "usually" as answer to the first means "sometimes only 4-3", to the second it means "sometimes only one suit". And to be fair to Hans, if the problem had been that the hearer had understood something different than what the speaker intended, that had been made clear. I believe however, that the speaker really intended his "usually" to mean "sometimes 4-3". >> This answer is not vague, it is simply wrong. >> If indeed the bid is systemic (in the sense that no other bid describes >> the hand better) then the answer is wrong. It should have been "no, it >> promises only one of the majors". >> > Nope. This answer is too vague. The correct answer is : "it promises at > least one 4-card major, and most of the times both". > I guess it's even more than that : American style, it promises at least > 44 majors, or one major and 4-card raise, in which case nothing can be > inferred about the other major. > And in which case "usually" is totally wrong to the question "4-4 in majors?". > > Best regards > > Alain > Herman. From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 11:03:12 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:03:12 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Fusselman suggested In-Reply-To: <490ABD65.2060907@skynet.be> References: <4906D302.2010909@skynet.be> <67CF3410-E001-4266-99F4-E2053D090AE1@starpower.net> <49089298.70102@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810302335i1932a872k4376a9661f43a9ec@mail.gmail.com> <490ABD65.2060907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810310303q34275d5as8264314b02b80387@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/31 Herman De Wael : > Wayne Burrows wrote: >> 2008/10/30 Herman De Wael : >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>>> Not even the psych-phobic ACBL has a problem with someone who says, >>>> "Yeah, I've done that once before, three years ago." To get a >>>> partnership hung and quartered, even in the ACBL, requires someone to >>>> say, "Yeah, partner's done that once before, three years ago." Which >>>> is, I believe, Richard's point here. >>>> >>>> >>> Maybe it is Richard's point - it's certainly yours now. >>> But this gets us into very troubled waters. >>> >>> Let's suppose we have a record of all the bids a player makes (not a >>> very unlikely supposition in a few years time). >>> A player makes a psyche and we go through his history and find a similar >>> psyche three years ago. >>> >>> Do we agree that this frequency (although indeed low) is disclosable >>> information? >>> >>> Does it matter whether partner remembers? >>> >>> Do we really want to have to ask partner if he remembered? >>> >>> Troubled waters indeed. >>> >> >> Does it matter that after the bid three years ago our partnership >> discussed the bid and decided that it was a bad idea and agreed that >> we wouldn't do it again? >> > > No it doesn't matter - since you apparently did not follow that agreement! > Again, we would only have your partner's word for such an agreement! > Isn't that what a psyche is - a gross departure from agreement. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 11:17:51 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:17:51 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <490ABCB9.7050804@skynet.be> References: <490ABCB9.7050804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810310317o62948863q894080e873b9f614@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/31 Herman De Wael : > I do not agree with Richard. > I do not believe the Helgemo1H is a psyche. > I do believe it is part of their system. > I do believe it is a HUM. > I believe the WBF are wrong if they decide it is not a HUM. > Herman. > I agree that the Helgemo 1H is not a psyche and that it is a HUM on the assumption that this is a normal opening in their system. Their card states "10-23 HCP, NAT 4+ Hs" I would need to ask more questions but if they also open many or most eight and nine counts in third seat then to open a seven count is not a "gross violation". Instead they have a contiguous range of 7-23 HCP (or wider) for their 1H openings. Some of the openings in that range make the system a HUM according to the regulations. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 31 11:32:47 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:32:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> [RH] Sven Pran has correctly noted that the Definition of "psychic call" means that a disclosable psyche is a contradiction in terms. [DALB] Well, he has noted it. He has not correctly noted it, for the definition of "psychic call" says only that it is: "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length". But the WBF has made it perfectly clear that such deliberate misstatements are permissible either "without prior announcement" or with it: Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. I suggest that Richard and Sven actually read the above paragraph. Once Richard in particular understands what it means, he will find that Helgemo and Helness weren't necessarily playing a HUM at all, and that there is no need for his typically convoluted (and wholly inaccurate) attempt to analyse what they were playing. A commentator remarked that it was "standard in Norway" to open 1H with a seven count and five hearts in third position. I think this may have been wrongly interpreted to mean that all Norwegians open all seven counts with five hearts in third position. If that is indeed the case, then all Norwegians play HUMs. If some Norwegians open all seven counts, then some Norwegians play HUMs. But if some Norwegians open some seven counts, then no Norwegians play HUMs. What do they play? Why, they play a set of "normal meanings of calls" that they violate grossly from time to time. The WBF Policy on psychic bidding says that this is legal, provided there is full prior disclosure. The Laws also say that this is legal, because if there is full prior disclosure, this condition of Law 40C1 will be met: "his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents." Of course, Law 40C1 continues: 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. and the question for a Regulating Authority is: how many repetitions are necessary to lead to the point at which (say) opening a seven count becomes part of the partnership's method? If the ACBL says "one", it is within its rights to do so. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 31 12:18:13 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:18:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> Message-ID: <001601c93b4a$5d5a7dc0$180f7940$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn > [RH] > > Sven Pran has correctly noted that the Definition of "psychic call" means > that a disclosable psyche is a contradiction in terms. > > [DALB] > > Well, he has noted it. He has not correctly noted it, for the definition of > "psychic call" says only that it is: > > "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit > length". > > But the WBF has made it perfectly clear that such deliberate misstatements > are permissible either "without prior announcement" or with it: > > Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of > the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can > be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards "A gross misstatement" must be related to some reference, i.e. the declaration of partnership understandings. If this declaration includes that an opening bid of 1H usually shows at least 4 hearts and a hand strength between 11 and 19 HCP but occasionally can be made with as little as 7 HCP then how can an opening bid of 1H made on 7HCP be a "gross misstatement"? Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 13:05:30 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:05:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> Message-ID: <490AF48A.80704@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [RH] > > Sven Pran has correctly noted that the Definition of "psychic call" means > that a disclosable psyche is a contradiction in terms. > > [DALB] > > Well, he has noted it. He has not correctly noted it, for the definition of > "psychic call" says only that it is: > > "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit > length". > > But the WBF has made it perfectly clear that such deliberate misstatements > are permissible either "without prior announcement" or with it: > > Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross violations of > the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of violation can > be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The > understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed from > partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to > opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions that may > call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give full detail > of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant > partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory disclosure > methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. > > I suggest that Richard and Sven actually read the above paragraph. Once > Richard in particular understands what it means, he will find that Helgemo > and Helness weren't necessarily playing a HUM at all, and that there is no > need for his typically convoluted (and wholly inaccurate) attempt to analyse > what they were playing. > We should note that David uses a double negative here. (I should do to - because I started writing a reply saying that David was wrong here - he isn't, because of the double negative). David writes: HH are not necessarily playing a HUM. Indeed David is fully correct in correcting Richard and Sven: the fact that there may be some understanding between H&H with regards to light openings does not in itself declassify these light openings as psyches. > A commentator remarked that it was "standard in Norway" to open 1H with a > seven count and five hearts in third position. I think this may have been > wrongly interpreted to mean that all Norwegians open all seven counts with > five hearts in third position. If that is indeed the case, then all > Norwegians play HUMs. If some Norwegians open all seven counts, then some > Norwegians play HUMs. But if some Norwegians open some seven counts, then no > Norwegians play HUMs. > David is of the opinion that as long as one opens "not all, but only some 7-counts", this makes it a psyche. Well, I'll quickly counter that argument. Suppose I play that I open only 1 quarter of my 7-counts in third position. Would that satisfy David? OK, so I will open all 7-counts that contain the D7, and none of the others. That makes it 25%, no? But I am actually opening 100% of all 7-counts with the D7. Now, H&H will probably have a more sofisticated method of deciding which 7-counts to open and which not, but the fact remains that there may well be some definable sub-group of 7-counts that is opened 100% of the time. And this means that David's criterium is not quite workable. > What do they play? Why, they play a set of "normal meanings of calls" that > they violate grossly from time to time. The WBF Policy on psychic bidding > says that this is legal, provided there is full prior disclosure. The Laws > also say that this is legal, because if there is full prior disclosure, this > condition of Law 40C1 will be met: "his partner has no more reason to be > aware of the deviation than have the opponents." > Yes, but that is a criterium to determine if there has been MI or not, not whether the opening is systemic according to the HUM regulations. > Of course, Law 40C1 continues: > > 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. > > and the question for a Regulating Authority is: how many repetitions are > necessary to lead to the point at which (say) opening a seven count becomes > part of the partnership's method? If the ACBL says "one", it is within its > rights to do so. > I think a far more important question is whether this opening is a "gross" misstatement or not. Just see that a 5-card heart suit, together with a 332 and 10 points is enought to satisfy the rule of 18. 3 points difference is not very gross to me - but some might disagree with that. OTOH, a 2-card heart suit and only 3 points must be a gross misstatement, no? > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 13:08:34 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:08:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c93b4a$5d5a7dc0$180f7940$@no> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> <001601c93b4a$5d5a7dc0$180f7940$@no> Message-ID: <490AF542.3090009@skynet.be> Of course Sven, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of David Burn >> [RH] >> > > "A gross misstatement" must be related to some reference, i.e. the > declaration of partnership understandings. > > If this declaration includes that an opening bid of 1H usually shows at > least 4 hearts and a hand strength between 11 and 19 HCP but occasionally > can be made with as little as 7 HCP then how can an opening bid of 1H made > on 7HCP be a "gross misstatement"? > > Sven > The problem with your argument is that whenever there is something known about psyches, this becomes partnership understanding, and so one can no longer call anything a psyche. The thing that the psyche must be compared to can NOT be the full set of partnership understandings, since it forms part of that. The thing that the psyche must be compared to is the set of agreements that the pair have, not including knowledge about frequency of deviation from those agreements. This is logic, pure and simple. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 13:10:38 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:10:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810310317o62948863q894080e873b9f614@mail.gmail.com> References: <490ABCB9.7050804@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810310317o62948863q894080e873b9f614@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <490AF5BE.4050800@skynet.be> Very nice argument, Wayne: Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2008/10/31 Herman De Wael : >> I do not agree with Richard. >> I do not believe the Helgemo1H is a psyche. >> I do believe it is part of their system. >> I do believe it is a HUM. >> I believe the WBF are wrong if they decide it is not a HUM. >> Herman. >> > > I agree that the Helgemo 1H is not a psyche and that it is a HUM on > the assumption that this is a normal opening in their system. > > Their card states "10-23 HCP, NAT 4+ Hs" > > I would need to ask more questions but if they also open many or most > eight and nine counts in third seat then to open a seven count is not > a "gross violation". Instead they have a contiguous range of 7-23 HCP > (or wider) for their 1H openings. A _contiguous_ range. They will open some 7-counts, many 8-counts, and almost all 9-counts, while stating a range of 10-23. > Some of the openings in that range > make the system a HUM according to the regulations. > Indeed. PS: again compare with my H1H: I do open 3-counts, but no 4-counts (recently). Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 31 13:11:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:11:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vague question, vague answer In-Reply-To: <490AD0A0.7090009@skynet.be> References: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> <4909A855.2050504@skynet.be> <490AC500.4010603@ulb.ac.be> <490AD0A0.7090009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <490AF5DD.6030105@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> Nope. This answer is too vague. The correct answer is : "it promises at >> least one 4-card major, and most of the times both". >> I guess it's even more than that : American style, it promises at least >> 44 majors, or one major and 4-card raise, in which case nothing can be >> inferred about the other major. >> >> > > And in which case "usually" is totally wrong to the question "4-4 in > majors?". > AG : if I understand the word "usually", the answer is correct if, and only if, occurrences of "something else than 44 majors" is uncommon. Now, if you think the word is vague, and if you need to know more about the other cases, just ask. My feeling is that your interpretation of "usually" is in fact what we call "tends to". Is a Sputnik "tends to" deliver 4 hearts, we'll expect to find at least honor-third in any case. But my dictionaries don't act this meaning for "usually". If "it usually pours down when I walk out", it doesn't mean it always rains at least a bit when I walk out. IMNSHV, at some level, more will be gained by warning opponents that there is something special, then let them ask if needed, rather than giving all details ("too much information kills information") and perhaps forgetting the one they needed. 2-way bids are often explained as e.g. "standard weak 2-bid in hearts or one of several very strong types". Usually, that's all they want to know. If you tell them about the 8 strong types, you'll bore them, lose time, and most probably won't help them in any way. But they'll know they have to enquire more if they want all relevant information - which you'll be compelled to give, of course. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 31 13:14:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:14:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> Message-ID: <490AF68B.8080405@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [RH] > > Sven Pran has correctly noted that the Definition of "psychic call" means > that a disclosable psyche is a contradiction in terms. > > [DALB] > > Well, he has noted it. He has not correctly noted it, for the definition of > "psychic call" says only that it is: > > "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit > length". > AG : really ? So, a fake control-bid isn't a psyche at all ? Is that official ? From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Oct 31 13:14:53 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:14:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?New_Laws_don=27t_allow_UI_situation_to_be_?= =?iso-8859-15?q?resolved=3F?= In-Reply-To: <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> Message-ID: <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > The bottom line from L16C2(c) is that it applies whenever the director > is called to a table because of extraneous information has been > received at that table from "other sources" and at least one call has > been made. > "Received" includes the situations where the extraneous information > was actually "sent" before they started on the board but (acceptably) > did not realize its impact and call the director until after making > the first call on the board. I strongly disagree with this statement. "Receiving" has nothing to do with "understanding" or even "realizing its impact". Receiving is the natural counterpart of sending. There is no time delay. You may miss the sending and thereby not receiving anything, but you can't receive any non-written information at another moment than the sending one. Law 16 C1 says: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by [...] overhearing [...] remarks; [...] the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information." So the law says that overhearing remarks is receiving UI. The the law goes on with C2, saying "[...] the Director [...] may, before any call has been made: a) [...] b) [...] c) [...] d) [...]" So, Law 16 C2d can't be arrived at in a direct way after the first call of the auction has been made. And then the law says further in C3: "If such information is received after the first call of the auction has been made [...] the Director proceeds as in 2(c)." Here again no way to Law 16 C2d, because the UI was received (long) before the first call of the auction has been made. [snip] > > I see no problem here? I still do Peter From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 31 13:26:23 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (dalburn at btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:26:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1062526051-1225456021-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-888530924-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> [SP] If this declaration includes that an opening bid of 1H usually shows at least 4 hearts and a hand strength between 11 and 19 HCP but occasionally can be made with as little as 7 HCP then how can an opening bid of 1H made on 7HCP be a "gross misstatement"? [DALB] You seem to be reasoning in the same kind of circle as Richard. It is possible (though I confess not to be sure of this) that Herman has exhibited a way out of the circle (albeit the wrong way) with his talk of differences between agreements and understandings. The important difference, as indicated by the WBF Policy, is that between the normal meaning of a call and a "gross violation" of the normal meaning of a call. For Helgemo and Helness, 1H "normally means" 10-23 hcp, 4+ hearts, no longer suit. A "gross violation" of this "normal meaning" is to open 1H with a seven count. But occasional ("from time to time") violations of this nature are permitted, subject to disclosure. Only when the frequency of violation exceeds the "occasional" does it become the case that a seven count is included among the "normal meanings" of a 1H opening. Of course, it is difficult to police Helgemo and Helness to ascertain whether they open 1H on a seven count more often than "occasionally" (and how often is that, anyway?). If Helgemo and Helness failed to put on their convention card that they might occasionally open 1H with a seven count, they are guilty of inadequate disclosure. But they are not guilty of playing a HUM unless they open all seven counts with five hearts in third position. David Burn London, England Sent from my BlackBerry? wireless device From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 31 14:40:01 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:40:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:32:34 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > ........ >> Richard Hills: >> > >> > Law 16C2(d) says "award an artificial adjusted >> > score." But Law 16C2(c) says, inter alia, >> > "standing ready to award an adjusted score". (With >> > the word "artificial" deleted.) >> > >> >> The reason for this paragraph is not easy to see. >> >> In Definitions: >> >> > Adjusted Score - A score awarded by the Director (see Law 12). It is >> > either "artificial" or "assigned". >> >> How does the absence of the word "artificial" from 16C2(c) affect >> anything? The reason "artificial" appears in 16C2(d) is because in >> that case, the board has not been played and an assigned score, i.e., >> "a score [that] replaces the score obtained in play" is impossible >> because there is none. >> >> So I cannot see the reason for Richard to include the paragraph I >> quoted on the difference between (c) and (d). In (c), both kinds of >> adjusted scores, artificial and assigned, are possible. In (d), the >> only possible kind is artificial, because assigned adjusted scores are >> possible only when the hand has been played, and in (d) the hand has >> not been played. >> >> I.e., there is no prohibition whatsoever against artificial assigned >> scores in Law 16C2(c). I don't see any reason for the paragraph. >> >> -Jerry Fusselman > > The bottom line from L16C2(c) is that it applies whenever the director is > called to a table because of extraneous information has been received at > that table from "other sources" and at least one call has been made. > "Received" includes the situations where the extraneous information was > actually "sent" before they started on the board but (acceptably) did not > realize its impact and call the director until after making the first > call > on the board. > > Under L16C2(c) the director should (if he considers it at all possible) > "allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an > adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have > affected > the result". At his discretion he is free to award either an artificial > score (A+ to both sides) or an adjusted score (e.g. 7S= for declaring > side > and 6S+1 for defending side). > > I see no problem here? My problem is this. When you are playing a board and all of a sudden realize that you have useful UI from an extraneous source (not partner), you can't play the board normally. You are essentially asking yourself, "What would I do if I didn't have the information that I do have?" Sometimes you can answer that question. But often you can't, because you DO have the information so can't put yourself in that position. So normal play of the board is now sometimes impossible. But the director still has to allow normal play of the board? What does that mean? Does it mean I can use the UI and if it helps me I get to keep my score and the opponents are protected with a split score? Or is there a way to get from L16C3 to L16C2(d)? L16C3 just directs me to L16C2(c). That's the major problem I am having. Another problem is that as I read this law, it protects me if I make a play suggested by the UI and it turns out poorly. (That would actually save me 3 matchpoints from Wednesday.) From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 31 13:58:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:58:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? In-Reply-To: <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <490B00DD.6000405@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > From: "Sven Pran" > >> The bottom line from L16C2(c) is that it applies whenever the director >> is called to a table because of extraneous information has been >> received at that table from "other sources" and at least one call has >> been made. >> "Received" includes the situations where the extraneous information >> was actually "sent" before they started on the board but (acceptably) >> did not realize its impact and call the director until after making >> the first call on the board. >> > > I strongly disagree with this statement. > > "Receiving" has nothing to do with "understanding" or even > "realizing its impact". Receiving is the natural counterpart of > sending. There is no time delay. You may miss the sending > and thereby not receiving anything, but you can't receive any > non-written information at another moment than the sending > one. > > Law 16 C1 says: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized > information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by [...] > overhearing [...] remarks; [...] the Director should be notified > forthwith, > preferably by the recipient of the information." > All this being stated, and agreed by many, there are still cases where you recieve information and don't know for sure : - whether it relates to a board played in this session - if it does, to which one In such a case, isn't it natural to call the TD when you know they're relevant to some specific board ? And that may be after quite a while. Suppose I overhear a member of the pair sitting bye saying "that's too silly. Two KQJ's totally wasted !'. I can't know whether they refer to their last played deal (and which it is), or to some other deal in some previous tournament. Also, I don't know whether I'll play this deal, or whether I'll hold this hand. But when I hold x - Qxxxxx - KQJ - KQJ and hear them open 3S, I'll call the director. Anyway, if I called him immediately on hearing the information, he won't be able to act, because he, too, won't know whether it will become relevant. I know L16B says I must call the TD immediately upon hearing if it concerns a deal that I'll be playing, but I don't know whether it's the case. So what are my obligations ? The late Roger Silberwasser, the best player ever in Belgium, liked to tell the story of that day when he set a trap for a player he knew wasn't ethical, by speaking out loudly about a wonderful 7D hand. Later in the tournament, that player thrice tried to play in 7D, with little success. Now suppose you or me had been hearing that remark. Perhaps we'd directly tell the TD ' I've overheard something about a contract of 7D', but at this time what can he do ? If TFLB are to be interpreted in such a way that the TD won't be able to do anything about it *when the hand in question is suspected to have emerged*, there's indeed a peroblem. But I read L12A2 as solving this problem. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 31 14:13:29 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:13:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? In-Reply-To: <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001801c93b5a$7814e320$683ea960$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt ............... > The the law goes on with C2, saying "[...] the Director [...] may, > before > any call has been made: > a) [...] > b) [...] > c) [...] > d) [...]" > > So, Law 16 C2d can't be arrived at in a direct way after the first call > of the auction has been made. Alternatives a), b), c) and d) are separated by the word "or", not by the word "else". This means that the director is free to go directly to any one (e.g. d) of these four alternatives. (Compare to the wording in Law 27B) > And then the law says further in C3: "If such information is received > after the first call of the auction has been made [...] the Director > proceeds as in 2(c)." > > Here again no way to Law 16 C2d, because the UI was received > (long) before the first call of the auction has been made. L16C2(c) gives the director a general power to award an adjusted score; this must in case be a score awarded under Law 12. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 31 14:17:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:17:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <490AF542.3090009@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> <001601c93b4a$5d5a7dc0$180f7940$@no> <490AF542.3090009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <490B0552.7070408@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Of course Sven, > > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of David Burn >> >>> [RH] >>> >>> >> "A gross misstatement" must be related to some reference, i.e. the >> declaration of partnership understandings. >> >> If this declaration includes that an opening bid of 1H usually shows at >> least 4 hearts and a hand strength between 11 and 19 HCP but occasionally >> can be made with as little as 7 HCP then how can an opening bid of 1H made >> on 7HCP be a "gross misstatement"? >> >> Sven >> >> > > The problem with your argument is that whenever there is something known > about psyches, this becomes partnership understanding, and so one can no > longer call anything a psyche. > AG : I have to disagree. A friend of mine (not a partner, notice) once told to me that when he was sitting 3rd in hand and NV, he would psyche only if partner passed, RHO passed or opened 1 in a minor, and he held a weak hand including two color-matched pairs of low cards (e.g. D4, H4, C3, S3). This meant partner wouldn't expect a psyche, only know a 3rd-in-hand NV bid could be a psyche, which is CBK. and it also meant that it wouldn't happen too often, and near-to-randomly. Now suppose I played with him and it became obvious, during the bidding, that he psyched. I'll have information about his hand, therefore there is an understanding, and it might even be illegal because it can't be easily told to the opponents at a convenient time, but surely my partner's bid remains a psyche ? Far-fetched ? Sure. But testing implications (like 'if there is an understanding, then it isn't a psyche') for possible falsification is best made by finding far-fetched cases. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 31 14:19:21 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:19:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <490AF542.3090009@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> <001601c93b4a$5d5a7dc0$180f7940$@no> <490AF542.3090009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901c93b5b$498a4170$dc9ec450$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 31. oktober 2008 13:09 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Of course Sven, > > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of David Burn > >> [RH] > >> > > > > "A gross misstatement" must be related to some reference, i.e. the > > declaration of partnership understandings. > > > > If this declaration includes that an opening bid of 1H usually shows at > > least 4 hearts and a hand strength between 11 and 19 HCP but occasionally > > can be made with as little as 7 HCP then how can an opening bid of 1H made > > on 7HCP be a "gross misstatement"? > > > > Sven > > > > The problem with your argument is that whenever there is something known > about psyches, this becomes partnership understanding, and so one can no > longer call anything a psyche. > > The thing that the psyche must be compared to can NOT be the full set of > partnership understandings, since it forms part of that. > The thing that the psyche must be compared to is the set of agreements > that the pair have, not including knowledge about frequency of deviation > from those agreements. > > This is logic, pure and simple. > > Herman. 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." Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 31 14:24:33 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:24:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1062526051-1225456021-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-888530924-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> References: <1062526051-1225456021-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-888530924-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <001a01c93b5c$0393aed0$0abb0c70$@no> On Behalf Of dalburn at btopenworld.com ....................... > For Helgemo and Helness, 1H "normally means" 10-23 hcp, 4+ hearts, no longer > suit. A "gross violation" of this "normal meaning" is to open 1H with a seven count. > But occasional ("from time to time") violations of this nature are permitted, subject > to disclosure. > > Only when the frequency of violation exceeds the "occasional" does it become the > case that a seven count is included among the "normal meanings" of a 1H > opening. Of course, it is difficult to police Helgemo and Helness to ascertain > whether they open 1H on a seven count more often than "occasionally" (and how > often is that, anyway?). > > If Helgemo and Helness failed to put on their convention card that they might > occasionally open 1H with a seven count, they are guilty of inadequate disclosure. > But they are not guilty of playing a HUM unless they open all seven counts with > five hearts in third position. If partner has more reason than opponents have to be aware of a particular call being a deviation from disclosed partnership understandings then that call does IMHO not qualify as a psyche; it is a concealed partnership understanding. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 31 14:33:31 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:33:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> Message-ID: <001b01c93b5d$4438f2f0$ccaad8d0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick .............. > My problem is this. When you are playing a board and all of a sudden > realize that you have useful UI from an extraneous source (not partner), > you can't play the board normally. You are essentially asking yourself, > "What would I do if I didn't have the information that I do have?" > Sometimes you can answer that question. But often you can't, because you > DO have the information so can't put yourself in that position. > > So normal play of the board is now sometimes impossible. But the director > still has to allow normal play of the board? What does that mean? Does it > mean I can use the UI and if it helps me I get to keep my score and the > opponents are protected with a split score? > > Or is there a way to get from L16C3 to L16C2(d)? L16C3 just directs me to > L16C2(c). > > That's the major problem I am having. Another problem is that as I read > this law, it protects me if I make a play suggested by the UI and it turns > out poorly. (That would actually save me 3 matchpoints from Wednesday.) Your duty is to attempt playing the board as if you had no extraneous information. If the director subsequently finds that you have succeeded in that attempt then he should let the result stand, otherwise he should award an adjusted score (assigned or artificial at his discretion). You cannot expect to be protected against a bad result unless that result is a consequence of the extraneous information received. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 31 14:46:16 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:46:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested In-Reply-To: <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> Message-ID: On Oct 31, 2008, at 6:32 AM, David Burn wrote: > [RH] > > Sven Pran has correctly noted that the Definition of "psychic call" > means > that a disclosable psyche is a contradiction in terms. > > [DALB] > > Well, he has noted it. He has not correctly noted it, for the > definition of > "psychic call" says only that it is: > > "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit > length". > > But the WBF has made it perfectly clear that such deliberate > misstatements > are permissible either "without prior announcement" or with it: > > Understandings whereby from time to time there may be gross > violations of > the normal meanings of calls, and where the nature or type of > violation can > be anticipated, must also be disclosed on the convention cards. The > understandings may be explicitly agreed or they may have developed > from > partnership experience or mutually shared knowledge not available to > opponents. They must be listed on the card amongst the conventions > that may > call for special defence and the supplementary sheets must give > full detail > of situations in which these violations may occur and of the relevant > partnership practices and expectations. Subject to satisfactory > disclosure > methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event. > > I suggest that Richard and Sven actually read the above paragraph. > Once > Richard in particular understands what it means, he will find that > Helgemo > and Helness weren't necessarily playing a HUM at all, and that > there is no > need for his typically convoluted (and wholly inaccurate) attempt > to analyse > what they were playing. > > A commentator remarked that it was "standard in Norway" to open 1H > with a > seven count and five hearts in third position. I think this may > have been > wrongly interpreted to mean that all Norwegians open all seven > counts with > five hearts in third position. If that is indeed the case, then all > Norwegians play HUMs. If some Norwegians open all seven counts, > then some > Norwegians play HUMs. But if some Norwegians open some seven > counts, then no > Norwegians play HUMs. > > What do they play? Why, they play a set of "normal meanings of > calls" that > they violate grossly from time to time. The WBF Policy on psychic > bidding > says that this is legal, provided there is full prior disclosure. > The Laws > also say that this is legal, because if there is full prior > disclosure, this > condition of Law 40C1 will be met: "his partner has no more reason > to be > aware of the deviation than have the opponents." > > Of course, Law 40C1 continues: > > 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. > > and the question for a Regulating Authority is: how many > repetitions are > necessary to lead to the point at which (say) opening a seven count > becomes > part of the partnership's method? If the ACBL says "one", it is > within its > rights to do so. I see a distinction between gross violations of one's agreements, and "pseudo-gross" violations, which "grossly" violate one's explicit agreements but do not grossly violate one's implicit understandings. Some of us have been treating this as though Mr. Helgemo's actual practice was to open all suitable 10-23 HCP hands but occasionally make the same call with 7 HCP -- a practice not dissimilar to the "Herman 1H". But I'm willing to bet he does it with 8- and 9-counts as well. ISTM that's a different case. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 14:58:37 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:58:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <490B0552.7070408@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> <001601c93b4a$5d5a7dc0$180f7940$@no> <490AF542.3090009@skynet.be> <490B0552.7070408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <490B0F0D.7060300@skynet.be> Alain, you are agreeing with me! Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >> The problem with your argument is that whenever there is something known >> about psyches, this becomes partnership understanding, and so one can no >> longer call anything a psyche. >> > AG : I have to disagree. > > A friend of mine (not a partner, notice) once told to me that when he > was sitting 3rd in hand and NV, he would psyche only if partner passed, > RHO passed or opened 1 in a minor, and he held a weak hand including two > color-matched pairs of low cards (e.g. D4, H4, C3, S3). This meant > partner wouldn't expect a psyche, only know a 3rd-in-hand NV bid could > be a psyche, which is CBK. and it also meant that it wouldn't happen too > often, and near-to-randomly. > > Now suppose I played with him and it became obvious, during the bidding, > that he psyched. I'll have information about his hand, therefore there > is an understanding, and it might even be illegal because it can't be > easily told to the opponents at a convenient time, but surely my > partner's bid remains a psyche ? > > Far-fetched ? Sure. But testing implications (like 'if there is an > understanding, then it isn't a psyche') for possible falsification is > best made by finding far-fetched cases. > You have just agreed with me, Alain. This thing is indeed a psyche - and it is also a part of partnership understanding. Therefore, psyches cannot be defined as gross misstatements of partnership understandings - or there would not be any psyches. Psyches are gross misstatements of partnership agreements, with agreement in its non-legal sense (the word does not appear in the 2007 laws anyway). > > Best regards > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 15:00:16 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:00:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c93b5b$498a4170$dc9ec450$@no> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> <001601c93b4a$5d5a7dc0$180f7940$@no> <490AF542.3090009@skynet.be> <001901c93b5b$498a4170$dc9ec450$@no> Message-ID: <490B0F70.8010401@skynet.be> Yes Sven, exactly! Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sent: 31. oktober 2008 13:09 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Of course Sven, >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of David Burn >>>> [RH] >>>> >>> "A gross misstatement" must be related to some reference, i.e. the >>> declaration of partnership understandings. >>> >>> If this declaration includes that an opening bid of 1H usually shows at >>> least 4 hearts and a hand strength between 11 and 19 HCP but > occasionally >>> can be made with as little as 7 HCP then how can an opening bid of 1H > made >>> on 7HCP be a "gross misstatement"? >>> >>> Sven >>> >> The problem with your argument is that whenever there is something known >> about psyches, this becomes partnership understanding, and so one can no >> longer call anything a psyche. >> >> The thing that the psyche must be compared to can NOT be the full set of >> partnership understandings, since it forms part of that. >> The thing that the psyche must be compared to is the set of agreements >> that the pair have, not including knowledge about frequency of deviation >> from those agreements. >> >> This is logic, pure and simple. >> >> Herman. > > 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." > > Sven > Exactly so! These are indeed partnership understandings. But my point is precisely that psyches can be (part of) partnership understandings. Which is why we have to define psyches in relation to agreements, not the PUs of the Lawbook. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 15:02:10 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:02:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vague question, vague answer In-Reply-To: <490AF5DD.6030105@ulb.ac.be> References: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> <4909A855.2050504@skynet.be> <490AC500.4010603@ulb.ac.be> <490AD0A0.7090009@skynet.be> <490AF5DD.6030105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <490B0FE2.4070404@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> Nope. This answer is too vague. The correct answer is : "it promises at >>> least one 4-card major, and most of the times both". >>> I guess it's even more than that : American style, it promises at least >>> 44 majors, or one major and 4-card raise, in which case nothing can be >>> inferred about the other major. >>> >>> >> And in which case "usually" is totally wrong to the question "4-4 in >> majors?". >> > AG : if I understand the word "usually", the answer is correct if, and > only if, occurrences of "something else than 44 majors" is uncommon. > Now, if you think the word is vague, and if you need to know more about > the other cases, just ask. > > My feeling is that your interpretation of "usually" is in fact what we > call "tends to". Is a Sputnik "tends to" deliver 4 hearts, we'll expect > to find at least honor-third in any case. > But my dictionaries don't act this meaning for "usually". If "it usually > pours down when I walk out", it doesn't mean it always rains at least a > bit when I walk out. > detailed semantics about the word "usually" are totally superfluous, since the actual word at the table was probably "gewoonlijk". Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 31 15:03:02 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (dalburn at btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:03:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1429874746-1225461820-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2091802381-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> [SP] If partner has more reason than opponents have to be aware of a particular call being a deviation from disclosed partnership understandings then that call does IMHO not qualify as a psyche; it is a concealed partnership understanding. [DALB] Precisely. That's why the WBF policy specifies that there must be disclosure of the nature of the deviation. Then, partner will have no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the possibility of and the nature of the deviation. Where you seem to be stuck is that you believe that any such disclosure automatically makes the deviation part of the methods. It does not, provided that the deviation occurs with less than a frequency X. As I have said, it is for the Regulating Authorities to determine X for events within their jurisdictions. David Burn London, England Sent from my BlackBerry? wireless device From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 15:11:51 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:11:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? In-Reply-To: <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <490B1227.7090708@skynet.be> Peter is the first to give a correct solution, but apparently he still sees a problem? Peter Eidt wrote: > > I strongly disagree with this statement. > > "Receiving" has nothing to do with "understanding" or even > "realizing its impact". Receiving is the natural counterpart of > sending. There is no time delay. You may miss the sending > and thereby not receiving anything, but you can't receive any > non-written information at another moment than the sending > one. > I agree. > Law 16 C1 says: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized > information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by [...] > overhearing [...] remarks; [...] the Director should be notified > forthwith, > preferably by the recipient of the information." > > So the law says that overhearing remarks is receiving UI. > Exactly. The recipient of the information has by now broken L16C1. If he calls later on, he has done something wrong, but I guess we can leave that without consequence if the case hasn't worsened in the meantime - if it has, he might be liable to some stricter measures. But for now, we allow the calling at the later moment. > The the law goes on with C2, saying "[...] the Director [...] may, > before > any call has been made: > a) [...] > b) [...] > c) [...] > d) [...]" > What would the director have done if he had been called at the correct time? Probably C2c: allowing the board to continue, keeping an eye on further developments. > So, Law 16 C2d can't be arrived at in a direct way after the first call > of the auction has been made. > OK, so now we are a bit later in the auction, and the UI becomes important. What does the TD do? still apply L16C2c. It really does not matter if the remark is overheard before the first call or while the player is thinking of his response to 1S. > And then the law says further in C3: "If such information is received > after the first call of the auction has been made [...] the Director > proceeds as in 2(c)." > > Here again no way to Law 16 C2d, because the UI was received > (long) before the first call of the auction has been made. > No, indeed not. But then again, C2c says "adjusted score", and under the new laws this can be an artificial one. So we don't need C2d. We can still award A+/A+ under C2c. > [snip] >> I see no problem here? > > I still do > I don't. In fact, the 2007 laws provide a solution to this problem, where the 1997 laws did not. There, if the player calls the TD at the correct time, the TD had only 2 options: cancel the board or allow it to be played, with the results standing. Now, the TD can allow the board to be played and await developments. Much better IMO. > Peter > Herman. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Oct 31 15:19:41 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:19:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?New_Laws_don=27t_allow_UI_situation_to_be_?= =?iso-8859-15?q?resolved=3F?= In-Reply-To: <001801c93b5a$7814e320$683ea960$@no> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <001801c93b5a$7814e320$683ea960$@no> Message-ID: <1Kvuqj-0TfdBo0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > ............... > > The the law goes on with C2, saying "[...] the Director [...] may, > > before any call has been made: > > a) [...] > > b) [...] > > c) [...] > > d) [...]" > > > > So, Law 16 C2d can't be arrived at in a direct way after the first > > call of the auction has been made. > > > Alternatives a), b), c) and d) are separated by the word "or", not by > the word "else". This means that the director is free to go directly > to any one (e.g. d) of these four alternatives. (Compare to the > wording in Law 27B) Sure, but only if the introducing condition is satisfied and that reads "the Director may, before any call has been made_:_" You can not enter the list of alternatives directly, after the first call has been made. You may - on the other hand - do so, if another law points to the list or one item of it. > > > And then the law says further in C3: "If such information is > > received after the first call of the auction has been made [...] the > > Director proceeds as in 2(c)." > > > > Here again no way to Law 16 C2d, because the UI was received > > (long) before the first call of the auction has been made. > > > > L16C2(c) gives the director a general power to award an adjusted > score; this must in case be a score awarded under Law 12. Sure, if the Director can reach this particular part of the law; it he can "find" a way to apply it. Law 16 C2(c) does not stand alone; it's not an universal (part of the) law. And the way via Law 16 C3 is closed, as the UI was received before the first call of the auction. q.e.d. Peter > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 15:24:06 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:24:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01c93b5c$0393aed0$0abb0c70$@no> References: <1062526051-1225456021-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-888530924-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> <001a01c93b5c$0393aed0$0abb0c70$@no> Message-ID: <490B1506.4050408@skynet.be> No Sven, you are wrong. You are talking of the thrid crime: Sven Pran wrote: > > If partner has more reason than opponents have to be aware of a particular > call being a deviation from disclosed partnership understandings then that > call does IMHO not qualify as a psyche; it is a concealed partnership > understanding. > The call may still qualify as a psyche, and it will also be MI. You are confusing the issue with the name CPU. A CPU is nothing else than a piece of MI. Read the 1997 laws again, under the heading CPU. This is the main law we use when ruling MI. There is no third crime called CPU, there are only two crimes: MI: opponents have not received all the info they are entitled to and Cheating: deliberate concealment of real agreements The penalty for the first is an adjusted score. The penalty for the second is disbarment. There is no third crime. What would you suggest the adjustment would be if you rule that H&H are guilty of concealing their CPU? Surely not disbarment - they are not trying to deceive their opponents, I'm pretty sure they'll admit to light openings in third hand, and may even give a correct lower limit. Certainly an adjusted score: if the opponents are scared out of a final overcall by them not expecting HH to be that light, they can get and AS for that. But if you want to create a third crime - you need a third type of adjustment (something like an AS based on GH not opening perhaps?) I see no reason and no legal basis for such an adjustment. Therefore, I do not believe there exists a crime called CPU, merely one called MI. GH may or may not have been guilty of that (I don't believe opponents are deceived all that much). As to the nature of it being a psyche, that is a totally different question. It can be all four combinations of MI/psyche. And playing a HUM is of course a different crime altogether. > Sven > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 31 15:41:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:41:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? In-Reply-To: <490B1227.7090708@skynet.be> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <490B1227.7090708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <490B1920.4020809@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > >> Law 16 C1 says: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized >> information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by [...] >> overhearing [...] remarks; [...] the Director should be notified >> forthwith, >> preferably by the recipient of the information." >> >> So the law says that overhearing remarks is receiving UI. >> >> > > Exactly. > The recipient of the information has by now broken L16C1. If he calls > later on, he has done something wrong, but I guess we can leave that > without consequence if the case hasn't worsened in the meantime - if it > has, he might be liable to some stricter measures. > But for now, we allow the calling at the later moment. > AG : in most cases, the player wouldn't be able to know that the remark he heard referred to a board that he had yet to play. In this cxase, I don't think he infringed L16C1. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 31 15:56:16 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:56:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <490B0F0D.7060300@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> <001601c93b4a$5d5a7dc0$180f7940$@no> <490AF542.3090009@skynet.be> <490B0552.7070408@ulb.ac.be> <490B0F0D.7060300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <490B1C90.9020503@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain, you are agreeing with me! > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>> The problem with your argument is that whenever there is something known >>> about psyches, this becomes partnership understanding, and so one can no >>> longer call anything a psyche. >>> >>> >> AG : I have to disagree. >> >> A friend of mine (not a partner, notice) once told to me that when he >> was sitting 3rd in hand and NV, he would psyche only if partner passed, >> RHO passed or opened 1 in a minor, and he held a weak hand including two >> color-matched pairs of low cards (e.g. D4, H4, C3, S3). This meant >> partner wouldn't expect a psyche, only know a 3rd-in-hand NV bid could >> be a psyche, which is CBK. and it also meant that it wouldn't happen too >> often, and near-to-randomly. >> >> Now suppose I played with him and it became obvious, during the bidding, >> that he psyched. I'll have information about his hand, therefore there >> is an understanding, and it might even be illegal because it can't be >> easily told to the opponents at a convenient time, but surely my >> partner's bid remains a psyche ? >> >> Far-fetched ? Sure. But testing implications (like 'if there is an >> understanding, then it isn't a psyche') for possible falsification is >> best made by finding far-fetched cases. >> >> > > You have just agreed with me, Alain. > This thing is indeed a psyche - and it is also a part of partnership > understanding. > Therefore, psyches cannot be defined as gross misstatements of > partnership understandings - or there would not be any psyches. > Psyches are gross misstatements of partnership agreements, with > agreement in its non-legal sense (the word does not appear in the 2007 > laws anyway). > AG : I'd said that's the contrary : he has deviated from the understandings (the knowledge that partner will use) but not from the agreements (the knowledge partner has). From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Oct 31 16:31:32 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:31:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?New_Laws_don=27t_allow_UI_situation_to_be_?= =?iso-8859-15?q?resolved=3F?= In-Reply-To: <490B1227.7090708@skynet.be> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <490B1227.7090708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1KvvyG-0PnZUe0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Peter is the first to give a correct solution, but apparently he still > sees a problem? Thanks for the flowers, but I don't agree with your conclusion ... [snip] [PE] > > Here again no way to Law 16 C2d, because the UI was received > > (long) before the first call of the auction has been made. [HdW] > No, indeed not. > But then again, C2c says "adjusted score", and under the new laws this > can be an artificial one. > So we don't need C2d. We can still award A+/A+ under C2c. [PE] sorry, that was a typo (I meant (c) instead). [SP] > > > I see no problem here? [PE] > > I still do [HdW] > I don't. > In fact, the 2007 laws provide a solution to this problem, where the > 1997 laws did not. There, if the player calls the TD at the correct > time, the TD had only 2 options: cancel the board or allow it to be > played, with the results standing. Now, the TD can allow the board to > be played and await developments. Much better IMO. I'll try it a (hopefully) last time You cannot enter a certain item in a list of items without fulfilling the entry condition. As another example (perhaps) take Law 43 B2 (no conntection of content intended; just an legal analogy): "2. If dummy, after his violation of the limitations listed in A2: (a) warns declarer not to lead from the wrong hand, either defender may choose the hand from which declarer shall lead. (b) is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer?s hand constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute a correct card if his play was illegal, and the provisions of Law 64 then apply as if the revoke had been established." Nobody (no TD) will think of applying Law 43 B2(b) and thereby applying some penalty tricks for an asking dummy, if that dummy hasn't lost his rights. Ok, back to Law 16 C: There are two totally different entry conditions for arriving at Law 16 C2(c): The first is via Law 16 C2 itself. The entry condition is that the TD _applies_ (c) before any call on that board has been made. It does _not_ say, that the UI has been received, before any call has been made (even though that will be so in 100% of the cases); it _does_ say that the TD may apply (c) (as (a) or (b) or (d)) (only) if he does so, before any call has been made. The second (entry condition) is via Law 16 C3 and there the condition says, that the UI is _received_ (not found to be relevant, or remembered, or ...) _after_ the first call has been made. Once again I point to the total difference of these two conditions. It is not "either or"; it is more or less as in "If you are catholic you'll go to church next sunday, but if next sunday is christmas evening, you'll go to church anyway." ok, ok, my comparisons tend to be misleading most of the time ;-) I agree, that the lawmakers probably wanted us to see this law as Herman and Sven described; to give the TD more discretionary powers. But I (still) believe this attempt failed with the actual wording of the laws. Peter From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 17:15:54 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:15:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <490B0552.7070408@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560810302222l3991e49cx560a21f8f85fe48e@mail.gmail.com> <001701c93b44$05482980$0fd87c80$@com> <001601c93b4a$5d5a7dc0$180f7940$@no> <490AF542.3090009@skynet.be> <490B0552.7070408@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0810310915h2bb3a173i7edf96f5acb09549@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : I have to disagree. > > A friend of mine (not a partner, notice) once told to me that when he > was sitting 3rd in hand and NV, he would psyche only if partner passed, > RHO passed or opened 1 in a minor, and he held a weak hand including two > color-matched pairs of low cards (e.g. D4, H4, C3, S3). This meant > partner wouldn't expect a psyche, only know a 3rd-in-hand NV bid could > be a psyche, which is CBK. and it also meant that it wouldn't happen too > often, and near-to-randomly. > > Now suppose I played with him and it became obvious, during the bidding, > that he psyched. I'll have information about his hand, therefore there > is an understanding, and it might even be illegal because it can't be > easily told to the opponents at a convenient time, but surely my > partner's bid remains a psyche ? As I noted earlier, this would all be MUCH easier if the regulatory structure provided the tools necessary to handle these types of issues. Regardless, here is how I would recommend approaching this type of situation: The problem that you allude to is not caused by your friend's decision to employ a mixed strategy. Nor, does this relate to the using some kind of "key" ? in this case two color matched pairs of low cards ? as a source of randomness. The problem occurs because you are aware that your partner is employing a mixed strategy AND you have specific information about the key and the opponents don't share the same information. Here's how I think that things should work: The fact that your partnership is employing mixed strategies needs to be disclosed The existence of a key needs to be disclosed The probability that they key is positive or negative needs to be disclosed However, the specific definition of the key should be hidden. Your friend should not share the specific definition of the key with either you or the opponents. (If your friend believes that partner knows the key, he should permute in some way). I could make a case that players wishing to employee these types of methods should be required to register their keys with the TD prior to the start of the tournament. > > Far-fetched ? Sure. But testing implications (like 'if there is an > understanding, then it isn't a psyche') for possible falsification is > best made by finding far-fetched cases. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 31 17:44:33 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:44:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vague question, vague answer In-Reply-To: <490B0FE2.4070404@skynet.be> References: <018501c93a82$12efe180$38cfa480$@nl> <4909A855.2050504@skynet.be> <490AC500.4010603@ulb.ac.be> <490AD0A0.7090009@skynet.be> <490AF5DD.6030105@ulb.ac.be> <490B0FE2.4070404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <490B35F1.501@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >>>> Nope. This answer is too vague. The correct answer is : "it promises at >>>> least one 4-card major, and most of the times both". >>>> I guess it's even more than that : American style, it promises at least >>>> 44 majors, or one major and 4-card raise, in which case nothing can be >>>> inferred about the other major. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> And in which case "usually" is totally wrong to the question "4-4 in >>> majors?". >>> >>> >> AG : if I understand the word "usually", the answer is correct if, and >> only if, occurrences of "something else than 44 majors" is uncommon. >> Now, if you think the word is vague, and if you need to know more about >> the other cases, just ask. >> >> My feeling is that your interpretation of "usually" is in fact what we >> call "tends to". Is a Sputnik "tends to" deliver 4 hearts, we'll expect >> to find at least honor-third in any case. >> But my dictionaries don't act this meaning for "usually". If "it usually >> pours down when I walk out", it doesn't mean it always rains at least a >> bit when I walk out. >> >> > > detailed semantics about the word "usually" are totally superfluous, > since the actual word at the table was probably "gewoonlijk". > And I take it (with my limited knowledge of Dutch) as the same as "usually", so same remark. Just translate the last paragraph. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 31 18:13:55 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:13:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? In-Reply-To: <1KvvyG-0PnZUe0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <490B1227.7090708@skynet.be> <1KvvyG-0PnZUe0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <490B3CD3.5000808@skynet.be> Well Peter, my point exactly. The info is received before, so the TD needs to chose between the four cases, 3 of which have been passed by events. So he choses the fourth (3c) and lets play continue. I don't see the problem. Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Peter is the first to give a correct solution, but apparently he still >> sees a problem? > > Thanks for the flowers, but I don't agree with > your conclusion ... > > [snip] > > [PE] >>> Here again no way to Law 16 C2d, because the UI was received >>> (long) before the first call of the auction has been made. > > [HdW] >> No, indeed not. >> But then again, C2c says "adjusted score", and under the new laws this >> can be an artificial one. >> So we don't need C2d. We can still award A+/A+ under C2c. > > [PE] > sorry, that was a typo (I meant (c) instead). > > [SP] >>>> I see no problem here? > > [PE] >>> I still do > > [HdW] >> I don't. >> In fact, the 2007 laws provide a solution to this problem, where the >> 1997 laws did not. There, if the player calls the TD at the correct >> time, the TD had only 2 options: cancel the board or allow it to be >> played, with the results standing. Now, the TD can allow the board to >> be played and await developments. Much better IMO. > > I'll try it a (hopefully) last time > > You cannot enter a certain item in a list of items without > fulfilling the entry condition. > As another example (perhaps) take Law 43 B2 (no > conntection of content intended; just an legal > analogy): > > "2. If dummy, after his violation of the limitations listed in A2: > > (a) warns declarer not to lead from the wrong hand, either > defender may choose the hand from which declarer shall lead. > (b) is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer?s hand > constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute a correct card > if his play was illegal, and the provisions of Law 64 then > apply as if the revoke had been established." > > Nobody (no TD) will think of applying Law 43 B2(b) and > thereby applying some penalty tricks for an asking > dummy, if that dummy hasn't lost his rights. > > Ok, back to Law 16 C: > > There are two totally different entry conditions for arriving > at Law 16 C2(c): > The first is via Law 16 C2 itself. The entry condition is > that the TD _applies_ (c) before any call on that board > has been made. It does _not_ say, that the UI has been > received, before any call has been made (even though > that will be so in 100% of the cases); it _does_ say > that the TD may apply (c) (as (a) or (b) or (d)) (only) if > he does so, before any call has been made. > > The second (entry condition) is via Law 16 C3 and there > the condition says, that the UI is _received_ (not found > to be relevant, or remembered, or ...) _after_ the first > call has been made. > > Once again I point to the total difference of these two > conditions. It is not "either or"; it is more or less as in > "If you are catholic you'll go to church next sunday, but > if next sunday is christmas evening, you'll go to church anyway." > ok, ok, my comparisons tend to be misleading most > of the time ;-) > > I agree, that the lawmakers probably wanted us to > see this law as Herman and Sven described; to give > the TD more discretionary powers. But I (still) believe > this attempt failed with the actual wording of the laws. > > Peter > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 31 18:29:15 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:29:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] New Laws don't allow UI situation to be resolved? In-Reply-To: <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <2b1e598b0810302300t4f888261j8d7615f57fcdd4ee@mail.gmail.com> <000301c93b33$398b9670$aca2c350$@no> <1Kvstx-20Zhi40@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Oct 31, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" > >> The bottom line from L16C2(c) is that it applies whenever the >> director >> is called to a table because of extraneous information has been >> received at that table from "other sources" and at least one call has >> been made. >> "Received" includes the situations where the extraneous information >> was actually "sent" before they started on the board but (acceptably) >> did not realize its impact and call the director until after making >> the first call on the board. > > I strongly disagree with this statement. > > "Receiving" has nothing to do with "understanding" or even > "realizing its impact". Receiving is the natural counterpart of > sending. There is no time delay. You may miss the sending > and thereby not receiving anything, but you can't receive any > non-written information at another moment than the sending > one. > > Law 16 C1 says: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorized > information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by > [...] > overhearing [...] remarks; [...] the Director should be notified > forthwith, > preferably by the recipient of the information." > > So the law says that overhearing remarks is receiving UI. > > The the law goes on with C2, saying "[...] the Director [...] may, > before > any call has been made: > a) [...] > b) [...] > c) [...] > d) [...]" > > So, Law 16 C2d can't be arrived at in a direct way after the first > call > of the auction has been made. > > And then the law says further in C3: "If such information is received > after the first call of the auction has been made [...] the Director > proceeds as in 2(c)." > > Here again no way to Law 16 C2d, because the UI was received > (long) before the first call of the auction has been made. > > [snip] > >> I see no problem here? > > I still do L16C1 obligates a player to call the Director forthwith as soon as he realizes that he has "accidentally receive[d] unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play". It does not, for obvious reasons, concern itself with receipt of information about a board the recipient has already played, or will not play. Overhearing random extraneous information does not obligate the player to call the TD unless and until he can connect it to "a board he is playing or has yet to play". That this may mean that the TD is not called until the hand to which the extraneous information pertains has already begun does not change the fact that the player "receive[d] unauthorized information about a board he is [now] playing... before the auction beg[an]". There is no reason why L16C should not apply. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 31 19:13:30 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:13:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested In-Reply-To: <1429874746-1225461820-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2091802381-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> References: <1429874746-1225461820-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2091802381-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <82B397CE-E49C-46F0-84DF-A372659037EB@starpower.net> On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:03 AM, dalburn at btopenworld.com wrote: > [SP] > > If partner has more reason than opponents have to be aware of a > particular call being a deviation from disclosed partnership > understandings then that call does IMHO not qualify as a psyche; it > is a concealed partnership understanding. > > [DALB] > > Precisely. That's why the WBF policy specifies that there must be > disclosure of the nature of the deviation. Then, partner will have > no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the possibility of > and the nature of the deviation. > > Where you seem to be stuck is that you believe that any such > disclosure automatically makes the deviation part of the methods. > It does not, provided that the deviation occurs with less than a > frequency X. As I have said, it is for the Regulating Authorities > to determine X for events within their jurisdictions. That works, but only if we're careful what we mean by it. It says that a partnership may have an understanding that a call which usually carries its "normal" meaning may carry a second, "grossly deviant", meaning, provided that the deviation does not occur with a frequency greater than X. But if you permit "per the understanding" use of the deviation, you cannot prohibit the pair from making the call with the deviant meaning whenever the understanding calls for it. Which means that X cannot be the empirical relative frequency of the deviation over any given period of time. It must be the expected value of the relative frequency over the set of all possible deals, which, unlike the empirical frequency, is an intrinsic property of the understanding. IOW, X can only determine *a priori* whether or not the understanding to deviate from the normal meaning is legal; if it is, it may be done whenever the understood conditions for it are met, regardless of how often it may actually occur over the course of a session, a tournament, a year, or a lifetime. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 31 20:12:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:12:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <490B1506.4050408@skynet.be> References: <1062526051-1225456021-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-888530924-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> <001a01c93b5c$0393aed0$0abb0c70$@no> <490B1506.4050408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c93b8c$97769100$c663b300$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > No Sven, you are wrong. You are talking of the thrid crime: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > If partner has more reason than opponents have to be aware of a particular > > call being a deviation from disclosed partnership understandings then that > > call does IMHO not qualify as a psyche; it is a concealed partnership > > understanding. > > > > The call may still qualify as a psyche, and it will also be MI. Law 40C1 begins with: "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." The consequence of this (and of the remainder of L40C1) is that IF the partner in question HAS more reason to be aware of the deviation than have their opponents then the call in question is not a (legal) psyche; it is an (illegal) concealed partnership understanding. But of course the partnership can for instance declare that their opening bid of 1H, while normally showing 11-19 HCP occasionally can be made with only 7 HCP. Then this "deviation" will no longer be a psyche, it will be part of the announced partnership understandings. Their only problem with such a declaration will in most events be that their system is deemed HUM. Sven. From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 20:51:27 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:51:27 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1062526051-1225456021-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-888530924-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> References: <1062526051-1225456021-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-888530924-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810311251o1b9ea039j39b200467f77c725@mail.gmail.com> 2008/11/1 : > [SP] > > If this declaration includes that an opening bid of 1H usually shows at > least 4 hearts and a hand strength between 11 and 19 HCP but occasionally can be made with as little as 7 HCP then how can an opening bid of 1H made on 7HCP be a "gross misstatement"? > > [DALB] > > You seem to be reasoning in the same kind of circle as Richard. It is possible (though I confess not to be sure of this) that Herman has exhibited a way out of the circle (albeit the wrong way) with his talk of differences between agreements and understandings. The important difference, as indicated by the WBF Policy, is that between the normal meaning of a call and a "gross violation" of the normal meaning of a call. > > For Helgemo and Helness, 1H "normally means" 10-23 hcp, 4+ hearts, no longer suit. A "gross violation" of this "normal meaning" is to open 1H with a seven count. But occasional ("from time to time") violations of this nature are permitted, subject to disclosure. > > Only when the frequency of violation exceeds the "occasional" does it become the case that a seven count is included among the "normal meanings" of a 1H opening. Of course, it is difficult to police Helgemo and Helness to ascertain whether they open 1H on a seven count more often than "occasionally" (and how often is that, anyway?). > > If Helgemo and Helness failed to put on their convention card that they might occasionally open 1H with a seven count, they are guilty of inadequate disclosure. But they are not guilty of playing a HUM unless they open all seven counts with five hearts in third position. I don't accept this argument at all. If I open 1S to show 0-7 any shape then this is a HUM. If I open 1S to show "some 0-7 any shape" then are you saying this is not a HUM? If indeed "some" was a valid qualifier for a bid not to be made then at the very least the level of "some"-ness would need to be stated so that there was a clear boundary otherwise the regulation is ineffective. Unless the boundary is at "all". That is if my range includes all 7 counts then you say it is a HUM. But if not I can demonstrate even one 7 count that I have not opened then it is allowable. I think the way the HUM regulations are written if there exists a hand that I would open in my methods that is a king or more below average strength then I am playing a HUM. This interpretation comes from the word "may" in the HUM regulation "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength." If I "may" have 7 hcp and it is part of my partnerships methods then I am playing a HUM. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 31 23:06:38 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:06:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810311251o1b9ea039j39b200467f77c725@mail.gmail.com> References: <1062526051-1225456021-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-888530924-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> <2a1c3a560810311251o1b9ea039j39b200467f77c725@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c93ba4$f34d3b10$d9e7b130$@com> [WB] If I open 1S to show 0-7 any shape then this is a HUM. If I open 1S to show "some 0-7 any shape" then are you saying this is not a HUM? [DALB] If there exists a non-empty set of hands in the range 0-7 on which you would always open 1S, then you are playing a HUM. I am not sure whether that is what you just asked, but as I said, if Helgemo and Helness open all (or "almost all") seven-point hands with five hearts 1H in third position, then they are playing a HUM. [WB] That is if my range includes all 7 counts then you say it is a HUM. But if not I can demonstrate even one 7 count that I have not opened then it is allowable. [DALB] I am not quite sure what this means: there may be a superfluous "not" in there somewhere. I will outline my view below. If your convention card says "1S shows 7+ hcp" then you are playing a HUM (whatever else it says). If your convention card says "1S shows 8+ hcp" but in fact you open all (or "almost all") 7-point hands 1S then you are playing a HUM (and you are trying to conceal the fact). If you do not open all (or "almost all") 7-point hands with a bid at the one level, then: If you open ten 7-counts for every one you pass, then you are playing a HUM (and you may not escape the charge of playing a concealed HUM by exhibiting the one seven-count you passed). If you pass ten seven-counts for every one you open, then you are not playing a HUM (and you may escape the charge of playing a concealed HUM by exhibiting the ten seven-counts you passed). This ratio of ten to one is based on nothing but my own intuition - other people may have a different figure in mind. But some figure there must be, or (as Wayne correctly says) the WBF policy on psychic bidding will be ineffective (since it will be meaningless). [WB] I think the way the HUM regulations are written if there exists a hand that I would open in my methods that is a king or more below average strength then I am playing a HUM. This interpretation comes from the word "may" in the HUM regulation "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength." If I "may" have 7 hcp and it is part of my partnerships methods then I am playing a HUM. [DALB] I agree with you. But the important phrase is "in my methods". We have a plethora of terms for describing the medium by which partners exchange information in the bidding: "system"; "methods"; "agreements"; "understandings" etc. Herman has tried to distinguish between "agreements" and "understandings" - not terribly successfully, but you could see what he was driving at. I distinguish, as the WBF policy distinguishes, between the normal meaning of a call (what the "system" or the "methods" say that a call means) and a "gross violation" of the normal meaning of a call (an "anti-systemic" call). Now, some number (perhaps one in ten, perhaps one in a hundred, perhaps one in a lifetime depending on the RA) of such "gross violations" are permitted by policy subject to disclosure as to the nature and frequency of the violations (because the disclosure means that they are also permitted by Law). Beyond that number (whatever it is) you are playing a HUM (if you disclose the nature and frequency of the violations) or you have a concealed partnership understanding (if you do not disclose the nature and frequency of the violations). The first may be illegal, the second certainly is. Sven believes, if I understand him correctly, that once a particular violation has occurred, it becomes part of the partnership's "understandings" (or "agreements", or "methods", or "system", or whatever) since it is part of their shared experience, and must therefore not only be disclosed but be subject to regulation. He is right about the first part (for so says the Law) but wrong about the second part (for so says the policy: "methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event"). Herman believes, if I understand him correctly, that the "system" or set of "agreements" of which a psyche is a "gross violation" is something explicit and immutable that is unaffected by experience of deviation therefrom. This is ridiculous, of course, but it embodies at least the sensible notion that a partnership may psyche more often than once in its existence. I don't know what Richard believes. I think it had something to do with elephants. David Burn London, England From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 23:45:59 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:45:59 +1300 Subject: [blml] Mr Gladstone suggested [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c93ba4$f34d3b10$d9e7b130$@com> References: <1062526051-1225456021-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-888530924-@bxe065.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> <2a1c3a560810311251o1b9ea039j39b200467f77c725@mail.gmail.com> <000001c93ba4$f34d3b10$d9e7b130$@com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560810311545l386979b3vec0c724581100f66@mail.gmail.com> 2008/11/1 David Burn : > [WB] > > If I open 1S to show 0-7 any shape then this is a HUM. > > If I open 1S to show "some 0-7 any shape" then are you saying this is not a > HUM? > > [DALB] > > If there exists a non-empty set of hands in the range 0-7 on which you would > always open 1S, then you are playing a HUM. I am not sure whether that is > what you just asked, but as I said, if Helgemo and Helness open all (or > "almost all") seven-point hands with five hearts 1H in third position, then > they are playing a HUM. > > [WB] > > That is if my range includes all 7 counts then you say it is a HUM. > > But if not I can demonstrate even one 7 count that I have not opened then it > is allowable. > > [DALB] > > I am not quite sure what this means: there may be a superfluous "not" in > there somewhere. I will outline my view below. > > If your convention card says "1S shows 7+ hcp" then you are playing a HUM > (whatever else it says). If your convention card says "1S shows 8+ hcp" but > in fact you open all (or "almost all") 7-point hands 1S then you are playing > a HUM (and you are trying to conceal the fact). > > If you do not open all (or "almost all") 7-point hands with a bid at the one > level, then: > > If you open ten 7-counts for every one you pass, then you are playing a HUM > (and you may not escape the charge of playing a concealed HUM by exhibiting > the one seven-count you passed). If you pass ten seven-counts for every one > you open, then you are not playing a HUM (and you may escape the charge of > playing a concealed HUM by exhibiting the ten seven-counts you passed). > > This ratio of ten to one is based on nothing but my own intuition - other > people may have a different figure in mind. But some figure there must be, > or (as Wayne correctly says) the WBF policy on psychic bidding will be > ineffective (since it will be meaningless). > I have two problems with this: 1. There is a huge gulf between 10:1 and 1:10 so this does not tell us where the boundary is. 2. As stated earlier the word "may" suggests strongly to me that the boundary is "if there exists a 7-count on which you would open" then you are playing a HUM - perhaps one could argue that you require no distributional values. > [WB] > > I think the way the HUM regulations are written if there exists a hand that > I would open in my methods that is a king or more below average strength > then I am playing a HUM. > > This interpretation comes from the word "may" in the HUM regulation "By > partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with > values a king or more below average strength." > > If I "may" have 7 hcp and it is part of my partnerships methods then I am > playing a HUM. > > [DALB] > > I agree with you. But the important phrase is "in my methods". We have a > plethora of terms for describing the medium by which partners exchange > information in the bidding: "system"; "methods"; "agreements"; > "understandings" etc. > > Herman has tried to distinguish between "agreements" and "understandings" - > not terribly successfully, but you could see what he was driving at. > > I distinguish, as the WBF policy distinguishes, between the normal meaning > of a call (what the "system" or the "methods" say that a call means) and a > "gross violation" of the normal meaning of a call (an "anti-systemic" call). > > Now, some number (perhaps one in ten, perhaps one in a hundred, perhaps one > in a lifetime depending on the RA) of such "gross violations" are permitted > by policy subject to disclosure as to the nature and frequency of the > violations (because the disclosure means that they are also permitted by > Law). Beyond that number (whatever it is) you are playing a HUM (if you > disclose the nature and frequency of the violations) or you have a concealed > partnership understanding (if you do not disclose the nature and frequency > of the violations). The first may be illegal, the second certainly is. > > Sven believes, if I understand him correctly, that once a particular > violation has occurred, it becomes part of the partnership's > "understandings" (or "agreements", or "methods", or "system", or whatever) > since it is part of their shared experience, and must therefore not only be > disclosed but be subject to regulation. He is right about the first part > (for so says the Law) but wrong about the second part (for so says the > policy: "methods of this kind are permissible in any category of event"). To me this is absurd. Lets say my explicit agreement is 1H = 8-12 5+ hearts. But over time I open fewer and fewer of those hands with 1H and more and more hands 0-7 any distribution with 1H. Eventually I open no hands with 8-12 and 5+ hearts and all hands with 0-7 any. You seem to say this is ok because it is not an explicit agreement but rather an understanding that has developed from repeated violations. > > Herman believes, if I understand him correctly, that the "system" or set of > "agreements" of which a psyche is a "gross violation" is something explicit > and immutable that is unaffected by experience of deviation therefrom. This > is ridiculous, of course, but it embodies at least the sensible notion that > a partnership may psyche more often than once in its existence. > > I don't know what Richard believes. I think it had something to do with > elephants. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From bobpark at connecttime.net Tue Oct 21 15:41:19 2008 From: bobpark at connecttime.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:41:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Mr Burn suggested In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <48FC56AB.1050505@skynet.be> <02A30BE1-5E95-41F3-AE74-1936A0913D29@starpower.net> <48FCAB1E.8010201@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560810201658h1877df31n5886171a8165db7c@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560810201952j563d60f9ua2096c951f2885b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48FDDBFF.7070300@connecttime.net> Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2008/10/21 John (MadDog) Probst : > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Wayne Burrows" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:58 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Mr Burn suggested >> >> >> >>> 2008/10/21 Herman De Wael : >>> >>>> Eric Landau wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> "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." >>>>>>> >>>>>> MUST BE DISCLOSED. Indeed. But that is not the same as "become a >>>>>> part of >>>>>> system". >>>>>> >>>>> But isn't "then form part of the partnership's methods" exactly the >>>>> same as "become a part of system"? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> No it doesn't - not in the sense of system regulations. IMO. >>>> >>>> >>> Why on earth not? >>> >>> So if I play 10-12 1NT but repeatedly open 9 counts that is ok because >>> by repetition it has become part of my methods but it is not part of >>> my system in a way that can be regulated by the system regulations. >>> >> It's a disclosure problem and a frequency problem. I fairly carefully >> control the frequency of my 1NT overcall, holding a long H suit and a bad >> hand. If I were to explain the method then it probably would be illegal, >> since you could explain; for example; "15-17, or a weak hand with long H >> when the parity of his 3 smallest cards is all odd". Now that is NOT my >> method, but what my method does is to keep my 1NT call to a point where 1) >> it has lowish frequency compared with the natural call; 2) has lowish >> frequency as a call showing H and a bad hand.since most of these hands get >> passed 3) every now and then I bid 1NT with spades or diamonds or clubs, >> which my opponents moan about because I've psyched my psych. Partner does >> alert my 1NT and does explain "15-17 and sometimes //about 10% of these// >> when he holds a long H suit and a weak hand he does it and sometimes he does >> it on other hands too" >> >> I am confident I am home free using this method. >> >> I am concerned that Herman's method is illegal since he opens all herman H >> hands. I think it would be legal if he passed some of them; perhaps opening >> 1S instead some of the time :) >> >> > > This doesn't make sense to me at all. > > Lets stick to the Herman style psyche or the Helgemo example where the > infrequent hand type would be a HUM for example. The logic should be > the same for other sorts of agreements. > > Further lets assume that there is a partnership understanding as in > John's example. > > Then an "understanding" to make a bid on some legal set of hands e.g. > open 1H on 5+ hearts and 11+ hcp, but also to open the hand on some > other hands with "shortage" in hearts and or seven or fewer hcp is a > HUM whatever the frequency of the weaker shorter options. > > That is a psyche is only a psyche when there is no partnership > understanding. Whenever their is a partnership understanding you are > subject to the normal HUM (or other) system regulations. > > > But isn't the fact that certain situations are known to be psyching situations part of "general bridge knowledge?" E.g., 1H-(p)-1S! or 3rd seat anything? If this is so, then how can knowledge that partner (and others) may occasionally psych in these situations become a HUM? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081021/9c6e117d/attachment-0001.htm